Dylan Shiel...

Remove this Banner Ad

Cannon82 said:
Rightio. Does that mean that:
  1. The new draft system has been ticked and is going to happen at the end of this season?
  2. The father son bidding takes place after the trade period so they can stock up on draft picks? Or their draft picks will get eaten up at F/S bidding and they'll have to trade their way back into the top 100 draft selections if they pickup a few kids?
New system seems a bit s**t to me. All well and good to suggest teams should now be giving up multiple picks for a kid, but then if that kid doesn't fulfill his potential... that's a lot of eggs in the kitchen sink.
Click to expand...
New system is just waiting for the final Gillon tick of approval (and possibly some adjustment to the weightings).

Academy and Father/son bidding is proposed to take place live during the draft itself, so yes trading will occur beforehand.
 
ponsdale said:
New system is just waiting for the final Gillon tick of approval (and possibly some adjustment to the weightings).

Academy and Father/son bidding is proposed to take place live during the draft itself, so yes trading will occur beforehand.
Click to expand...

So Gil McGlachlan saw Draft Day and thought it'd be great if we could further Yankee Doodle-ize the drafting spectacle... tremendez.
 
ponsdale said:
The Swans may actually need draft picks to use to 'buy' their academy (Mills) and Father/Son (Dunkley) selections. Obviously the higher the better. They way things stand now, if the Swans want both, it may cost them all of the 2015 draft picks and possibly even R1 of 2016 on some scenarios.

In getting in Heeney this year and potentially Mills and Dunkley next year, the Swans may opt to squeeze out one of their current mids. Mitchell not being able to break into the 22 may command the highest return for least given away at this stage.

Would we be prepared to give up a R1 pick for Mitchell?
Click to expand...

Our first pick plus extra for Shiel and GWS first pick, on trade GWS pick to Sydney for Mitchell... Too easy, huh?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cannon82 said:
Rightio. Does that mean that:
  1. The new draft system has been ticked and is going to happen at the end of this season?
  2. The father son bidding takes place after the trade period so they can stock up on draft picks? Or their draft picks will get eaten up at F/S bidding and they'll have to trade their way back into the top 100 draft selections if they pickup a few kids?
New system seems a bit s**t to me. All well and good to suggest teams should now be giving up multiple picks for a kid, but then if that kid doesn't fulfill his potential... that's a lot of eggs in the kitchen sink.
Click to expand...

I like the current F/S rules and I think F/S should be separate from academy selections. The academy side of things needs to be looked at though. A system where Sydney is able to identify NSW talent and develop it ready for them to take and still being eligible for F/S selections seems like double dipping to me. Equally, trying to guess that a kid is going to be a star so making them pay multiple picks is over the top too. The AFL should take control of the academies so they are neutral ground.
 
Quite strange that Mitchell can't even get in the emergencies for the Swans. McGlynn, Naismith and Hewett. George Hewett, whoever that is.
 
It says a lot about Mitchell that Heeney has jumped him in year one. Give me Shiel please. He's killing it at AFL level. Mitchell has question marks over his pace, disposal by foot and penetration of his kicking. We can't afford any more players who are slow. Plus if he moves he will go to Carlton. They'll pay big dollars and have got the family connection. Let them have him I say.
 
Interesting , isn't aish who we were rumoured to be looking at with pick 2 if we had kept it?

Collingwood will probably be in the best spot to get him if they finish mid table .. Us and Carlton are likely to have a top 4 pick which is a little over unless there is an exchange of seconds or something
 
Tyson wasn't playing at GWS when we traded for him. Aish has been playing most games at Brisbane. Would be hapy if we didn't sign any uppity little shits who get drafted, play regularly and want to go somewhere else a year or two later. No tourists.
 
Cannon82 said:
Tyson wasn't playing at GWS when we traded for him. Aish has been playing most games at Brisbane. Would be hapy if we didn't sign any uppity little shits who get drafted, play regularly and want to go somewhere else a year or two later. No tourists.
Click to expand...
That's nobal, but we aren't in a position to be to picky. Besides it seems he is now out of there best 22.

If he wants out and we are the preferred destination then I'd be keen if it was a Tyson type deal with an exchange of firsts and some later picks going backwards and forwards in Brisbanes favour.
 
Andy_Mac said:
That's nobal, but we aren't in a position to be to picky. Besides it seems he is now out of there best 22.

If he wants out and we are the preferred destination then I'd be keen if it was a Tyson type deal with an exchange of firsts and some later picks going backwards and forwards in Brisbanes favour.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's the other way around - we're in a position where we have to be picky, although we're not as devoid of talent as were a few years ago. Why get in someone fickle?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I must admit that I'm uncomfortable seeing these kids who are given an opportunity to play AFL football by a club, walking out after their first contract. Clubs put a lot of investment into these kids to develop them and planning to build around them. I'd like to see some sort of NBA style contract structure where - at least for first round picks - the team has the option of an automatic extension followed by contract advantages/incentives to keep these kids. I'd be filthy if it happened to us (again).
 
nickgrant69 said:
Interesting , isn't aish who we were rumoured to be looking at with pick 2 if we had kept it?

Collingwood will probably be in the best spot to get him if they finish mid table .. Us and Carlton are likely to have a top 4 pick which is a little over unless there is an exchange of seconds or something
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Why is it overs for a top 4 pick for Aish? He's got 2 years of development, looks a jet and was originally taken with pick 7.
 
Klyntonius said:
I must admit that I'm uncomfortable seeing these kids who are given an opportunity to play AFL football by a club, walking out after their first contract. Clubs put a lot of investment into these kids to develop them and planning to build around them. I'd like to see some sort of NBA style contract structure where - at least for first round picks - the team has the option of an automatic extension followed by contract advantages/incentives to keep these kids. I'd be filthy if it happened to us (again).
Click to expand...

Yep and also imagine how uncomfortable you'll be when they bring in free agency after 6 years, so a club can spend 6 years developing a tall who may only just be starting to shine through, then nicks off to whichever team is in the top 4 at the time.
 
Klyntonius said:
I must admit that I'm uncomfortable seeing these kids who are given an opportunity to play AFL football by a club, walking out after their first contract. Clubs put a lot of investment into these kids to develop them and planning to build around them. I'd like to see some sort of NBA style contract structure where - at least for first round picks - the team has the option of an automatic extension followed by contract advantages/incentives to keep these kids. I'd be filthy if it happened to us (again).
Click to expand...

Except this is a club which has an Academy, don't feel sorry for them, Vic clubs should try to pillage them as much as possible
 
Marc_Remillard said:
Except this is a club which has an Academy, don't feel sorry for them, Vic clubs should try to pillage them as much as possible
Click to expand...

That's why they have the academy though - to mitigate the "go home" factor and encourage the development of AFL players in a state where its competing with league, union and soccer.
 
Cannon82 said:
That's why they have the academy though - to mitigate the "go home" factor and encourage the development of AFL players in a state where its competing with league, union and soccer.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. They have an academy to artificially prop them up in a bid to increase ratings up there which will increase the size of the next media agreement which will increase the size of the bonuses of the muppets who run the AFL.
 
Marc_Remillard said:
No, it's not. They have an academy to artificially prop them up in a bid to increase ratings up there which will increase the size of the next media agreement which will increase the size of the bonuses of the muppets who run the AFL.
Click to expand...

Kind of. When 90% of the AFL players in the league come from Vic, WA, SA and Tas, it's in the best interest of the league to try to ensure the non-traditional states' teams stay competitive so they don't lose their fickle fans to Super Rugby, rguby leeeegegegegeg and lawn bowls. Yes, it's about making the AFL money. That means it's also about creating development pathways for players, and QLD and NSW don't have your TAC cup or strong local leagues (NEAFL not there, yet, if ever) for the kids to cut their teeth in. It's a bit of an advantage having an academy - no one seemed that fussed by it until this Heeney bloke turned up. It's a disadvantage having most of your draftees crying into their pillows every night being away from home.
 
Marc_Remillard said:
Except this is a club which has an Academy, don't feel sorry for them, Vic clubs should try to pillage them as much as possible
Click to expand...

My concern is for the bigger picture not specifically the Giants. It's seeing first and second year players dictating where they want to play. I'm concerned for when the powerful top end clubs are able to clear cap space when a gun player retires and throw that money at a future star that a struggling club is investing in to rise up the ladder. Young player takes the easier road and the struggling team starts from scratch again. Like the constant talk - whether pie in the sky or not - of a certain purple Western Australian club into a key forward we are building our future around. That's what concerns me.
 
CTHORANGE said:
Yep and also imagine how uncomfortable you'll be when they bring in free agency after 6 years, so a club can spend 6 years developing a tall who may only just be starting to shine through, then nicks off to whichever team is in the top 4 at the time.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Hence I'd like to see something in place that, say, caps what contracts opposing teams can offer players within the first x amount of years of a players career.
 
How we would feel about losing Hogan is probably about the same as GWS would feel about losing Shiel or Treloar. They'd be gutted. There needs to be a way where the player can't just walk to the bottom club and their former club get zero compensation. Not sure how though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top