Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

[Blackas87]

But that tilts the scales in favour of powerful, successful clubs.

How has North Melbourne fared trying to recruit free agents recently?

Isn't that what every club does after every draft?

Clubs are already free to offer any draftee an early contract extension on more money. You don't need to change any rules to allow that.

Have there been a lot of free agents leaving clubs for North Melbourne to recruit? Only 3 free agents that weren't delisted moved clubs last year. Western Bulldogs (small club) and Port (also reasonably small) were the only clubs to recruit free agents. They sold their vision to these players. Probably because they believe they are chance at flag. North could of used their money on recruiting top rated 18 year olds to build a future, currently they can only recruit 1 18 year old before the premier.

After the draft? What try and sell the vision of the club? And if they don't buy they walk out like what we've seen at Brisbane. Maybe if Brisbane recruited players that bought the vision before they were at the club and agreed to join, they might stick around.

An early contract extension to the one player you selected before the premier that didn't want to your club in the first place, and that player can leave anyway with a good deal like Boyd, or go home like McCarthy or Schache.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Have there been a lot of free agents leaving clubs for North Melbourne to recruit? Only 3 free agents that weren't delisted moved clubs last year. Western Bulldogs (small club) and Port (also reasonably small) were the only clubs to recruit free agents. They sold their vision to these players. Probably because they believe they are chance at flag. North could of used their money on recruiting top rated 18 year olds to build a future, currently they can only recruit 1 18 year old before the premier.

North have chased plenty of players - offering big money to Kelly and Martin, in particular. Whether these players have gone elsewhere or stayed put, we can already see that simply opening up player movement doesn't necessarily benefit all clubs equally.

You're saying they should spend that money on an 18-year-old instead? How is that better?

Different clubs are more attractive than others for various reasons. By further opening up player movement, you'd simply reinforce that.

After the draft? What try and sell the vision of the club? And if they don't buy they walk out like what we've seen at Brisbane. Maybe if Brisbane recruited players that bought the vision before they were at the club and agreed to join, they might stick around.

Every club is going to have to do that to retain players. There is no system whereby clubs won't have to continually sell the club to its players to retain them. If Brisbane or any other club can't do that, there is no magic system or mechanism that will help them overcome that.

An early contract extension to the one player you selected before the premier that didn't want to your club in the first place, and that player can leave anyway with a good deal like Boyd, or go home like McCarthy or Schache.

Sorry what? I don't understand this.

Like I said, every club is going to have to continually sell the club to its players it they want to retain them.

Abolishing the draft or whatever other measures you're suggesting won't change that. And if all players are immediately free agents, you'll simply have more players wanting to go to certain clubs than others, tilting the scales in favour of the clubs that are more powerful and more successful. It certainly won't help a side like Brisbane, where they already have a challenge with player retention. You are positing a "solution" that would actually make the problems worse.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

They should be looking to add mature age players along with their talented kids. The best at staying up in Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn have also been the best at recruiting mature talent to supplement their youth. Puts less pressure on recruiters to find elite kids later in the drafts.

 

[PP34]

Agreed. It is very rewarding seeing Mitchell and Murray playing really well for other clubs because we couldn't afford to keep them.

Yeah, it’s not like Mitchell was constantly being screwed around by Longmire.....

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

This will open Pandora's box here, but what the hell.....

This is the situation we were in before recruiting Boyd. We had just finished 14th, about 3 to 4 years into our rebuild, lost Griffey (our captain and best player), then Higgins, Cooney, Jones, Tutt. Then we sacked the coach and I think the CEO might have gone too.

We had to do something. Did we overpay on output - bar a couple of noticeable exceptions - yes. But did we have a lot of other options ? Not really.... Could we have done the deal for less, possibly, but I wasn't there to answer conclusively....

But what you described is precisely where we were back then.

https://goo.gl/images/AV5k3E

 

[RUNVS]

Yeah, it’s not like Mitchell was constantly being screwed around by Longmire.....

He did want to stay though, and even admitted he would have taken unders to stay, but the Swans were only able to offer him a contract that was WAY under what he was worth.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

if you keep going to the draft year after year then your rebuild starts again every year. You want to get there quicker then trade for ready made footballers instead of lottery picks.
Hawthorn are the masters of this yet every club thinks they know better. Hawthorn couldn't care less about the draft, they had one poor transition season and what a surprise here they are again up and about. Full respect to how Hawthorn go about their business.

 

[Blackas87]

North have chased plenty of players - offering big money to Kelly and Martin, in particular. Whether these players have gone elsewhere or stayed put, we can already see that simply opening up player movement doesn't necessarily benefit all clubs equally.

You're saying they should spend that money on an 18-year-old instead? How is that better?

Different clubs are more attractive than others for various reasons. By further opening up player movement, you'd simply reinforce that.

Every club is going to have to do that to retain players. There is no system whereby clubs won't have to continually sell the club to its players to retain them. If Brisbane or any other club can't do that, there is no magic system or mechanism that will help them overcome that.

Sorry what? I don't understand this.

Like I said, every club is going to have to continually sell the club to its players it they want to retain them.

Abolishing the draft or whatever other measures you're suggesting won't change that. And if all players are immediately free agents, you'll simply have more players wanting to go to certain clubs than others, tilting the scales in favour of the clubs that are more powerful and more successful. It certainly won't help a side like Brisbane, where they already have a challenge with player retention. You are positing a "solution" that would actually make the problems worse.

Martin and Kelly never left and most likely never wanted to leave as their clubs are going through windows of winning premierships. No one on big footy rates North, mentioned earlier in this thread people in the media are saying North won't play finals for 10 years. Why would Kelly and Martin want to go there?

But with the money that they had lined up for those players they spread across recruiting 5 of the top 15 talented 18 year olds to build around, they suddenly become young and exciting in one off season and don't look like they are missing finals for the next 10 years.

Richmond and GWS rightly spent money retaining their star players and those players rightly stayed as they are wanting premierships now, I'm saying let the lower clubs spend money on building a list for the future.

North drafted Luke Davies-Uniacke in the 1st rnd

GWS drafted Aiden Boner in the 1st rnd

Richmond drafted Jack Higgins in the 1st round

How is this system allowing North to close the gap on GWS and Richmond and become attractive on field.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Well run and successful clubs can rebuild quite quickly, as they make the right choices around kids and mature talent and are a destination club for trades/FA.

Poorly run clubs are at the other end of the scale.

 

[RUNVS]

I am still forever thankful for the 2009 trade and draft year as the Swans got in one go

Mumford
Kennedy
McGlynn
Rohan
Jetta

and that 2 month period changed the Swans entirely, turning us from a side that was slowly going down the ladder to one that would be winning a premiership in 3 years time.

 

[Chism]

I am still forever thankful for the 2009 trade and draft year as the Swans got in one go

Mumford
Kennedy
McGlynn
Rohan
Jetta

and that 2 month period changed the Swans entirely, turning us from a side that was slowly going down the ladder to one that would be winning a premiership in 3 years time.

Heeney was also a gift from the AFL and was most likely a clear Top 2 draft selection you got for SFA when already a Top 4 team.

Vic clubs get no such luxury and these little things forever keep the struggling clubs down the ladder.

 

[Joao]

The draft restricts rebuilding, you only get one pick before the premiers do. If you want another pick you need to trade away a best 22 player, therefore worsening your team in the short run and making your club unattractive for free agents.

I reckon scrap the draft all together and have unrestricted free agency to all out of contract players including 18 year olds entering the league for the first time.

While teams at the top of the ladder will be focused on having mature established players for a premiership tilt, teams down the bottom can offer better contracts to 18 year olds and better opportunity to play in the senior team. Lower clubs can offer contracts to multiple top talented players and essentially what takes 3-4 years of rebuilding a list can happen in one off-season with out trading away best 22 players.

Players also get a choice of where they go, instead of been randomly selected by a club with poor development that'll ruin your career. So it's up to clubs to make your club attractive to these players.

If a bottom club offered you $200000 per year over 3 years with good opportunity to play, and a top club $80000 per year for 2 years but likely playing in the state leagues for a while, where do you go? If the bottom club misses out, move on to the next player.

The salary cap and list sizes restrict clubs from stockpiling all the talent.

Problem with this I suspect is that most 18yo kids will prefer to stay home. This could severely unbalance the WA (in particular) and SA teams. At least with the Vic teams the load is spread.

Otherwise I like the idea.

 

[RUNVS]

Heeney was also a gift from the AFL and was most likely a clear Top 2 draft selection you got for SFA when already a Top 4 team.

Vic clubs get no such luxury and these little things forever keep the struggling clubs down the ladder.

I am just saying though that the 2009 trade and draft period helped setup the Swans for the next 5 years, possibly even more. It is possible, if done really well, that a team can fix most of their issues in one or two draft/trade periods, if they are smart about it and also have some luck.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Martin and Kelly never left and most likely never wanted to leave as their clubs are going through windows of winning premierships. No one on big footy rates North, mentioned earlier in this thread people in the media are saying North won't play finals for 10 years. Why would Kelly and Martin want to go there?

But with the money that they had lined up for those players they spread across recruiting 5 of the top 15 talented 18 year olds to build around, they suddenly become young and exciting in one off season and don't look like they are missing finals for the next 10 years.

Richmond and GWS rightly spent money retaining their star players and those players rightly stayed as they are wanting premierships now, I'm saying let the lower clubs spend money on building a list for the future.

North drafted Luke Davies-Uniacke in the 1st rnd

GWS drafted Aiden Boner in the 1st rnd

Richmond drafted Jack Higgins in the 1st round

How is this system allowing North to close the gap on GWS and Richmond and become attractive on field.

Higgins was rated much higher than 17. Is it our fault other teams picked less rated players before him? We also traded out Deledio (arguably our best player) for draft picks. We also gave up pick 6 for Prestia. How about Carlton and North giving up a high draft pick for an established player? Sure it's great to get a highly rated youngster, but if your whole team is already full of highly rated youngsters, does adding one more help rebuild the club faster?

Clubs will struggle to get free agents (25 years of age plus) if they are near the bottom. They are better off targeting good players out of contract and giving up the odd first rounder for them. That would speed things up considerably.

Bottom line is you have to be brave when trading and drafting. You're not going to get something good without giving up something good. A mixture of good mature bodies and good kids is the secret. Taking only kids or only mature bodies will both fail. It is about getting the balance right.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Martin and Kelly never left and most likely never wanted to leave as their clubs are going through windows of winning premierships.

And this is my point. Even in an atmosphere of more fluid player movement, it's not that easy for a club in North Melbourne's position to attract proven talent.

You are arguing that making player movement even more fluid - by abolishing the draft and making everyone a free agent - this will somehow help less powerful, less successful clubs.

But it won't. Rather, it will simply reinforce the advantages already enjoyed by more powerful, more successful clubs.

No one on big footy rates North, mentioned earlier in this thread people in the media are saying North won't play finals for 10 years. Why would Kelly and Martin want to go there?

But with the money that they had lined up for those players they spread across recruiting 5 of the top 15 talented 18 year olds to build around, they suddenly become young and exciting in one off season and don't look like they are missing finals for the next 10 years.

Firstly, spending big money on draftees is fraught with obvious risk.

Secondly, if you abolish the draft and kids can go anywhere, how do you think that is going to benefit the likes of Brisbane or GC?

You'll have a situation where all the best kids can simply pick their club of choice. How many of them will choose to go to a non-AFL state or to a struggling club?

You are positing this as a "solution" but it would make life even harder for teams that are struggling or rely on draftees moving interstate.

Richmond and GWS rightly spent money retaining their star players and those players rightly stayed as they are wanting premierships now, I'm saying let the lower clubs spend money on building a list for the future.

They are already free to do that.

North drafted Luke Davies-Uniacke in the 1st rnd

GWS drafted Aiden Boner in the 1st rnd

Richmond drafted Jack Higgins in the 1st round

How is this system allowing North to close the gap on GWS and Richmond and become attractive on field.

Well, at least North were guaranteed getting LDU. If you have no draft and kids can go where they choose, North probably wouldn't have got him. Another more powerful, more successful club could have swept in and persuaded him to join them instead of North.

Your logic is that by stripping back equalisation measures, you achieve greater equalisation. It's arse-backwards. By stripping back equalisation measures, the advantages enjoyed by more powerful, more successful clubs will simply become entrenched. This is why we brought in equalisation measures like the draft in the first place, rather than simply allowing Carlton to go across to SA and buy the best players like Kernahan and Bradley. How would a return to that situation help the less powerful, less successful clubs when it did the opposite in the past?

 

[Power Raid]

But if you're down the bottom, is throwing big money at a 26-year-old or 27-year-old free agent really the right move?

Surely the smarter long-term move is loading up on draft picks and hopefully getting them right, so you have a core of players who come through together.

If clubs get that wrong, they almost panic and start sniffing around for a quick fix via free agency. But if you don't have that core in place, that quick fix likely won't work.

Free agency should be available after 12 months

 

[demondavey]

Firstly, the term rebuild is a cop out. It is simply a buzzword to buy club administrators and coaching staff time before a list gets so bad they get sacked. Hawthorn and Geelong dipped into the national draft in full force probably about once or twice. Hawthorn in 01 and 04, Geelong in 99 and 01 (Selwood pick 7 in 06).

You can’t just keep ‘bottoming out’ (another bullshit buzzword) and accumulating draft picks. By now every BF poster should know draft numbers are a bonus, once they get to AFL level they’re just a bunch of kids vying for a spot with everyone else. Has Swallow, Boyd, McCartin, Weitering or Rayner solved all the problems of their respective clubs?

Hawthorn built a triple premiership team around rookies, late picks, and trades. I don’t think Richmond had a team brimming with top picks either. You can’t just keep pouring nice clean water down rusty pipes, it’ll go in clean but come out looking like shit.

The club has to foster an environment where success is at the forefront of the club ethos. Again, Hawthorn & Geelong stand out to me. The reason a ‘rebuild’ is preferred is because its easy. My club took the easy route from 07 to 13 before Paul Roos came in and actually started shifting our culture (hasn’t been great thus far in 2018 but definitely better than under Bailey and Neeld).

The hard part is building a culture where you can get the best out of players you need irrespective of draft order. If you need any more proof it’s a load of shit then look at Carlton & Melbourne. Two perennial basket case clubs were mediocrity has become the norm.

 

[HeHateMe]

Wow so much optimism for the hawks its only rd 4 we havent turned it around yet. With a growing injury list again we could have a lean period again like last year.

I know us hawks supports trust clarko but it isnt a foregone conclusion we are back in the picture just yet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Chism]

I am just saying though that the 2009 trade and draft period helped setup the Swans for the next 5 years, possibly even more. It is possible, if done really well, that a team can fix most of their issues in one or two draft/trade periods, if they are smart about it and also have some luck.

Luck is the main factor.

McCartin / Weitering / Schache and many others were CLEAR top picks in their class and every team was taking them if they had the chance but some just do not come on at AFL level regardless of the raps and heaps of luck is needed regarding the draft and having multiple picks in the right year.

History is littered with Top 10 draft picks that go nowhere and no team is immune from selecting them hence the luck factor that comes back to the question is just 1 1st Rd draft selection enough for teams that go years on end in the bottom 4 rebuilding when the reigning premiers are not that far behind them waiting to also select??

The drafts are just to even these days regarding the Top 20 kids in the country available to draft and the Suns and GWS needed half of the whole 1st round themselves and are still yet to even make a GF let alone win one after most are approaching the 50-70+ game range and in their prime.

1 draft selection no matter how high it is just does not automatically turn a team around from bottom 4 to finals and like the OP suggested it is not enough to remain competitive against the better teams that also are attractive to UFA's.

Once FA came in it was the death of the lower teams unless the heavens opened and you hit the lottery with lower picks as just the 1 first Rd selection and little to no interest from big name FA's spells disaster and years at the bottom of the ladder as the top clubs stay entrenched in the finals window.

 

[demondavey]

Luck is the main factor.

McCartin / Weitering / Schache and many others were CLEAR top picks in their class and every team was taking them if they had the chance but some just do not come on at AFL level regardless of the raps and heaps of luck is needed regarding the draft and having multiple picks in the right year.

History is littered with Top 10 draft picks that go nowhere and no team is immune from selecting them hence the luck factor that comes back to the question is just 1 1st Rd draft selection enough for teams that go years on end in the bottom 4 rebuilding when the reigning premiers are not that far behind them waiting to also select??

The drafts are just to even these days regarding the Top 20 kids in the country available to draft and the Suns and GWS needed half of the whole 1st round themselves and are still yet to even make a GF let alone win one after most are approaching the 50-70+ game range and in their prime.

1 draft selection no matter how high it is just does not automatically turn a team around from bottom 4 to finals and like the OP suggested it is not enough to remain competitive against the better teams that also are attractive to UFA's.

Once FA came in it was the death of the lower teams unless the heavens opened and you hit the lottery with lower picks as just the 1 first Rd selection and little to no interest from big name FA's spells disaster and years at the bottom of the ladder as the top clubs stay entrenched in the finals window.

Luck is not a factor at all.

 

[Chism]

Firstly, the term rebuild is a cop out. It is simply a buzzword to buy club administrators and coaching staff time before a list gets so bad they get sacked. Hawthorn and Geelong dipped into the national draft in full force probably about once or twice. Hawthorn in 01 and 04, Geelong in 99 and 01 (Selwood pick 7 in 06).

You can’t just keep ‘bottoming out’ (another bullshit buzzword) and accumulating draft picks. By now every BF poster should know draft numbers are a bonus, once they get to AFL level they’re just a bunch of kids vying for a spot with everyone else. Has Swallow, Boyd, McCartin, Weitering or Rayner solved all the problems of their respective clubs?

Hawthorn built a triple premiership team around rookies, late picks, and trades. I don’t think Richmond had a team brimming with top picks either. You can’t just keep pouring nice clean water down rusty pipes, it’ll go in clean but come out looking like shit.

The club has to foster an environment where success is at the forefront of the club ethos. Again, Hawthorn & Geelong stand out to me. The reason a ‘rebuild’ is preferred is because its easy. My club took the easy route from 07 to 13 before Paul Roos came in and actually started shifting our culture (hasn’t been great thus far in 2018 but definitely better than under Bailey and Neeld).

The hard part is building a culture where you can get the best out of players you need irrespective of draft order. If you need any more proof it’s a load of shit then look at Carlton & Melbourne. Two perennial basket case clubs were mediocrity has become the norm.

Agree and it is much easier to look good being drafted to a team that has all the talent surrounding them.

Get drafted to a bottom 4 team and then lets talk, cause that 18yo kid has all and sundry just waiting to heap shit on them for being selected so high and online media outlets/ fan forums are not happy unless they can shit can others from their ivory towers.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Firstly, the term rebuild is a cop out. It is simply a buzzword to buy club administrators and coaching staff time before a list gets so bad they get sacked. Hawthorn and Geelong dipped into the national draft in full force probably about once or twice. Hawthorn in 01 and 04, Geelong in 99 and 01 (Selwood pick 7 in 06).

You can’t just keep ‘bottoming out’ (another bullshit buzzword) and accumulating draft picks. By now every BF poster should know draft numbers are a bonus, once they get to AFL level they’re just a bunch of kids vying for a spot with everyone else. Has Swallow, Boyd, McCartin, Weitering or Rayner solved all the problems of their respective clubs?

No one is saying the #1 pick is a silver bullet. But making the most of a cluster of earlyish picks in consecutive drafts is a pretty solid predictor of success.

Hawthorn built a triple premiership team around rookies, late picks, and trades.

They got Roughead, Franklin and Lewis with top 10 picks in the same year, three years after taking Hodge at #1 and Mitchell at #36 in the same draft. They added Rioli with #12 a few years later.

I don’t think Richmond had a team brimming with top picks either.

Look how they acquired their best players:

Jack Riewoldt #13, 2006
Trent Cotchin #2, 2007 draft
Alex Rance #18, 2007 draft
Dustin Martin #3, 2009 draft

The club has to foster an environment where success is at the forefront of the club ethos. Again, Hawthorn & Geelong stand out to me. The reason a ‘rebuild’ is preferred is because its easy. My club took the easy route from 07 to 13 before Paul Roos came in and actually started shifting our culture (hasn’t been great thus far in 2018 but definitely better than under Bailey and Neeld).

The hard part is building a culture where you can get the best out of players you need irrespective of draft order. If you need any more proof it’s a load of shit then look at Carlton & Melbourne. Two perennial basket case clubs were mediocrity has become the norm.

Of course you still need to develop players and build an atmospheres where the good players stick around. But loading up on earlyish picks and making them count over a period of 3-4 years seems to be one of the non-negotiables.

If you draft badly, focusing on "culture" isn't going to cut it.

 

[GreyCrow]

I'm slightly confused. If you give the current bottom clubs assistance then other clubs finish bottom for a period of time until they are given assistance and another set of clubs sit on the bottom for a while.

Isnt this what we are seeing anyway?

Suck it up and get better managers.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Firstly, the term rebuild is a cop out. It is simply a buzzword to buy club administrators and coaching staff time before a list gets so bad they get sacked. Hawthorn and Geelong dipped into the national draft in full force probably about once or twice. Hawthorn in 01 and 04, Geelong in 99 and 01 (Selwood pick 7 in 06).

You can’t just keep ‘bottoming out’ (another bullshit buzzword) and accumulating draft picks. By now every BF poster should know draft numbers are a bonus, once they get to AFL level they’re just a bunch of kids vying for a spot with everyone else. Has Swallow, Boyd, McCartin, Weitering or Rayner solved all the problems of their respective clubs?

Hawthorn built a triple premiership team around rookies, late picks, and trades. I don’t think Richmond had a team brimming with top picks either. You can’t just keep pouring nice clean water down rusty pipes, it’ll go in clean but come out looking like shit.

The club has to foster an environment where success is at the forefront of the club ethos. Again, Hawthorn & Geelong stand out to me. The reason a ‘rebuild’ is preferred is because its easy. My club took the easy route from 07 to 13 before Paul Roos came in and actually started shifting our culture (hasn’t been great thus far in 2018 but definitely better than under Bailey and Neeld).

The hard part is building a culture where you can get the best out of players you need irrespective of draft order. If you need any more proof it’s a load of shit then look at Carlton & Melbourne. Two perennial basket case clubs were mediocrity has become the norm.

Hawthorn had picks 1,2,3,5,6,6,7
Geelong nailed two drafts

 

[Chism]

Luck is not a factor at all.

So if you guys have the chance to draft the best widely acclaimed kid in the country at No.1 and do so like every other team would of done but he busts is that not just pure bad luck or being unlucky in that draft season is a blight on your recruiters etc when EVERY other team in the comp was taking the same player that year with he No.1 selection.

The AFL draft is never a certainty regardless of their junior level form and raps on them.