Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Back One Out]

Tier 1 compo. Hey I'll gladly take pick 19 if it gets us a flag and you can take pick 3 and all that is associated with that over the last decade if you want to switch places....

Of course you would…

Take, take, take, take, take

Melbourne are the AFL equivalent of a dysfunctional family on welfare.

You want to see the AFL bring down the stable, smart, well-run clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong.
You want the AFL to gift your shitty rabble of a club with a spot in the top 8

Salary cap, national draft, seeded fixtures, uneven free agency compo, the luxury tax on football spending and also the equalised annual dividends from TV rights and merchandising

How much more "equalisation" do you want?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hawthorn is still benefiting from the bullshit priority pick system and being clever to draft extra first rounders in those years. Its not the whole story but it illustrates things take time to show benefit and then dont get eliminated overnight.

2004 they win 4 games get picks 2 priority Roughie and 5 Buddy and trade Thompson trade get 7 and draft Lewis
2005 they win 5 games get picks 3 priority Ellis and 6 Dowler and trade Jonathan Hay and get 2 first round picks for him 14 Birchall and 18 Bailey.
Pick 14 came from Port who gave it up for Motlop and whilst the record books show a trade 14 for Lonie, Lonie was the streak knives as the Hawks wanted 2 first round picks for Hay and Port wanted Motlop and they passed it on to the hawks directly rather than give it to North first.

So an AFL policy and some smart trading and drafting allowed 7 first rounders to go thru together and getting 2 x 10 year plus KPF's in one draft is a massive free kick the Hawks got, because of the pre first round priority system was mainly taken benefit by the Vic clubs in the 2000's as the system was cut off in after the 2009 draft. The hawks have then worked the system as the AFL tweaks it

So whilst the AFL doesnt like seeing one side dominate because it thinks it comes up with these smart equalization policies, it doesnt realise that good or bad drafting over a 2 to 4 year period actually washes thru for another decade or so. The AFL are 24/7 pantswetters and control freaks. They cant control everything and have to start thinking longer term rather than thinking they are able to implement quick fixes.

Geelong built its dominate era due mainly to its drafting between 1999 and 2002. And they were smart to pick a shit load of good players in the first super draft in 2001, which Ablett, Bartel and Johnston, still making decent contributions in 2015 season. And the hawks are still getting great service from fellow 2001 draftees Hodge and Mitchell.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

The other thing that can't be easily done away with equalisation is the stay-together-for-flags factor. Geelong are credited for having brought it into place, and the Hawks list has well and truly run with it.

When the best players are happy to get unders to get flags, and lesser clubs are throwing money at big name players - at the expense of their own established players/up and comers - it is hard to stop. Of course, as Geelong has now proven, you can't just constantly refresh a gun team, and the decline will always set in eventually.

You guys have managed to do that well. Hodge, Mitchell, Gibson, Burgoyne are marvels with their durability.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Again, I'm not focusing solely on Melbourne and the fact you continue to refer to the club I support as an argument for your case is tiresome.

Let's take Richmond as an example. They haven't lost anyone to FA as far as I am aware however the expansion drafts have hit them as hard as anyone. They've had draft picks pushed back and while they have risen up the ladder they haven't been able to crack the top 4 which they would have had a greater opportunity to had they not been impacted by the expansion drafts.

Again, I am not saying clubs can't climb the ladder only that FA in it's current form combined with the other policies such as the salary floor and coming in at the same time as the expansion drafts has meant the rise is prolonged and therefore the clubs at the top have a prolonged period of success too. You use the Dogs as an example, they are another who likely would have finished top 4 this year if not for the expansion drafts and losing players to FA/expansion clubs.

Melbourne was the topic of conversation due to the other poster claiming that they and other clubs had struggled to rise up the ladder due to the expansion teams and top teams "stealing" their players.

Using Richmond as an example is fraught with danger. They've been a basket case for 3 decades, have had their own issues in their administration and up until only very recently have drafted and developed players poorly. I remember being told about an indigenous recruit a few years back who they ended up putting up in a hotel, then couldn't understand why he went off the rails. Farcical.

Again, clubs and their administrations have a much greater influence on whether they can rise up the ladder than anything GWS or GC have done by entering the competition.

 

[cryptor]

Hawthorn is still benefiting from the bullshit priority pick system and being clever to draft extra first rounders in those years. Its not the whole story but it illustrates things take time to show benefit and then dont get eliminated overnight.

2004 they win 4 games get picks 2 priority Roughie and 5 Buddy and trade Thompson trade get 7 and draft Lewis
2005 they win 5 games get picks 3 priority Ellis and 6 Dowler and trade Jonathan Hay and get 2 first round picks for him 14 Birchall and 18 Bailey.
Pick 14 came from Port who gave it up for Motlop and whilst the record books show a trade 14 for Lonie, Lonie was the streak knives as the Hawks wanted 2 first round picks for Hay and Port wanted Motlop and they passed it on to the hawks directly rather than give it to North first.

So an AFL policy and some smart trading and drafting allowed 7 first rounders to go thru together and getting 2 x 10 year plus KPF's in one draft is a massive free kick the Hawks got, because of the pre first round priority system was mainly taken benefit by the Vic clubs in the 2000's as the system was cut off in after the 2009 draft. The hawks have then worked the system as the AFL tweaks it

So whilst the AFL doesnt like seeing one side dominate because it thinks it comes up with these smart equalization policies, it doesnt realise that good or bad drafting over a 2 to 4 year period actually washes thru for another decade or so. The AFL are 24/7 pantswetters and control freaks. They cant control everything and have to start thinking longer term rather than thinking they are able to implement quick fixes.

Geelong built its dominate era due mainly to its drafting between 1999 and 2002. And they were smart to pick a shit load of good players in the first super draft in 2001, which Ablett, Bartel and Johnston, still making decent contributions in 2015 season. And the hawks are still getting great service from fellow 2001 draftees Hodge and Mitchell.

We no longer have Buddy (the product of a priority pick given we always had the 2nd pick used on Roughy due to our ladder position). And trading a player out for a draft pick that got us a good player is hardly an unfair advantage.
Dowler was an absolute flop (and again the product of the priority pick given we always had the 3rd pick). And Ellis didn't really ever work out for us anyway. And again trading players away to get draft picks that happened to get us good players isn't an advantage.

If we still had Buddy and were dominating then your argument might carry some weight.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

We no longer have Buddy (the product of a priority pick given we always had the 2nd pick used on Roughy due to our ladder position). And trading a player out for a draft pick that got us a good player is hardly an unfair advantage.
Dowler was an absolute flop (and again the product of the priority pick given we always had the 3rd pick). And Ellis didn't really ever work out for us anyway. And again trading players away to get draft picks that happened to get us good players isn't an advantage.

If we still had Buddy and were dominating then your argument might carry some weight.

What you dont have buddy - when did he leave????

You didnt read the second sentence did you?? I said its not the whole story, but an illustration about time. Pre first round picks were an AFL equalisation policy. You benefited from them, but it wasnt instantaneous and its benefits wash thru for years. That is the whole point, because if you attach good trading and drafting around equalisation polices, which you did in 2004 and 2005, you can get a decade long benefit, which the AFL arent smart enough to visulaise and understand.

That is the point of my post!

 

[El_Scorcho]

Hawthorn is still benefiting from the bullshit priority pick system and being clever to draft extra first rounders in those years. Its not the whole story but it illustrates things take time to show benefit and then dont get eliminated overnight.

2004 they win 4 games get picks 2 priority Roughie and 5 Buddy and trade Thompson trade get 7 and draft Lewis
2005 they win 5 games get picks 3 priority Ellis and 6 Dowler and trade Jonathan Hay and get 2 first round picks for him 14 Birchall and 18 Bailey.
Pick 14 came from Port who gave it up for Motlop and whilst the record books show a trade 14 for Lonie, Lonie was the streak knives as the Hawks wanted 2 first round picks for Hay and Port wanted Motlop and they passed it on to the hawks directly rather than give it to North first.

So an AFL policy and some smart trading and drafting allowed 7 first rounders to go thru together and getting 2 x 10 year plus KPF's in one draft is a massive free kick the Hawks got, because of the pre first round priority system was mainly taken benefit by the Vic clubs in the 2000's as the system was cut off in after the 2009 draft. The hawks have then worked the system as the AFL tweaks it

So whilst the AFL doesnt like seeing one side dominate because it thinks it comes up with these smart equalization policies, it doesnt realise that good or bad drafting over a 2 to 4 year period actually washes thru for another decade or so. The AFL are 24/7 pantswetters and control freaks. They cant control everything and have to start thinking longer term rather than thinking they are able to implement quick fixes.

Geelong built its dominate era due mainly to its drafting between 1999 and 2002. And they were smart to pick a shit load of good players in the first super draft in 2001, which Ablett, Bartel and Johnston, still making decent contributions in 2015 season. And the hawks are still getting great service from fellow 2001 draftees Hodge and Mitchell.

Exactly.

The problem with things like priority picks, is that they're designed to help genuinely shit teams, but when clever, well run teams get their hands on them they can set themselves up for a decade.

They ditched priority picks because Hawthorn and Collingwood used them after a single down year to add two elite kids and go on to win flags, but Melbourne toiled away getting plenty of priority picks and haven't gotten anywhere near a finals appearance in that time. Now they have free agency, which again, Hawthorn are using better than the teams below them in general, because they're a destination club and players will go to them for less pay because the chance of winning a flag is massive.

It's all been very well done by Hawthorn, and regardless of what equalisation measures are in place, the smarter teams are going to be better placed to take advantage of them and stay ahead of the curve. It's no different in any sport in the world that has a draft and salary cap system. Certain teams keep finding their way back to the top over and over for a generation while others can't get near it.

We no longer have Buddy (the product of a priority pick given we always had the 2nd pick used on Roughy due to our ladder position). And trading a player out for a draft pick that got us a good player is hardly an unfair advantage.
Dowler was an absolute flop (and again the product of the priority pick given we always had the 3rd pick). And Ellis didn't really ever work out for us anyway. And again trading players away to get draft picks that happened to get us good players isn't an advantage.

If we still had Buddy and were dominating then your argument might carry some weight.

Losing Buddy was countered by the fact that having him (among others) made you a destination club which gave you Gunston on a silver platter for a price below his market value. Gunston isn't buddy, but he's a very, very good footballer.

Don't get me wrong, Hawthorn can, should and have take full advantage of whatever the AFL decide the rules are on each given day to extend their flag window and bank more flags. It's what great clubs do.

 

[cryptor]

What you dont have buddy - when did he leave????

You didnt read the second sentence did you?? I said its not the whole story, but an illustration about time. Pre first round picks were an AFL equalisation policy. You benefited from them, but it wasnt instantaneous and its benefits wash thru for years. That is the whole point, because if you attach good trading and drafting around equalisation polices, which you did in 2004 and 2005, you can get a decade long benefit, which the AFL arent smart enough to visulaise and understand.

That is the point of my post!

I don't believe it's even a small part of the story. The players we got through first round picks we traded for are not relevant.
The 2004 recruitment of Roughy and Buddy was great but it's more than balanced out by the fact that we've since lost Buddy to another club and still remained strong AND the fact that we completely ballsed up the 2005 draft with our early picks.

We could've just as easily with no priority picks at all drafted Roughead with pick 2 in 2004 and then Josh Kennedy with pick 3 in 2005 (he went pick 4) - which we very well may have done if the priority pick the year before hadn't allowed us to get all of our KPF needs out of the way in one draft. And had we been able to do this instead and Kennedy (this is the West Coast variety just to be clear) didn't leave us like Buddy did then we'd be arguably be even better off than we are now.

 

[Dogsman16]

Melbourne fans should not continually banging on about not getting enough to help their club rise up the ladder. They have had all the assistance in the world and failed to capitalize.

Hawthorn had the opportunity to take advantage of the priority system. So did Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and my club. Hawthorn and Collingwood took full advantage of it and the other clubs failed too. Thats life.

 

[cryptor]

Losing Buddy was countered by the fact that having him (among others) made you a destination club which gave you Gunston on a silver platter for a price below his market value. Gunston isn't buddy, but he's a very, very good footballer.

Don't get me wrong, Hawthorn can, should and have take full advantage of whatever the AFL decide the rules are on each given day to extend their flag window and bank more flags. It's what great clubs do.

There were/are a heap of other things that are bigger factors as to why Hawthorn is a "destination club" than the "Buddy Franklin factor". Again it goes back to the well managed club point.

 

[Seeds]

Fixing free agency would be a good start.

Right now you can be Hawthorn, and have a free agent come to your club and fill a void in your starting 18, and also keep the first round draft pick that once upon a time you would have had to trade away. So they get potentially two gun players for the cost of one.

That's fair :-/

Hawthorn lost franklin for pick 18 to free agency.

 

[Seeds]

Melbourne fans should not continually banging on about not getting enough to help their club rise up the ladder. They have had all the assistance in the world and failed to capitalize.

Hawthorn had the opportunity to take advantage of the priority system. So did Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and my club. Hawthorn and Collingwood took full advantage of it and the other clubs failed too. Thats life.

That's not correct. Geelong, Adelaide, nth and swans never got the opportunity.

 

[Dogsman16]

That's not correct. Geelong, Adelaide, nth and swans never got the opportunity.

I didn't say that that all clubs got the opportunity. What I am saying is that several other clubs (apart from Hawthorn) had the ability to capitalise on the PP system. Some did and some didn't.

Melbourne have had an endless stream of assistance with picks and the payment of coaches and so far its yielded them very little. Clubs like Collingwood, St Kilda and the dogs haven't had such assistance to rebuild and seem to be doing it more successfully.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That's not correct. Geelong, Adelaide, nth and swans never got the opportunity.

Neither did Port. The year we win 3 games and were absolute rubbish we got pick 6 because the AFL scraps it as it wants the new teams to get pick 1. Edit under the old rules we would have got picks 2 and 4 instead.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't believe it's even a small part of the story. The players we got through first round picks we traded for are not relevant.
The 2004 recruitment of Roughy and Buddy was great but it's more than balanced out by the fact that we've since lost Buddy to another club and still remained strong AND the fact that we completely ballsed up the 2005 draft with our early picks.

We could've just as easily with no priority picks at all drafted Roughead with pick 2 in 2004 and then Josh Kennedy with pick 3 in 2005 (he went pick 4) - which we very well may have done if the priority pick the year before hadn't allowed us to get all of our KPF needs out of the way in one draft. And had we been able to do this instead and Kennedy (this is the West Coast variety just to be clear) didn't leave us like Buddy did then we'd be arguably be even better off than we are now.

Of course its part of the story and a decent part. Your recruiting team doesnt put the equalistion benefit of priority picks out there like Jupiter distance and normal drafting and trading at Mercury distance away. Its all integrated into their thinking. If you didnt have a priority pick, would you have traded away Thompson for a pick which let you get Lewis?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Of course you would…

Take, take, take, take, take

Melbourne are the AFL equivalent of a dysfunctional family on welfare.

You want to see the AFL bring down the stable, smart, well-run clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong.
You want the AFL to gift your shitty rabble of a club with a spot in the top 8

Salary cap, national draft, seeded fixtures, uneven free agency compo, the luxury tax on football spending and also the equalised annual dividends from TV rights and merchandising

How much more "equalisation" do you want?

You've either deliberately misrepresented my position or have failed to grasp it. I don't want handouts at all, I want a fair competition where clubs are given the chance to succeed through equalisation of opportunity. I don't want to take anything off anyone else.

 

[Kwality]

Nor can you / should you compensate for poor management

Tell that to AFL House.

 

[cryptor]

Of course its part of the story and a decent part. Your recruiting team doesnt put the equalistion benefit of priority picks out there like Jupiter distance and normal drafting and trading at Mercury distance away. Its all integrated into their thinking. If you didnt have a priority pick, would you have traded away Thompson for a pick which let you get Lewis?

No, it's not, for the reasons I've already posted. And of course we still would've traded away Thompson. He wanted a fresh start following him opening up about his struggle with depression. You do your best with what's on the table.

 

[benbanjo]

Well the reason the hawks have done so well is because they did some trading about 15 years ago that nette them Hodge and Mitchell, they also Picked up Roughead and Franklin which helped them out just a tad.....

The Cats had a number of Father son picks which helped them get Ablett and Scarlett....

The Swans have some extra dollars to spend on key players and West coast have a huge home ground advantage...

i think things are in OK shape a few lucky picks a good run with injuries, some smart trades....

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

No, it's not, for the reasons I've already posted. And of course we still would've traded away Thompson. He wanted a fresh start following him opening up about his struggle with depression. You do your best with what's on the table.

But would have you waited 12 more months if no PP in 2004? As you said you would have taken 1 of Buddy or Roughie in 2004 and then you might have gone after Kennedy in 2005, but would the recruiters have said we keep Thompson for 1 more year to help out the KPF we draft in 2004 and get rid of him next trading period because we need a bit of depth until we get a 2nd young KPF. Only the recruiters know the answer to that but it would have come into their thinking if no PP was there in 2004. And if they thought no we get rid of Thompson now to get Roughie and Buddy in the 2004 draft, then no Lewis in 2004.

 

[dean31]

Demonic Ascent... notice how it is Hawthorn and Geelong supporters defending free agency? Haha

Notice how no one has lost as many players to free agency as Hawthorn?
Lost
Franklin
Suckling
Ellis
Young
Murphy

Gained
Frawley
who Melbourne were over compensated for.

Hawks winning premierships and losing free agency.

 

[cryptor]

But would have you waited 12 more months if no PP in 2004? As you said you would have taken 1 of Buddy or Roughie in 2004 and then you might have gone after Kennedy in 2005, but would the recruiters have said we keep Thompson for 1 more year to help out the KPF we draft in 2004 and get rid of him next trading period because we need a bit of depth until we get a 2nd young KPF. Only the recruiters know the answer to that but it would have come into their thinking if no PP was there in 2004. And if they thought no we get rid of Thompson now to get Roughie and Buddy in the 2004 draft, then no Lewis in 2004.

Like you say, who knows what they might've thought. You're now basing your argument of what staff who were at our club at the time might have done in a hypothetical situation.

Arguably they would've let him go get his fresh start there and then anyway as it would've been for his welfare and we weren't going to be contending the next season anyway.

That's certainly what Hawthorn would do now. Player welfare is always at the front of mind when list management decisions are made. And yet again goes back to the good management that has brought our success. Our players can operate in an environment that has their best interests at heart without being bullied into staying or being treated sub-humanely.

 

[Back One Out]

You've either deliberately misrepresented my position or have failed to grasp it. I don't want handouts at all, I want a fair competition where clubs are given the chance to succeed through equalisation of opportunity. I don't want to take anything off anyone else.

You didnt answer the question.

Please tell me what else you need exactly to create a "fair competition where clubs are given the chance to succeed through equalisation of opportunity" ?

Bear in mind, we already have this in place:

1. Salary cap - prevents clubs from stockpiling depth & signing up all the best players
2. National draft - fair distribution of young player talent
3. Seeded fixtures - harder draws for top clubs, easier draws for bottom clubs
4. Uneven free agency compo - bottom clubs gain an extra top 5 pick for losing a top line player, the top clubs receive pick 18, 19 or 20
5. Luxury tax on football spending - Rich clubs can't load up on players, nor can they load up on assistant coaches
6. Equalised annual dividends from TV rights and merchandising - Melbourne would barely make a cracker for the AFL, yet they receive the same sized cheque as Collingwood
7. Competitive Balance Fund - low rating clubs are given millions in compensation to offset the prime time blockbuster matches received by the "big four" - Melbourne receive this handout despite being guaranteed a home game vs Collingwood every year on the Queen's Birthday public holiday
   
   
   

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm not saying we got the raw end of the stick... but cheers for commenting on something from about 2mths ago.

I'm happy with Brayshaw obviously, but I think the system is still flawed. You have the premiership team poaching experienced key players from bottom teams.

Yeah, we got Pick 3 out of it, but what happens if we had a real deficiency down back, and Frawley left? Free Agency compensates us with a draft pick to draft an 18yr old key back that will take 5yrs minimum to reach Frawley level.

The whole system is flawed... supporters from Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and Collingwood just don't see it like that though, because you're not at the bottom and you're a 'destination' club for these free agents

We were laughed at for paying 'overs' for burgoyne, gibson, cheney, mcevoy etc. Free agence may have had an influence on trading for lake.

So the destination thing may have pre dated free agency
edit: just looking at a game c2010 on fox and we also tried Hooper, Petersen and Skipper, so it wasn't all lucky dip

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawthorn is still benefiting from the bullshit priority pick system and being clever to draft extra first rounders in those years. Its not the whole story but it illustrates things take time to show benefit and then dont get eliminated overnight.

2004 they win 4 games get picks 2 priority Roughie and 5 Buddy and trade Thompson trade get 7 and draft Lewis
2005 they win 5 games get picks 3 priority Ellis and 6 Dowler and trade Jonathan Hay and get 2 first round picks for him 14 Birchall and 18 Bailey.
Pick 14 came from Port who gave it up for Motlop and whilst the record books show a trade 14 for Lonie, Lonie was the streak knives as the Hawks wanted 2 first round picks for Hay and Port wanted Motlop and they passed it on to the hawks directly rather than give it to North first.

So an AFL policy and some smart trading and drafting allowed 7 first rounders to go thru together and getting 2 x 10 year plus KPF's in one draft is a massive free kick the Hawks got, because of the pre first round priority system was mainly taken benefit by the Vic clubs in the 2000's as the system was cut off in after the 2009 draft. The hawks have then worked the system as the AFL tweaks it

So whilst the AFL doesnt like seeing one side dominate because it thinks it comes up with these smart equalization policies, it doesnt realise that good or bad drafting over a 2 to 4 year period actually washes thru for another decade or so. The AFL are 24/7 pantswetters and control freaks. They cant control everything and have to start thinking longer term rather than thinking they are able to implement quick fixes.

Geelong built its dominate era due mainly to its drafting between 1999 and 2002. And they were smart to pick a shit load of good players in the first super draft in 2001, which Ablett, Bartel and Johnston, still making decent contributions in 2015 season. And the hawks are still getting great service from fellow 2001 draftees Hodge and Mitchell.

Carlton got three pps and pick 1 three years in a row in those years. Run your assesment over carltons good fortune

We got pp in 2004 because all our kpps broke down or wanted out. We almost scored a grand final n 2001 but it mant nothing because hay, holland, barker broke down never to return and rawlings and thompson wanted out