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

[Sweet Jesus]

How many times can it be wrong though? Can’t just be bad drafting. We had the same go with Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw and Oliver and it’s worked. Maybe Paul Roos had an influence?

They drafted better and developed young players better. What if it's just that simple?

 

[Chism]

2003 - Colin Sylvia (3) / Brock McLean (5)
2007 - Cale Morton (4)
2008 - Jack Watts (1)
2009 - Tom Scully (1) / Jack Trengove (2) / Jordan Gysberts (11)
2010 - Lucas Cook (12)
2012 - Jimmy Toumpas (4)
2013 - Christian Salem (13)
2014 - Petracca (2) / Brayshaw (3)
2015 - Oliver (4)

4 out of 12 top 10 picks still on the list.

We have had our fair share and about 70% of the time it hasn’t worked out.

No coincidence that the 4 that did were coached predominantly by Roos.

None of them players though are exactly doing great deals at other clubs that have been let go by you guys that even made it to other teams lists.

Hence the luck factor and everyone of those picks were taken were most other teams had them going and we have had a bad run of top junior talents for a while unless you had 3-4+ picks in the Top 10 of drafts like GC and GWS were given where the law of averages is in your favor but both GWS and GC i cannot see winning a flag anytime soon for many reasons and take that as you will.

You need to get lucky in Super drafts like the Hawks did which set them up for years coupled with teams like Freo giving them a No.1 pick for Trent Croad in which they nailed Hodge while having the luxury of also picking a young Chris Judd or Luke Ball and then got Croad back anyway!!

Lots needs to go right regarding drafting but rarely does as the junior levels are just to even nowadays with a pick 30+ turning out to be just as good as a Top 5 pick in 2 years of footy and there are many factors that lead to this including the most important one of all in getting into a successful team and having good players and a settled list surrounding them.

 

[GreyCrow]

Second, I think the Queensland clubs face an obstacle not faced by the other clubs. Players overwhelmingly come from Victoria, SA and WA, and the 'go home' pull is significant, as most players are in the 18-25 age group. Therefore I'd argue that Brisbane and GC get extra cap space to retain players. We cannot have Brisbane and GC perpetually in the bottom 5-6 clubs. Having said that, the AFL need to do this carefully as providing the two Queensland clubs with salary cap space should not come at the expense of a Melbourne or St Kilda winning a premiership (since they haven't achieved that in 50+ years).

Depends how it is managed. Is it for the Buddys or the rookies? If the aim is to keep the 18-25 yr olds then increasing their overall pay level is fine. But the reason COLA got booted was because of the perceived manipulation by Sydney

 

[Boxhead_31]

Depends if you teach your kids to lose to facilitate your rebuild or not.

 

[PP34]

He did want to stay though, and even admitted he would have taken unders to stay, but the Swans were only able to offer him a contract that was WAY under what he was worth.

Poor things.

You’ll have to console yourself with Callum Mills and Isaac Heeney.

 

[Blackas87]

Perhaps. If you keep insisting that removing equalisation measures would lead to more equalisation. That strikes me as a self-evidently flawed proposition.

We have the historical record of what happened before we had these equalisation measures. The result was not a more even competition. Rather, it was a competition that favoured the more successful, more powerful clubs who were better positioned to recruit players with the promise of money and success. There's no reason to think reverting to this system would produce a different outcome.

You'll also open the door for SA and WA teams to build quasi state teams.

But if we followed your path and abolished the draft, you wouldn't have acquired those young players.

At the end of 2014, Hawthorn could have approached Christian Petracca and said "come play for us". You think he would have chosen Melbourne instead after you've finished 16th, 17th, 17th?

Do you think Jesse Hogan would have landed at Melbourne instead of staying at home to play for WC or Fremantle?

The draft guarantees clubs down the bottom first access to the best young talent. Without that, you wouldn't have rebuilt anywhere near as effectively.

The solution is not abolishing the draft. The solution is for those clubs to draft more astutely, improve their player retention systems and become more effective at developing local talent.

Abolishing the draft won't give smaller clubs a better chance. It will do the opposite. We know this because we didn't used to have a draft and the competition was less even without it.

strong chance Melbourne wouldn't have all those players. If you miss out on a player move on to the next. Let's just say Petracca, Hawthorn at the top competeing for Premierships wouldn't have much cap room for 18 year olds, as it's spent on a quality team performing. They offer Petracca $80000 per year for 2 years. Melbourne with a terrible list have plenty of Cap room, offer Petracca $250000 per year for 3 years. Petracca still may choose Hawthorn but Hawthorn don't have much more cap space for other recruits. There are still plenty of other talented players Melbourne can recruit.

 

[SwampCreature]

Quite an ironic OP, some would say.

 

[Craze]

Depends how it is managed. Is it for the Buddys or the rookies? If the aim is to keep the 18-25 yr olds then increasing their overall pay level is fine. But the reason COLA got booted was because of the perceived manipulation by Sydney

Agree that it would need to be carefully managed, but the issue in Sydney was 'cost of living', whereas in QLD it is about retention. I don't think supporters/clubs in the traditional football states could argue that the QLD clubs are on level footing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

strong chance Melbourne wouldn't have all those players. If you miss out on a player move on to the next.

And how much top young talent do you reckon you'd have attracted after finishing 16th, 17th, 17th?

That's the point of the draft, which you reckon should be abolished. You'd be screwed without the draft.

Let's just say Petracca, Hawthorn at the top competeing for Premierships wouldn't have much cap room for 18 year olds, as it's spent on a quality team performing. They offer Petracca $80000 per year for 2 years. Melbourne with a terrible list have plenty of Cap room, offer Petracca $250000 per year for 3 years. Petracca still may choose Hawthorn but Hawthorn don't have much more cap space for other recruits. There are still plenty of other talented players Melbourne can recruit.

The successful side, in this case Hawthorn, would find the money for the kid who'd otherwise go #1 or #2. Or they'd get close enough to your offer and ultimately persuade him with the chance to play finals immediately. Melbourne would end up paying exorbitant sums for a kid yet to play a senior game or be left with the crumbs. It's crazy that you think this situation would have worked out OK for Melbourne.

 

[Blackas87]

And how much top young talent do you reckon you'd have attracted after finishing 16th, 17th, 17th?

That's the point of the draft, which you reckon should be abolished. You'd be screwed without the draft.

The successful side, in this case Hawthorn, would find the money for the kid who'd otherwise go #1 or #2. Or they'd get close enough to your offer and ultimately persuade him with the chance to play finals immediately. Melbourne would end up paying exorbitant sums for a kid yet to play a senior game or be left with the crumbs. It's crazy that you think this situation would have worked out OK for Melbourne.

If the salary cap floor was lowered to about 80%, bottom clubs could have up to $2.5million. With that money I think you could find a few top talented players. Not saying you'd have use all of it though

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If the salary cap floor was lowered to about 80%, bottom clubs could have up to $2.5million. With that money I think you could find a few top talented players. Not saying you'd have use all of it though

The salary cap would be lowered for who?

 

[Blackas87]

The salary cap would be lowered for who?

The salary cap floor, for all clubs, the top clubs would be paying close to 100% to keep their winning teams together, the bottom clubs would have more cap room to recruit players. Currently everyone must pay 95% of the cap. Brisbane is paying 95% of what Richmond, Adelaide, GWS and Hawthorn, how are they supposed to recruit players?

 

[TooBlue14]

On the other hand, will he be there when you're next challenging? If you got a first-rounder and a second-rounder for him, I'd have thought that would be worth it.

That said, I don't like the ideas of a mid-season draft specifically for this reason. If North wanted to trade him at season's end, well and good. But mid-season, I don't like.

Well, I think success is generally built on drafting well. Specifically, it's built on going bang bang bang in three drafts in a row and then filling holes elsewhere as required.

I don't think anyone is going to have much success if they draft badly for several seasons in a row. Drafting well is non-negotiable. And the more bites of the cherry you have early in drafts, the more chance you have of getting it right.

And that's bad luck but I don't think the formula changes.

Sure, but not every team screwed the pooch as badly in those years.

For example, WC finished last in 2010. But instead of getting pick 1, we got pick 4 because the Suns had the first three. Even worse, two WA kids went 1 and 2 that year. Now, that would be a recipe for 10 years of complaining, wouldn't it? Oh we finished last and got stuck with pick 4 because the Suns monopolised early picks. Woe is me etc. Fortunately, that pick 4 was Gaff, who's been better value than the kids taken before him in Swallow, Bennell and Day. And we pinched Darling at 26 that season and made a PF in 2011. So it depends how it shakes out.

Maybe not a template. But, as I said, I reckon nailing consecutive drafts is top of the list of non-negotiables.

Well, consider this:

Jack Riewoldt #13, 2006
Shane Edwards #26, 2006
Trent Cotchin #2, 2007 draft
Alex Rance #18, 2007 draft
Dustin Martin #3, 2009 draft
David Astbury #35, 2009 draft

Now, don't get me wrong. Richmond faffed around for years trying to get the rest of the jigsaw puzzle right. And their 2008 draft was poor, taking Ty Vickery at #8. But if you want to know how Richmond built a premiership-winning side, it starts with taking their best four players with top 20 picks in the space of four years. Without sticking those drafts in a shortish window, they don't win a flag. That's the template.

I think the blues would hope that the following can do similar to richmonds drafting in the next 3-5 years:

Weitering #1 - could get to rances level but who knows right now. He’s still tracking well, despite his lack of confidence this year, for a third year KPD that gets no support up the ground like rance does.
Charlie #12 - is going to never a gun, better than jack imo
McKay #10 - who knows here. Needs to get a game as it’s tough to get the service in the vfl but he won’t really get it at either level at the moment
SPS #5 - looks like Dustin but that’s about it at the moment. Has elite disposal by both feet. Probably better statistically than Martin but not fit enough yet nor does he have the one on one ability. Rides bulls for a living so upside and potential is huge.
Dow #3 - too early to tell. Elite clearance player inside and outside at tac cup level goal kicking plus spread was awesome. Struggling with the jump to afl speed atm will come Good in year 2/3.
Obrien #10 - elite kick. Long taking kicks that expose teams off half back/wing, played well to half time last week on debut was tracking for a pretty special game till him and the team faded heavily due to rotations. Elite runner in the mould of Tom Scully.
There’s plenty of others to list including pick 1 in 2018 jack lukosius who looks in the nick reiwoldt mould. Once in a generation key forward. This player is a real team changer. We need for midfielders but this kid could never be passed on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The salary cap floor, for all clubs, the top clubs would be paying close to 100% to keep their winning teams together, the bottom clubs would have more cap room to recruit players.

Like I said, successful clubs would still find money for a kid who'd otherwise be drafted #1 or #2.

The bottom sides would either be left with the crumbs or they'd be forced to pay above and beyond for a kid yet to play a senior game, which is obviously ripe for dysfunction if you have a desperate club vying for the services of an 18-year-old.

Imagine Melbourne deciding they absolutely needed to get Jack Watts and being determined to sign him on a deal no other club would match. How would that have worked out? Would Melbourne have been better off having thrown the kitchen sink to sign Jack Watts aged 18?

Again, it's bizarre that you think this situation would be preferable to simply giving the worst clubs first crack at young talent via the draft.

Currently everyone must pay 95% of the cap. Brisbane is paying 95% of what Richmond, Adelaide, GWS and Hawthorn, how are they supposed to recruit players?

They draft them or trade for them or poach them as free agents.

Why would you suggest this is some kind of impossibility?

 

[juss]

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.

Well thats just stupid from old Chris P isnt it.

 

[HeHateMe]

The salary cap floor, for all clubs, the top clubs would be paying close to 100% to keep their winning teams together, the bottom clubs would have more cap room to recruit players. Currently everyone must pay 95% of the cap. Brisbane is paying 95% of what Richmond, Adelaide, GWS and Hawthorn, how are they supposed to recruit players?

Quick thought, what about a tiered floor?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Blackas87]

Like I said, successful clubs would still find money for a kid who'd otherwise be drafted #1 or #2.

The bottom sides would either be left with the crumbs or they'd be forced to pay above and beyond for a kid yet to play a senior game, which is obviously ripe for dysfunction if you have a desperate club vying for the services of an 18-year-old.

Imagine Melbourne deciding they absolutely needed to get Jack Watts and being determined to sign him on a deal no other club would match. How would that have worked out? Would Melbourne have been better off having thrown the kitchen sink to sign Jack Watts aged 18?

Again, it's bizarre that you think this situation would be preferable to simply giving the worst clubs first crack at young talent via the draft.

They draft them or trade for them or poach them as free agents.

Why would you suggest this is some kind of impossibility?

How often is the number 1 pick turning out to be the best player? That all you get in the draft, 1 top ranked player. My scenario bottom clubs can rebuild with multiple top ranked players. The top clubs wouldn't be focusing on selecting multiple 18 year olds as they would prefer ready made players with experience, retaining their own players.

Melbourne hypothetically could of recruited Watts, Naitanui, Hurley and Daniel Rich in one hit. Is Geelong the powerhouse side at the time trying to find money under the cap to recruit Watts?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The issue is nobody actually knows how to rebuild. They are all picking up the best available, but not selecting the best according to their needs. As a hawks fan I saw what a good rebuild is in 2004-2007.

Overlooked the best players, instead going for players that would compliment the ones already on the list.


There was no point getting tambling as hawks has a half a dozen mids ready to roll, so we got Roughead. We made some mistakes too, but because it was complimentary players, the failure wasn’t as severe.

Compare it to now, where the rebuilding teams have almost an entire team of the same types because their recruiters have NFI

 

[Roddy]

There is much to be said for players coming into a winning, positive culture. You can tell by the way we've traded, and the course those traded player's careers have gone. The majority of players who come to Hawthorn from other clubs become better players. Hale became a 20% better player when he came to Hawthorn. Gibson became a 20% better player. I know he was already great, but Burger has probably been even better for us than he was for Port. Tommy Mitchell is a 20% better player. Big Boy is a 20% better player. Guerra became a 20% better player. Lake came to Hawthorn and won 3 flags from 3 years and a Normie. Gunston hadn't been that long at Adelaide, but he came here and became an elite mid-sized forward. It won't surprise me in the slightest if Impey and JoM improve as well. The list goes on. I'm sure people can cherry-pick the failures, but the majority is overwhelmingly positive.

And I'm sure that effect on the youngsters coming in from the draft is even greater.

 

[Blackas87]

Quick thought, what about a tiered floor?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I prefer one set of rules for all clubs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

How often is the number 1 pick turning out to be the best player? That all you get in the draft, 1 top ranked player.

It would mean the powerful, successful clubs would pick the eyes out of every draft. The smaller clubs would be left with crumbs unless they're willing to pay overs for unproven kids.

My scenario bottom clubs can rebuild with multiple top ranked players. The top clubs wouldn't be focusing on selecting multiple 18 year olds as they would prefer ready made players with experience, retaining their own players.

Nonsense.

Without a draft, this would be the news arms race. It would be sketchy as hell. The draft standardises it while also being far more effective in terms of equalisation.

Your "solution" also involves some clubs playing 80 per cent of the salary cap. How is that good for the competition? You'd basically have the bottom clubs being even less competitive in any given season.

Melbourne hypothetically could of recruited Watts, Naitanui, Hurley and Daniel Rich in one hit. Is Geelong the powerhouse side at the time trying to find money under the cap to recruit Watts?

But they wouldn't have been able to. Because bigger clubs would have gazumped you.

To say nothing of the Queensland clubs who'd be left with SFA.

I don't think you've really considered the implications of what you've outlined.

 

[parmy2balmey]

bomber thompson and the great paul roos have both stated 3 years to take a team from bottom to the finals. Then from there you should be in serious contention (aka top 4) by year 5. this was before paul took the Melbourne job so he may have changed his outlook slightly

aka 5 year plans #standbyterry

 

[parmy2balmey]

dave king and rohan connolly are both top shelf muppets

 

[These 4 Walls]

How often is the number 1 pick turning out to be the best player? That all you get in the draft, 1 top ranked player. My scenario bottom clubs can rebuild with multiple top ranked players. The top clubs wouldn't be focusing on selecting multiple 18 year olds as they would prefer ready made players with experience, retaining their own players.

Melbourne hypothetically could of recruited Watts, Naitanui, Hurley and Daniel Rich in one hit. Is Geelong the powerhouse side at the time trying to find money under the cap to recruit Watts?

I don't know if I am understanding you correctly. It feels like there is a hole in what I have understood that means the top teams are out of money so cannot afford to pay the youngsters. Until their stars retire, the money frees up and they can cherry pick that money to go to the best of that bunch of youngsters the struggling team put 3-4 years of development in to.

I entirely agree that the fact 1st & 18th are forced to have a similar salary every year means that pay is always disproportionate to quality of lists but just opening people up to a bidding market doesn't make things more equal.

For the hypothetical to work, people will need to always choose money over success or location when they are 18-22 but then to maintain loyalty from 22 onwards or else get poached by the current successful clubs whose stars are retiring and freeing up cap space.

I think a combination of


- Keeping the draft but really starting to expand the point system. If you finish outside of the finals for 3 years, you get a bonus amount of points equivalent to pick 25 which you can use however you like. You could use it for pick 25 or you could upgrade your first round pick or possibly upgrade your 2nd and 3rd picks. Depending on what you feel will help you back to finals quickest.

- Tying in the above to the ability to pay below the cap floor (30% below floor for 3y out, 35% for 4, 40% for 5 etc) and bank it for a 3 year period to either buy a big fish or pay young players more. At worst it doesn't create unrealistic pay expectations for youngsters or average players in poor teams making the most they can there and tying up the cap space.

- Continue to pump money into academies to improve the quality of players nation wide.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There was no point getting tambling as hawks has a half a dozen mids ready to roll, so we got Roughead.

You took Lewis, a midfielder, at #7 that year. And Ellis, another midfielder, at #3 the year after.