Opinion Is it time for a priority pick rethink?

[BluesRule]

This is a natural result of poor list management by us for 10 years and the dilution of the draft by expansion clubs.
Its a real political hotcake for the Comnmish, you can argue Brisbane deserve one for the sake of the game in Queensland, but we have wasted a lot of draft picks in recent times, getting a PP won't solve the fundamental issues of our current malaise.

No to us getting a PP from me (wouldn't give Brisbane one either but I won't be upset if they get one)

I will be upset if Brisbane get a PP as they were OK last year and seemed likely to improve this year with Beams, etc. Think they will bounce back quickly (hopefully we will too )

 

[thylacine60]

yes, we should have taken cooney..........

 

[4thchicken]

PP system should be transparent so that we don't get the complaints/posturing as happens now. Imo, it should be
<8 wins over 2 years => end of first round (pick 19)
<12 wins over 3 years => mid first round (pick 10)
<16 wins over 4 years => first round (pick 1)

Tie that in with an NBA style draft lottery for bottom 8 teams and any tanking concerns would be alleviated.

An example of a lottery system that could work...
pick 1 -> 18th - 40%, 17th - 20%, 16th - 10%, 15th - 10%, 14th - 6%, 13th - 6%, 12th - 3% , 11th - 3% , 10th - 1%, 9th - 1%
pick 2 (and subsequent picks) -> % from selecting team gets added to next lowest ranking team (i.e. if 13th team gets pick 1, then 18th ranked team has a 46% chance for pick 2)

worst case scenario, the earliest picks to the highest ranked teams in inverse order than the chance of bottom team getting the next pick looks like...
pick 1 - 40%
pick 2 - 41% i.e. + 9th %
pick 3 - 42% i.e. + 10th % chance
pick 4 - 45% i.e. + 11th % chance
pick 5 - 48% i.e. + 12th % chance
pick 6 - 54% i.e. + 13th % chance

statistically though, pick 1 will go to a bottom 4 80% of the time - and from there 18th is likely to get pick 2 or 3 at worst

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Inb4 stock standard Carlton supporter reference of using Betts compo pick on Thomas.

 

[Blue__Balls]

PP system should be transparent so that we don't get the complaints/posturing as happens now. Imo, it should be
<8 wins over 2 years => end of first round (pick 19)
<12 wins over 3 years => mid first round (pick 10)
<16 wins over 4 years => first round (pick 1)

Tie that in with an NBA style draft lottery for bottom 8 teams and any tanking concerns would be alleviated.

An example of a lottery system that could work...
pick 1 -> 18th - 40%, 17th - 20%, 16th - 10%, 15th - 10%, 14th - 6%, 13th - 6%, 12th - 3% , 11th - 3% , 10th - 1%, 9th - 1%
pick 2 (and subsequent picks) -> % from selecting team gets added to next lowest ranking team (i.e. if 13th team gets pick 1, then 18th ranked team has a 46% chance for pick 2)

worst case scenario, the earliest picks to the highest ranked teams in inverse order than the chance of bottom team getting the next pick looks like...
pick 1 - 40%
pick 2 - 41% i.e. + 9th %
pick 3 - 42% i.e. + 10th % chance
pick 4 - 45% i.e. + 11th % chance
pick 5 - 48% i.e. + 12th % chance
pick 6 - 54% i.e. + 13th % chance

statistically though, pick 1 will go to a bottom 4 80% of the time - and from there 18th is likely to get pick 2 or 3 at worst

Works right up until Hawthorn win a flag and then get Pick 1...

Imagine the outcry!

I don't mind the Priority Pick system you've proposed though. Although would you still support Pick 1 being given to a team that wins 2, 2, 3, and 9 games over 4 years? Does the massive improvement in the fourth year get factored in?

 

[BluesRule]

Under the original rules I think you got a pick after the first round (19+) if you did not win 4 games. I think both Brisbane and Carlton could really use that. Not sure why Gold Coast have been so bad in 2015 but it clearly shows they lack depth, so it would help the Suns also.

Thin draft may make these picks low value in 2015.

Major benefit may be getting academy and Father/sons under the new points system. But if nobody else bids on them, it will not be needed.

It could also be used for Carlisle, Dixon, Aish and other likely trades. (Amazing how many trades relate to bottom 3 clubs!) But without it these trades will likely still happen if the player is keen to move.

Hence not sure a Priority pick will make a significant difference in 2015, but it may help reduce the time at the bottom/score blow outs in 2016 matches.

 

[Windhover]

The draft is ineffective for equalization for the same reasons as the salary cap. The issues are structural and no amount of picks will fix what's wrong with carlton and various cellar dwellers before us.

Absolutely spot on comment. The idea that draft pick X or draft pick Y or free agency player Z or trade A for B, or all we need is coach M will of itself develop a successful footy team is nonsense. We and Melbourne are living proof.

Before any of that the Club needs a structure and a process. The structure consists of having a CEO who can run the business side of the Club competitively, bringing in the sponsors, engaging with members, ensuring facilities are first class etc. It consists of a General Manager who is capable of ensuring decisions made by coaches, assistant coaches, recruiters, list managers, fitness staff, boot studders etc are properly evaluated. This requires KPIs for each decision when it is made so that 1, 2, 3 years down the track the decision can be assessed objectively against those KPIs.

The process requires a list manager with strategic insights into the coach's game plan, the age profile of the list, the player quality in the various parts of the coach's game plan, etc. The process requires the recruiters to advise the list manager of those players who are available through the draft/trade/free agency who meet the needs of the coach's game plan within the appropriate time-frame for its implementation. Of course the process is not entirely mechanical. A recruiter must also advise the list manager that, notwithstanding the needs of the list as seen by the list manager for the development of the coach's game plan, player C is just too good to let pass for whatever reasons.

In Carlton's past we have concentrated far too much on Messiah solutions. When we were penalised draft picks, instead of looking to rebuild a team slowly that desperately needed a rebuild if it wanted to win a Flag, we looked to short term fixes to make us vaguely competitive. So we brought in a whole bunch of players who undoubtedly added to the team for the given year but simply wasted time in building a competitive list. Essendon I am pleased to say are showing all the signs of following in our footsteps.

Then, when trying to keep a lousy list vaguely competitive flopped, we became distracted by the allure of No.1 draft picks, collecting 3 in 3 years and picking up Juddy in the same period. Some strategic effort was made to mould the list into something of a Premiership threat but our ability to recruit KPFs and KPDs let us down dreadfully. We did have some luck with players in other positions but with Grigg, Jacobs and Hampson conspicuously failed to capitalise on our apparent abundance in those positions.

Without wishing to revisit the Ratten departure and MM period it is now clear to all that even had MM still been a quality coach, the idea that bringing in a 3 time premiership coach and leaving it up to him to develop a team that would win a flag was a complete nonsense. It led to the disastrous selection of Daisy (how the selection of an outside mid with injury concerns on a 4 year contract with the option of a further year could be justified in terms of strategic planning towards the build to a Premiership is a mystery). And it led to last year's disastrous recruiting where MM wanted to demonstrate improvement in 2015 (by bringing in what should have been ready-to-go players out of Jones, Tutt, BB, Whiley, Dick and Jaksch) to buy him a new contract. The idea that Jones, for example, given a 3 year contract would be a long term replacement for Waite upon which to build a Premiership was just pie in the sky hopefulness. Shortermism gone mad. How much better would we have been to have kept pick 7 and taken Wright? Maybe Wright won't ever make it but at least he has the prospects of the untried to become an AA KPF or a handy back-up ruckman.

Conclusion
We don't need priority picks. We should strive to win every game. Whatever draft picks we get we have. We should have a plan to win a Premiership in X years. If it is in 5 years then clearly Jamison, Murphy, Rowe, Armfield and Thomas will not be expected to be part of it and will need replacement. In that event it costs us nothing to move them on by trading early either for draft picks we think we can use or for players we will need in 5 years. That is the sort of strategic thinking St Kilda have been brave enough to venture on.

At this stage, post MM, every sign is that the Club is engaging in just this sort of thinking. I look forward to the new coach and are list management decisions at the end of this season with much interest as to their strategic thinking. And, like St Kilda, the Club should be transparent about their plans. Tell us to wait 6 years if that is what they are working towards. Explain the decision to trade the equivalent of McEvoy or Dal Santo or Goddard. Sure, telegraphing our plans sets us up for being exploited by other Clubs. But it also enables deals to be done because another Club sees a chance at getting a wanted player that they wouldn't otherwise think was possible.

 

[true blue19]

There should be more help for lower clubs, teams like the Hawks, swans, dockers and cats have been up for too long. I don't like the end of the first round pick because it's just an average pick in the 20s. Also the pick at the start of the draft is too big a carrot to tank. What I think would work is if all teams not in the finals get picks 1-10 (eg 18th pick1, 17th pick 2, ect..) that the bottom 4 teams get the next 4 picks (18th pick 11, 17th pick 12 ect) than the team that finishes 8th gets the next pick (pick 15). So on the current ladder the first round would look like this.

Pick 1- Brisbane
Pick 2- Gold Coast
Pick 3- Carlton
Pick 4- Melbourne
Pick 5- Essendon
Pick 6- st Kilda
Pick 7- port
Pick 8- Collingwood
Pick 9- Geelong
Pick 10- GWS
Pick 11- Brisbane
Pick 12- Gold Coast
Pick 13- Carlton
Pick 14- Melbourne
Pick 15- North
Pick 16- Adelaide
Pick 17- WBD
Pick 18- Richmond
Pick 19- Sydney
Pick 20- hawthorn
Pick 21- WCE
Pick 22- Fremantle

 

[4thchicken]

Works right up until Hawthorn win a flag and then get Pick 1...

Imagine the outcry!

I don't mind the Priority Pick system you've proposed though. Although would you still support Pick 1 being given to a team that wins 2, 2, 3, and 9 games over 4 years? Does the massive improvement in the fourth year get factored in?

hawks couldn't get pick 1 - the lottery only applies to the bottom 8 teams and after that it would revert back to draft order. The top ranked team would still get pick 18

I think you would have to have a caveat in there for PP. Otherwise a team might just go 0, 0, 0, 16 and still get PP!

 

[4thchicken]

Under the original rules I think you got a pick after the first round (19+) if you did not win 4 games. I think both Brisbane and Carlton could really use that. Not sure why Gold Coast have been so bad in 2015 but it clearly shows they lack depth, so it would help the Suns also.

Thin draft may make these picks low value in 2015.

Major benefit may be getting academy and Father/sons under the new points system. But if nobody else bids on them, it will not be needed.

It could also be used for Carlisle, Dixon, Aish and other likely trades. (Amazing how many trades relate to bottom 3 clubs!) But without it these trades will likely still happen if the player is keen to move.

Hence not sure a Priority pick will make a significant difference in 2015, but it may help reduce the time at the bottom/score blow outs in 2016 matches.

The end of first round PP for < 4 wins was a rule change in in the middle of the 2006 season - were it not for that rule change, the blues and bombers would have gotten a first round PP for that year.

The issue with the current PP system is the complete lack of transparency in terms of what qualifies a team for a PP.

 

[BluesRule]

There should be more help for lower clubs, teams like the Hawks, swans, dockers and cats have been up for too long. I don't like the end of the first round pick because it's just an average pick in the 20s. Also the pick at the start of the draft is too big a carrot to tank. What I think would work is if all teams not in the finals get picks 1-10 (eg 18th pick1, 17th pick 2, ect..) that the bottom 4 teams get the next 4 picks (18th pick 11, 17th pick 12 ect) than the team that finishes 8th gets the next pick (pick 15). So on the current ladder the first round would look like this.

Pick 1- Brisbane
Pick 2- Gold Coast
Pick 3- Carlton
Pick 4- Melbourne
Pick 5- Essendon
Pick 6- st Kilda
Pick 7- port
Pick 8- Collingwood
Pick 9- Geelong
Pick 10- GWS
Pick 11- Brisbane
Pick 12- Gold Coast
Pick 13- Carlton
Pick 14- Melbourne
Pick 15- North
Pick 16- Adelaide
Pick 17- WBD
Pick 18- Richmond
Pick 19- Sydney
Pick 20- hawthorn
Pick 21- WCE
Pick 22- Fremantle

Interesting approach, but why only bottom 4 getting an extra pick. Maybe it should be every team that misses the 8 gets a first round pick (1-10), then every team gets a pick as per normal. That would give all the teams not in the finals something to add hope for the next season.

 

[ShanDog]

Interesting approach, but why only bottom 4 getting an extra pick. Maybe it should be every team that misses the 8 gets a first round pick (1-10), then every team gets a pick as per normal. That would give all the teams not in the finals something to add hope for the next season.

Might be a bit too much. Perhaps the teams to miss finals get an extra 'round' of picks after the first round?

Picks 1-18 as per final ladder position
Picks 19-28 as per final ladder position (up to 9th spot only)
Pick 29 onwards back to normal

It's effectively just excluding the top 8 from the second round of the draft, but might be a 'softer' way of evening the comp rather than a more impactful extra first rounder.

 

[Cipher]

Inb4 stock standard Carlton supporter reference of using Betts compo pick on Thomas.

You got in at the same time.

 

[gbatman]

I think there's merit for it, it's become really hard to go from a bottom side to a top. Perhaps the priority pick could be pick 10 instead of say for example pick one and two. Everyone is so overly concerned about tanking but really, who cares if a team who hasn't been winning all year and is destined for the bottom loses one or two games towards the end of the year that they probably could have won.

Equalisation is a big thing. I think sides which have finished top 4 in two consecutive years or perhaps have played in the grand final should be exempt from taking a free agent.

The bottom sides aren't as weak as they have been this season which is a tick. Hawthorn's strength is a bit of a problem, I feel opposition supporters at this stage of the season may be becoming a little uninterested in this season as they seem such a sure thing. Hawthorn wont be really strong for too many more seasons, they have used the system in place to the utmost degree and credit to them for it.

I don't see any harm in giving really poor sides a little extra opportunity to really kick start their rebuild. You can't help it if they bungle their picks. Generally sides who are at the bottom are there because of bad recruiting so it's no surprise why so many early picks are bungled. Some clubs are also just unlucky and happen to rebuild and have early picks in weak drafts where as others who get early picks in strong drafts.

 

[ferrisb]

Absolutely spot on comment. The idea that draft pick X or draft pick Y or free agency player Z or trade A for B, or all we need is coach M will of itself develop a successful footy team is nonsense. We and Melbourne are living proof.

Before any of that the Club needs a structure and a process. The structure consists of having a CEO who can run the business side of the Club competitively, bringing in the sponsors, engaging with members, ensuring facilities are first class etc. It consists of a General Manager who is capable of ensuring decisions made by coaches, assistant coaches, recruiters, list managers, fitness staff, boot studders etc are properly evaluated. This requires KPIs for each decision when it is made so that 1, 2, 3 years down the track the decision can be assessed objectively against those KPIs.

The process requires a list manager with strategic insights into the coach's game plan, the age profile of the list, the player quality in the various parts of the coach's game plan, etc. The process requires the recruiters to advise the list manager of those players who are available through the draft/trade/free agency who meet the needs of the coach's game plan within the appropriate time-frame for its implementation. Of course the process is not entirely mechanical. A recruiter must also advise the list manager that, notwithstanding the needs of the list as seen by the list manager for the development of the coach's game plan, player C is just too good to let pass for whatever reasons.

In Carlton's past we have concentrated far too much on Messiah solutions. When we were penalised draft picks, instead of looking to rebuild a team slowly that desperately needed a rebuild if it wanted to win a Flag, we looked to short term fixes to make us vaguely competitive. So we brought in a whole bunch of players who undoubtedly added to the team for the given year but simply wasted time in building a competitive list. Essendon I am pleased to say are showing all the signs of following in our footsteps.

Then, when trying to keep a lousy list vaguely competitive flopped, we became distracted by the allure of No.1 draft picks, collecting 3 in 3 years and picking up Juddy in the same period. Some strategic effort was made to mould the list into something of a Premiership threat but our ability to recruit KPFs and KPDs let us down dreadfully. We did have some luck with players in other positions but with Grigg, Jacobs and Hampson conspicuously failed to capitalise on our apparent abundance in those positions.

Without wishing to revisit the Ratten departure and MM period it is now clear to all that even had MM still been a quality coach, the idea that bringing in a 3 time premiership coach and leaving it up to him to develop a team that would win a flag was a complete nonsense. It led to the disastrous selection of Daisy (how the selection of an outside mid with injury concerns on a 4 year contract with the option of a further year could be justified in terms of strategic planning towards the build to a Premiership is a mystery). And it led to last year's disastrous recruiting where MM wanted to demonstrate improvement in 2015 (by bringing in what should have been ready-to-go players out of Jones, Tutt, BB, Whiley, Dick and Jaksch) to buy him a new contract. The idea that Jones, for example, given a 3 year contract would be a long term replacement for Waite upon which to build a Premiership was just pie in the sky hopefulness. Shortermism gone mad. How much better would we have been to have kept pick 7 and taken Wright? Maybe Wright won't ever make it but at least he has the prospects of the untried to become an AA KPF or a handy back-up ruckman.

Conclusion
We don't need priority picks. We should strive to win every game. Whatever draft picks we get we have. We should have a plan to win a Premiership in X years. If it is in 5 years then clearly Jamison, Murphy, Rowe, Armfield and Thomas will not be expected to be part of it and will need replacement. In that event it costs us nothing to move them on by trading early either for draft picks we think we can use or for players we will need in 5 years. That is the sort of strategic thinking St Kilda have been brave enough to venture on.

At this stage, post MM, every sign is that the Club is engaging in just this sort of thinking. I look forward to the new coach and are list management decisions at the end of this season with much interest as to their strategic thinking. And, like St Kilda, the Club should be transparent about their plans. Tell us to wait 6 years if that is what they are working towards. Explain the decision to trade the equivalent of McEvoy or Dal Santo or Goddard. Sure, telegraphing our plans sets us up for being exploited by other Clubs. But it also enables deals to be done because another Club sees a chance at getting a wanted player that they wouldn't otherwise think was possible.

Love the post, windy. But also wanted to point out your conclusion is longer than most people's posts...

 

[BluesRule]

Love the post, windy. But also wanted to point out your conclusion is longer than most people's posts...

Does that explain the moniker "Windy"?

 

[thylacine60]

Windy is just a foil to my inept brevity.

 

[Windhover]

Windy is just a fail to my apt brevity.

EFA.

 

[thylacine60]

clique

 

[BluesRule]

Brisbane pushing for a pick now. They have had one bad season, but are clearly affected from losing players over the years. I would probably be OK with them getting a PP in the second round (4 wins in a season, for one year), but it sounds like they are going to get a first rounder.

Looks like we are getting Francis not Weitering.

 

[BluesRule]

Interesting article..

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/afl...rity-pick-is-it-worth-it-20150730-ginptn.html

Sounds like Brisbane looking for end of first round pick. However they have won the most premierships since 1997 (3) and been one of the most successful clubs.

If they get one and we are also crap we have to ask for one. If they don't and we don't then all is good.

 

[Keyza]

The issue here is if Brisbane do get a PP and an early one it impacts us. We have been crap for longer than they have, we have lost good players too. Why should we be disadvantaged by it when we probably deserve a PP too.

 

[theteamtobeat]

The issue here is if Brisbane do get a PP and an early one it impacts us. We have been crap for longer than they have, we have lost good players too. Why should we be disadvantaged by it when we probably deserve a PP too.

You guys have been crap for longer because you guys were tanking. lol.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You guys have been crap for longer because you guys were tanking. lol.

Are you lost?

 

[BluStreak]

Are you lost?

Clearly another 'lost' Sheep bleeting the same old BS.
Tanking is the one thing our club has been proven to have not done.
However there will be those 'giants' of intellect who will roll out that trash because they have no ideas of their own.