Changing the draft and Salary Cap ** WARNING - LONG POST**

[Pivo]

The footy is still a few weeks off so, after trawling through other areas of the board, I thought I’d post this to, hopefully, stimulate some discussion and debate.

I got to thinking on this slow work day about the Salary Cap and the draft system. I understand the concept behind these things and the theory is just and sound however there are issues with them.

The draft and its problems have been well documented. Everyone has a preferred option or method of re-jigging the system to try and eradicate the perception of ‘tanking’, to eradicate the hope of losing rather than winning when it becomes obvious that your club can no longer make the 8. A mate of mine once suggested that the bottom 8 gets turned upside down. That the team that finishes 9th gets the first pick, 10th gets 2nd and so on.

It wasn’t a bad idea, it encourages winning, but there was always the off chance that the team that was 8th or 7th might consider dropping matches to try and get that 1st round pick because it can’t see itself winning a game in the finals which would result in picks 8 or 9. It sounds crazy but then again, so does the idea of losing games to improve draft position. Maybe the bottom 8 should play off for draft position, the games being played like the final 8 and played prior to each finals match as part of a double header.

It would generate crowds, keep people interested, and is yet another attempt to kill off the tanking perception. The winner in the top 8 gets the Premiership Cup, the winner in the bottom 8 gets the first draft pick.

Salary Cap is another thing to consider. Last trade period there was talk of Lovett for Prismall – a trade a few people would have liked to have seen. However, due to cap restraints Geelong couldn’t get that deal over the line. Would Lovett have been better compensation than Pick 39?? The jury is out on that. Personally, I am still a Pick 39 man.

Maybe the Cap needs to be re-jigged a bit. Doing this might actually help trades get done rather than trade week being more exciting on Big Footy than it actually is at AFL House? More money means more opportunity to ‘recruit’ that player that might help your club get over the line next year.

Remove the salary cap? Probably not a good thing. Clubs like Adelaide and West Coast have massive membership numbers, primarily due to them being the first from their respective states to join the AFL. One team towns from football states coming into a competition to kick some Victorian behind – of course the people of Adelaide and Perth were going to get behind these clubs which were, early on, practically State sides.

The cap does ensure that financially strong clubs don’t pounce on other club’s talent just because they can offer big money that others simply cannot compete with. I certainly don’t want to see one club snare 5 or 6 top players at the same time because it has the chequebook to do so. I don’t want to see clubs ‘buy’ premierships.

The Cap ensures that to “recruit” a player a club first needs to do the sums otherwise, as Carlton discovered, the penalties are great. However, the cap does cause some limitations; the trade period in particular seems stymied due to the Cap. So maybe the Cap could be tinkered with or rather, the rules within the Cap?

While there is a veteran list which allows 10 year, one club players (I think that is correct) to get paid outside the cap I can’t help but wonder if adopting an approach from the A-League might spice things up a bit.

2 marquee players could be named by each club. These players can get what they want and their payments also are not included in the cap. This frees up more money for other players on the list that potentially deserve more, helps in keeping players that feel they deserve more in their next contract and possibly opens up more trade possibilities as money (if the list is/has been managed well) could be available. A club may also entice players from other clubs to join by offering them a marquee position and subsequent money that comes with it.

Obviously there are logistics involved in rules surrounding marquee players – is there a time period for which they have to be deemed marquee, can one club chase another club’s marquee player, should there be an age bracket where only players between those ages can be classed as marquee, do they need to have played a certain number of senior games etc etc.

Hopefully this gets some discussion going. Sorry if the post is long but I thought it might spark conversation, especially in the “off season”.

 

[catempire]

What people always seem to overlook when discussing “solutions” for tanking is that the AFL has made it abundantly clear that the goal of the draft is equalization of the competition. When you bring in a lottery, an inverted bottom 8 or any other system that takes away the highest picks from the bottom teams and gives them to other teams, you destroy this concept. Bottom teams will no longer have the leg-up that they need to climb back up the ladder. Some teams, with a run of bad luck in the lottery (or whatever other system) will languish at the bottom of the ladder for a decade or more. Such teams would be unviable long-term.

As for the “marquee player” system, I don’t believe this would assist with trades such as the Lovett one. It might result in one or two more trades per year (if that). But it would also result in the richest teams having better marquee players than the other teams. Is that what we want? I don’t think so. It’s not what is best for the long term future of the game.

Personally, I think the "problems" of tanking and the trade/salary cap system are overstated. I'm happy with the current system.

 

[Glassjaw]

Lottery for the draft, leave the cap as is.

 

[winty]

Instead of having the marquee player, why not exclude the players on the veterans list from having their salaries included in the cap? This would mean the club would have more room under the cap, and would be able to see fit that the player is rewarded financially for the service and loyalty they've given to their club.

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

I agree with glassjaw

 

[SriLankanCat]

I agree with the opening post on a lot of points.
I think the idea of having a play off system for high draft picks is a great idea.

Maybe play it on an elimination basis 1 v 8, 2 v 7 with the loser eliminated.

The current system is flawed. I know that the purpose of the draft is to even the comp but i think the salary cap does that to an extent and i think that this system mentioned above will keep things even as well. Its not like the premiers are gonna get the number one pick!

 

[SriLankanCat]

The only downside to a playoff system is that i dont know when you can fit the games in. The afl wouldnt want there to be a game played before a finals game due to the damage it would do the field.

Plus u dont wanna take the attention away from the finals even one little bit.

I reckon the reverse system for the bottom 8 is the perfect solution. Or maybe just drawing it out of the hat at Brownlow night.

 

[catswhiskers]

The current system is almost working. It does a great job of making sure there is a level playing field for all clubs.

Each club lives or dies on how well it works within the system. For example if a club has good talent spotters and can pick underdeveloped players (Mackie?) and then when they are on the list develop them to champion stage they will do better than clubs who do not do this well.

Clubs who identify top coaching staff and medicos etc will have their services first and benefit accordingly.

The only change I would make is to have a lottery for the last 4 sides. The winner gets first pick then the others take their natural order. A very poorly performed club should at least get consecutive number 2 picks which would have to help.
If it doesn't then the club is broken not the system.

 

[tribey]

2 marquee players could be named by each club. These players can get what they want and their payments also are not included in the cap.

So what happens in two years time when Jack Watts or Jack Ziebell come off contract?

They either go straight to West Coast, Adelaide or Collingwood who will shower them with marquee dough straight up or make them one of the highest players under the cap OR the Dees and Roos go bankrupt in a desperate attempt for them to stay and remain competitive.

The cynics might say well this is a good thing, but at the end of the day the purchasing power of the biggest clubs will always win out over the main pack of financial clubs let alone the struggling ones.

What happens when West Coast make Joel Selwood a ridiculous offer to play with Scott and Adam in Perth, when you're already throwing the kitchen sink at Bartel and GAJ, let alone the rest of your All-Australians and Premiership players?

A system frought with danger.

 

[Pivo]

All the posts make some pertinent points and I am the first to concede that the idea I have thrown up has certain flaws and there would be the need to legislate in a smart way.

One point that was raised that I would like to address, as it seems to be a common concern among some, is the issue that richer clubs would still poach poor clubs talent.

There are a couple of points that should be considered when stating that rich clubs will just get the best talent while the poor clubs will go broke trying to keep up.

1/. Just because a player is offered a mountain of cash there is always the possibility that other factors come into play. Such factors may be that a player born and raised in one state just doesn’t want to move interstate away from family and friends. We still see players citing the fact they wish to return ‘home’ as reasons for trade requests. Collingwood is one of Victoria’s richest clubs with a proud history, a proven coach and state-of-the-art facilities yet they have failed to land what I would class a big name player for many years. Money and facilities don’t appear to always get you the prize.

2/. More importantly, if a club decides to chase a player like a Ziebell or Watts or Selwood using the marquee player option there is always the risk that they will lose an exciting talent the other way. Using West Coast as an example, they might very well entice Joel Selwood over with the promise of more money and the chace to play with his brothers. That would mean there is only one more position for them to secure say Kerr, Masten, Ebert, Naitanui et. al. using the marquee process.

The idea behind marquee players, in my mind, is to reward those players who cannot receive ‘market value’ due to Cap constraints. It also then frees up money to pay others on the list their due. It is also an attempt to provide clubs with the opportunity to keep their lists together, while still rewarding players that deserve it.

Agreed, perhaps playing off for draft picks and naming marquee players is not ideal but I’d like the AFL to continue to explore options rather than outwardly give the appearance that all is well with the system. I’m not saying they aren’t doing this privately but I personally think the system could be better.

Thanks to those who have taken the time to read my post and reply with their own thoughts, to me that is what this forum is all about.

 

[catswhiskers]

Thanks for the thread. I don't go much further into the boards than home base. This thread gives a chance to look at an idea from a geelong perspective.

I really don't reckon any club would risk injury etc to play a game for a draft pick. Anyway who gets the best draft pick the teams that win or lose? I can't quite see how this would work.

Once the purse strings were undone the rich clubs would have an advantage. They already have the advantage with payments to established coaches and recruiters and medicos who showed their talent elsewhwere first. Collingwood didn't take the risk with a young Malthouse, he was proven at two other clubs first. They now have a quality coach who is paid a lot of money - more than most others I would expect. They already have more of everything else including facilities and support staff.

As I said earlier its just the tanking thats not right. Just get all 16 clubs to go hard for all 22 games. If a club near the bottom could only expect a pick 1 - 4 after a ballot then their pride would surely prevent them resting "injured" players who would otherwise play or playing kids who are not ready.

 

[Gazzajr is god]

I really dont think there is too much wrong with the current system.

Everyone knows tanking exists, but there are negatives that go with tanking.
(I hate the word "tanking" but i'll use it so everyone knows eactly what im saying)
The actual players that go out on the ground dont tank. Creating a losing attitude even if it means getting a better draft pick is something that could have a more detrimental effect on the players than the difference between a number 1 or 2 pick could be. And something that may take longer to reverse than getting a number 2 picks skills to a level of the number 1 pick could take.

Take a look at a team that has been losing most of the year and busting there guts and lose a close game. They look dejected and feel like a win will never happen. Carlton in 2007 were like that.
2 or 3 wins out of the last 5 games creates much better optimism through out the preseason than getting the number one pick does.

Something is not quite right with the current system of draft picks but it doesnt need the overhaul some would lead you to believe.

Maybe setting a criteria for a team to reach so get a priority pick is something to look into. (now dont jump me and come up with a negative response for each point as im just thinking out loud)
Maybe getting a certain amount of supporters to games in the last 6 games of the year. Or averaging a certain score or maybe a simple one is to appoint someone just out of the game to analise team meetings or training sessions to attain whether players are fit or something like that.

But besides Carlton there hasnt been a team that has been consistantly down in the bottom 3 for more than 2 years. And maybe that was just Carltons way of saying "up yours" to the AFL for taking away so many draft picks back in 2002. (though they deserved it, they figured the only way is to take advantage of the system that hurt us)

But if they do change it, having the bottom 8 play off for draft picks simply cant happen. Maybe bottom 4 but even then, there can be a wide gap between 13th and 16th. So that would be too unfair. And to set up a system at the start of the year for that would be unfair as it wouldnt allow for circumstanses that teams cant help.

Being a Geelong supporter I would like to see a return to zones for draft picks where you get first choice to someone out of your zone that you can take in the 3rd round. I know its ridiculous but if it was around 10 years ago, (including father/sun though J.Brown would of had to not accept Brisbane under father/sun, we could of had a spine of Scarlett, Lucas, Hodge, Brown and Hawkins. Ablett, Bartell also in the middle.

Dont mind some of the salary cap suggestions. Aslong as it never gets removed totally then I dont mind having things that were suggested in previous posts. As if it got fully removed, it would create situations like the NY Yankees where they just signed up 3 players worth more than some of the other MLB team's total 30 man roster.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

Probably worth revisiting circumstances in the 80s that lead to the national draft and salary cap coming into being. No need to go into much detail but three clubs Carlton, Hawthorn and Essendon dominated a decade largely for two reasons: money and inequitable player zoning.

In the last 10 years every club has made the top 4 out of 16.

No club has gone bust in the same period.

If changes need to be made I suggest trade week needs a look at and free agency will be the main area reviewed as from a legal perspective players who want to leave clubs need to be given more scope to do so.

I think the Salary Cap works well enough.

 

[Ashb23]

Like the idea, but I'd go one step further and say the marquee player(s) have to have been drafted by the club. I am all for equallity, etc, but I think it's a tragedy that great teams like Essendon circa 2000 get ripped appart by the cap.

I say good on them for drafting well, and that they should then be able to keep that list together.

 

[catswhiskers]

How about, rather than just the veterans list, a % of player's salary is exempt form the salary cap, say 2 years after they are drafted? Say start with 5%, then after another 2 years (so 4 years) 10%, 6 years 20%, 8 years 25% and then the veterans list for over 30/10 years. Make it a rule that it only applies to players who play their FIRST AFL game at that club. So Judd, Buckley, etc not exempt, but Bartell, Ablett, Buddy would be.

This way, Geelong could pay their players what they deserve, and no one has to be under paid just to stay loyal.

Don't get me wrong, I love the cap because it keeps the league interesting, but seriously, it isn;t fair that sides like Essendon and now us and soon Hawthorn lose players they nurtured themselves because of the cap...

This is a very interesting suggestion. It still rewards a clubs ability to identify and nurture talent and allows the club to keep them if there is interest from other clubs because the new suitor would need to pay more "salary cap" money.

The cap figure would need adjustment initially or there would be a rush of freed up funds as a large number on most lists would see some service" discount".

What problems does it throw up?