Melbourne priority pick

[Blackas87]

I don't want a priority pick, they need to be abolished.

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

Let's revisit Port Adelaide's 2011 for a moment.

Loss to GC (at our home ground, in their FIRST year ffs).
Loss of 138 to Collingwood.
Loss of 165 to Hawthorn the very next week.
3 wins for the year, finishing 16th, only ahead of GC*

What did we get? Picks 6, 28 and 49. We were worse than GC that year. We were worse than Melbourne are now.

No ****ing way should Melbourne get a priority pick. If they do, however, it better be end of first round.

And what about 2012? Lost our head coach, our chairman, our most senior defender, our best rebound defender/wingman, lost to GW ****ing S. Not to mention our financial losses or the tragedy in Vegas. And what do we get from the AFL? **** all. We're fixing it ourselves.


*we beat Melbourne in the last round somehow to not finish 17th.

 

[the harry]

Let's revisit Port Adelaide's 2011 for a moment.

Loss to GC (at our home ground, in their FIRST year ffs).
Loss of 138 to Collingwood.
Loss of 165 to Hawthorn the very next week.
3 wins for the year, finishing 16th, only ahead of GC*

What did we get? Picks 6, 28 and 49. We were worse than GC that year. We were worse than Melbourne are now.

No ******* way should Melbourne get a priority pick. If they do, however, it better be end of first round.

And what about 2012? Lost our head coach, our chairman, our most senior defender, our best rebound defender/wingman, lost to GW ******* S. Not to mention our financial losses or the tragedy in Vegas. And what do we get from the AFL? **** all. We're fixing it ourselves.


*we beat Melbourne in the last round somehow to not finish 17th.

Okay, now revisit Ports 07-10.

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

Okay, now revisit Ports 07-10.

Not sure how it's entirely relevant, but if you insist. 07 ended in 119, and from that point until the end of 2010 we won a little over a third of our games. No finals. Not to mention the fact that Melbourne actually had 50% MORE wins than us over 2011/12.

 

[Port01]

Okay, now revisit Ports 07-10.

Melbourne already had priority picks for that period. You want to give them another one now because they traded away all their compensation for a bloke that can't even play this year?
If they'd kept Bailey and gotten rid of Scwhab and Connolly instead we wouldnt be having this conversation.

 

[the harry]

Not sure how it's entirely relevant, but if you insist. 07 ended in 119, and from that point until the end of 2010 we won a little over a third of our games. No finals. Not to mention the fact that Melbourne actually had 50% MORE wins than us over 2011/12.

So you played in a grand final? Then won around of third of your games over the next three years? Sounds like you've experienced a significantly better 5 or 6 years than Melbourne, wouldn't you agree? Not to mention how this year has progressed for you, must be very happy.

Melbourne already had priority picks for that period. You want to give them another one now because they traded away all their compensation for a bloke that can't even play this year?
If they'd kept Bailey and gotten rid of Scwhab and Connolly instead we wouldnt be having this conversation.

They got that compensation because a number one pick left to an expansion club.

We are having this conversation because they have been so bad for so long the AFL will interven. This isn't a question of hindsight and would've, couldn've, and should've, it's simply whether Melbournes on field performance (and its financial ramifications) is more a detriment to the competition than the distribution of an extra pick.

Connolly has been removed from the football dept and is now in some cushy role that helps with their PR or something similar, he's a face but not the brains anymore. While they now have a new CEO and their off field is being taken care of.

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

So you played in a grand final?

So, by your logic, because Melbourne played in a grand final in 2001, they don't deserve a priority pick...

 

[the harry]

So, by your logic, because Melbourne played in a grand final in 2001, they don't deserve a priority pick...

Um no? That is 13 years ago now. What I'm saying is that for a period of time, beyond what would otherwise normally be expected, Melbourne have been crap.

It can't just be based on one year because sometimes teams just are not good for 12 months for various reasons, but they aren't poor for extended periods. It's to the point now where Melbourne have been poor for such a period that it is a serious worry for the AFL as a whole.

 

[thejester]

I find it hard to get overly exercised over Melbourne getting a priority pick given that a) GWS and GC have set whole new levels in strip-mining talent in the draft and b) their previous ones have done two-fifths of bugger all to improve their position.

 

[tboak]

they should get a pick similar to the mini draft pick where if they dont trade it they cant use it. they need some ready made leaders from strong club cultures

 

[*PAF]

they should get a pick similar to the mini draft pick where if they dont trade it they cant use it. they need some ready made leaders from strong club cultures

Probably a better form of priority picks for struggling teams.

 

[tigs2010]

They're already ading Hogan next year. They chose to not add 2 players this year and gave up pick 3 & 13 for a guy who can't play this year. They made that decision now they have to live with it. Once he can play and they're still rubbish for a year or 2 then consider it.

 

[Baldur]

Melbourne should receive some help to get better then they are. But said help should be targeted at what is wrong at Melbourne.

So far the AFL has treated the problem, CEO, President and Coach, gone.

Does Melbourne lack talent such that they need a priority pick? Not really, they lack confidence and effort, and their midfield is weak. What they need is a strong bodied, experienced grade A mid to provide grunt and leadership. A Judd type. They would be better off being allowed a dodgy 3rd party deal to obtain somebody like that then a priority pick.

 

[melbournemartin]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not like PPs being given out, especially at the start of the first round.

Now, the AFL has the power to give out a priority pick at its digression to struggling teams. It's hard to imagine teams struggling more than Melbourne is at the moment. Even Port Adelaide at its worst were not as consistently uncompetitive as Melbourne has been this year.

If the AFL doesn't give us a PP then it is sending an odd message; the AFL thinks that teams can be in a worse state than Melbourne. Perhaps that is possible. Financially, we're not in a terrible state. We have the funds to recruit decent players and coaches, we just haven't gotten it right most of the time. On the field though, we are worse than recent Port and Richmond teams. We're worse than 10 year ago Carlton. Even GWS has shown more glimmers this year, despite us actually beating them.

If the AFL does give us a pick I think it should be at the end of the first round, so pick 19, and with the proviso that we must trade it. That would allow us to pick up a decent midfielder that we desperately need and would provide more immediate results than yet another 18 year old.

The mini-draft model that people have suggested would likely net us picks in the top 5, which most people (me included) do not agree with.

 

[Theo X]

So, by your logic, because Melbourne played in a grand final in 2001, they don't deserve a priority pick...

We played in a GF in 2001? That's news to me.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Um no? That is 13 years ago now. What I'm saying is that for a period of time, beyond what would otherwise normally be expected, Melbourne have been crap.

It can't just be based on one year because sometimes teams just are not good for 12 months for various reasons, but they aren't poor for extended periods. It's to the point now where Melbourne have been poor for such a period that it is a serious worry for the AFL as a whole.

Port Adelaide 2008: 7 wins
Port Adelaide 2009: 9 wins
Port Adelaide 2010: 10 wins
Port Adelaide 2011: 3 wins (compromised draft - second last to get pick 6)
Port Adelaide 2012: 5 wins (compromised draft - Melbourne had picks 3 and 4, Bulldogs 5 and 6)

Melbourne 2009: 4 wins (priority pick - picks 1 and 2 in the draft)
Melbourne 2010: 8 wins
Melbourne 2011: 8 wins
Melbourne 2012: 4 wins (non-compromised draft, picks 3 and 4)
Melbourne 2013: ??

Port shouldn't be looked at like "Melbourne are a bit worse and Port aren't bad anymore!". They should be looked at as the model to follow. We haven't gotten anywhere near the help that Melbourne have gotten, yet we've found our own way out. Melbourne can do that too and they're on their way with the massive clean-out at board level. They don't need another priority pick to help them - that's just being completely greedy and it's entirely unnecessary. They have enough young talent on their list that under the right direction and development will see the club become competitive.

We wouldn't give GWS a priority pick, even though it looks like their first two seasons are gonna be worse than any group of 2 seasons Melbourne has had recently. Why? Because they've already had a shitload of draft concessions and we expect them, in time, to come good. Why can't we treat Melbourne the same way?

 

[Ron The Bear]

On the field though, we are worse than recent Port and Richmond teams. We're worse than 10 year ago Carlton. Even GWS has shown more glimmers this year, despite us actually beating them.

Debatable. Give it a season under a new coach and board. David Koch has instituted cultural change at Port from the top down. Brendon Gale likewise at Richmond.

 

[teknodeejay]

Melbourne should not receive a Priority Pick.

Their recruiting in the last off season was questionable. Adding a bunch of VFL players (Dawes aside) to boost the ranks. Terrible move.

They've had plenty of opportunity to build their list under the same rules as all other clubs. They cocked it up. So it might set them back another 4 or 5 years. That's what happens when you balls up a club.

And yes I'm aware my team tanked in the days of PP's. Not that has anything to do with now. (And of course, Melbourne didn't allegedly tank but received a fine for not doing so, and plenty of other clubs did).

I think lots of people would like to see the Dees not be disastrous. Just not with last decade's handouts that have been abolished.

 

[Sprout]

I think this debate has become about whether you favour the priority pick system or not. It's not about whether Melbourne "deserve" one or not. The club is non-competitive and has been for a sustained period. It is clearly in a situation for which the priority pick was created. How it came to this situation is basically irrelevant. It's a judgement on whether the club is in need of one, not deserving of one.

I do however understand the frustration surrounding this, particularly from Dogs fans. But we aren't the first club to be given assistance through various means, and we won't be the last.

 

[LouisCK]

I can see why other teams would be frustrated btw. Its just that, if the AFL don't award one to the Demons for their current situation, they should abolish it altogether.

Its just going to create more badwill towards the Admin. Ok, if you don't give one to the Demons now, that's the second time they've been screwed by a change in the rules towards PP's. And how much worse could a team really ever get? If you won't give one now, logically you wouldn't give one ever.

 

[bluespooner]

I can think of a whole host of clubs more deserving of a PP than Melbourne.

Take North Melbourne for example: they have never received a PP; they have not had any success since the late 1990s, contrasting this with Melbourne who were grand finalists in 2000 and played finals in 2002 and through 2004 - 2006; North are of the pace of the better sides due to the fact that they have never had access to the elite talent of the top end of the draft even when they genuinely bad, this is due to the introduction of the expansion clubs and the tanking of carlton and melbourne which distorted the drafts from the mid 2000s to the present; since their last premiership they have also had to undergo a number of club presidents leaving, the potential re-badging of their club as a franchise operating out of the Gold Coast and significant financial difficulties.

If PPs were allocated on a quota basis then North would be the next in line with melbourne not due for their next PP until 2030.

 

[LouisCK]

But they're not allocated on a quota basis. Congrats on wasting your (and my) time.

 

[Sprout]

I can think of a whole host of clubs more deserving of a PP than Melbourne.

Take North Melbourne for example: they have never received a PP; they have not had any success since the late 1990s, contrasting this with Melbourne who were grand finalists in 2000 and played finals in 2002 and through 2004 - 2006; North are of the pace of the better sides due to the fact that they have never had access to the elite talent of the top end of the draft even when they genuinely bad, this is due to the introduction of the expansion clubs and the tanking of carlton and melbourne which distorted the drafts from the mid 2000s to the present; since their last premiership they have also had to undergo a number of club presidents leaving, the potential re-badging of their club as a franchise operating out of the Gold Coast and significant financial difficulties.

If PPs were allocated on a quota basis then North would be the next in line with melbourne not due for their next PP until 2030.

I've heard some interesting takes on this subject, but this is special. So you would essentially award them based on merit, not need..

I'm not sure you understand the priority pick system and what it was designed for if you genuinely think North should be getting one ahead of Melbourne.

Like I said, argue for the system to be abolished by all means, but this is just nonsense,

 

[bluespooner]

I don't care about your time, though.

I posted because I'm interested in a competition based on fairness.

 

[bluespooner]

I've heard some interesting takes on this subject, but this is special. So you would essentially award them based on merit, not need..

I'm not sure you understand the priority pick system and what it was designed for if you genuinely think North should be getting one ahead of Melbourne.

Like I said, argue for the system to be abolished by all means, but this is just nonsense,

But melbourne don't need a PP, they got away with three of the best young talents in the last draft - Hogan, Viney and Toumpas. Of there own volition melbourne decided to sacrifice short-term gain by selecting a long-term prospect in Hogan. That's fair enough, but you have to live with the consequences of these decisions.

If north had access to the top end of the draft which their exposed form in 2009 and 2010, indicated they were entitled they would be a substantially bigger premiership threat today. North's talent is well aged in Harvey, Petrie and Wells; and they haven't been afforded the opportunity to top up. The national draft was meant to make success cyclical but one club tanked to get three number one draft picks in a row, providing a protype which melbourne then followed.

To be frank, I think melbourne are fortunate to have any picks in this national draft this year given the punishment Adelaide took last year and what was dealt out to carlton when they lost draft picks.