List Mgmt. 2015 National Draft discussion thread (Tuesday 24 November)

[DarkPhoenix]

Don't see how this is any fairer - beyond the minor variations that you will have depending on club positions, draftee ability and the nuances of this...

It's so very AFL though really isn't it...? They come up with something that is inherently unfair and then spend massive amount sof time and bullshit working out convoluted ways to make this system "more fair". If the purpose of the academies is to get players from non traditional states into football I don't see why they in any way shape or form need to be prioritised to those clubs. Are they going to apply for the draft and then decide not to attempt a career in the highest profile sport in the country because they have to move interstate - no. Are the non traditional state clubs somehow not going to have the go home lure that VIC, SA & WA clubs now have? Of course not.

I guess it's kind of pointless arguing about these systems. It's like discussing ways to make the fixture fairer. It is actually very simple to do - as long as that is the actual intention.

The new way is a lot fairer, academy clubs at least need to do some work to ensure they have the currency they need.

Of course it has tweaks that need making to eliminate some issues but as a whole it's ahead of the previous system.

The benefits are easier to see when a club bids on your player when you don't have a pick for a while.

I.e say Essendon bid on West Coasts Player Y at 4 because they see them as worth the pick but West Coast don't have a pick til 19, under the old system they would get a player rated at 4 with pick 19.

Under the new system they may have to give up additional picks to match the value and will get a shittier pick down the order to make up for leftover points.

 

[tiltraise]

Don't see how this is any fairer - beyond the minor variations that you will have depending on club positions, draftee ability and the nuances of this...

It's so very AFL though really isn't it...? They come up with something that is inherently unfair and then spend massive amount sof time and bullshit working out convoluted ways to make this system "more fair". If the purpose of the academies is to get players from non traditional states into football I don't see why they in any way shape or form need to be prioritised to those clubs. Are they going to apply for the draft and then decide not to attempt a career in the highest profile sport in the country because they have to move interstate - no. Are the non traditional state clubs somehow not going to have the go home lure that VIC, SA & WA clubs now have? Of course not.

I guess it's kind of pointless arguing about these systems. It's like discussing ways to make the fixture fairer. It is actually very simple to do - as long as that is the actual intention.

Also note that old system worked poorly when teams had multiple players nominated.

GWS had 3 players bid on in the first 16 selections this year. Under the old system they would have gotten them for their first 3 picks which would have been 8, 26 + 44.

 

[Egga]

Like most rule changes the AFL has implemented, the intention is good but the execution is aweful. As Event Horizon said, it is ludicrous that a club can trade a couple of crappy 40s picks for a top 10 pick. And as for the toothless Integrity Unit saying "make sure you bid if you think a kid is worth it", they would have no f***ing idea - they would be better off investigating the integrity of themselves receiving a pay cheque for doing f*** all.

 

[RobZombie]

I must be almost alone in thinking the points system has actually worked well. The northern clubs didn't get the lower picks for free - they had to give up high picks and players to get them. Treloar, Aish, the 4 GWS kids to Carlton, etc. It's what got us back into the 1st round and in general lets non academy clubs benefit from the academy system by dealing for something of value. It also addresses the inequity between the academies (a steady stream of players) and F/S (relatively rare per club).

And it probably belongs in some sort of "unpopular opinions" thread, but I don't for a minute begrudge the northern clubs their academies (modulo GWS getting the Riverina south of the Barassi Line). Without them the Heeneys and Millses and Keayses and Hipwoods either aren't there to be drafted at all or aren't developed beyond 3rd round talent. So Brisbane and GWS end up taking Hibberd and Clarke and there's nothing left for the rest of us. Not to mention Wagner being there for us to pick up. I reckon it's too early to call them being an ongoing source of freebie top 10 picks every year. We'll need to wait and see whether draftees rated on their Div2 performances really stack up as senior players, and how many they actually get through at that level over the longer term.

Above all, let's face it; while they're soulless franchises, a stable GC and GWS takes a lot of pressure off the smaller vic clubs if the league is intent on managing the national footprint and even numbers of clubs.

 

[Back Seat Of A Taxi]

The new way is a lot fairer, academy clubs at least need to do some work to ensure they have the currency they need.

Of course it has tweaks that need making to eliminate some issues but as a whole it's ahead of the previous system.

The benefits are easier to see when a club bids on your player when you don't have a pick for a while.

I.e say Essendon bid on West Coasts Player Y at 4 because they see them as worth the pick but West Coast don't have a pick til 19, under the old system they would get a player rated at 4 with pick 19.

Under the new system they may have to give up additional picks to match the value and will get a shittier pick down the order to make up for leftover points.

Agree it appears more fair. Would've been interesting back in the LMac draft considering west coast 'bid' their pick on him which they ended up trading anyway.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I must be almost alone in thinking the points system has actually worked well. The northern clubs didn't get the lower picks for free - they had to give up high picks and players to get them. Treloar, Aish, the 4 GWS kids to Carlton, etc. It's what got us back into the 1st round and in general lets non academy clubs benefit from the academy system by dealing for something of value. It also addresses the inequity between the academies (a steady stream of players) and F/S (relatively rare per club).

And it probably belongs in some sort of "unpopular opinions" thread, but I don't for a minute begrudge the northern clubs their academies (modulo GWS getting the Riverina south of the Barassi Line). Without them the Heeneys and Millses and Keayses and Hipwoods either aren't there to be drafted at all or aren't developed beyond 3rd round talent. So Brisbane and GWS end up taking Hibberd and Clarke and there's nothing left for the rest of us. Not to mention Wagner being there for us to pick up. I reckon it's too early to call them being an ongoing source of freebie top 10 picks every year. We'll need to wait and see whether draftees rated on their Div2 performances really stack up as senior players, and how many they actually get through at that level over the longer term.

Above all, let's face it; while they're soulless franchises, a stable GC and GWS takes a lot of pressure off the smaller vic clubs if the league is intent on managing the national footprint and even numbers of clubs.

Sure, let the academies develop them and be paid for by the AFL and not the club, but they should be allowed to be picked by anyone.

 

[Heaps of fun]

I think the points system is good but the academies are rot and no system will be fair when certain clubs have access to top talent like GWS and Sydney do. Even with the academies there are disparities e.g. compare GC's shitty catchment area that produced no talent this year to the Giants's Riverina area which is comparative to a football heartland.

 

[Event Horizon]

It's rubbish if only a few clubs are allowed to. Assuming they won't get rid of it, perhaps a fairer way would be that they have to bid with their next available draft pick from that year. ie. They can't use traded picks and must use those they were awarded for that year. Say you finish 14th and have picks 5, 23, 41 etc.

Another team bids on a player you want at pick 2 - you give up 5. Another team bids on your next at pick 16 - you give up 23. If another bid happens at 20 you give up 41. You can't trade those picks and retain the ability to match. At least there would be some give and take to go with the advantages and there is also some risk on the team that is getting the advantage. They play the odds that teams will bid and they might waste the opportunity to trade. On the other hand if they trade pick 5 banking that the only academy selection they are interested in is in the 10-25 range they may miss out on him if someone selects him at 4.

That would be similar to the previous system which I thought was ok. Why did they see the need to change it?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

That would be similar to the previous system which I thought was ok. Why did they see the need to change it?

Because Geelong got lucky and everyone had a collective sook about it.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Because Geelong got lucky and everyone had a collective sook about it.

And I am still grumpy at the timing.

 

[Roo Beauty]

I completely disagree on many fronts. For North Melbourne, players like Clarke and Hibberd will go on to be some of the best performers in the draft (mark my words) with both having terrific workrate and athleticism. Clarke, using your comparisons, is a much, much better ball-winner, ball-user, clearance player, tackler and yes, hard-worker than all of Hartung, Hill and Smith. While he may not have the levels of endurance they do, his offensive and defensive workrate is the best in this draft. Hibberd is a top-notch user of the ball and intercepts very well, using height and pace to get into terrific positions. Ben McKay is also a much better defender than you've given him credit for.

While in getting Burton and Lovell the Hawks have taken two potential superstars, they both (especially Burton) have many concerning aspects which will need to be overcome (love the Hardwick pick though). Burton has next to no cartilage in his knee. In an AFL training environment there will be enormous pressure on those joints continually, so do not be surprised if he becomes very injury-prone. It may be an off-side issue which doesn't affect him, but I would be wary. Secondly, Burton is right now a sole forward player, a lead-up marker like Gunston (but not as athletic). Burton will need to develop a midfield/half-back game if he wants to go to the next level. With Lovell, he has a few technical issues which he will need sorting out before he can play AFL (in the Hawks team especially). He is also not a successor to Mitchell in any way; they are completely different players. Mitchell is a below-average athlete with unbelievable skills, where Lovell is a terrific athlete with average skills. He also doesn't win his own ball like Mitchell does.

Trust me, of all players (and it comes down to draft position), Clarke, Hibberd and to an extent McKay will all have an impact on the AFL for years to come, and while the Hawks' picks could be a tremendous success, at this point it looks like the Roos were one of the big winners of this draft (as were the Lions).

Some Hawthorn nutter had a crack about his team's draftees in comparison to ours and one of the draft gurus over on the DTFA board responded with this (not Knightmare).

 

[DaveyBoy123]

And it probably belongs in some sort of "unpopular opinions" thread, but I don't for a minute begrudge the northern clubs their academies (modulo GWS getting the Riverina south of the Barassi Line). Without them the Heeneys and Millses and Keayses and Hipwoods either aren't there to be drafted at all or aren't developed beyond 3rd round talent.

Agreed RZ... But there's a couple of exceptions, of course: I'm thinking Juniors Longmire & Blakey would have been just fine without the academies.