St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

[The Jack]

It's fine to acknowledge the challenges your club faces, blaming inequities(which exist for all clubs) for your club's lack of success shows no desire to take ownership of said lack of success and appears to express a desire to avoid responsibility.

Have you listened to the whole speech?

 

[brutus76]

He's just jealous all the previous St Kilda champions had no kids or had mostly daughters

Nathan Burke - daughter plays for AFLW Saints
Plugger - 4 daughters
Spud - 3 daughters
Harvs - 1 son and 2 daughters


But they do have on the horizon:
Stewart Loewe

Stewart Loewe

Age

56

Ht

194cm

Wt

108kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.1

4star

K

10.5

4star

HB

4.7

3star

M

7.8

5star

T

1.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

No current season stats available

D

7.8

2star

K

4.8

2star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.0

1star

G

1.0

4star

has 4 boys - three of them (including twins Lachlan and Tom) draft years 2030 and 2032
Justin Peckett

Justin Peckett

Age

52

Ht

182cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.0

4star

K

8.9

3star

HB

5.1

4star

M

3.5

4star

T

1.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

11.6

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

2.8

5star

has Elwood a chance of being dradted this year and Ace in 2026
Spider Everitt has 3 boys - the oldest Boston is a Suns Academy and a St Kilda F/S prospect

SO QUIT YOUR BEETCHING!

 

[Elixuh]

People comparing the Naicos to Lashcroft situation.

Collingwood finished 17th the year they got Naicos. The only team that could have taken him before us is North Melbourne. We were a basket case team getting the number 1 pick. Brisbane won the Premiership and finished 1st, and are taking the number 1 draft pick - This is where I agree with this guy that the system is broken.

Teams finishing in the top 4 should relinquish all father-son picks in the first round. And a similar rule should apply to academies - top 4, and no early academy picks for you. Top 4 teams are already good teams to make it that far, they don't need top ups of number 1 draft picks.

Matter resolved.

You were top 8 the year prior. Top 4 the year prior to that. Lost the grand final by a kick the year prior to that. Were one kick away from a grand final the year after finishing 17th. And the year you finished 17th you had traded away your picks and mismanaged your cap. But still managed to get Naicos.

The system has issues, but don't try to make out like Collingwood were some baskestcase club that finished on the bottom and used the first rounder they got for doing so to take Naicos.

 

[bergholt]

Of course supporters feel like the world's against them. It's a bit weird for a club pres to tee off about how his team is unfairly disadvantaged by a rule that relies mostly on luck(FS).

Right, so he wasn't saying the Saints were particularly disadvantaged, he was saying that it was an unfair rule that helps some clubs randomly.

Only a few select clubs have significantly benefitted from it recently.

Not true. Every club who picks an FS player benefits from it when they get a player cheaper than they would have in an open draft. The fact that the player doesn't work out is neither here nor there - some are always going to fail. The art of list building is about having enough shots so that some of them work out. The cheaper relative to quality each shot is, the better chance you have.

St Kilda have benefitted from the old academy rules by being able to match Sydney's bid on Owens, so it's pretty weird to complain about something they've benefitted from in the past, especially when they took our academy player(Collard) in a year we weren't allowed to match.

It's only weird if you take a selfish view of the world. I benefit from negative gearing, but I still think it's a dumb policy that should be removed, because I can think outside my own self-interest. The Saints have benefited from academy rules, but outside our own self-interest we can still see they're dumb.

That said, I'm in favour of the northern states academies, because I think it's important to grow the game up there. It's just the rest I have a problem with.

St Kilda have come across as a club with a victim mentality for as long as I can remember. Such speeches simply reinforce that mindset.

It's fine to acknowledge the challenges your club faces, blaming inequities(which exist for all clubs) for your club's lack of success shows no desire to take ownership of said lack of success and appears to express a desire to avoid responsibility.

Sure? Or it could be seen as using every lever we have to try to bend the system slightly more in our favour. For a long time we were happy just bending over and taking it, every Saints fan I've spoken to is happy with us being a bit more loud about our own interests.

 

[stavro#4]

It was a losing bet so I don’t get why anybody would be stuck up on it. The consequence of having Nick available in 2021 is we made a dud trade to draft Poulter and McMahon in 2020. Yeah, I suppose the rules put in place allowed for us to make that dud trade and still get the piece, but what I’m saying is it’s a microscopic thing to focus on as the Magpies got nothing out of that trade, and the following season that ensued would have resulted in Daicos joining Collingwood at pick 2.

You are wildly missing the point.

The benefit of the current rules mean you can make a dud trade that would have crippled my club but you get a second chance because you can accumulate and trade BS picks to draft Daicos.

Had the rules been fair, let’s say you hand to accumulate a pick within 5 of Nicks draft number. What would you have had to give up?

In all likelihood someone integral to your flag side.

That’s the Crux of this argument. It isn’t that your club has access. It’s the cost of said access and in the example of Naicos. You blew a future trade that turned out to be p2 and it didn’t hurt you one bit.

But everyone goes on about McCartin at P1 or Billings over Bont at 3 etc for my side.

 

[oak79]

People comparing the Naicos to Lashcroft situation.

Collingwood finished 17th the year they got Naicos. The only team that could have taken him before us is North Melbourne. We were a basket case team getting the number 1 pick. Brisbane won the Premiership and finished 1st, and are taking the number 1 draft pick - This is where I agree with this guy that the system is broken.

Teams finishing in the top 4 should relinquish all father-son picks in the first round. And a similar rule should apply to academies - top 4, and no early academy picks for you. Top 4 teams are already good teams to make it that far, they don't need top ups of number 1 draft picks.

Matter resolved.

Then Collingwood should have had to use pick 2 on Naicos, if North wanted him (or whoever finished 3rd). Otherwise pick 20 if anyone else bid in first round.

Brisbane should have to use their first round pick - pick 18.
They just got incredibly lucky it was in a premiership year. I'm ok with that, would rarely happen.

 

[SeaOfFire]

The President of a club is the ultimate voice of the fans, makes sense to me that he channels the frustration that our fans are feeling about a club winning a flag then getting the number one pick in the draft at a ridiculous discount.

So yeah, it is less to do about "equalization" and "fairness" than it is about our luck of the draw and your own sour grapes, got it.

See again the bounce of the ball in 2010.....start your campaign for a round ball so that never happens again.

 

[Nvent]

People comparing the Naicos to Lashcroft situation.

Collingwood finished 17th the year they got Naicos. The only team that could have taken him before us is North Melbourne. We were a basket case team getting the number 1 pick. Brisbane won the Premiership and finished 1st, and are taking the number 1 draft pick - This is where I agree with this guy that the system is broken.

Teams finishing in the top 4 should relinquish all father-son picks in the first round. And a similar rule should apply to academies - top 4, and no early academy picks for you. Top 4 teams are already good teams to make it that far, they don't need top ups of number 1 draft picks.

Matter resolved.

Yes but you already used the pick you earn't finishing second last to apparently improve your list the year prior.

 

[bergholt]

So yeah, it is less to do about "equalization" and "fairness" than it is about our luck of the draw and your own sour grapes, got it.

That's what makes it topical, yeah. Comms is all about picking your moment.

 

[windyhill]

Too many daughters for the saints. Bad luck Bassat.

 

[adammania9]

You are wildly missing the point.

The benefit of the current rules mean you can make a dud trade that would have crippled my club but you get a second chance because you can accumulate and trade BS picks to draft Daicos.

Had the rules been fair, let’s say you hand to accumulate a pick within 5 of Nicks draft number. What would you have had to give up?

In all likelihood someone integral to your flag side.

That’s the Crux of this argument. It isn’t that your club has access. It’s the cost of said access and in the example of Naicos. You blew a future trade that turned out to be p2 and it didn’t hurt you one bit.

But everyone goes on about McCartin at P1 or Billings over Bont at 3 etc for my side.

If the rules were different, it’s likely Collingwood would have bent their decisions around the rules at the time. If we needed a super early pick for Nick Daicos in 2021, we once again likely wouldn’t have traded out of that draft when we were due to get him.

I believe I get what you’re saying about the trade we did in 2020. It had potential to be a hit without actually affecting our chances of getting Daicos in 2021. But Nick Daicos still ends up at Collingwood in every version of events. If you want to speculate about how we would have paid for him if rules were different, such as having to trade out an integral premiership player, I too can speculate that the Magpies would have kept the early pick if it was required to draft him, as opposed to trading it for mid-range picks in 2020.

 

[jackster83]

I think the short term fix is for other clubs to bid on these players a lot earlier. Like we did with JUH.

 

[Pies No 1]

You were top 8 the year prior. Top 4 the year prior to that. Lost the grand final by a kick the year prior to that. Were one kick away from a grand final the year after finishing 17th. And the year you finished 17th you had traded away your picks and mismanaged your cap. But still managed to get Naicos.

The system has issues, but don't try to make out like Collingwood were some baskestcase club that finished on the bottom and used the first rounder they got for doing so to take Naicos.

Ladder positions change year to year. That year we finished 2nd last, so getting Naicos from that position is completely different to getting Lashcroft as the team finishing first.

It is what it is and you will get him, but it's really bad for competition evenness if top finishing teams are eating up the best draft picks. My gripe isn't even really father-son so much but the Academies. The Academy system is a disgrace. The size of the academies of Gold Coast, GWS and Sydney.. give it a few years and the AFL will be like the EPL with literally the same few teams on top every single year. Only then will the AFL remove the system altogether.

 

[bergholt]

If the rules were different, it’s likely Collingwood would have bent their decisions around the rules at the time. If we needed a super early pick for Nick Daicos in 2021, we once again likely wouldn’t have traded out of that draft when we were due to get him.

I believe I get what you’re saying about the trade we did in 2020. It had potential to be a hit without actually affecting our chances of getting Daicos in 2021. But Nick Daicos still ends up at Collingwood in every version of events. If you want to speculate about how we would have paid for him if rules were different, such as having to trade out an integral premiership player, I too can speculate that the Magpies would have kept the early pick if it was required to draft him, as opposed to trading it for mid-range picks in 2020.

Yeah, and Naicos would have ended up there if it was an open draft as well, because you would have traded with North for pick 1 to make sure you got him. But he would have cost you more and North would have also benefited. So not only would you not have got extra shots the year before, you would also have crippled the rest of your draft hand that year.

This is the point. You get a discount on a guy who was always going to be very very good at the least. If he's open access then you can still take him, if you care enough about the romance to pay for it.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Its simple ... you want to a father & son then pay a fair price in relation to where they are picked in the draft

If they get picked in the Top 10 and you finish top 4 and have pick 16 then cough up that pick 16 and next year's 1st or 2nd rounder ...... no more grouping together of 3rd and 4th rounders ... nothing picks and keeping your top picks as well

If the f-s and/or academy players are that good then pay up .... no more bullshit discounts

Also Northern Axademy players should only be considered Northern Academy players if they are developed in those Norhern states ..... any NA player that schools or plays for an U18 team in another state (ie: Sandringham Dragons) automically relinquishes their right to be considered a NA prospect

 

[Nvent]

Ladder positions change year to year. That year we finished 2nd last, so getting Naicos from that position is completely different to getting Lashcroft as the team finishing first.

It is what it is and you will get him, but it's really bad for competition evenness if top finishing teams are eating up the best draft picks. My gripe isn't even really father-son so much but the Academies. The Academy system is a disgrace. The size of the academies of Gold Coast, GWS and Sydney.. give it a few years and the AFL will be like the EPL with literally the same few teams on top every single year. Only then will the AFL remove the system altogether.

Thats a good point Sydney lost a GF got Heeny then finished top 4 got Mills. The year they got gifted Blakey they split their first round pick for the points and kept an early pick for Rowbottom.

All while contending for a flag. How can you gain ground from the bottom half of the ladder.

 

[tombomb]

The first right of refusal for the son should be the advantage. Not that you you can pay for them with a bundle of junk picks.

Which is the system they are bringing in from next year. You won't be able to use junk picks anymore for high end players.

So St Kilda are getting what they want.

 

[RBW_007]

Not to sound like a broken record, but people need to accept the AFL is an entertainment product, not a competitive sporting league.

It creates a better product to have sons play at the clubs their father's did - in a competitive league, no way would these concessions exist.

Just like it creates a better product to play the grand final in front of 100,000 people every year. Or have big clubs play in prime time. Or any of the other myriad iniquities.

So clubs need to accept things and just play nice. Shut up and deal with it.

Also maybe people should actually take in what was said instead of little snippets. Bassett isn't against father son. He is saying that a fair price needs to be paid and clubs shouldn't be able to use late picks while retaining early picks.

 

[LordLucifer]

I mean...he's got a point. The reigning premier's gonna be receiving the second number one draft pick in the last three years. And people wonder why the bottom teams aren't getting any better.

Whingeing about their players not being able to produce sons - extremely frivolous & petty.

Whinging about FA compo, F/S discounts, low individual value of draft picks - an extremnely fair argument

This is the problem here, clubs get a compensation pick for losing a player via FA, how the feck is that right ??

Secondly, clubs get a discount on the points value if another club bids on their F/S product .... what a crock of shite.

Clubs can match higher F/S draft bids with a gaggle of crap picks at the end of the draft - again, a total crock of shite

There is a lot that needs to be repaired with the way the draft is structured, the F/S rule is fine but clubs canot be picking up players for a bag of lollies, it needs to be addressed and urgently.

Did you hear me Laura ....... URGENTLY !!!

 

[LordLucifer]

They've never cheated though.

You are right, they are too inept to cheat.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

This is not really accurate though.

Say Sydney had pick 15 and needed points for a player at pick 7.

Sydney could trade pick 15 for picks 29 and 32.

Then trade pick 29 for pick 38 and 40, and then trade 32 for 43 and 47.

So Sydney would use pick 38, 40, 43 and 47 to get the player at pick 7 but ultimately we paid the pick 15 as that is the intial pick we had before we started trading downwards.

This is a point that a lot of people are forgetting, as much as the Swans in this situation are getting the benefit so are the teams that trade up. This potential advantage is available to the highest bidder, with the lower team naturally advantages by the allocated picks.

Let’s not forget about StKilda being the first team to leverage in on the Swan with Mills, where they were able secure Jake Carlisle while pocketing their late first rounder for Gresham.

The stricter interpretation next year will take away some of this advantage, and the smart decision was to give team 12 months as teams like Richmond positioned themselves to take advantage under the current rules.

 

[caloschwaby]

Right, it's not biased, it's just completely random, which by definition will lead to unfair results. I thought we already discussed that?

Again, your terms are not aligned with each other. Fairness is not about getting the same outcome.



The processes that contribute to creating F/S selections are so innumerate and intangible that is it effectively governed by randomness. If something is non-biased (that is having no weight, malice or favour in any direction) as randomness is, it is fair - rather in the case of this discussion its better to say it is not unfair.

So if you believe in equalisation, why not remove that source of guaranteed unfair results, and just have an open draft for all players regardless of who their fathers are?

Because I don't agree with you that the discrepancy in outcome for different teams regarding F/S selection is unfair. It literally just "is what it is". Past players of your club either haven't reached 100 games or haven't sired sons, or those sons haven't been interested/good enough at footy to justify St Kilda devoting resources into developing and picking them under the F/S system. That's just it, there is no unfairness in it, it just isn't to be right now.

An open draft for all would be a delightful idea if you don't value the Father/Son-Club connection at all - again you can point to an inequality of outcome in as many instances as you'd like. Is it unfair St Kilda have botched draft picks and haven't hit the jackpot on the draft year after year? Does the unfair distribution of premiership flags across the league concern you?

 

[Rev08]

Yep and it's not the fault of the cats lions pies and dogs that the saints can't produce any worthy f/s. Spuds will produce spuds I guess

What a load of rubbish. The vast majority of players in every single draft had a father that wasn’t good enough to play AFL football. It is luck, of which St.Kilda (and a number of other clubs) have had little.

He is spot on though about the northern academies. They are designed to give the northern states a better chance of winning the flag than all other teams. It’s a disgrace.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Great look making sure Battle couldn't attend the BNF.

 

[RUNVS]

Great look making sure Battle couldn't attend the BNF.

Pretty sure Adelaide did the same thing with Gunston.

I always disliked Taylor Walker for that (though the racism doesn't help either). Treated any Adelaide player who wanted to leave the club like they were traitors and worse than scum.