17 yo mini draft a joke

[WALL-e]

AFL stuffed up when they didn't put age restrictions on the stolen players and pick & age restrictions on this draft.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Yeh thats the article everyones got this idea from. The thing is that is just a summary of GWS's concessions and whoever wrote it has left out the phrase "or draft picks"

There is no mention anywhere of the intention being to make them more competitive in the 1st few seasons. There's no quotes anywhere from AD or AA about that being the intention.

It all comes from a 5 line summary of the rules which someone got wrong and people just can't seem to get over it.

The AFL aren't that stupid if they were intending these pick to be swapped for older players they would have made that a rule.

So what is the spirit of the rule? We know what it isn't? I mean it's against the spirit of the rule for GWS to have O'Meara but it's not against the spirit of the law for them to have pick 4 and compo in his place?

Considering that mega trade was canned because of the spirit if the law I'd like to know what it is?

 

[Dr Awkward]

The expansion over the last 2 years has been very messy.

I think the worst part was GWS getting Ward, Scully, Davis, Palmer. They shouldn't have had access to these players, really rips the soul out of the your club when you lose a young star like that I think.

The mini-draft situation just wasn't well enough thought out and clearly has too many loop-holes.

 

[QuietB]

I think there are two issues;

1. GWS strategy does not involve established players - they would prefer young top picks;
2. All the other 17 clubs do not appear to have offered much up for the picks. If the Hawks want O'Meara for example he is probably worth one of their top 5 players, maybe top 3. Has any club offered that?

 

[fishardansin]

GWS obviously have come up with a plan to try and have all thier players mature/peak at about the same time.

Problem with this is they wont have a staggered approach to age spread accross thier list and all thier good players will be seeking thier big "pay days" at the same time.

I cant see how they will be able to satisfy the wage demands in 4-5 years and plenty of these kids will be ripe for the picking after GWS have done all the hard work developing them.

What goes around comes around you just wait and see.

I agree. I don't think that they should have gone this way. I personally would have tried to have a good spread of talent across the ages of 18 to 24 if I was them. Not only will it make them have salary cap issues most likely before they win a premiership it also means that their list will collapse in a heap in 10 years time.

I'm not sure if the AFL will like this strategy either. As they will be rubbish for two or three years and not garner much support. Then they'll start to dominate and attract many fickle fans. Then they'll fall in a heap and become a joke for Western Sydney.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

I wouldn't have a problem with GWS ensuring they're a basket case in their first season by loading up on draft picks, except that it completely imbalances the H&A season.

Teams that get to play GWS twice have a 4-point head start on those who don't.

 

[stewie griffen]

I wouldn't have a problem with GWS ensuring they're a basket case in their first season by loading up on draft picks, except that it completely imbalances the H&A season.

Teams that get to play GWS twice have a 4-point head start on those who don't.

unless you're Port.....

 

[Furn]

So what is the spirit of the rule? We know what it isn't? I mean it's against the spirit of the rule for GWS to have O'Meara but it's not against the spirit of the law for them to have pick 4 and compo in his place?

Considering that mega trade was canned because of the spirit if the law I'd like to know what it is?

The thinking behind the scheme is that clubs will trade experienced players, draft picks or both to the Giants, which will help with their list build

Mentions nothing about early years or big bodies. They got mini draft because GC got better zone picks.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

In retrospect, if the AFL really wanted them to trade for a few senior players (which they haven't actually said) then they should have put this trade condition on picks 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

There would be no point at all trading these picks for more picks - so it would have had the desired effect.


Still - I can't quite work out why the AFL will block a deal that gets O'Meara to GWS but won't block a deal that gets pick 4 and the Ablett concession pick?

What is the difference? Instead of one absolute jet they'll get one probable jet and another more speculative pick.