The Darcy Daniher Debacle

[Sharp9]

G Ablett was rated as a late first rounder, early second rounder at best. He was in the 2001 draft!!

N Ablett was known to have a fair bit of talent, but no club other than Geelong wold have been prepared to take the risk, nor would he have even played for any other club.

Brown, Cloke and Hawkins were all Top 5 selections - but thats the thing about father/son selections. They allow for what little romance there is left in our game.

I'm sure you'd be happy to see the offspring of Paul Kelly, Barry Hall, Brett Kirk and Co running around in a Swans jumper in 20 years - wouldn't you? Nobody would begrudge you that.

I'm totally against the new bidding system. Look at Collingwood - in the past 5 years we've used 7 father/son selections. Two are good players in our best 22, one is still on our list but didn't play finals and four were duds. It's not a guarantee of anything.

Richmond chose not to grab Raines on father/son because a 3rd rounder was too much to pay for him, the picked him up in the 4th round anyway. He has proven to be a decent pickup that late, but it can go both ways.

I'd love to get the picks we used on Jason Cloke, Cameron Cloke & Brayden Shaw back, but thems the breaks.

Everything you are saying is agreeing with me. You could have nominated the appropriate pick for Brayden Shaw...that would be great. Richmond took Raines with a fourth round...'cos that what he was worth! You agree with me. the only thing we don't agree is that when a gun comes along the team should use an appropriate pick. As far as I can recall there was no question at all that T. Cloke would have gone first round. That's the pick you should have used.

It's just as romantic to get Paul Kelly jnr with pick 10 (if he is a first round player) as with pick 40. The only difference is that it will be romantic AND FAIR!!

I ask again, why are you all so against fairness?

BTW..these are the picks which just might have been used oin Gary Ablett jnr.

9 Luke Molan

10 Sam Power

11 Richard Cole

12 Brent Reilly

13 Nick Del Santo

14 Ashley Watson

15 Barry Brooks

16 Rick Ladson

Cheers

 

[Thommo 42]

You can't compare the players now. Ablett was never rated anywhere near the Top 10 of that draft.

I have agreed that Brown, Cloke and Hawkens were all certain Top 5 picks. However, in some of those years these clubs may not have had Top 5 picks.

The AFL isn't fair in many ways, but the system is good and there is nothing wrong with kids being able to play for their fathers clubs at a discount.

Will be interesting to see if clubs start bidding or just let clubs take the kids anyway.

 

[Sharp9]

The AFL isn't fair in many ways, but the system is good and there is nothing wrong with kids being able to play for their fathers clubs at a discount.

You are right, it isn't fair, so why not make it fairer?

Why should a club get a "discount" that's just plain unfair. It's fantastic that clubs can nominate f/s. Love the romance of it. Just make sure they pay an appropriate pick, that's all I want.

Tom Hawkins with pick #40...that's some discount. Would have gone #2 (ahead of Hansen and Gumbleton, surely) maybe even #1


I would think you would be squealing if we got Plugger jnr with pick #40.

 

[-VC-]

Everything you are saying is agreeing with me. You could have nominated the appropriate pick for Brayden Shaw...that would be great. Richmond took Raines with a fourth round...'cos that what he was worth! You agree with me. the only thing we don't agree is that when a gun comes along the team should use an appropriate pick. As far as I can recall there was no question at all that T. Cloke would have gone first round. That's the pick you should have used.

Mate, I agree with your argument in principle that the new system is fair because teams spend relative picks on their F/S selections but you keep referring to shocking examples to back your points up.

Brayden Shaw was a first round prospect. Vic Metro Captain, U/18 All Australian. Was a highly rated junior.

 

[Sharp9]

Mate, I agree with your argument in principle that the new system is fair because teams spend relative picks on their F/S selections but you keep referring to shocking examples to back your points up.

Brayden Shaw was a first round prospect. Vic Metro Captain, U/18 All Australian. Was a highly rated junior.

Really? but he sucked!!!

It would still back me up in that making a good f/s pick would have EQUAL luck as making a normal pick would.

every team makes shocking first round choices.

Here are ALL of Sydney's 1st round draft picks of the last ten years

Nick Fosdike (3)
Ryan Fitzgerald (4)
Jarrad McVeigh (5)
Jude Bolton (8)
Jason Saddington (11)
Josh Willoughby (15)

Our recruiters are Gods.

 

[Tiger Army]

So is it in the new system, say the doggies say that Darcy Daniher is worth a first rounder,then Essendon have to use the #6 (i think thats what they have) but if they dont agree with it,do the doggies have to take him with their #5......
Is that how it works

 

[Merv]

So is it in the new system, say the doggies say that Darcy Daniher is worth a first rounder,then Essendon have to use the #6 (i think thats what they have) but if they dont agree with it,do the doggies have to take him with their #5......
Is that how it works

Yes it is.

No one can bluff as what ever they bid they must use to draft him IF no one outbids them.

 

[Bombs Away]

I'm not sure that that complicated system is right. I can't find any details on AFL.com

I thought that it was the club chooses what pick it will give up and any other club can offer an earlier ROUND (not pick) and the nominated club would then have to match the ROUND.

This is less of a bonus for Essendon (obviously).

As for the original post about it being a farce....are you f**** joking? The whole point of this is to stop the farce which we HAVE been having,

J. Brown
T. Cloke
G. Ablett
N. Ablett
T. Hawkins

All would have been top 5 picks. It's a joke and I'm very pleased that (at last) something is being done.

Does everyone realise that this appalling system gave Brad Ottens to Geelong practically for FREE? (Geelong should have used pick 14 on N. Ablett not #48)


That's three pretty hany players gifted to Geelong.

I look forward to the first fair and squarely won premiership. There hasn't been one since 1999

Sydney - It's possible to argue that the zone picks Roberts-Thomson, Barry and Mathews made a difference...except that no-one else wanted them so we payed fair market value. Possible to argue that extra cap allowance made it easier to get/keep stars Hall and Ball
West Coast - Drug Cheats
Geelong - Three massive players in Selwood, Ottens and Bartel gifted by very unfair f/s system

You are really that far from reality it is concerning. Ottens was part of a trade that saw geelong give a youngster to melbourne and 3 clubs were involved. Stay in your own little (everyone hates us world) and be a typical sydney supporter who thinks that the AFL owe them a go cause there has to be a side in sydney for a national comp. You have only achieved success from poaching players - just how you started when you poached neagle, bolton, kelly and williams when you started being strong in the 80's then went on to poach lockett, roos and hall. You are just dirty cause you can no longer buy a team

 

[AlecDuncan]

Well call me old fashioned, but any system that was blatantly unfair is not "fine for twenty years" with me. Did you get Lloyd as well as Fletcher? Naturally it would all be fine with you.

Hmm, did I become a Bombers supporter while I wasn't looking?

Actually the Blues did miss out on Lloyd - after the AFL screwed around with the rules the first time (25 to 50 games). I'll admit 100 games is probably the threshold of a meaningful career, so I'm not upset about that.

The system was there for a reason - to preserve tradition. It worked fine as it was, and it was fair because it applied to every club (Adelaide fans might argue with that one). But this new system just turns what was a simple rule into a game of poker which only reduces the chances of a kid playing for his dad's team.

 

[Ants]

Sharp9 is completely ignoring anything that doesn't help his argument.

Mitch Morton was also rated a top 10 pick, he's turned out well for WCE. Ignored the value that was put on Brayden Shaw, or that the Abletts weren't that rated.
Yes, Geelong probably asked Callan to nominate the next year. Because the 2001 draft was very strong and they wanted to keep their 2nd round pick, and use a 3rd round pick on Callan the next year.


Fundamentally, the system was totally random (ignoring the criteria for WA & SA sides which could have - and still could - do with some tweaking). If its totally random, its therefore totally fair. A system is only unfair if it is biased towards one club or another.
Just because some clubs got lucky doesn't make the system unfair in and of itself. Thats like saying the draft is unfair on Sydney because Ryan Fitzgerald was so injury struck. That was just luck - or rather bad luck.
The old system wasn't biased towards any one team, so it was completely fair.

 

[Thommo 42]

Exactly.

Its like saying Hawthorn got ripped off because they had Pick 1 which means they should get the best player, but when luck would have it - the best player got snapped up by West Coast at Pick 3.

 

[Sharp9]

You are really that far from reality it is concerning. Ottens was part of a trade that saw geelong give a youngster to melbourne and 3 clubs were involved. Stay in your own little (everyone hates us world) and be a typical sydney supporter who thinks that the AFL owe them a go cause there has to be a side in sydney for a national comp. You have only achieved success from poaching players - just how you started when you poached neagle, bolton, kelly and williams when you started being strong in the 80's then went on to poach lockett, roos and hall. You are just dirty cause you can no longer buy a team

we didn't poach anybody...we traded fair and square. Kelly???? Are you joking? Nobody wanted him but us.

Yeah....I was stretching it with Ottens as (I believe) he was traded for two teen picks not one...(one of the teen picks was received from melbourne for Maloney).

 

[Sharp9]

Fundamentally, the system was totally random ....If its totally random, its therefore totally fair.

Interesting theory...I would say if it's random it's inherently unfair

Just because some clubs got lucky doesn't make the system unfair in and of itself.

Interesting theory...I would say that if some clubs get lucky and some don't, then that is inherently unfair...especially if something can be done about it.

I would say that making poor picks is bad recruiting, not unlucky (oh, all right Fitzgerald being injury prone was really unlucky for us....but gee - I'm not going to concede a thing!!! )...but ALL the other bad 1st round recruits made by all the teams were poor decisions.

 

[caligula]

It's a bullshit rule, clubs should get sons of club legends for free. Obviously the newer clubs are gonna cry about it for a while, but eventually they will start to see some quality lads coming through.

Another knee jerk reaction because of certain groups throwing tantrums. What about keeping a bit of romance in the game. To see the emotion around the Geelong footy club this week has been fantastic, due in no small part to the family links and ex players that have remained involved in the club.

 

[Thommo 42]

Totally agree.

I would vomit if I saw Jimmy Hird's boys running around in anything other than an Essendon jumper. Jet Buckley is already a future Magpie captain, and we should get him in the 3rd round of the draft!

Can you imagine Robert Harvey's kids being drafted by bloody Freo or something!?

Father/Son rule is fantastic and shouldn't have changed.

 

[Turbocat]

Reading this thread , the one good thing about a bidding system is it will at least benchmark a player value fro assessment down the track.
Is this good for the over all comp?

I'm not sure if everyone has really taken in all the complications this bidding system will introduce to the system.
For instance it encourages clubs to hide Father Sons. Imagine the Nathan Ablett scenario inserted into Tom Hawkins. Toms value went thru the roof after the U18 Champs before that he was consider good/very good but so many big chunky guys maybe not a real early pick., maybe early second round as he had mainly played school footy. Post Champs he went to #1. I really wonder if he was to appear under the current system if Geelong would enourage him to miss the Champs.

If Nathan Ablett had been drafted with bidding , it would have been interesting who would have been willing to gamble a pick , at the most it would have been very late. Can you imagine any team willing to bet a pick on kid that doesn't want to play for you?

As for Callan being asked to delay his nomination , that would have nothing to do with G Abletts value other than them rating Ablett better than Callan. Ask Collingwood what happens if you have two Father Sons in 1 year. It really restricted your drafting as you must use a 2nd round and then a 3rd round. It just made sense to schedule them if possible.
Now with bidding , how any club will handle a situation multiple FS's it probably only will encourage more scheduling. Imagine in a couple of years Tom Hawkins brother and Andrew Bews son are both considered top 20 picks.Geelong will not have the picks to get both , they could use an earlier pick than they are worth , not good , or encourage one to delay.

I understand people concern on equity. Maybe if a club has failed to get a FS fro 3 or 4 years they could get a zone kid or something but I think (I'm biased) we need more attachment to our players not less. One of the great things about Geelong side is Bartel and Ling being local.

 

[FM0226]

Really? but he sucked!!!

It would still back me up in that making a good f/s pick would have EQUAL luck as making a normal pick would.

every team makes shocking first round choices.

Here are ALL of Sydney's 1st round draft picks of the last ten years

Nick Fosdike (3)
Ryan Fitzgerald (4)
Jarrad McVeigh (5)
Jude Bolton (8)
Jason Saddington (11)
Josh Willoughby (15)

Our recruiters are Gods.

Hopefully we don't have to add O'Keefe onto that list. We are a weird club that gets a more from third round picks than our first.

On the other hand, I'm totally fine with the new system. It gives the nominated club first crack at the kid, if (and I say if because Daniher is definitely not worth no.6) he's seen as a top 5 prospect and Richmond is willing to take him with no.2, it's only Essendon's fault for not continuing that 'Romance' for being tight and not using a no.6 pick on him.

If Hird's kids playing for Essendon is that important to the club, then they would be willing to spend decent picks on them (as oppose to drafting other prospects with similar potential), wouldn't they? So what's the problem?

 

[Sharp9]

Some of you seem to be confused about the new system...Hird's boys still get to play for Essendon....but if they are guns rated like Cotchin or Gibbs or Riewoldt, then the Bombers will just have to use their first round pick. Surely that's OK?

THE ROMANCE WILL REMAIN...settle down.

 

[Here It Is]

Some of you seem to be confused about the new system...Hird's boys still get to play for Essendon....but if they are guns rated like Cotchin or Gibbs or Riewoldt, then the Bombers will just have to use their first round pick. Surely that's OK?

THE ROMANCE WILL REMAIN...settle down.

I don't see how it is that difficult to understand.

 

[AlecDuncan]

I don't see how it is that difficult to understand.

We understand you're wrong. The AFL should restore the rule to 2006 conditions. It was better as it was.

 

[Footylover1]

Geelong - Three massive players in Selwood, Ottens and Bartel gifted by very unfair f/s system

If you want to critisize other clubs make sure you know about them please. Selwood, Ottens and Bartel were never gifted to Geelong under the father-son rule.

The father son picks Geelong have are Mark Blake, Matthew Scarlett, Nathan Ablett and Gary Abett

 

[drewie_rama]

chosen essendon

ESSENDON and Darcy Daniher will test the AFL's new father-son bidding process for the first time next week, after the teenager agreed yesterday to continue his family's famous connection with the Bombers.

Daniher, whose father Anthony played 118 games for Essendon, has chosen the club ahead of Sydney, where Anthony began his career before being traded to Windy Hill, where he joined brothers Terry, Neale and Chris.

His decision means the Bombers can claim him with their final choice in the November 24 national draft, unless another club pledges to pick him with an earlier selection at a meeting between clubs at 10am on Monday.

Should another club — including the Swans — say it will draft the 18-year-old with, for instance, its first-round pick, the Bombers would have to use their next choice in the draft (their second-round pick under this example) to secure him. Darcy is likely to cost the Bombers a third- or fourth-round pick.

If they choose not to use that pick, Daniher will go to the club that nominates him. The Kangaroos have also shown interest in the 192-centimetre key-position prospect.

Jaxson Barham (available to Collingwood), Adam Donohue (Geelong) and Jesse Aish (Adelaide) are others who may be nominated by their clubs, and test the process, with Barham the most likely. The 19-year-old son of Sydney recruiter Ricky has caught the interest of at least one club other than the Pies.

Anthony Daniher said that while his family had been impressed with both Sydney and Essendon, Darcy's decision was ultimately swayed by new Bomber coach Matthew Knights' plans for junior development, and the fact that they live only a few minutes from Windy Hill. "There's so much to like about the Swans, but having Essendon in the backyard was a big factor," he said. "Darcy's already built a relationship with Matthew Knights by spending a bit of time down there during the year, and we were very impressed with Matthew's direction and his plans for junior development.

"That was important, but the key issue for Darcy was whether he wanted to move away from home. He had to work out which direction he wanted to go in, and we're very fortunate that he had a choice between two very good clubs.

"There's a number of things that could unfold from here, so we'll sit back and be patient and see what unfolds. But he's in a good position. Come Monday lunchtime, he'll know where he's at and he won't have to wait until November 24 like a lot of other boys."

Daniher is one of seven Calder Cannons, and 79 draft prospects, who will spend this week trying to impress club recruiters at the Australian Institute of Sport draft camp in Canberra. Another 104 will be tested this month at screening sessions

 

[Mego Red]

What happens if say Bulldogs says he is worth there 5th and dont take him, Bombers dont at 6 but then come in at at 21 before bombers pick do. Open up for abuse if you ask me

God, there are some idiots entering this discussion.

 

[jules101]

If someone bids Pick #1-#5, Essendon would have to use pick #6, but that isn't going to happen.

If someone bids Pick #7-#22, Essendon will have to use pick #23 to get him. This is a pretty likely situation, IMO, and pick #23 seems about fair for Darcy.

If someone bids Pick #24-#38, Essendon will have to use pick #39 to get him, which would be the best case scenario, and a lucky get.

My suggestion would be not to whinge unless you know what you're talking about.

If a club chooses to use pick 22 then Essendon should trade pick 23 for someone equal to pick 23...

 

[caligula]

Some of you seem to be confused about the new system...Hird's boys still get to play for Essendon....but if they are guns rated like Cotchin or Gibbs or Riewoldt, then the Bombers will just have to use their first round pick. Surely that's OK?

THE ROMANCE WILL REMAIN...settle down.

I understand the rule, I just think its wrong. I don't think its an unfair rule, I think its unecessary. Just let 'em play for their old mans team without all this messing around. Eventually it will all even out, unless your clubs players are incapable of producing offspring.

Wasn't seen problem until Hawkins and the Gibbs fiasco, cue whinging, rules changed.