View Full Version : Is `best available' a viable draft strategy when trade time is so hostile?
The NFL draft prompted this thought for me, when the Philadelphia Eagles drafted a quarterback with their first pick, despite having Donovan McNabb with a few good years back. The theory was that they went with the best available players, with an eye to trading him at a higher value later on.
This is all good in the NFL where there are numerous amicable trades done every year, but is this idea actually viable in the AFL?
Since the 2003 trade period, every club has had great difficulty in getting trades complete. Even if you have got an excess midfielder for trade, and another club desperately needs a midfielder, it seems that deals just aren't getting done. A trade like Shannon Grant for Wayne Schwass just wouldn't happen today, because both admins would be afraid of a media and crowd noted loss. Collingwood deemed Tarrant to be surplus to needs, and in the end scrounged only a mid-range first round pick for him.
So given this hostile market, can clubs really afford to ignore needs and go for best available when those needs are so unlikely to be met come trade time?
Genesis67
8 May 2007, 18:39
"Best available" seems to work for West Coast.
It's an argument that may well lead to an NBA style situation where you can trade on draft day. That would allow clubs to pick the best available, but trade on the spot to end up with the type of player they actually want, plus a bit of extra collateral.
Best available is the best policy 90% of the time. If you have too many midfielders, play them of half back or forward.
If you have extra Ruckman then trade next year because there is always 2 or 3 clubs (Saints, Blues,Tigers, needing a ruckman (Lions will trade one of their rucks).
Most teams have 2 ruck 4-5 key position players playing each week and having back ups help and there always be teams wanting talls especially.
Small or medium forwards/backs are hard to move on especially small forwards/backs.
You can always suit your game style to the cattle you have. AFL is alot of different to NFL and NBA as roles are clearly defined, where AFL you can have 12 players out of 22 rotating through the midfield and half back and forward.
While thats all true, there were a couple of conspicuous absences.
What do you do if a tall KPP is never the best player available at your earliest pick? The good ones are rare and usually gobbled up by clubs picking for need.
Genesis67
9 May 2007, 15:53
You've got 2 choices. Take a gamble on a less highlighted pick. There's always some late choice gems in each draft, both ND and PSD. Dean Cox came from our Rookie list. Look at the final result.
Or select the best available, and alter your game plan to suit ur cattle. If you have 22 similar sized player's who are very skilled, you can do a lot with that. I know what you'll say, the Bulldogs are struggling without KPP's, but lets be honest, they are nowhere near being the worst team going around atm.
I don't know the NFL, but over here I think something which complicates it is that the next step down is so huge.
For example, if Bradley didn't play another AFL game this year, but averaged 4 goals and 20 possies in the VFL, would it really be rated? Should it really be rated? Nobody's been knocking on Sautner's or Podsiadilly's doors to draft them. Is this a mistake and they would have been good players (Edwards is going ok), or is the step down as large as perceived?
So I do think you have the issue that if you want a player to be valued, you need to put AFL games into them. Of course, if they then show anything your members will be less happy with you trading them.
Pafloyul
9 May 2007, 18:11
Drafting 'best available' is generally the way to go providing you do not have a too narrow view on what constitutes 'best'.
If you get yourself too hung-up on drafting a certain type of player you can end up undervaluing what others have to offer. Alternatively; a player with a more defined position who is fairly consistent can be construed as ‘better’ than someone who is a little rawer. This is despite the fact that ‘raw’ juniors can sometimes adapt to AFL football surprisingly quickly whereas the more consistent player may end up having his limitations exposed at a higher level.
I know I’m deviating from the topic but I think recruiting is often too ‘by the numbers’ and not instinctive enough.
marcmurphy3
9 May 2007, 18:31
Best available with first few picks. Then draft for needs later during the later stages.
Or select the best available, and alter your game plan to suit ur cattle. If you have 22 similar sized player's who are very skilled, you can do a lot with that. I know what you'll say, the Bulldogs are struggling without KPP's, but lets be honest, they are nowhere near being the worst team going around atm.Yeah, but the aim is to build a premiership side, not just be competitive.
Since the 2003 trade period, every club has had great difficulty in getting trades complete. Even if you have got an excess midfielder for trade, and another club desperately needs a midfielder, it seems that deals just aren't getting done. A trade like Shannon Grant for Wayne Schwass just wouldn't happen today, because both admins would be afraid of a media and crowd noted loss. Collingwood deemed Tarrant to be surplus to needs, and in the end scrounged only a mid-range first round pick for him.
So given this hostile market, can clubs really afford to ignore needs and go for best available when those needs are so unlikely to be met come trade time?
I think it is hard to draw any conclusions because the number of bona-fide top quality players who have been on the trade table recently have been so few and far between. Lists are so small that teams rarely have a surfeit of any one type of player, and those who are traded usually have question marks over them. Brad Ottens, Chris Tarrent, Nathan Thompson, as examples, were all players who had shown they could play very good football but all had the air of slightly unfulfilled potential too, for a variety of reasons.
Very often traded players are out of contract and are looking to go to their home state. The trading stakes are then skewed depending on how many possible host clubs there are. But some fair trades have happened recently, even with out of contract players. The Tyson Stenglein and Scott Thompson ones, for instance, show that trades of "undamaged" players do happen.
When was the last time a club decided to trade a player purely because he was surplus to their requirements in terms of "type". Sometimes it happens with younger ones but they are rarely proven talent (eg Brooks to St Kilda). Geelong let Moloney go because they possibly figured they had enough of his type, but they didn't initiate that trade and only did it because they were desperate for Ottens and had to lose something. I doubt they'd have proactively let him go.
But it a club ever does genuinely find itself with two top notch players competing for one spot and think they can get genuinely more value by trading one than by trying to fit the two in together, that club would hold a very strong hand at the trade table.
These examples are long shots and only meant as illustrations, but theoretically you could maybe see Geelong deciding that one of Hawkins or N Ablett was more valuable as trade material given the existence of the other (admittedly made much less likely by the FS status of both). Maybe a more likely scenario is Brisbane deciding it doesn't need both of Wood and Leuenberger if it has a couple of less brilliant but entirely adequate other rucks as back-up. Or maybe Essendon might decide that long term it can't fit all of Davey, Lovett and Jetta into its team - or rather that by trading one they might be able to secure a player to fill a gaping hole in the side.
"Best available" seems to work for West Coast.
we only generally go best available for the first pick, then we seem to look for a 'type'. This year it was tall and big endurance.
I think best available is nonsense.
Personally I'd take a tall only if he was blue-chip, and only in the top 4 or 5 picks. After that the strike-rate for talls taken 6+ is about the same as talls taken on the rookie list.
In contrast defying convention and targeting inside midfielders early gets very good returns. The notion that they are plentiful is a myth.
The Eagles did best when they stopped used top-20 picks on Glass, Gaspar, Hill, Fewster, McDougall ... and instead used them on Kerr, Judd, Stenglein (via trade), Hurn, Waters, Chick (trade).
I think AFL clubs gamble and 'invent' picks too early. Objective 1 should be to emerge with an inside midfielder who can contribute and they should spend a top-20 pick to get him.
Instead of focussing on best-available ... they should focus on key roles. Filling the inside midfield is the most important, so guys who can play there should go first.
sydney eagle
10 May 2007, 12:10
"Weaver" are you suggesting that Glass wasn't worth a top 20 pick ?
"Weaver" are you suggesting that Glass wasn't worth a top 20 pick ?
I'm suggesting that using a top-20 pick to get a guy like Glass doesn't make a lot of sense when he is no better than Hunter (29), Hansen (38), Lynch (rookie), Cox (rookie), Graham (rookie), B.Jones (rookie).
After the first handful ... the strike rate for big blokes is almost random. The development time is so long and set of skills they have to master is much less.
For return on investment - get your midfield sorted first and then populate your list with talls.
You will end up with better midfielders than way and your talls will turn out much the same as the side that spend a lot of picks in the 5-30 range to get theirs.
BigCat2
10 May 2007, 19:16
Weaver, are you stating your view with perhaps an eye on your own club, and how often the midfield has been your Achille's?
I've had a look at the Brisbane drafting, and in the last 5 AFL drafts we've spent every early pick on a KPP or ruck, apart from Troy Selwood (when Jared Brennan was taken ahead of him). We've got good value from our 2nd / 3rd round picks and rookie list to acquire smaller types.
I've had a look at the Brisbane drafting, and in the last 5 AFL drafts we've spent every early pick on a KPP or ruck, apart from Troy Selwood (when Jared Brennan was taken ahead of him). We've got good value from our 2nd / 3rd round picks and rookie list to acquire smaller types.
I specifically mentioned that taking blue-chip talent in the top-3 or 4 was justified. I'd put Luenenberger and Brennan in that category.
Where clubs seem to struggle is when they try and 'force' a pick in the 6-25 range. Guys like Mitch Clarke, Spaandermaan, Wood, Mills, Garner, Merrett.
Now I am not saying that they are bad picks. Only that for you basically have a 10% chance of a good player if you go tall then. Much the same as if you used pick 50 or a rookie pick.
Yes Wood could be a star - but so could Ivan Maric at 40 or Brad Moran at pick 58. Yes Mitch Clarke could be a star but you overlooked Higgins, Nate Jones, Hurn, Birchall, Varcoe to select him.
I just think that you can get a better return by taking a midfielder early and KP players later.
Not such a suprise. Midfielders can play 15 spots so have more opportunites. To be good they need more skills (kicking, smarts, running etc etc etc). In contrast a ruckman can get by on hitouts alone at times. Key defenders who are quick and can spoil can get a game.
Much easier to make a rookie list bloke with the right attitude into a competent 3rd tall defender - than it is to make a centre-square midfielder.
I'd have to agree with Weaver here, but for different reasons.
Drafting bigs just has so many more unknowns. They tend not to peak for 4-5years, and so much can happen in that time. You just don't know how much they'll grow, how much they'll fill out, and how much their athleticism will be affected when they do bulk up.
They also tend to be susceptible to injury more than young mids, and if they get injured too often between 18-20 it tends to pretty much screw up their career, a la Luke Livingstone. Plus, their performances are skewed more in juniors because they are dominant physically, whereas with a few exceptions they almost never reach that same level of dominance in the AFL.
In comparison, mids can be judged on more tangible things. Pace off the mark, speed, and hands in close are the same regardless of the level of the game. Sure, physical strength helps, but if a guy can win the footy and use it at junior level, its a fair bet the same will apply later on. Mids tend to be only 2-3 years away from competing, get injured less and are affected less by injury when it does happen.
All in all, it means that unless you have a sure thing with a big (a la the Tomahawk), its a safe bet to take mids in the early rounds, then load up on bigs in the lower rounds and rookie draft.
I do think a lot of it still comes down to drafting. If you look at Essendon's smalls selected with top 20 picks from 2000 to 2005 (Davies, Harvey, Winderlich, Stanton, Monfries, Dempsey), its been pretty hit and miss as well.
BigCat2
14 May 2007, 03:34
I see your point Weaver, I think it varies from club to club. For example, we've done really well picking up the likes of Adcock, Sherman and Rischitelli with mid-late picks. As well, we've now got 9 blokes on the senior list who were originally rookies, but all bar Jason Roe are not KPPs. I know that big men are more risky than say midfielders, but it's a punt we're willing to take.
Doesnt it come down to needs? What if you have an overabundance of inside midfields? I am happy the AFC took Sellar when they could...blue chip? Not sure yet but if they bypassed him and took ''another'' midfield I think I would have gone ape.
celtic_pride
14 May 2007, 22:35
[QUOTE=Weaver;7487354]I think best available is nonsense.
Personally I'd take a tall only if he was blue-chip, and only in the top 4 or 5 picks. After that the strike-rate for talls taken 6+ is about the same as talls taken on the rookie list.
In contrast defying convention and targeting inside midfielders early gets very good returns. The notion that they are plentiful is a myth.
[\QUOTE]
Good advice from a supporter of a club who took Tambling over Buddy Franklin :)