Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

[Fat Nyfe]

If everything goes smoothly to plan you can turn over a list to return to finals in as little as 2-3 years. There are plenty examples of this (Hawks 04-07, Dogs 11-14, Freo 08-10, WCE 08-10). Or you could have the access to talent Sydney does and do it in 1 or 2.

Freo’s most recent build was drawn out to 6 years on the back of key players leaving, fluffing some trades (Hogan), transitioning to a new coach right in the middle of it, and injuries to developing players. But a heavy draft focus in recent years and finally having everyone pulling in the same direction in the last 2-3 years since Longmuir has brought them out of it.

Teams like WCE, Port/Giants or Geelong potentially embarking on a rebuild need to have a really strong direction coming from the top that sees them stay the course throughout the week to week media knee jerk that tries to sack everyone after a bad result. If the coach isn’t the right guy for the next 4-5 years get rid of them now because replacing them 2 years in on the back of a few bad results which is to be expected during a turnover period shows lack of leadership and just prolongs the rebuild.

Also ‘blowing it up’ and trading everyone like the media is trying to tell West Coast this week is dumb, you need senior players to see through the transition and set standards at training , and if the club can see them still performing in 3 years they will be a part of leading the new wave .

 

[Power Raid]

any player not selected for 10 weeks should be open to trade to any club at any stage through the year (including accumulated from previous season)

 

[Purple Suit]

If everything goes smoothly to plan you can turn over a list to return to finals in as little as 2-3 years. There are plenty examples of this (Hawks 04-07, Dogs 11-14, Freo 08-10, WCE 08-10). Or you could have the access to talent Sydney does and do it in 1 or 2.

Freo’s most recent build was drawn out to 6 years on the back of key players leaving, fluffing some trades (Hogan), transitioning to a new coach right in the middle of it, and injuries to developing players. But a heavy draft focus in recent years and finally having everyone pulling in the same direction in the last 2-3 years since Longmuir has brought them out of it.

Teams like WCE, Port/Giants or Geelong potentially embarking on a rebuild need to have a really strong direction coming from the top that sees them stay the course throughout the week to week media knee jerk that tries to sack everyone after a bad result. If the coach isn’t the right guy for the next 4-5 years get rid of them now because replacing them 2 years in on the back of a few bad results which is to be expected during a turnover period shows lack of leadership and just prolongs the rebuild.

Also ‘blowing it up’ and trading everyone like the media is trying to tell West Coast this week is dumb, you need senior players to see through the transition and set standards at training , and if the club can see them still performing in 3 years they will be a part of leading the new wave .

I feel like this falls down when you don’t have many older stars that are still performing (eg North now or Melbourne 10 years ago). I also think WC may have waited a bit too long to refresh and are going to have a big gap between the veterans & new talent that could take longer to get around.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

I feel like this falls down when you don’t have many older stars that are still performing (eg North now or Melbourne 10 years ago). I also think WC may have waited a bit too long to refresh and are going to have a big gap between the veterans & new talent that could take longer to get around.

From memory Melbourne 10 years ago got rid of their senior players which dug a hole deeper than it needed to be.

Also when we began our rebuild in 2016 Mundy was already 30, and in 2022 he is still performing in the best 22. It’s down to the capabilities and leadership qualities of those veterans, which ones on the WC list would be capable of doing that I don’t know it’s up for them to decide.

 

[Pessimistic]

Love the idea of a mid season trade.
Todd Goldstein for example could go to Geelong or the Hawks.

Isn’t he older than McEvoy? Hawks can handle some short term pain to have a first class ruck duo in a year or two

 

[Purple Suit]

From memory Melbourne 10 years ago got rid of their senior players which dug a hole deeper than it needed to be.

Also when we began our rebuild in 2016 Mundy was already 30, and in 2022 he is still performing in the best 22. It’s down to the capabilities and leadership qualities of those veterans, which ones on the WC list would be capable of doing that I don’t know it’s up for them to decide.

Mundy is a freak & historically most WA based players struggle past 30 except a handful over the past 30 years.

 

[Freomaniac]

How times change.

But sledging Fatso McRedAndBlackFacePaint aside, it doesn't take too long to rebuild their lists.

Dogs did OK in 2016 with a relatively new list. North's rebuild looks like taking three years (we're in year two) before we'd be looking at finals again.

Carlton and St Kilda and Melbourne have had all the possible help you can imagine - gifted multiple top end "priority picks". GIven massive AFL assistance right down to financing coaches.

No, stop tweaking the system.

Even when you try and equalizing everything possible, you can't actually MAKE teams good again.

Interesting post

 

[Red Bull]

That’s life and plenty of clubs have had to do it.
Put your head down and get on with it …

 

[Freomaniac]

Our real problem was the boy's club running the joint between 2010-2013. The best thing the AFL did for us was clean out the blokes rotting the MFC from the inside. Your Schwabs and Connollys and so on.

Ironic you blokes got rid of Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly. You got rid of them and gradually improved.

Freo had them around from 2002-07. They left and Freo slowly improved. Ended up playing finals in 2010 and 2012-5 partially because of getting rid of both those blokes.

 

[Freomaniac]

Well you did, but you were about 7 at the time.

You mean that 1992-4 period where swans got 3 wooden spoons.

3 wins in 1992, 1 win in 1993 and 4 wins in 1994. That would of been brutal.

Then 8 wins in 1995, then a grand final in 1996.

 

[Freomaniac]

The idea that clubs should win Premierships as some sort of quasi-participation award is ******* dumb.

It’s competitive sport.

“Competitive.”

Get your house in order and compete.

No lol.

I want my team To go 0-22 for 4 or 5 seasons in a row without tanking LoL

 

[Freomaniac]

If the salary cap floor was lowered to about 80%, bottom clubs could have up to $2.5million. With that money I think you could find a few top talented players. Not saying you'd have use all of it though

Yeah you might have a point.

I still remember when back in 2010 or 2011 the salary cap was 8.2 million and back then the floor was 90% or 92.5 % that was only $500-600,000 less than the full cap.

The salary cap floor now is 95%.

I said a year ago when the salary cap was 13 million. Salary floor should be 90%. That means 1.3 million of wriggle room.

If your team finished bottom 6,it shouldn't be hard to hit the minimum floor.

If your team makes finals, that 1.3 million of spare cash can bring in a free agent at $6-700,000 a year. Or at worst use that 1.3 million to sign your current players on better deals

 

[Pessimistic]

That’s life and plenty of clubs have had to do it.
Put your head down and get on with it …

It’s a relic from the priority pick days. Which is less than a decade in time

 

[Blackas87]

Yeah you might have a point.

I still remember when back in 2010 or 2011 the salary cap was 8.2 million and back then the floor was 90% or 92.5 % that was only $500-600,000 less than the full cap.

The salary cap floor now is 95%.

I said a year ago when the salary cap was 13 million. Salary floor should be 90%. That means 1.3 million of wriggle room.

If your team finished bottom 6,it shouldn't be hard to hit the minimum floor.

If your team makes finals, that 1.3 million of spare cash can bring in a free agent at $6-700,000 a year. Or at worst use that 1.3 million to sign your current players on better deals

Part of my theory is that there would be no draft. 18 year olds entering the league would be free agents and if bottom clubs had more cap space they could offer better contracts to these 18 year olds. A club could recruit a top talented midfielder, defender and forward all in one off season.

Currently with a draft the bottom club only gets one draft selection before the premiers, unless they trade experienced players away for extra selections therefore weakening the team in the short term. It takes multiple bad years to recruit multiple talented players.

 

[Golumless]

Part of my theory is that there would be no draft. 18 year olds entering the league would be free agents and if bottom clubs had more cap space they could offer better contracts to these 18 year olds. A club could recruit a top talented midfielder, defender and forward all in one off season.

Currently with a draft the bottom club only gets one draft selection before the premiers, unless they trade experienced players away for extra selections therefore weakening the team in the short term. It takes multiple bad years to recruit multiple talented players.

The problem with the idea of a free-for-all is that kids would just avoid the bottom couple of clubs.

I highly doubt there is a contract that would convince an Ashcroft or Lemming to join North or West Coast at the moment over a mid-table side. After all, players actively avoid shitshows, and you're a shitshow to be at the bottom.

Much like I doubt Melbourne would have been able to woo Petracca to that shitshow in 2014.

 

[Mr Magic]

I was listening to SEN this morning and I heard one of the more intriguing discussions between David King and Rohan Connolly about the time it takes for teams to rebuild their lists. They had quite a fiery disagreement and I think both made some reasonable points. I'll paraphrase.

David King was I think responding to a call from a Carlton fan who was ready to throw in the towel, and it prompted him to argue that it simply takes too long for teams to rebuild. According to King, you can't have sides down the bottom for five or even seven years. The effect, according to King, is that you'll have younger fans simply tuning out because they're not as invested as the older fans who are willing to endure such a lengthy lean period. He argued that we need even more fluid player movement to avoid the likes of Carlton, St Kilda and Melbourne (for example) being down as long as they have been.

Rohan Connolly acknowledged the point about young fans but disagreed that there should be any specific mechanism to expedite these rebuilds. He argued that if clubs make bad decisions off-field, there should be a price to pay. He also pointed out that in the AFL era, there have been 11 teams win premierships, which he said was actually pretty good. He also made the point that for the first time in 20 years, there is no undefeated team after four rounds, suggesting that some of the quality at the top has eroded and that further equalisation would actually be undesirable.

I can see both arguments. I think King is right about younger fans tuning out, although I don't accept we should tailor the competition according to the attention spans of eight-year-olds. I think Connolly is right in saying there must be a price paid for getting it wrong off-field, but I'm not sure the competition is actually as even as everyone says. It might be even on a micro level, in that any team can beat another on their day. But on a more macro level, look at the disparity in finals appearances over the past 10 years. It's not that even. Since 2007, Geelong have played finals 11 out of 12 seasons. Melbourne haven't played finals since 2006. Is that "even"?

But even if the competition isn't truly even, should it be? Surely there should be a difference in outcomes and attempts to over-engineer evenness are not necessarily desirable. If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, why should we invent a mechanism to prevent that?

So with all that in mind, does it take too long for teams to rebuild their lists? Should there be further mechanisms in place to help it happen quicker? Or is the five- or six-year rebuild a reasonable price to pay for getting it wrong off-field?

It can't be tweaked.

If you help one club it does not help another so either way one club forward is another further away. Its called competition and each clubs prospects are not mutually exclusive when they are playing against each other

 

[Blackas87]

The problem with the idea of a free-for-all is that kids would just avoid the bottom couple of clubs.

I highly doubt there is a contract that would convince an Ashcroft or Lemming to join North or West Coast at the moment over a mid-table side. After all, players actively avoid shitshows, and you're a shitshow to be at the bottom.

I’m not sure they all will. Better money and a better opportunity to play.

A club like North could have $2million to recruit multiple players. A lot of these 18 year olds are mates with each other playing in the u18’s and might want to play with each other. North could have a strategy this off-season saying we have 5-6 spots for 18 year olds at $250,000-$300,000. A middle club probably wouldn’t have that many spots available.

At team like Brisbane who are wanting to win a premiership shouldn’t be having that sort of money for an 18 year old. They might have $100,000 available for Ashcroft. Ashcroft may choose Brisbane. North still have 5-6 spots available, they might miss out on Lemming but they move onto the next guys, you’d think they’d be able to pick up 5-6 of the top 20 guys. It’s a team sport and you need more than one player.

Part of my strategy also would be top clubs can go over the salary cap to keep their lists together, but once over you obviously won’t be able to pick up new talent coming through. The middle clubs wanting to move up into contention wouldn’t have a lot of spots available for 18 year olds. It’s the bottom clubs that would focus their salary cap on recruiting 18 year olds or just young players in general and they’d have the spots available

 

[Golumless]

I’m not sure they all will. Better money and a better opportunity to play.

A club like North could have $2million to recruit multiple players. A lot of these 18 year olds are mates with each other playing in the u18’s and might want to play with each other. North could have a strategy this off-season saying we have 5-6 spots for 18 year olds at $250,000-$300,000. A middle club probably wouldn’t have that many spots available.

At team like Brisbane who are wanting to win a premiership shouldn’t be having that sort of money for an 18 year old. They might have $100,000 available for Ashcroft. Ashcroft may choose Brisbane. North still have 5-6 spots available, they might miss out on Lemming but they move onto the next guys, you’d think they’d be able to pick up 5-6 of the top 20 guys. It’s a team sport and you need more than one player.

Part of my strategy also would be top clubs can go over the salary cap to keep their lists together, but once over you obviously won’t be able to pick up new talent coming through. The middle clubs wanting to move up into contention wouldn’t have a lot of spots available for 18 year olds. It’s the bottom clubs that would focus their salary cap on recruiting 18 year olds or just young players in general and they’d have the spots available

Out of the top 20? North (and West Coast at the moment) would be genuinely lucky to land even one of the 10 to 20th ranked lads if they were all free agents. A kid that's in that top 5-10 range talent is going to get opportunities to play rather quickly at those mid table clubs, even kids who are ranked lower will if there is more to them then just hype. Plus again, money is cool, but if they're talented, they're going to avoid shitshows like the plague. Especially if they're not in a football state, i.e. Gold Coast who have struggled big time to bring in talented players from other clubs. Even clubs in the football heartland aren't immune, the current standout in North hasn't been able to attract players of genuine quality for a long time without there being underlining issues that's forced a move.

As an example, we're only 7 rounds in and 11 of the first 13 picks have debuted. Talented kids will have no issue whatsoever getting opportunities at the mid-table clubs and are always better going there as it avoids the big drawback of being that top 5 talent. Both in terms of future earnings and success as a lot of those mid-table clubs are one piece away from spiking up the ladder.

 

[Blackas87]

Out of the top 20? North (and West Coast at the moment) would be genuinely lucky to land even one of the 10 to 20th ranked lads if they were all free agents. A kid that's in that top 5-10 range talent is going to get opportunities to play rather quickly at those mid table clubs, even kids who are ranked lower will if there is more to them then just hype. Plus again, money is cool, but if they're talented, they're going to avoid shitshows like the plague. Especially if they're not in a football state, i.e. Gold Coast who have struggled big time to bring in talented players from other clubs. Even clubs in the football heartland aren't immune, the current standout in North hasn't been able to attract players of genuine quality for a long time without there being underlining issues that's forced a move.

As an example, we're only 7 rounds in and 11 of the first 13 picks have debuted. Talented kids will have no issue whatsoever getting opportunities at the mid-table clubs and are always better going there as it avoids the big drawback of being that top 5 talent. Both in terms of future earnings and success as a lot of those mid-table clubs are one piece away from spiking up the ladder.

Totally disagree that they’d be lucky to land one of the top 20.

Clubs like North trade away their current best players like Ben Brown to obtain more picks for players. They wouldn’t have to do that anymore. Clubs wouldn’t be as big of a shitshow show as they are now.

West Coast are different, they are coming off a successful era, 2015 Grand Final and premiership in 2018, Plenty of finals during that era, I don’t see how they would struggle to attract players although they probably have a tight salary cap. But they paid for a successful era, they paid for Tim Kelly to compete, their focus wasn’t recruit 18 year olds for long term future.

Yes a lot of players have debuted and as you’ve mentioned top 5 talent. Top 5 is subjective but it’s clear who a top 5 pick is and when you’re selected with a top pick pressure comes from that. No draft there is no draft selection attached to your name.

I’m all about choice for your own career, players should choose their career path. If a player believes going to a mid table club as he believes there are better earnings in the future and better success then I there is no problem with that, but not everyone thinks the same way, you can’t just say they all think that they are the missing piece to a mid table club. A lot of players will see the opportunity to earn money now as the future is no guarantee, they might see the opportunity to join 3 or 4 other talented recruits at a bottom club and develop together as the best way to get success.

As for Gold Coast, the draft has not brought them success, they select players that don’t want to be there. A better strategy would be sign players that agree to play there.

The salary cap is in place. Top clubs and mid table clubs can’t just recruit all the top 20 players.

 

[Tulip]

North supporters were absolutely adamant that letting Ben Brown

50

Ben Brown

Age

31

Ht

200cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.7

3star

K

7.7

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.2

3star

G

2.2

5star

D

7.9

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.6

1star

M

3.7

4star

T

0.9

2star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.2

4star

go for chips over a contract dispute was good list management. Was obviously terrible at the time and still is. He wouldn't be winning them games, but having a genuine focal point leading in straight lines would make their mids so much better. IMO part of the reason clubs still go the fruitless full rebuild is that their fans tolerate it and buy the spin the club sells. I certainly did in 2009 and 2012. Sydney/Hawthorn/Geelong all examples of teams that can rebuild on the run.

 

[Freomaniac]

That is brutal reading.

Reinforces my view that if you utensil up your early picks at the draft on a regular basis as Carlton did during that period, the price paid is a heavy one

True

Absolute garbage.

Agreed. There's 18 teams in this league, will slowly build to 20 sides.

SA, WA and Victoria produce most of the kids.

Once this Tassie side comes in, the Tassie state league will be a solid breeding and development state too.

 

[Freomaniac]

I was listening to SEN this morning and I heard one of the more intriguing discussions between David King and Rohan Connolly about the time it takes for teams to rebuild their lists. They had quite a fiery disagreement and I think both made some reasonable points. I'll paraphrase.

David King was I think responding to a call from a Carlton fan who was ready to throw in the towel, and it prompted him to argue that it simply takes too long for teams to rebuild. According to King, you can't have sides down the bottom for five or even seven years. The effect, according to King, is that you'll have younger fans simply tuning out because they're not as invested as the older fans who are willing to endure such a lengthy lean period. He argued that we need even more fluid player movement to avoid the likes of Carlton, St Kilda and Melbourne (for example) being down as long as they have been.

Rohan Connolly acknowledged the point about young fans but disagreed that there should be any specific mechanism to expedite these rebuilds. He argued that if clubs make bad decisions off-field, there should be a price to pay. He also pointed out that in the AFL era, there have been 11 teams win premierships, which he said was actually pretty good. He also made the point that for the first time in 20 years, there is no undefeated team after four rounds, suggesting that some of the quality at the top has eroded and that further equalisation would actually be undesirable.

I can see both arguments. I think King is right about younger fans tuning out, although I don't accept we should tailor the competition according to the attention spans of eight-year-olds. I think Connolly is right in saying there must be a price paid for getting it wrong off-field, but I'm not sure the competition is actually as even as everyone says. It might be even on a micro level, in that any team can beat another on their day. But on a more macro level, look at the disparity in finals appearances over the past 10 years. It's not that even. Since 2007, Geelong have played finals 11 out of 12 seasons. Melbourne haven't played finals since 2006. Is that "even"?

But even if the competition isn't truly even, should it be? Surely there should be a difference in outcomes and attempts to over-engineer evenness are not necessarily desirable. If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, why should we invent a mechanism to prevent that?

So with all that in mind, does it take too long for teams to rebuild their lists? Should there be further mechanisms in place to help it happen quicker? Or is the five- or six-year rebuild a reasonable price to pay for getting it wrong off-field?

Enjoying the Current eagles rebuild?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Enjoying the Current eagles rebuild?

That's not very sporting Freomaniac

 

[Freomaniac]

You could post that about 12-14 teams in the comp right now.

Maybe wait until finals are a certainty before bumping threads to talk about Freo making them?

Freo made and won finals in 2022 lol

 

[Freomaniac]

That's not very sporting Freomaniac

You wanna talk about Ross Lyon again or west coast eagles rebuild? LoL