The annual argument - Melbourne needs a priority pick

[Malibu#27]

What about if they say "here's pick 1 you must trade it but if you don't the PP reverts to pick 20"?

That way we still have some bargaining power at the trade table and don't lose out if no club is willing to offer up anything decent but we don't get a before first round pick to bank.

That could work I guess as clubs cant hold the - take this or you get nothing line.

 

[Blackas87]

Yes I'm comfortable with it not being pick one. Whether its mid first round or end of first round, but so long as it has to be traded.

I'm all for trading that pick, I don't Melbourne need more 18 year old kids, as you said earlier they won't help much next year, the club needs established players.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

your coach doesn't agree - he thinks you tanked and in doing so corrupted your 'culture'

He wasn't there at the time so is speaking without first hand knowledge and perception. No player ever took the field to lose I think that's pretty clear. We shifted Frawley, Dunn and Garland forward/back on Sunday are we tanking now? Come on.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I'm all for trading that pick, I don't Melbourne need more 18 year old kids, as you said earlier they won't help much next year, the club needs established players.

I'm not sure Melbourne should be putting all its eggs in the 'trade the early picks' basket either though. It's not like the Dees have a bunch of U21 guns coming through (Tyson, Toumpas, Viney, Salem, Barry, JKH and Kent are the only players on the list that are under 22 and have been exposed to senior football, with Hogan hopefully joining this group early in 2015), a by-product of some very lean draft crops in the past four years. I think a balance of young and experienced newcomers is what's required and unless it can get a player around the Tyson age bracket, Melbourne would probably be better served through the draft.

With regards to qualifying for a priority pick, I think shitness is pretty much a given. So, for me at least, it comes down to three things:

1. Could this level of shitness have been predicted heading into the season?
2. Have adverse circumstances, since the time the list was finalised, contributed to the current predicament?
3. If the answer to '2' is 'yes', will these circumstances continue to hurt the club long-term?

I'd say the answer to '1' is absolutely not. Melbourne looked like it could be more than competitive, on paper and a lot better than Brisbane and St Kilda. The Dees forward and back sixes looked solid and they had bolstered the (admittedly awful) midfield with ready-made senior players like Vince, Cross and Tyson. So, that's a cross from me there.

In response to '2', the answer is yes, due to the Clark situation. But, while I disagree with the notion that it was always a risk to sign him, I think the feeling should have really been 'hope' rather than 'expect' from him this year, considering his significant injury setbacks in 2013.

As for '3', I'd have to say, probably not. Hogan will get his start next year, will have time to develop and will, hopefully work in tandem with Chris Dawes for at least five years. Trengove should be back. Salem, Kennedy-Harris and Toumpas should be able to step up and become regular senior players (they really need to). The Dees should be able to take a ready-made contributor in the draft, or trade for a proven AFL player in the early stages of his career (and possibly get another late mid-late first round pick, a player who should also be ready to contribute). With a huge clean out on the cards, I see no reason why Melbourne couldn't grab one or two more Cross-types who are still AFL quality, but are no longer required players at their clubs.

Assuming Watts and Frawley are gone, Melbourne could go into 2015 with something like this as its best 22:

B: Dunn, McDonald, Jetta
HB: Grimes, Garland, Malceski
C: Viney, Tyson, Howe
HF: Vince, Hogan, Salem
F: Kennedy-Harris, Dawes, Pedersen
R: Gawn, N.Jones, Cross
I/C: Trengove, Toumpas, Terlich, Kent, Bail, Michie, Jamar, M.Jones, Bail, Jamar, Barry, Petracca

You'd imagine there would be significant improvement from at least some of: Viney, Hogan, Salem, Kennedy-Harris, Gawn, Trengove, Toumpas and Barry, among others. And there'd probably be another 1-2 who could walk straight into that squad via free agency and the PSD. No reason why (even without a priority pick) the Dees can't push for 7-8 wins next year, with minimal departures at the end of the season (potentially Jamar and Cross, neither of whom will be irreplaceable). Then another successful draft/trade/free agency period to get a few more quality players on board and they'd be ready to challenge for finals in 2016.

 

[Final Siren]

Exactly, because Melbourne were the only club not to be disadvantaged when the expansion happened.

Melbourne's 2009 tank was designed to scoop the pool ahead of the compromised drafts. The teams that finished bottom in the years following (Port Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast, Brisbane) got far worse picks in drafts where the most talented teenagers were already gone.

So, no, the Dees weren't the only team to be have their picks knocked back a few places during the expansion years, but the other teams got screwed over a lot harder.

 

[Taylor]

Melbourne's 2009 tank was designed to scoop the pool ahead of the compromised drafts. The teams that finished bottom in the years following (Port Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast, Brisbane) got far worse picks in drafts where the most talented teenagers were already gone.

So, no, the Dees weren't the only team to be have their picks knocked back a few places during the expansion years, but the other teams got screwed over a lot harder.

West Coast particularly watched some of the best WA talent go over east in that period while they held a spoon for the first time. Missing out on a Bennell, Swallow etc.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Melbourne's 2009 tank was designed to scoop the pool ahead of the compromised drafts. The teams that finished bottom in the years following (Port Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast, Brisbane) got far worse picks in drafts where the most talented teenagers were already gone.

So, no, the Dees weren't the only team to be have their picks knocked back a few places during the expansion years, but the other teams got screwed over a lot harder.

That's your opinion and it's incorrect. We were hurt just as much as any other club with the expansion drafts. Not complaining because the clubs signed off on it but it's a fact.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think either way this PP issue is looked at, the case for Melbourne has merit.
From a 'game' perspective, for the good of the game - Melbourne are rubbish, they need to be competive, they are tripe, let's be honest.
Now from a 'business' standpoint - which is all the AFL is now - the Demons are a blight on the comp, they make for poor viewing.

Bullshit. Richmond's made poor viewing for 30+ years. But people laugh at Richmond and take pity on Melbourne. It's wrong.

Break the cycle, Demons.

 

[I am Jack]

Bullshit. Richmond's made poor viewing for 30+ years. But people laugh at Richmond and take pity on Melbourne. It's wrong.

Break the cycle, Demons.

The AFL was a game 30+ years ago, now is it is just a business.
There is a big difference between now and then.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The AFL was a game 30+ years ago, now is it is just a business.
There is a big difference between now and then.

Well they need to decide what it is. 'Cos if it's showbiz, I'm outta here.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I thought that Roos declaring in no uncertain terms two weeks ago that Melbourne tanked would finally put an end to the mealy-mouthed technicality ridden denials from Demons fans.

For gods sakes, can we drop the act?

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Jesse Hogan, whom i assume (injury willing) will debut early next year, is another top 5 draft pick next year and i am absolutely confident will be a beast at AFL level, and if he is as good as everyone thinks, should help the Dees for another 3 or 4 wins.

It was a remarkable piece of trading, how they managed to get him and Viney (for a second rounder)
So its not like the Dees have botched every trade/draft period in the past decade..

 

[I am Jack]

Jesse Hogan, whom i assume (injury willing) will debut early next year, is another top 5 draft pick next year and i am absolutely confident will be a beast at AFL level, and if he is as good as everyone thinks, should help the Dees for another 3 or 4 wins.

It was a remarkable piece of trading, how they managed to get him and Viney (for a second rounder)
So its not like the Dees have botched every trade/draft period in the past decade..

It's not as if Viney was going to go top 3.

 

[autocol]

He wasn't there at the time so is speaking without first hand knowledge and perception. No player ever took the field to lose I think that's pretty clear. We shifted Frawley, Dunn and Garland forward/back on Sunday are we tanking now? Come on.

Oh come on, dude, open your eyes. We clearly tanked, as have over a third of the teams in the league at some point or another. Our coach at the time basically admitted as much when in his exit press conference, and the AFL found us guilty and fined us for it. The only reason no-one in officialdom can actually come out and say it plainly is because it's an admission of a kind of matchfixing which, when gambling is involved, becomes a much more serious problem.

The fact that the players weren't deliberately missing kicks at goal or intentionally causing turnovers doesn't mean the team, the club, wasn't intentionally setting itself up to lose games of football. It was an embarrassing time to be a supporter of the club and it remains an embarrassing time to be a supporter of the club as a result (though the current administration is on the right track, IMO).

Melbourne tanked, plain and simple. West Coast, Carlton and Collingwood at the very least are all clearly guilty of the same. But we were the worst.

 

[Final Siren]

That's your opinion and it's incorrect. We were hurt just as much as any other club with the expansion drafts. Not complaining because the clubs signed off on it but it's a fact.

Which part do you think is incorrect?

2009: Melbourne finish last, get picks 1 + 2. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 3.

2010: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to Gold Coast. West Coast finish last, get pick 4. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 6.

2011: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to GWS. Gold Coast finishes last. Port Adelaide finish 2nd-last, winning only 3 games, get pick 6. Brisbane finish 3rd-last, winning 4 games, get pick 8.

I mean, look at that. For 4 wins, Brisbane got pick 8 in a depleted draft. That's the same number of wins Melbourne will likely have this year, but the Dees will get pick 1 or 2 in a full-strength draft. But that's not enough so they want a priority pick as well.

Brisbane and Port Adelaide received an almighty rogering at the draft table due to the expansion clubs, far beyond the inconvenience that Melbourne suffered.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Which part do you think is incorrect?

2009: Melbourne finish last, get picks 1 + 2. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 3.

2010: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to Gold Coast. West Coast finish last, get pick 4. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 6.

2011: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to GWS. Gold Coast finishes last. Port Adelaide finish 2nd-last, winning only 3 games, get pick 6. Brisbane finish 3rd-last, winning 4 games, get pick 8.

I mean, look at that. For 4 wins, Brisbane got pick 8 in a depleted draft. That's the same number of wins Melbourne will likely have this year, but the Dees will get pick 1 or 2 in a full-strength draft. But that's not enough so they want a priority pick as well.

Brisbane and Port Adelaide received an almighty rogering at the draft table due to the expansion clubs, far beyond the inconvenience that Melbourne suffered.

Great post. Easy to understand my reluctance to be shunted down the queue again courtesy of the Demons.

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Which part do you think is incorrect?

2009: Melbourne finish last, get picks 1 + 2. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 3.

2010: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to Gold Coast. West Coast finish last, get pick 4. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 6.

2011: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to GWS. Gold Coast finishes last. Port Adelaide finish 2nd-last, winning only 3 games, get pick 6. Brisbane finish 3rd-last, winning 4 games, get pick 8.

I mean, look at that. For 4 wins, Brisbane got pick 8 in a depleted draft. That's the same number of wins Melbourne will likely have this year, but the Dees will get pick 1 or 2 in a full-strength draft. But that's not enough so they want a priority pick as well.

Brisbane and Port Adelaide received an almighty rogering at the draft table due to the expansion clubs, far beyond the inconvenience that Melbourne suffered.

Well said.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Which part do you think is incorrect?

2009: Melbourne finish last, get picks 1 + 2. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 3.

2010: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to Gold Coast. West Coast finish last, get pick 4. Richmond finish 2nd-last, get pick 6.

2011: Best 17-year olds removed from draft, given to GWS. Gold Coast finishes last. Port Adelaide finish 2nd-last, winning only 3 games, get pick 6. Brisbane finish 3rd-last, winning 4 games, get pick 8.

I mean, look at that. For 4 wins, Brisbane got pick 8 in a depleted draft. That's the same number of wins Melbourne will likely have this year, but the Dees will get pick 1 or 2 in a full-strength draft. But that's not enough so they want a priority pick as well.

Brisbane and Port Adelaide received an almighty rogering at the draft table due to the expansion clubs, far beyond the inconvenience that Melbourne suffered.

I'm not disputing other clubs were disadvantaged I'm disputing they were disadvantaged more than us. We were just as disadvantaged as them, at a key point in our rebuild we received picks 11 & 12 instead of 5 & 6 as well as having the best 17yo pulled out as well so.in effect probably picks around 20. If you think that didn't disadvantage us as much as anyone else then you are clearly incorrect.

 

[Final Siren]

I'm not disputing other clubs were disadvantaged I'm disputing they were disadvantaged more than us. We were just as disadvantaged as them, at a key point in our rebuild we received picks 11 & 12 instead of 5 & 6 as well as having the best 17yo pulled out as well so.in effect probably picks around 20. If you think that didn't disadvantage us as much as anyone else then you are clearly incorrect.

Obviously all clubs shifted down the order. The difference is that teams that finished bottom pre-2010 received the chance to draft an elite player with a top pick in a strong draft, while teams like Brisbane, Port Adelaide, and to a lesser extent West Coast and Richmond, did not.

Those top picks are like gold. Maybe you've had so many that you don't see them as very special any more, but it's a huge deal for a club to get one: an opportunity to sign a champion player, who you can rebuild a team around. In the bad years, a top pick is hope. Some clubs missed out on that, but Melbourne wasn't one of them.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Obviously all clubs shifted down the order. The difference is that teams that finished bottom pre-2010 received the chance to draft an elite player with a top pick in a strong draft, while teams like Brisbane, Port Adelaide, and to a lesser extent West Coast and Richmond, did not.

Those top picks are like gold. Maybe you've had so many that you don't see them as very special any more, but it's a huge deal for a club to get one: an opportunity to sign a champion player, who you can rebuild a team around. In the bad years, a top pick is hope. Some clubs missed out on that, but Melbourne wasn't one of them.

Richmond had pick 3 in 2009 & pick 2 in 2007. Richmond also had 2 top 5 picks in 2004 and top 10 picks in 2005 & 2008.

WCE had pick 2 in 2008 and pick 3 in 2007 (although this was from the Judd trade - they also got the 2006 pick 4 in that deal as well) - they also had a top 10 pick in 2009 as well as an after first round PP in 2008.

Lions had pick 4 and Port had pick 5 in 2006. Port also had pick 4 in 2008 and Lions had top 10 picks in 2005, 2007 & 2008.

How were any of these teams more disadvantaged than MFC? We were all screwed over by the expansion drafts but the clubs voted on it so can't really complain.

 

[Final Siren]

Richmond had pick 3 in 2009 & pick 2 in 2007. Richmond also had 2 top 5 picks in 2004 and top 10 picks in 2005 & 2008.

WCE had pick 2 in 2008 and pick 3 in 2007 (although this was from the Judd trade - they also got the 2006 pick 4 in that deal as well) - they also had a top 10 pick in 2009 as well as an after first round PP in 2008.

Lions had pick 4 and Port had pick 5 in 2006. Port also had pick 4 in 2008 and Lions had top 10 picks in 2005, 2007 & 2008.

How were any of these teams more disadvantaged than MFC? We were all screwed over by the expansion drafts but the clubs voted on it so can't really complain.

Do you really want to compare raw numbers of high picks received?! Melbourne got way more than everyone you mention above over the same period.

 

[telsor]

While the pick numbers matter, I think it's more an attitude is the real problem.

As Roos said, the club has some scars, and they're not going to get over them is by doing (most of) it for themselves.

What kind of message does it send to the players when the attitude from the club is that when going gets tough, stand back and wait for someone else to fix it for you?

They got (and still get) a lot of additional money because they need to improve development and recruitment, so they can find players deeper in the draft and use them better. Maybe they should have some patience and see how well that works rather than begging for more help when it 'only' improved them, rather than making them instant finals contenders.

 

[Hellgood]

They've already lost most of them already. Only Montagna and Riewoldt have made a meaningful contribution this year

That's just outright false. Dempster and Hayes are still key members of the team performing their respective roles.

 

[Old Shinboner]

Melbourne need one, given Roos has signed for 2 more years.

Has he ever coached without AFL assistance? He wouldn't know what to do.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Melbourne tanked, plain and simple. West Coast, Carlton and Collingwood at the very least are all clearly guilty of the same. But we were the worst.

Sorry but when did WC tank? We finished last in 2010 which was the worst possible year to finish last. In 2009 when we had a chance to grab a PP we won 4 out of our 5 final games and missed out on two top 5 picks.

But yes, we got Darling with 26 so we clearly tanked