North Melbourne Priority Pick 2021

[ferball]

Pick 1, 19, 20 and 21 gives plenty of trade options given GCS wont want to keep pick 4.

Do you think port are gonna win the flag?

 

[big_e]

North should be asking for extra room in the soft cap to bring in better staff and maximise the plethora of talent they already have.

We did. The AFL said no last year, presumably it would have been a bad look with Clarkson coming in on a salary commensurate with his being "the best coach of the 21st century". The year before that, they allowed us to have Tom Lynch on the playing list despite him having no real intention to play, but to have him as a development coach. He's gone on to be our VFL coach, and they are playing finals this year, so he's doing a good job.

We've also turned over our recruiting, which was a mess for years. We've brought in extremely experienced coaches and football administrators. A new strength and conditioning team, too, plus some additional football experience on the board. And the "senior bodies" that everyone keeps telling us to get.

And we're still last.

The only thing we've not had is additional help at the pointy end of the draft. So that's why we're asking for it this year.

 

[coryne]

Band 1 is anywhere from pick 2 to pick 19 depending on finishing position. The AFL use FA compensation as an equalisation measure, this has always been the case. If his salary warrants band 1 North get pick 2 if we finish last. There is nothing unusual about this.

Also, that AA selection is taken into account is just ridiculous. Why should campaigners like Cameron Ling or Kane Cornes get to influence FA compo?

How about b&f finishes ??? Has McKay, an average defender at best, ever finished top 10 in the b&f ???

The fact that NM are happy to let him walk for MASSIVE OVERS in compensation tells you how ridiculous the concept of getting band 1 compensation for him us esp when he is, supposed, exactly the type of player NM should be targeting to bring in to the club.

Band 1 compensation should be #11 in the draft, so before the finalists, irrespective of the original team. Bands in relation to ladder position afterwards is fine, but the situation where McKay gets #2 and Franklin gets #19 (or whatever it was) is bloody ridiculous.....

 

[Kangalongtime]

Can’t believe how invested some supporters from other clubs are in this. With the exception of Geelong and Essendon I think nearly all other clubs have benefited in the past . We are historically poor right now acknowledged but surely it’s in the benefit of all clubs that that is not ongoing?
Some assistance will provide a catalyst to allow competitive performance to expedite. I have seen all the arguments
They did it to themselves, poor recruitment poor management

What club in this situation didn’t do it to themselves

The lack of objective analysis from the vast majority on here is embarrassing really. The self interest is thinly disguised at best and blatant at worst.

I am all for objective debate but the constant cheap shots and vitriol by many against North in this thread is cheap

I also recognise that some of my own tribe don’t help the situation either, but seriously some need to grow the **** up

 

[H00t]

If your list is in such great shape you'll find it a challenge to open up 4 spots then I don't see why a priority pick is needed. Having depth down to player 38-ish on the list is a great sign.

Yeah north is definitely in the opposite situation. They need as much quantity as possible so they aren’t running around with 6-7 players each week that aren’t up to the level.

 

[tazaa]

not even in your academy lol

Its the basis of our assistance package.
Its either that or pick 3.
The kids indigenous and Tasmanian so ticks all the boxes.

Clubs are just sooking at us getting a free hit at a top 10 pick.

 

[H00t]

Can’t believe how invested some supporters from other clubs are in this. With the exception of Geelong and Essendon I think nearly all other clubs have benefited in the past . We are historically poor right now acknowledged but surely it’s in the benefit of all clubs that that is not ongoing?
Some assistance will provide a catalyst to allow competitive performance to expedite. I have seen all the arguments
They did it to themselves, poor recruitment poor management

What club in this situation didn’t do it to themselves

The lack of objective analysis from the vast majority on here is embarrassing really. The self interest is thinly disguised at best and blatant at worst.

I am all for objective debate but the constant cheap shots and vitriol by many against North in this thread is cheap

I also recognise that some of my own tribe don’t help the situation either, but seriously some need to grow the * up

I mean it’s not the greatest look when a club pushes out pretty much the entirety of their senior talent then goes begging to the AFL. That’s what most people here are unhappy about.

Obviously the clubs failure to develop talent doesn’t help. But it’s the pushing out every senior player then complaining you don’t have senior players that annoys people.

 

[perplexed]

How about b&f finishes ??? Has McKay, an average defender at best, ever finished top 10 in the b&f ???

The fact that NM are happy to let him walk for MASSIVE OVERS in compensation tells you how ridiculous the concept of getting band 1 compensation for him us esp when he is, supposed, exactly the type of player NM should be targeting to bring in to the club.

Band 1 compensation should be #11 in the draft, so before the finalists, irrespective of the original team. Bands in relation to ladder position afterwards is fine, but the situation where McKay gets #2 and Franklin gets #19 (or whatever it was) is bloody ridiculous.....

Great of you to propose rule changes. Obviously the current ones are garbage, but they are the ones we have to play under.

We wouldn't be shopping him if the rules were different and better, but they aren't.

 

[Mat Mann]

Its the basis of our assistance package.
Its either that or pick 3.
The kids indigenous and Tasmanian so ticks all the boxes.

Clubs are just sooking at us getting a free hit at a top 10 pick.

but he is not actually in your NGA, hasn't had the papers signed, and hasn't spent a second in your program.

pick 3 hahaha

it's not the AFL's responsibility to create a premiership-winning list for you

 

[Kangalongtime]

I mean it’s not the greatest look when a club pushes out pretty much the entirety of their senior talent then goes begging to the AFL. That’s what most people here are unhappy about.

Obviously the clubs failure to develop talent doesn’t help. But it’s the pushing out every senior player then complaining you don’t have senior players that annoys people.

Are you referring to the cull post the hub in 2020 ?
Mason Wood is I believe the only one still playing in 2023 who North would regret
The timing I grant could possibly been staggered better . But none of those players were barometer changes. And the fact other than Wood looks like every other club agreed

 

[Roby]

No.

It's not 'quantity' we need now. It's top-level quality.

With Pick 1, probably pick 2, probably Ryley Sanders, and also with Ports pick (14-16~ most likely), we are already going to have to deal with the challenges of list spots/cap space for 4 first rounders. Splitting makes no sense given our position.

Hawks still have lower to sink before they'll climb the ladder properly.

If it helps, please allow to utilise my extensive academic and professional experience to draft up an expert graph in MS paint to illustrate what I was trying to convey:

View attachment 1783112

Does not compute

 

[Chadwiko]

Does not compute

Computes just fine and is entirely consistent with what I'm saying.

If we were just starting our rebuild, splitting the pick would be great. Get as many good young assets as we can.

However, we're not just starting our rebuild. This offseason will, hopefully, be our last down the very bottom.

The injection of top-tier talent like Harley Reid, Dan Curtin, Ryley Sanders, and whomever we pick with Port's FRP will be more than sufficient to plug gaps and upgrade positions across our list. Combine them with Harry Sheezel, George Wardlaw, Brayden George, and then other young but more established players like LDU, Nick Larkey, Jy Simpkin, etc etc... and the core of our team is set for a decade, hopefully.

 

[H00t]

Are you referring to the cull post the hub in 2020 ?
Mason Wood is I believe the only one still playing in 2023 who North would regret
The timing I grant could possibly been staggered better . But none of those players were barometer changes. And the fact other than Wood looks like every other club agreed

None of them needed to be big game players. Just solid best 22 types so you don’t have to play so many guys that aren’t up to it and give them time to develop.

It’s not about them being the reason for your next push up the ladder so much as preventing having consecutive 2 win seasons.

 

[tazaa]

but he is not actually in your NGA, hasn't had the papers signed, and hasn't spent a second in your program.

pick 3 hahaha

it's not the AFL's responsibility to create a premiership-winning list for you

He was literally on the squad as a junior.

Next Generation Academy – Northern Tasmania | AFL Tasmania

www.afltas.com.au

 

[big_e]

How about b&f finishes ??? Has McKay, an average defender at best, ever finished top 10 in the b&f ???

The fact that NM are happy to let him walk for MASSIVE OVERS in compensation tells you how ridiculous the concept of getting band 1 compensation for him us esp when he is, supposed, exactly the type of player NM should be targeting to bring in to the club.

Band 1 compensation should be #11 in the draft, so before the finalists, irrespective of the original team. Bands in relation to ladder position afterwards is fine, but the situation where McKay gets #2 and Franklin gets #19 (or whatever it was) is bloody ridiculous.....

Not for the first time in this thread, this is a post with a bizarre logical fallacy. Actually, a few of them.

1. B & F finishes have nothing to do with it.
2. Where you think band 1 compensation is irrelevant, the rules are the rules and the rules say it is after your first pick.
3. If he's going to get paid more somewhere else, either we have to pay him MASSIVE OVERS, or we somehow force him to stay on a lower salary. Contract lawyers might have a few words to say about that.
4. Why the **** are we talking about free agency compensation in the priority pick thread anyway?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I think he might be saying it is inflated because the ball goes into your back line more often than most clubs. It is the same reason I am sceptical about McKay's intercept marks. As a raw number they are high, as a percentage of entries they aren't. I guess it just comes down to how you want to measure the data.

Conversely, the ball coming in with no pressure, often lace out, and McKay having no support and being left 1 on 1 would reduce his intercept numbers.

 

[Kangalongtime]

None of them needed to be big game players. Just solid best 22 types so you don’t have to play so many guys that aren’t up to it and give them time to develop.

It’s not about them being the reason for your next push up the ladder so much as preventing having consecutive 2 win seasons.

I can see that argument, but reality was 3 win season with those players in 2020 . Keeping the majority of them was not going to change much in my opinion. Some of our other decisions have made me lose hair , but not that one

 

[naysayer]

North fans keep talking about what you're entitled to.

West Coast are entitled to pick 2, and won't take kindly to falling back to pick 4 after the Walter bid, with Harley Reid and the WA star they desperately need off the board as well.

Whatever clubs are entitled to, the AFL have complete power over this entire situation, NGA/PP/FA, and will manipulate it to avoid an unfair mess. Optics, optics, optics.

 

[big_e]

None of them needed to be big game players. Just solid best 22 types so you don’t have to play so many guys that aren’t up to it and give them time to develop.

It’s not about them being the reason for your next push up the ladder so much as preventing having consecutive 2 win seasons.

Of the players that left that year, by any means, the only best 22 players were Jamie Macmillan, Shaun Higgins and Ben Brown. Brown has played 39 of a possible 71 games since joining Melbourne, and has never played a full season. Higgins played 23 games across two seasons before retiring. And Macmillan retired, and took up a job in the office. So even if they were best 22 in 2020, would they have been best 22 in 2021, 2022 or 2023? The answer is no.

Conversely, there are a solid bunch of good players amongst those we brought in that same year.

Aidan Corr and Jaidyn Stephenson are absolutely best 22, Eddie Ford, Tom Powell and Will Phillips are borderline best 22 but all are still only 21 years old and developing nicely. Lachie Young has played 39 games and is good depth, as is Charlie Lazzaro. Some didn’t work out but I’m not losing sleep over rookie-listed players or blokes drafted in the mid-40s.

Sure, it was traumatic for those involved, like it was for lots of non-footy people in 2020 as well, but I think our list was better after that purge than before it.

We'd have been OK if we'd hired a better coach.

 

[Caligo]

Conversely, the ball coming in with no pressure, often lace out, and McKay having no support and being left 1 on 1 would reduce his intercept numbers.

Agreed. You would need to take that into consideration. Very tricky making these sorts of comparisons. Definitely not as simple as just looking at a number.

His 1on1 win rate is low, but defending at NM must be damn hard. (Same at my club)

 

[Bojan KantKick]

North fans keep talking about what you're entitled to.

West Coast are entitled to pick 2, and won't take kindly to falling back to pick 4 after the Walter bid, with Harley Reid and the WA star they desperately need off the board as well.

Whatever clubs are entitled to, the AFL have complete power over this entire situation, NGA/PP/FA, and will manipulate it to avoid an unfair mess. Optics, optics, optics.

No we don't. Most of us just refute nonsensical arguments.

The AFL will decide so all the bleating in this thread and others is wasted.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Agreed. You would need to take that into consideration. Very tricky making these sorts of comparisons. Definitely not as simple as just looking at a number.

His 1on1 win rate is low, but defending at NM must be damn hard. (Same at my club)

I'd imagine his suitors are looking at advanced statistics to determine how much value he would bring to their side, how he'd work in a good team defence, small areas of improvement that he could make to fit in, etc.

 

[Caligo]

I'd imagine his suitors are looking at advanced statistics to determine how much value he would bring to their side, how he'd work in a good team defence, small areas of improvement that he could make to fit in, etc.

Absolutely. I don't like what I see but they would have much better data than me just watching TV coverage and looking at afl tables.

 

[coryne]

Not for the first time in this thread, this is a post with a bizarre logical fallacy. Actually, a few of them.

1. B & F finishes have nothing to do with it.
2. Where you think band 1 compensation is irrelevant, the rules are the rules and the rules say it is after your first pick.
3. If he's going to get paid more somewhere else, either we have to pay him MASSIVE OVERS, or we somehow force him to stay on a lower salary. Contract lawyers might have a few words to say about that.
4. Why the * are we talking about free agency compensation in the priority pick thread anyway?

1) b&f finishes were originally part of the calculation. I have nfi if that has changed or why it would have changed.

2) I agree that the current rules say that the compensation pick is after the current selection for Band 1, but that is ridiculous esp when you think about your third point

3) if you think a contract that triggers band 1 compensation is MASSIVE OVERS (and the ONLY reason someone might pay that is if NM threaten to match anything lower) then how the hell can you believe it is fair compensation for him.

4) because NM supporters frequently bring it up in here, and blind Fred knows that, while the AFL claims both are not linked, they also lie through their teeth and manipulate these things to suit their agenda.

 

[big_e]

3) if you think a contract that triggers band 1 compensation is MASSIVE OVERS (and the ONLY reason someone might pay that is if NM threaten to match anything lower) then how the hell can you believe it is fair compensation for him.

What is fair contract for Ben McKay to play at North Melbourne is different to what Essendon think is a fair contract and what Sydney think is a fair contract.

Plenty of other clubs have enquired about him and declined to get involved because what he wants is more than what they are willing to pay.

It just happens that that figure is somewhere around band 1 or band 2. Where exactly it lays is anyone's guess, but we'll soon find out, I think.