Adelaide: future

[Bentleigh]

And this is my angst with Richmond - in a year strong on bigmen (who take longer to develop) Richmond go small and next year is mean't to be a midfielders draft and you'll need to get some talls.

IMO Hawthorn had the better strategy although your still better off for talls ATS than Hawthorn, so need may not have been so great.

If you offered me Deledio & Tambling or Roughead & Franklin id stick with what we currently have everyday of the week and twice on Sundays

I agree, we have with KPP but its a problem im more than happy to have to have Lids and Bling at the club. We do have Schutz & Pattison at the club which you'd expect to make it and a handful of project KPP's Limbach, McGuane, Limbach.

You say this is a year of big mean but Roughead is the only which looks a certainty to make it. Franklin is very iffy while the Wood, Messen types are not near the class of Deledio, Griffin or Tambling. Im very happy with the way things turned out. Ever your local boy Meyer @ pick 12 looks a little gem.

By all acounts next years draft looks to be similar to the Koschitzke / Riewoldt draft with the early standouts being very much KPP in young Marcus Drum, Mitchell Clark & Beau Dowler.

As for Hawthorns tatics on draft day you only had to listen to the coverage to see they stuffed up. They wanted Tambling @ 5 and were exepcting Richmond to get Franklin @ 4. They were playing funny buggers. Im just glad we didnt fall for it.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Of course you can get good players from 5 onwards and you can rebuild a club. However I would think it is better to take the bottem 4 way for long term success.

and who are these teams that have won flags and maintained long term success from bottom 4 finishes?

 

[jmorg1]

and who are these teams that have won flags and maintained long term success from bottom 4 finishes?

Brisbane Lions.

 

[Wharfie35]

Adelaide and future. Now thats an oxymorn if ever i've heard one.

Just kidding. SHould be able to get some good draft picks in the next few years, which will see ya back up the top again.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Brisbane Lions.

110% wrong.

Brisbane achieved their success with the help of concessions not draft picks.

Father/Son; zone selections; salary cap allowances. Fitzroy players etc

I don't begrudge them this, but lets get out terms right.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

110% wrong.

Brisbane achieved their success with the help of concessions not draft picks.

Father/Son; zone selections; salary cap allowances. Fitzroy players etc

I don't begrudge them this, but lets get out terms right.

Thought he had you - but GOOD comeback

 

[macca23]

Adelaide and future. Now thats an oxymorn if ever i've heard one.

Just kidding. SHould be able to get some good draft picks in the next few years, which will see ya back up the top again.

Dear oh dear - a wharfie incorrectly spelling the word moron?

Now THAT is an oxymoron!!

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Dear oh dear - a wharfie incorrectly spelling the word moron?

Now THAT is an oxymoron!!

It's like shooting fish in a barrel somedays, isn't it Macca?

 

[Bentleigh]

110% wrong.

Brisbane achieved their success with the help of concessions not draft picks.

Father/Son; zone selections; salary cap allowances. Fitzroy players etc

I don't begrudge them this, but lets get out terms right.

Flags, no.

But I doubt anyone would dispute Saint Kilda have placed themself to dominate for the next decade, primary from botteming out rebuilding.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Flags, no.

But I doubt anyone would dispute Saint Kilda have placed themself to dominate for the next decade, primary from botteming out rebuilding.

Correct but they still have to hold the side together and other teams are getting top picks in the meantime like Richmond.

This means the Saints have a small window of opportunity B4 they have to rely on other factors such as club culture.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Flags, no.

But I doubt anyone would dispute Saint Kilda have placed themself to dominate for the next decade, primary from botteming out rebuilding.

flags no, long term dominance no.
so how is this a good model again?

Now when we take into account the difficulties in staying within the salary cap for a young list where the std deviation from the mean age is so small, the prospects are not altogether clear.

This is to say, when you get the bulk of your quality in a relatively short space of time, it is very hard to manage your contracts well because everyone is at the same relative stage of their development - i.e. wanting to be paid for potential.
this makes the team very ripe for predators to target certain players knowing the cap pressures are not likely to ease in a hurry.

Now I believe this possibly can be done, but if these clubs were especially competent or professionally run they would not have spent a prolonged period at the bottom of the table in the first place.

So yes i very much doubt that St Kilda are going to be dominant for years to come. or Richmond either

 

[NikkiNoo]

Correct but they still have to hold the side together and other teams are getting top picks in the meantime like Richmond.

This means the Saints have a small window of opportunity B4 they have to rely on other factors such as club culture.

I agree WW and I think this window is closing very rapidly for them. If they have to rely on Club Culture then they are sunk. In order for them to maintain being around the mark (top side wise) then they need to carefully maintain the quality of their list - can they do that? I don't think so. Can someone help me out in respect with their later draft picks / pre-season drafting and who in their current line up came from those picks? I think Grant Thomas has already given an inkling that he is not the greatest of list managers in respect to their ruck disaster last year. That I think had quite an influence on the results last year.

I would much prefer to be supporting a team that is always closer to being in the eight than one that has to keep dropping down the ladder to get the better draft picks. To me this reeks of poor list management by the coaching / recruitment staff and they should be the first to go not the players.

 

[Bentleigh]

flags no, long term dominance no.
so how is this a good model again?

Now when we take into account the difficulties in staying within the salary cap for a young list where the std deviation from the mean age is so small, the prospects are not altogether clear.

This is to say, when you get the bulk of your quality in a relatively short space of time, it is very hard to manage your contracts well because everyone is at the same relative stage of their development - i.e. wanting to be paid for potential.
this makes the team very ripe for predators to target certain players knowing the cap pressures are not likely to ease in a hurry.

Now I believe this possibly can be done, but if these clubs were especially competent or professionally run they would not have spent a prolonged period at the bottom of the table in the first place.

So yes i very much doubt that St Kilda are going to be dominant for years to come. or Richmond either

Saints will lose the likes of Black and Knoble over the upcomming years. Ideally they would like to keep them but its going to happen to keep the core players.

However, Im sure they will be able to hold the team together somewhat over the next half dozen years and they are in a very good postion to dominate the comp.

There younger core is of a similar age but realisticly I dont see a massive exiodus in the future.

They are near Flag favorites and there best players are in there early 20's:

Hayes, Lenny 25
Milne, Stephen 24
Penny, Luke 24
Koschitzke, Justin 22
Riewoldt, Nick 22
Clarke, Xavier 21
Dal Santo, Nick 21
Ball, Luke 20
Maguire, Matthew 20
Goddard, Brendon 19

 

[Crow-mosone]

Saints will lose the likes of Black and Knoble over the upcomming years. Ideally they would like to keep them but its going to happen to keep the core players.

However, Im sure they will be able to hold the team together somewhat over the next half dozen years and they are in a very good postion to dominate the comp.

There younger core is of a similar age but realisticly I dont see a massive exiodus in the future.

They are near Flag favorites and there best players are in there early 20's:

Hayes, Lenny 25
Milne, Stephen 24
Penny, Luke 24
Koschitzke, Justin 22
Riewoldt, Nick 22
Clarke, Xavier 21
Dal Santo, Nick 21
Ball, Luke 20
Maguire, Matthew 20
Goddard, Brendon 19

exactly why are you sure they can hold the list together?

other than that, your list proves my point.
a point it seems you have missed entirely.

 

[mymansyd]

They are near Flag favorites and there best players are in there early 20's:

Hayes, Lenny 25
Milne, Stephen 24
Penny, Luke 24
Koschitzke, Justin 22
Riewoldt, Nick 22
Clarke, Xavier 21
Dal Santo, Nick 21
Ball, Luke 20
Maguire, Matthew 20
Goddard, Brendon 19

Sorry to be pedantic, but I would have thought that Gehrig 29, Harvey 34, Jones 28, Hamill 28 and to a lesser extent Powell 29 & Thompson 32 are all pretty much still in the Saints Best-15 or so. I'm not taking anything away from the young group (who are as good as any young group going around), I just think that the Saints still rely on experience alot more than you'd care to admit. Just look back to the Prelim final last year. Aside from Hayes & Riewoldt, the other best players listed for the Saints were Gehrig, Harvey, Thompson & Powell. These guys almost got you into a GF.

I think Geelong rely alot more on their youth than the Saints do.

 

[arrowman]

flags no, long term dominance no.
so how is this a good model again?

Now when we take into account the difficulties in staying within the salary cap for a young list where the std deviation from the mean age is so small, the prospects are not altogether clear.

This is to say, when you get the bulk of your quality in a relatively short space of time, it is very hard to manage your contracts well because everyone is at the same relative stage of their development - i.e. wanting to be paid for potential.
this makes the team very ripe for predators to target certain players knowing the cap pressures are not likely to ease in a hurry...

Excellent, exellent point, Crow-mosone. I particularly like your introduction of standard deviations into a football discussion Seriously - a very good post.

 

[Mong]

Now when we take into account the difficulties in staying within the salary cap for a young list where the std deviation from the mean age is so small, the prospects are not altogether clear.

This is to say, when you get the bulk of your quality in a relatively short space of time, it is very hard to manage your contracts well because everyone is at the same relative stage of their development - i.e. wanting to be paid for potential.
this makes the team very ripe for predators to target certain players knowing the cap pressures are not likely to ease in a hurry.

If it gets to the situation where you can't keep all your players then just trade off some good players for good draft picks. That way you can keep the flow of young talent coming into the club.

 

[Stiffy_18]

If it gets to the situation where you can't keep all your players then just trade off some good players for good draft picks. That way you can keep the flow of young talent coming into the club.

True but that doesn't make you a dominant team for an extended period of time. It might make you a good team over the extended period of time but not a dominat team. For example, Saints lose Lenny Hayes and Luke Ball to slary cap repssure they get good picks for them, but are those picks ready to play straight away and fill the roles of these 2? No because they will take 2-4 years to develop. So all of a sudden Saints drop off and are not the team they were with those 2 players in their 18.

Remember, Bentleigh is claiming that bottoming out makes teams dominat over extended periods of time which simply is not true because of other factors. This competition is designed in a way that the clubs get their turn at the top and no side stays dominant for a long period of time. Now you might say Brisbane but as Crow-mosone has already pointed out, it due to other factors, increased salary cap being one of them

 

[Markthirtytwo]

I agree WW and I think this window is closing very rapidly for them. If they have to rely on Club Culture then they are sunk. In order for them to maintain being around the mark (top side wise) then they need to carefully maintain the quality of their list - can they do that? I don't think so. Can someone help me out in respect with their later draft picks / pre-season drafting and who in their current line up came from those picks? I think Grant Thomas has already given an inkling that he is not the greatest of list managers in respect to their ruck disaster last year. That I think had quite an influence on the results last year.

I would much prefer to be supporting a team that is always closer to being in the eight than one that has to keep dropping down the ladder to get the better draft picks. To me this reeks of poor list management by the coaching / recruitment staff and they should be the first to go not the players.

Gary Ayres.......gone
James Fantasia..........?????

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

Remember, Bentleigh is claiming that bottoming out makes teams dominat over extended periods of time which simply is not true because of other factors. This competition is designed in a way that the clubs get their turn at the top and no side stays dominant for a long period of time. Now you might say Brisbane but as Crow-mosone has already pointed out, it due to other factors, increased salary cap being one of them

You are right that history doesnt show teams dominating after bottoming out. But I have 2 issues with this......Firstly, why is the question one of domination? If St Kilda gets up and wins a couple of flags in the next 5 yrs (which is reasonably likely IMO), surely fans would be comfortable with the previous pain inflicted. Take out Riewoldt, Kozi and Ball etc and they wouldnt be in this situation. Secondly, history is one thing but to be forward looking I dont think anyone can deny that the Saints look as likely as any other team in the next 5 yrs to win a couple of flags. History may well show that the Saints were the first team to dominate after bottoming out over a few years - we will have to wait and see but if I was a betting man.....

 

[Stiffy_18]

You are right that history doesnt show teams dominating after bottoming out. But I have 2 issues with this......Firstly, why is the question one of domination? If St Kilda gets up and wins a couple of flags in the next 5 yrs (which is reasonably likely IMO), surely fans would be comfortable with the previous pain inflicted. Take out Riewoldt, Kozi and Ball etc and they wouldnt be in this situation. Secondly, history is one thing but to be forward looking I dont think anyone can deny that the Saints look as likely as any other team in the next 5 yrs to win a couple of flags. History may well show that the Saints were the first team to dominate after bottoming out over a few years - we will have to wait and see but if I was a betting man.....

I think Saints time is running out quicker than you might think. As mymansyd mentioned in his post, they are still relying heavily on their senior players. Gherig, Harvey, Thompson, Powell, Jones and Hamill can't go on forever, Someone like Harvey and Thompson will most lilely retire at the end of this season and a couple of others aren't far behind. If they don't make a run at it in the next couple of years their window might have just passed them by.

Its not as black and white as many think. I still think Geelong's list is better and in all honesty if they can find a gun key forward they are a better side than St. Kilda IMHO. If Cats had Reiwoldt in their line up they would be a dominat side.

 

[Mong]

True but that doesn't make you a dominant team for an extended period of time. It might make you a good team over the extended period of time but not a dominat team. For example, Saints lose Lenny Hayes and Luke Ball to slary cap repssure they get good picks for them, but are those picks ready to play straight away and fill the roles of these 2? No because they will take 2-4 years to develop. So all of a sudden Saints drop off and are not the team they were with those 2 players in their 18.

Yeah but I wouldn't trade Ball and Hayes. I don't know the Saints list all that well so I probably can't give a good example but it's the 15-25 players on your list that you trade away, players that will never reach top 10 status. West Coast did it reasonably well in the early 90's. Guys like Craig Turley, Matt Connell and others that I can't recall right now.

Personally, I don't believe whether all your good players are the same age or different ages will make a difference to the salary cap squeeze. You'll face it either way.

I would be happy to be in a situation where you have so many good players that you can't fit them all in.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Yeah but I wouldn't trade Ball and Hayes. I don't know the Saints list all that well so I probably can't give a good example but it's the 15-25 players on your list that you trade away, players that will never reach top 10 status. West Coast did it reasonably well in the early 90's. Guys like Craig Turley, Matt Connell and others that I can't recall right now.

Personally, I don't believe whether all your good players are the same age or different ages will make a difference to the salary cap squeeze. You'll face it either way.

I would be happy to be in a situation where you have so many good players that you can't fit them all in.

Of course you wouldn't trade those 2 BUT if they come out of contract and they get a better offer from someone else and they take it then there is not much you can do about it.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Gary Ayres.......gone
James Fantasia..........?????

I was talking more about those teams that head to the bottom of the ladder very quickly (we haven't done that)

If you think that we were tanking and had poor list management then i say yes to the first one and keep the second one (by all accounts our problems were very much dependent on the head coach not listening to the recruiting staff and trusting their judgement). that's why I put it as coaching / recruitment staff - each club is different in who has the more responsibility on the list management, in some clubs the coach has his fingers in all the pies, in others they leave some of the responsibility to the recruiting staff

 

[Crow-mosone]

Yeah but I wouldn't trade Ball and Hayes. I don't know the Saints list all that well so I probably can't give a good example but it's the 15-25 players on your list that you trade away, players that will never reach top 10 status. West Coast did it reasonably well in the early 90's. Guys like Craig Turley, Matt Connell and others that I can't recall right now.

is that the same ex-brownlow favourite and runner up Craig Turley that won't reach top 10 at the club status?
Plus trading and drafting in the early 90's is very different to today. Back then you got the no.1 pick for scott watters and junk.

Personally, I don't believe whether all your good players are the same age or different ages will make a difference to the salary cap squeeze. You'll face it either way.

sorry, entirely incorrect. this is what managing your cap and contracts is all about. fundamentally. When players are contracted to, how long, what the structure of the payments is, etc. you pay players according to their importance to the team, structure and their stage of development. If you will, you have 1 or 2 franchise players, senior players who have proven themselves B&F etc. Middle tier players getting a game every week, emerging young players, depth flotsom, and early draftees.
That you have to share the cake amongst them is why it is so fundamental, so basic, that they have to be paid according their respective rankings of importance. Players will always have an inflated view of their worth, it's a basic human right, however you need a strong tiered hierachy to regulate these payments. Adelaide has been outstanding in this regard. Remember when McLeod wanted to accept a big money offer from Brisbane after the 1997 GF? Reidy convinced him he couldn't be paid like a champion so early in his career, he has to take account of senior players, perform like this consistently and if he did - the numbers would take care of themselves.
Now if your players are all skewed towards the lower centre of tiers, then they all want to be paid for potential and no club can afford to do that for more than 1 or 2 players at a time. However then the player looks at a guy of similar age, earning far more, and he is convinced that he is better than that guy or almost as good - where is his money? A bottom dweller club with cap space, and a handy preseason pick steps in and it all goes south.
Especially with regards to club culture and team discipline.

you need a regulated structure to be able to keep player payments under control, and if they are all at the same age and development (relatively) then it is very hard to maintain this.

I would be happy to be in a situation where you have so many good players that you can't fit them all in.

tell that to essendon after the 2000 season.