Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

[Blackas87]

Because they are the ones that need it. Sure Hawthorn missed the finals in 2017 but no one would argue that they would need extra help to get back into the finals, but a team like Brisbane, they could have really been helped by extra draft picks in 2014, 2015 and so on.

Brisbane wouldn't need extra picks in 2014-15, as they would of had the opportunity in 12-13 to sign up multiple players. Brisbane would already be much more competitive by that stage

 

[beta_condition]

Whats the point in rewarding losing? The AFL is still a competition right?

 

[sprockets]

At what point does it stop being a sport? Sure teams will lose followers due to years of poor performance but does it mean the whole thing should become artificial/rigged? AFL (and other sports) 'equalisation' is bad enough as it is, don't make it even worse.

 

[Cincinnatus]

The AFL is the reason they haven’t bottomed our sorry.

How so?

COLA is over bro.

 

[BBC1967]

How many years between drinks were you lads again?

Aren't you guys half way there now? - just saying....

 

[vozzon]

Yep, we had a few of those as well. Outside of Boyd (traded), we had Bont (#4), Macrae and Stringer (#5 and 6 - think it's other way around though).

Our record with early picks prior to that was pretty poor. Sam Power, Tim Walsh, Cooney, Ray, Griffen, Tom Williams, Higgins (much better at North than with us), Everitt, Grant, Cordy, Howard - that was our lot in the 2000's. You could have given us another 20 picks and we still couldn't have found a KPF.....

Im sure getting Libba/Wallis and Hunter as F/S picks also helped. Ask Geelong if it helped them lol.

But getting in tallent and nailing a few years in a row of getting at least AFL capable playewrs helps.

 

[the big lebowski]

IMO no club is ever any more than 5 years away from being able to win a flag.

Put another way, if you get your drafting, recruiting, coaching, development and off-field in order, any club can win the flag within 5 years.

Well it's interesting that you say that. The astute mind of Chris Pelchen claimed North couldn't make the 8 again for 10 years. And that was a best case scenario assuming we nailed all draft picks from last draf onwards.

 

[PP34]

How so?

COLA is over bro.

Their academy goes alright. And just because the COLA is over, doesn’t mean they aren’t still reaping the rewards.

 

[RUNVS]

Their academy goes alright. And just because the COLA is over, doesn’t mean they aren’t still reaping the rewards.

Agreed. It is very rewarding seeing Mitchell and Murray playing really well for other clubs because we couldn't afford to keep them.

 

[TedDougChris]

Im sure getting Libba/Wallis and Hunter as F/S picks also helped. Ask Geelong if it helped them lol.

But getting in tallent and nailing a few years in a row of getting at least AFL capable playewrs helps.

Agreed, although Hunter slipped to the mid 40's from memory. So couldn't have been rated that highly at the time....

Which goes to someone else's question re: drafting v development...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No because players get stuck at clubs in rebuild mode and want out. Therefore the clubs in rebuild mode get stuck in rebuild mode.

I don't see how making it easier for players to leave would help that.

 

[BG32]

Teams finishing top 4 (maybe even top 8) shouldnt get a round 1 pick.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Teams finishing top 4 (maybe even top 8) shouldnt get a round 1 pick.

That's crazy.

So many of these suggestions inevitably create bad incentives.

 

[Blackas87]

I don't see how making it easier for players to leave would help that.

For a start you'd only be recruiting players that want to join your club. They agree to play for your club. Currently clubs are selecting players that don't want to go there, and then they want out.

If a club goes to 3-4 18 year olds, tells them we see you guys growing together and being part of our future, give them a good contract, sell them the vision of the club and these players want to be part of it. The club becomes more competitive quicker which makes it less likely for players wanting to leave and more attractive for other free agents to join the club.

Currently you select one top player on the same contract as pick 60, that player doesn't want to lose for the next 5 years, they don't buy into the clubs vision, they want out. The club is in no better position, no one else wants to join.

 

[Sttew]

I was listening to SEN this morning and I heard one of the more intriguing discussions between David King and Rohan Connolly about the time it takes for teams to rebuild their lists. They had quite a fiery disagreement and I think both made some reasonable points. I'll paraphrase.

David King was I think responding to a call from a Carlton fan who was ready to throw in the towel, and it prompted him to argue that it simply takes too long for teams to rebuild. According to King, you can't have sides down the bottom for five or even seven years. The effect, according to King, is that you'll have younger fans simply tuning out because they're not as invested as the older fans who are willing to endure such a lengthy lean period. He argued that we need even more fluid player movement to avoid the likes of Carlton, St Kilda and Melbourne (for example) being down as long as they have been.

Rohan Connolly acknowledged the point about young fans but disagreed that there should be any specific mechanism to expedite these rebuilds. He argued that if clubs make bad decisions off-field, there should be a price to pay. He also pointed out that in the AFL era, there have been 11 teams win premierships, which he said was actually pretty good. He also made the point that for the first time in 20 years, there is no undefeated team after four rounds, suggesting that some of the quality at the top has eroded and that further equalisation would actually be undesirable.

I can see both arguments. I think King is right about younger fans tuning out, although I don't accept we should tailor the competition according to the attention spans of eight-year-olds. I think Connolly is right in saying there must be a price paid for getting it wrong off-field, but I'm not sure the competition is actually as even as everyone says. It might be even on a micro level, in that any team can beat another on their day. But on a more macro level, look at the disparity in finals appearances over the past 10 years. It's not that even. Since 2007, Geelong have played finals 11 out of 12 seasons. Melbourne haven't played finals since 2006. Is that "even"?

But even if the competition isn't truly even, should it be? Surely there should be a difference in outcomes and attempts to over-engineer evenness are not necessarily desirable. If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, why should we invent a mechanism to prevent that?

So with all that in mind, does it take too long for teams to rebuild their lists? Should there be further mechanisms in place to help it happen quicker? Or is the five- or six-year rebuild a reasonable price to pay for getting it wrong off-field?

I heard Leigh Matthews on this topic on 3AW. His take is that teams like Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong have benefited from trading in experienced players from other teams because these teams are perceived to still in the "premiership window". Struggling teams like Carlton have not really had that luxury and have had to rely on the Draft lottery. I say not really because bringing in castaways has not worked. That's why it is taking them so long to rebuild.

Now that Melbourne is an emerging team they have attracted a ready made player like Lever

 

[Altum Volantes]

Look at baseball, I'd argue that most of what makes that sport interesting is management.

Well it’s certainly not the sport itself...and I love Test Cricket so I do know a thing or too about ‘boring’ sports.

On topic - ‘Rebuild’ on our sport is often a convenient excuse.

It’s often beyond the list of players and more about the club itself, the standards, the expectations that exist internally and externally.

Clubs that expect success will go through ups and downs but will always bounce back relatively quickly. Same in basically every sport.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For a start you'd only be recruiting players that want to join your club. They agree to play for your club. Currently clubs are selecting players that don't want to go there, and then they want out.

But that tilts the scales in favour of powerful, successful clubs.

How has North Melbourne fared trying to recruit free agents recently?

If a club goes to 3-4 18 year olds, tells them we see you guys growing together and being part of our future, give them a good contract, sell them the vision of the club and these players want to be part of it. The club becomes more competitive quicker which makes it less likely for players wanting to leave and more attractive for other free agents to join the club.

Isn't that what every club does after every draft?

Currently you select one top player on the same contract as pick 60, that player doesn't want to lose for the next 5 years, they don't buy into the clubs vision, they want out. The club is in no better position, no one else wants to join.

Clubs are already free to offer any draftee an early contract extension on more money. You don't need to change any rules to allow that.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

For a start you'd only be recruiting players that want to join your club. They agree to play for your club. Currently clubs are selecting players that don't want to go there, and then they want out.

If a club goes to 3-4 18 year olds, tells them we see you guys growing together and being part of our future, give them a good contract, sell them the vision of the club and these players want to be part of it. The club becomes more competitive quicker which makes it less likely for players wanting to leave and more attractive for other free agents to join the club.

Currently you select one top player on the same contract as pick 60, that player doesn't want to lose for the next 5 years, they don't buy into the clubs vision, they want out. The club is in no better position, no one else wants to join.

Have you noticed all the first round picks getting extended contracts before they've memorized their locker number this year?

 

[Richo83]

Efforts to feed teams more draft picks misses the point of why some of these teams are struggling.

The biggest gulf between the likes of Carlton and Brisbane on one hand and Geelong on the other isn't access to talent, it's how the clubs are managed off-field. Do they have a board which makes smart appointments with coaching and supportive staff? Have they developed a list which doesn't have massive holes and leaves the team imbalanced? You can give teams all the picks in the world but if they have a recruiter and coach who is an idiot then they're stuffed.

Part of the problem is the game itself, as teams need a lot of good players, unlike say the NBA which has less players, and the NFL which is largely a QB and O-line driven league, you need talent all across the park. Teams which flounder trying to turn a bunch of kids and journeymen end up squandering their youth with poor list management, which means their team is full of holes. And because the AFL is so physical and players are getting bigger and taller, it takes longer for players to develop the kinds of bodies which are competitive in AFL level, meaning playing a bunch of kids requires a lot of patience, and even then, they often don't develop properly as being belted can stunt a player's development.

 

[RudyBlue]

Probably because I’m old enough to remember us being a good club, I think we got ourselves in this mess we can get ourselves out of it.

Absolutely.

A well-run club shouldn't have to bottom out. There's ample evidence of this. I wish we didn't need to 'bottom out' as such, but our list was in diabolical shape in 2015. Wooden-spooners, top 4 for average age and paying 100% of the cap.

The club's heavily invested in the draft the past 3 years, we just need to stick it out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Whats the point in rewarding losing? The AFL is still a competition right?

Were Hawthorn rewarded for losing in 2004?

 

[Coaster2012]

Hawks have done it in 2 years...

And in my life time (im 32) ive never seen the swans bottom out.

 

[RUNVS]

Hawks have done it in 2 years...

And in my life time (im 32) ive never seen the swans bottom out.

Well you did, but you were about 7 at the time.

 

[Coaster2012]

Have you noticed all the first round picks getting extended contracts before they've memorized their locker number this year?

I think thats due to the quality of the crop. I dont rememebr so many rookies having so many high quality games so quicky i.e Stephenson getting 5 on the weekend.

 

[TedDougChris]

I heard Leigh Matthews on this topic on 3AW. His take is that teams like Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong have benefited from trading in experienced players from other teams because these teams are perceived to still in the "premiership window". Struggling teams like Carlton have not really had that luxury and have had to rely on the Draft lottery. I say not really because bringing in castaways has not worked. That's why it is taking them so long to rebuild.

Now that Melbourne is an emerging team they have attracted a ready made player like Lever

This will open Pandora's box here, but what the hell.....

This is the situation we were in before recruiting Boyd. We had just finished 14th, about 3 to 4 years into our rebuild, lost Griffey (our captain and best player), then Higgins, Cooney, Jones, Tutt. Then we sacked the coach and I think the CEO might have gone too.

We had to do something. Did we overpay on output - bar a couple of noticeable exceptions - yes. But did we have a lot of other options ? Not really.... Could we have done the deal for less, possibly, but I wasn't there to answer conclusively....

But what you described is precisely where we were back then.