List Mgmt. Adelaide Crows 2021 List Management thread

[Mego Red]

When was the last time the number one pick was traded? It’s been more or less common knowledge that North will take Horne-Francis for months yet there’s been no reports that they’re looking to trade the pick?

I actually think that Dawson deal could get done, but it relies on a pick we’d have acquired from the North trade which I haven’t heard any reports is likely to happen.

A par season for Rankine if he plays permanent small forward would be 25-30 goals. That would make him an immensely talented no.3 pick heading into his fourth season off the back of two good seasons and one bad one. If that’s how he’s progressing what makes you think Gold Coast would give up anything less than a first rounder?

Not to mention the whole plan relies on picking up a free agent to make it work, which, you haven’t mentioned how it’s realistic.

I said it was a play station move because you’ve put together four different moves that would all need to go together in order to make them work, when realistically we’d be lucky if we could get one out of pick 1, Rankine and an unnamed free agent let alone all three.

Rankine hasnt ever had a good season. He had a handful of good games more than a year ago, and this year was mostly disasterous.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If players had to wait till they were 21 to get into the AFL system would they become as good as if they spent those formative years at an elite level football club?

If players couldn't play AFL until they were 21, many would be lost to other sports like cricket & soccer.

I think increasing the age so players have completed their schooling made sense so we don't have the Ben Hart/Dustin Fletcher situations where they are still completing their schooling as 17 year olds.

 

[latinoheat]

If Dawson does indeed choose the AFC what are our thoughts on a trade? Considering pick#4 is just outside the top tier group in the draft (according to some) I’d almost rather go pick 4 & 37 for Dawson, 12 & 31 and take 12,23 & 31 to the draft or are we better off keeping 4 and losing 23 & 37? Which will mean after 4 we aren’t picking again until the 60’s.

Keep 4, give them 23 and swap of next year second pick (ie our second for their second ). So they potentially move up the order 10 spots or so in 2022

 

[hey shorty]

Keep 4, give them 23 and swap of next year second pick (ie our second for their second ). So they potentially move up the order 10 spots or so in 2022

Wouldn't be enough.

 

[feenix67]

Well, probably the lawsuit from Jason Horne-Francis' family would be a place to start.

You're costing him 3 years of decent earnings - that could be $500k+ in total.

At 18, they've finished schooling and have the right to join the workforce. There's zero reason to make it 21.

Thats pretty silly really. An 18 year old can join the "footy workforce". Doesn't mean they have to earn big dollars. Plenty of "jobs" in the state leagues.

 

[Redline]

Wouldn't be enough.

Okay, we are giving up alot. I think second round next year could be top twenty.

A bit depends on if we think we are any chance at Lukosius next year. If so we will need picks to make that happen. If we think we are a chance I think we should be trying to get two first rounders for next year.

 

[Mego Red]

Thats pretty silly really. An 18 year old can join the "footy workforce". Doesn't mean they have to earn big dollars. Plenty of "jobs" in the state leagues.

I'm not sure retraint of trade is silly.

You're costing someone hundreds of thousands of dollars with an arbitrary line. THAT'S silly.

 

[Crow till I die]

If Dawson does indeed choose the AFC what are our thoughts on a trade? Considering pick#4 is just outside the top tier group in the draft (according to some) I’d almost rather go pick 4 & 37 for Dawson, 12 & 31 and take 12,23 & 31 to the draft or are we better off keeping 4 and losing 23 & 37? Which will mean after 4 we aren’t picking again until the 60’s.

Dont forget the kelly free agency compo pick somewhere in there

 

[Thetrader15]

Thats pretty silly really. An 18 year old can join the "footy workforce". Doesn't mean they have to earn big dollars. Plenty of "jobs" in the state leagues.

Correct, or they can get another job and learn what a privilege it is to play AFL on big bucks, not an entitlement.

Maybe it'll stop some of the behavioural issues with afl players.

 

[feenix67]

I'm not sure retraint of trade is silly.

You're costing someone hundreds of thousands of dollars with an arbitrary line. THAT'S silly.

Youve gone from silly to ridiculous now.

 

[Dudersaurus]

I'm not sure retraint of trade is silly.

You're costing someone hundreds of thousands of dollars with an arbitrary line. THAT'S silly.

People are legally allowed to work from, I think, 15 in most states. The AFL surely must still be reeling from the lawsuits when they raised the draft age previously. Tim Watson definitely would have sued.

 

[dylan123]

AFL careers don't last long enough to push the draft age back and there's not enough money in it when they are there to make up for that imo.

 

[hey shorty]

Okay, we are giving up alot. I think second round next year could be top twenty.

A bit depends on if we think we are any chance at Lukosius next year. If so we will need picks to make that happen. If we think we are a chance I think we should be trying to get two first rounders for next year.

2nd round next year should be the same as this year, possibly slightly later

 

[Vader]

The draft age has already changed multiple times - most recently in 2010, when it was pushed back by 3 months, rendering 25% of that year's draft class ineligible until the following year. There were no legal challenges, and I doubt there would be any if the rules were changed again.

However, I do see 3 main issues with raising the age limit - especially if it's a major change (e.g. 18 to 20 or 21):

• Raising the age limit from 18 to 20 would result in 2x drafts with no new eligible players for selection. The clubs would riot. It's even worse if it's raised to 21, which would result in 3 years of virtually no drafting. The 2010 draft was bad enough, with 25% of the draft class wiped out due to the age limit changing. Can you imagine how bad it would be if there was almost no new talent entering the system for 2-3 years? This is a short to medium term problem, not long-term, but is of critical importance.
• Raising the age limit would also see a large number of kids opting for other sports, instead of AFL. One of the key factors in the AFL's ability to woo young crickters & baskeball players is their ability to earn a decent wage straight out of high school. Remove this incentive, and the talent pool shrinks dramatically. It would be a great boost for Australian cricket, basketball & volleyball, but a massive kick in the guts to the AFL. This is a long-term problem, as it would be expected to be ongoing for as long as the draft age remains high.
• While the draft age in US sports is higher, the hit/miss ratio is probably not dissimilar to that in the AFL. There are still a high percentage of draftees who never make the grade. This is always going to happen, given that there are a finite number of positions available in the team, many of which are "automatic selections", with only a few vacancies opening up each year - and with team lists much larger than the number of players required for selection each week. This isn't so much a problem, as an observation that the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

Raising the age limit seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Many (not all) kids are physically ready to play at 18, and there's no pressing reason why they should not be allowed to. Doing so would create short/medium and long-term problems, with no foreseeable benefit.

 

[Scorpus]

• While the draft age in US sports is higher, the hit/miss ratio is probably not dissimilar to that in the AFL. There are still a high percentage of draftees who never make the grade. This is always going to happen, given that there are a finite number of positions available in the team, many of which are "automatic selections", with only a few vacancies opening up each year - and with team lists much larger than the number of players required for selection each week. This isn't so much a problem, as an observation that the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

That's what I'd be interested to know. Does raising the draft age actually improve the hit ratio or is that just an assumption.

For example, we know there are lots of mature age players that are "too good for reserves, not good enough for AFL". Would raising the draft age give you more information to avoid those players? I don't think it would necessarily.

 

[hey shorty]

That's what I'd be interested to know. Does raising the draft age actually improve the hit ratio or is that just an assumption.

For example, we know there are lots of mature age players that are "too good for reserves, not good enough for AFL". Would raising the draft age give you more information to avoid those players? I don't think it would necessarily.

The only benefit I see is these kids spending time in the "real world". Finish school then uni or a trade, work a bit.

Get the important stuff out of the way and gather some perspective ??

 

[ad victoriam]

Wouldn't be enough.

The threat of the PSD, may help us a bit.

 

[hey shorty]

The threat of the PSD, may help us a bit.

Maybe, Sydney will want to avoid that for a player of Dawson's quality

 

[Vader]

That's what I'd be interested to know. Does raising the draft age actually improve the hit ratio or is that just an assumption.

For example, we know there are lots of mature age players that are "too good for reserves, not good enough for AFL". Would raising the draft age give you more information to avoid those players? I don't think it would necessarily.

The following is taken from the "Major Leage Baseball draft" Wikipedia page:

Early on, the majority of players drafted came directly from high school. Between 1967 and 1971, only seven college players were chosen in the first round of the June draft.[19] However, the college players who were drafted outperformed their high school counterparts by what statistician Bill James called "a laughably huge margin."[20] By 1978, a majority of draftees had played college baseball, and by 2002, the number rose above sixty percent.[19] While the number of high school players drafted has dropped, those picked have been more successful than their predecessors. In a study of drafts from 1984 to 1999, Baseball Prospectus writer Rany Jazayerli concluded that, by the 1990s, the gap in production between the two groups had nearly disappeared.[21] In October 2011, Jazayerli presented another research study[22] which included an analysis of those players drafted since 1965, but instead of breaking them into college or high school draftees, he segregated them by their age on draft day. In the study published in Baseball Prospectus, which included a follow up article of the financial benefits,[23] Jazayerli concluded that the very young players return more value than expected by their draft slots. In Jazayerli's study he looked at the statistics and broke draftees into five distinctive groups based on their age and being drafted in the early rounds. Jazayerli's defined a “very young” player as those who are younger than 17 years and 296 days on draft day. Since the inception of the draft, the youngest player ever drafted in an early round is Alfredo Escalera. Escalera was drafted by the Kansas City Royals in the eighth round of the 2012 draft at 17 years and 114 days. Jazayerli's study does not clearly demonstrate the influence of the player's age when drafted in a late round.

Make of that what you will...

My take is that players mature at different rates. Those who are prodigies are able to perform from young ages, while those who mature more slowly perform better when drafted later.

Maybe the lesson should be that the AFL clubs need to look more closely at drafting mature aged players, rather than speculating on less physically prepared youngsters? They may achieve better results by leaving these kids to mature in the state leagues, before drafting them when they mature.

Major League Baseball teams have an active roster of 26 players, and an extended roster of 40. Teams consist of 9 starting players, plus an indeterminate (I can't find the answer) number of replacements. MLB teams play 162 games per year (plus finals), a massive increase on the AFL's 22 H&A games. This means that they are forced to rotate players far more than the AFL teams do, so draftees probably have more opportunities to impress than their AFL counterparts. Even so, they still have a large team list relative to the actual team size, so you'd expect that a high percentage of players will never make the grade - just as happens in the AFL.

 

[SellarStardom]

What about pick 23 + McAsey for Dawson +31?

 

[1970crow]

I'm not sure retraint of trade is silly.

You're costing someone hundreds of thousands of dollars with an arbitrary line. THAT'S silly.

But there already is an arbitrary line. I'm not for changing it, but the restraint of trade argument is nonsensical. You can leave school at 15 and start your trade or other work, Footy players are already restrained from joining the highest paying league at that age.

 

[Mego Red]

Youve gone from silly to ridiculous now.

Why?

There's almost zero upside to what you're proposing - I mean, seriously? 21?

The talent drain to other sports would be extraordinarily, and the AFL would have clubs, managers, and young players all looking at the option of legal action.

That's even putting aside that you're assuming players will somehow keep developing in a positive way between 18 and 21 in solely amateur environments.

You just don't seem to understand that the rule you're proposing would cost a player like Sam Walsh around $500k, and that would trigger legal action the day it was signed.

This is just beyond foolish - it's really not even worth discussing.

 

[Mego Red]

People are legally allowed to work from, I think, 15 in most states. The AFL surely must still be reeling from the lawsuits when they raised the draft age previously. Tim Watson definitely would have sued.

At 18 they are an adult.

This is a foolish point.

 

[Mego Red]

The only benefit I see is these kids spending time in the "real world". Finish school then uni or a trade, work a bit.

Get the important stuff out of the way and gather some perspective ??

Why is that a benefit?

 

[Mego Red]

But there already is an arbitrary line. I'm not for changing it, but the restraint of trade argument is nonsensical. You can leave school at 15 and start your trade or other work, Footy players are already restrained from joining the highest paying league at that age.

Again, a fifteen year old is also still legally a child.

An 18 year old is an adult, and have finished any schooling expectations.

It seems a pretty reasonable line currently.