News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[giantroo]

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Which has been my position the entire time.

Been more than happy so long as it’s COMPLETELY open. That means no F/S no academy and no NGA. You can trade up to get the talents if need be or wait till their contract goes

 

[Purple Suit]

Every team knew Cerra was a flight risk, pre-draft. But you still chose him.

If players are constantly leaving, there's obviously an issue somewhere with the team or club.

Just like Brisbane had during the 2010-2016 years? You got rewarded with a priority pick as well I believe to help you address it.

Freo’s main issue has been Colin Young but he’s running out of players to demand a trade.

I don’t want any picks etc, I think the same needs to apply to Gold Coast & any other team.

 

[briztoon]

Just like Brisbane had during the 2010-2016 years? You got rewarded with a priority pick as well I believe to help you address it.

Freo’s main issue has been Colin Young but he’s running out of players to demand a trade.

I don’t want any picks etc, I think the same needs to apply to Gold Coast & any other team.

We were are basket case. Leigh Matthews publicly said the club was broken.

It took Swan, Noble and Fagan being parachuted in by the AFL to right us. That was 9 years ago.

Yes, we received an end of first round compensation pick, and had to trade it.

 

[sr36]

Why? Freo have lost more gun players than any other team recently but no one says we should get a hand out.

You've also poached lots too though.

 

[sr36]

I don't think anyone has done it recently outside of teams benefiting significantly from father sons and academy players.

A few one season wonders, but nothing long term established. Carlton the closest and they looked really out of their depth in the prelim and should have been flogged by Melbourne who had 8 more scoring shots. I don't think they ever looked like contenders. Fremantle upper mid table, Adelaide haven't been able to, Saints haven't been able to, North.

The teams that have had success in the last ten years either recruited the vast majority of their talent before the state of things got bad or have be the beneficiates.

Winning is not just about the list. It's also about getting off field stuff right too. Melbourne and Carlton have had good enough top end players to have had much stronger eras than they've had. Freo have put together a bloody good list and should be challenging this year without the help of draft concessions. Hawthorn too.

In terms of your morality angle, I don't see how a team getting a star due to having been hopeless is more moral than getting one due to the luck of F.S.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I don't think anyone has done it recently outside of teams benefiting significantly from father sons and academy players.

A few one season wonders, but nothing long term established. Carlton the closest and they looked really out of their depth in the prelim and should have been flogged by Melbourne who had 8 more scoring shots. I don't think they ever looked like contenders. Fremantle upper mid table, Adelaide haven't been able to, Saints haven't been able to, North.

The teams that have had success in the last ten years either recruited the vast majority of their talent before the state of things got bad or have be the beneficiates.

Not entirely. While in general that's happened Geelong won a flag in 2022 with nearly half the side being either late picks/rookies or trades/FAs so it can be done.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Winning is not just about the list. It's also about getting off field stuff right too. Melbourne and Carlton have had good enough top end players to have had much stronger eras than they've had. Freo have put together a bloody good list and should be challenging this year without the help of draft concessions. Hawthorn too.

In terms of your morality angle, I don't see how a team getting a star due to having been hopeless is more moral than getting one due to the luck of F.S.

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Not entirely. While in general that's happened Geelong won a flag in 2022 with nearly half the side being either late picks/rookies or trades/FAs so it can be done.

Geelong won because Dangerfield and Cameron went there, partially because of location, but I doubt that move would happen if Geelong were a basket case so it's partially because of a successful era, which was founded by the best father son run a team has ever had, which still included a generational father son.

Even if F/S it's only a tiny element, it's not repeatable. None in the history of the game has trade in two players the caliber of Dangerfield and Cameron inside 5 years of each other. It's not a basis for emulation. You can't be like hey North, forget the draft, just trade in Daicos and Darcy.

 

[sr36]

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

Your last sentence undermines your argument. The draft is designed so that teams who make horrendous decisions and become crap are gifted stars.

I'm all for the draft, but It'd call it equalisation based rather than being moral. Not sure if making the best kids go to the worst teams or rewarding incompetence is based on morality - it's a system to make the comp more even and thus more entertaining.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Geelong won because Dangerfield and Cameron went there, partially because of location, but I doubt that move would happen if Geelong were a basket case so it's partially because of a successful era, which was founded by the best father son run a team has ever had, which still included a generational father son.

Even if F/S it's only a tiny element, it's not repeatable. None in the history of the game has trade in two players the caliber of Dangerfield and Cameron inside 3 years of each other. It's not a basis for emulation.

I don't disagree Cameron and dangerfield and Hawkins were crucial but there's still a wider point here that you're missing if you look at that side. (For the purposes of this I class any pick outside the first 2 rounds as a late pick)
For example out of the 23
Henry-rookie that everyone passed on
Z Guthrie-rookie (and the size of a 12yo auskicker when we took him)
Close-rookie as an overeager that everyone passed on
Stengle-DFA-reasons well known
Tuohy-cat b/trade
Stanley-trade (and frankly wasn't that good at the time we traded him in)
Oconnor-Cat B
Miers-late pick that almost everyone passed on (even after his TAC GF)
Smith-FA as a 31yo
Bews-yes he was FS but basically the last pick in his draft that no one bid on
Blicavs-cat b steeplechase
Rohan-trade late pick (61)
Atkins-rookie at 23 after years in the vfl
That's 12 out of 23 some that played crucial roles that year that were either rookie listed originally or trades for very little that had nothing to do with dangerfield or Cameron.

I technically could have included Stewart but I didn't as he was taken in the 2nd round even though he was 23 and mature age.
Even the 2 emergencies in ceglar and menegola were previously delisted players.

If you look at that side it only had 9 first round picks in it (I'm including Cameron and Hawkins in that despite them not technically being r1s) in selwood Cameron Hawkins dangerfield de koning c Guthrie Smith rohan and parfitt. But out of that list 2 were brought in from other clubs for almost nothing (Smith and rohan) one was the sub and no longer is on a list (parfitt).

So my point was more you don't need a side stacked with r1s and you can get around the issues in the draft you speak of. But your recruiting to find rookies and alternative pathway players needs to be great, you need to have a good development program and good culture to attract players. Every club could do this if they make the right investments.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Your last sentence undermines your argument. The draft is designed so that teams who make horrendous decisions and become crap are gifted stars.

I'm all for the draft, but It'd call it equalisation based rather than being moral. Not sure if making the best kids go to the worst teams or rewarding incompetence is based on morality - it's a system to make the comp more even and thus more entertaining.

It doesn't, it undermines your argument that it's about getting off field right too. In the years before your flag, you had racism scandal, bad player behavior, poor salary cap management, poor trading and it didn't hamper you at all.

If the teams who finished down the bottom, traded away their draft picks and still got to take the first picks in the draft, you would say it's unfair. Which is exactly what happened.

Equalization is morality. Having the same teams win because they are rich or had past success is no way to run a competition. It maps to real world politics. There are billions of people world wide who share that perspective.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don't disagree Cameron and dangerfield and Hawkins were crucial but there's still a wider point here that you're missing if you look at that side. (For the purposes of this I class any pick outside the first 2 rounds as a late pick)
For example out of the 23
Henry-rookie that everyone passed on
Z Guthrie-rookie (and the size of a 12yo auskicker when we took him)
Close-rookie as an overeager that everyone passed on
Stengle-DFA-reasons well known
Tuohy-cat b/trade
Stanley-trade (and frankly wasn't that good at the time we traded him in)
Oconnor-Cat B
Miers-late pick that almost everyone passed on (even after his TAC GF)
Smith-FA as a 31yo
Bews-yes he was FS but basically the last pick in his draft that no one bid on
Blicavs-cat b steeplechase
Rohan-trade late pick (61)
Atkins-rookie at 23 after years in the vfl
That's 12 out of 23 some that played crucial roles that year that were either rookie listed originally or trades for very little that had nothing to do with dangerfield or Cameron.

I technically could have included Stewart but I didn't as he was taken in the 2nd round even though he was 23 and mature age.
Even the 2 emergencies in ceglar and menegola were previously delisted players.

If you look at that side it only had 9 first round picks in it (I'm including Cameron and Hawkins in that despite them not technically being r1s) in selwood Cameron Hawkins dangerfield de koning c Guthrie Smith rohan and parfitt. But out of that list 2 were brought in from other clubs for almost nothing (Smith and rohan) one was the sub and no longer is on a list (parfitt).

So my point was more you don't need a side stacked with r1s and you can get around the issues in the draft you speak of. But your recruiting to find rookies and alternative pathway players needs to be great, you need to have a good development program and good culture to attract players. Every club could do this if they make the right investments.

You don’t need to but Hawkins may have been pick 1, Cameron probably would’ve been pick 1, Selwood 7 and Dangerfield pick 10. Those plus Stewart were what that side was built around.
You don’t need a stack of top end picks but history tells us you need the talent that the top end of the draft possesses.

 

[sr36]

It doesn't, it undermines your argument that it's about getting off field right too. In the years before your flag, you had racism scandal, bad player behavior, poor salary cap management, poor trading and it didn't hamper you at all.

If the teams who finished down the bottom, traded away their draft picks and still got to take the first picks in the draft, you would say it's unfair. Which is exactly what happened.

Equalization is morality. Having the same teams win because they are rich or had past success is no way to run a competition. It maps to real world politics. There are billions of people world wide who share that perspective.

It does undermine your argument - you said that you shouldn't get gifted a star if you make horrendous decisions - but that's exactly what the draft is designed to do.

The bolded does actually occur a bit even without concessions - but over a few years rather than 1. Eg. WCE trade out early picks to have a crack at flags, when the team is burnt out they hit the bottom, they then get early picks. It's the moral equivalent of maxing out your credit card and then being given a government handout because your debt is impacting you.

Equality and fairness aren't the same thing. The draft is great as equality makes the league better. I don't particularly like the equality factor of the draft being reduced by the various draft concessions. But also think the academies are important for growing the game and like the romance of a Daicos playing for Colligwood, a Silvagni playing for Carlton, etc.. Just got to get the price right to match.

 

[sydney_gws]

The draft itself is morally based. Why is structured the way it is? As an equalization measure, which is founded in fairness.
You can make all the right choices over your career as a recruiter, a club, a playing group and be ****ed because some team like Collingwood that made horrendous choices with Ned Guy, can be gifted a superstar.

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

 

[Dr Tigris]

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

Yes

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It does undermine your argument - you said that you shouldn't get gifted a star if you make horrendous decisions - but that's exactly what the draft is designed to do.

The bolded does actually occur a bit even without concessions - but over a few years rather than 1. Eg. WCE trade out early picks to have a crack at flags, when the team is burnt out they hit the bottom, they then get early picks. It's the moral equivalent of maxing out your credit card and then being given a government handout because your debt is impacting you.

Equality and fairness aren't the same thing. The draft is great as equality makes the league better. I don't particularly like the equality factor of the draft being reduced by the various draft concessions. But also think the academies are important for growing the game and like the romance of a Daicos playing for Colligwood, a Silvagni playing for Carlton, etc.. Just got to get the price right to match.

Depends on the time lines, you could make all the right decisions given your teams individual context and still be dictated to by events that occurred generations ago, like an explayer ****ing a woman 19 years ago, that will generate a 1st to 18th hierarchy none the less.

My whole point being factors of talent acquisition external to the normal draft order are dictating the actual draft in a way that prevents bottom to top rising in an acceptable time frame.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

What did Ned Guy actually do?
I think probably stuffed up the spreadsheet with player salaries, didn't add them all up properly.
How did he end up at AFL HQ then? Do they reward mediocrity there?

As well as trading pick 3 for essentially Liam McMahon and Caleb Poulter.