Draft Balance

[Vader]

The departure of Scott Welsh means that Adelaide now have 7 vacancies on the senior list (one of which will be filled by the Texas Ranger), which can be filled at the National Draft and Pre-Season Draft. Welsh's delisting, effective immediately, means that they have the flexibility to draft his replacement in either draft.

So, how do we wish to balance our drafting? We'd be highly unlikely to take two players in the PSD, so the options would appear to be:

• 6 National Draft, 1 Pre-Season Draft
• 7 National Draft, 0 Pre-Season Draft

What benefit (if any) would there be to taking a player in the PSD instead of drafting them a month earlier in the ND?

Are there any recycled players who are likely to be of interest to the AFC and who are likely to nominate for the PSD but not the ND?

 

[IddyBiddy]

Would this put Sampi on our radar? I think it will depend on who is likely to be out of contract by on the 27th.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I think that with Welsh going means that Salter is a very strong consideration, so I would possibly go with us just using the National Draft and not the pre-season. Also means that Taylor now becomes our next pick after 75, so even more of a steal.

 

[Mismatched]

If the desired player is in the ND, then there is no reason to wait until the PSD, however if he nominates for the PSD only then we might want it. In saying that i think they might go 6 and 1, but not sure.

In terms of whoelse to look at, I think Sampi and Bradely should be seriously considered, as with Scott Welsh leaving now, we will probably want another experienced tall and unless we pick up a small crumbing forward early in the draft, Sampi might be the best bet. Other than that, havn't heard of anything very exciting.

However there may be a youngster who misses out in the ND, who comes out and trains with us and really impresses, but might not last till our Rookie draft pick. We've done alright out of the PSD recently with Hentschell and Porplyzia, so might have another shot.

 

[KUNG FU]

Quality work Vader.

Surely the ND is a better option unless there is a particular player we have our eye on and have spoken with. #9 in the PSD isn't going to show you much that the ND pick won't.

 

[-VC-]

What benefit (if any) would there be to taking a player in the PSD instead of drafting them a month earlier in the ND?

Are there any recycled players who are likely to be of interest to the AFC and who are likely to nominate for the PSD but not the ND?

The main advantage I see is that when you get out to Pick 75 (which would be our last live pick in the ND if we take seven players there) in a draft that is shallow in depth then you're starting to get very speculative. If the club is sitting around and debating about who we could take at Pick 75 and there are differing views, or if there are areas of uncertainty with some of those players then we can just take Walker at 75 and then leave one for the PSD.

This way we can invite the players that we were considering to come and train with us and really put them under the microscope to make a more informed decision. Essentially it's just delaying our final selection by two weeks.

I think that with Welsh going means that Salter is a very strong consideration, so I would possibly go with us just using the National Draft and not the pre-season. Also means that Taylor now becomes our next pick after 75, so even more of a steal.

I'll admit that I've only seen Salter play once, but from what I've been reading about him the Welsh departure surely makes Salter's selection a mere formality.

And yes, the possibility that this might make Walker even more of a steal has crossed my mind too. He could end up being a pick in the 80s.

 

[Stiffy_18]

A quarter of your 2007 list has now gone, so you'd have to use the 'rebuild' R word now rather than the 'renovate' R word. But it would have been preferable to have all those draft picks in a super year, rather than one not regarded as highly.

Can't blame any player trying to get the best deal possible, as supporters we don't like it, but to be fair, we also do the same thing in our own business life.

I'd imagine you'd go for one experienced player, if the right guy is available, plus the new kids.

I think you are spot on with this post!

A HUGE overhaul of the list this year but the timing couldn't possibly be any worse! In a draft year that is considered weak we have picks coming out of our backside. Quantity != Quality. This clean out should have been done 12 months ago in a draft year that was considered to be "super"

Anyway, since its a shallow draft, I cannot see us using all of our picks in the National Draft. I suspect we will leave one for the PSD and opt for a more mature age player from SANFL/WAFL/VFL.

KUNG FU, we will have a pick much earlier than 9 because not all the clubs will participate in the PSD and besides Porplyzia was pick 9 in the PSD

The reason why we would want to leave one pick for the PSD is because we can offer a 1 year deal to players in the PSD rather than the mandatory 2 year deal to the new draftees in the ND. Thats one way to manage risk. If he doesn't pan out, delist him at the end of next year and his salary won't count against salary cap.

The only way I can see us not leaving a pick for the PSD is if there is a player there that we REALLY rate much higher and want to pick him up. We generally have a policy to leave one pick for the PSD unless there is someone we rate very highly still available. We "broke" that policy with Knights and Johncock who we rated as apparently top 20 talent in those drafts!

 

[KUNG FU]

A HUGE overhaul of the list this year but the timing couldn't possibly be any worse! In a draft year that is considered weak we have picks coming out of our backside. Quantity != Quality. This clean out should have been done 12 months ago in a draft year that was considered to be "super"

Anyway, since its a shallow draft, I cannot see us using all of our picks in the National Draft. I suspect we will leave one for the PSD and opt for a more mature age player from SANFL/WAFL/VFL.

KUNG FU, we will have a pick much earlier than 9 because not all the clubs will participate in the PSD and besides Porplyzia was pick 9 in the PSD

The reason why we would want to leave one pick for the PSD is because we can offer a 1 year deal to players in the PSD rather than the mandatory 2 year deal to the new draftees in the ND. Thats one way to manage risk. If he doesn't pan out, delist him at the end of next year and his salary won't count against salary cap.

The only way I can see us not leaving a pick for the PSD is if there is a player there that we REALLY rate much higher and want to pick him up. We generally have a policy to leave one pick for the PSD unless there is someone we rate very highly still available. We "broke" that policy with Knights and Johncock who we rated as apparently top 20 talent in those drafts!

I totally agree this should have happened 12 months ago and I was saying it at the time.

I forgot about the 1 year contract rule with PSD picks. So I guess you're right. Regardless, it is going to be a player so fringe that he'll make Campbell look like a part of the leadership group. The best we can hope for there is Pfeiffer IMO.

 

[Cap]

I think you are spot on with this post!

A HUGE overhaul of the list this year but the timing couldn't possibly be any worse! In a draft year that is considered weak we have picks coming out of our backside. Quantity != Quality. This clean out should have been done 12 months ago in a draft year that was considered to be "super"

Anyway, since its a shallow draft, I cannot see us using all of our picks in the National Draft. I suspect we will leave one for the PSD and opt for a more mature age player from SANFL/WAFL/VFL.

KUNG FU, we will have a pick much earlier than 9 because not all the clubs will participate in the PSD and besides Porplyzia was pick 9 in the PSD

The reason why we would want to leave one pick for the PSD is because we can offer a 1 year deal to players in the PSD rather than the mandatory 2 year deal to the new draftees in the ND. Thats one way to manage risk. If he doesn't pan out, delist him at the end of next year and his salary won't count against salary cap.

The only way I can see us not leaving a pick for the PSD is if there is a player there that we REALLY rate much higher and want to pick him up. We generally have a policy to leave one pick for the PSD unless there is someone we rate very highly still available. We "broke" that policy with Knights and Johncock who we rated as apparently top 20 talent in those drafts!

Stiffy, I Love your sense for dramatic effect, but lets face it there is no real good time to delist/trade the number of players we have done this year.

no quantity doesn't = quality but atleast its a start and it gives us a lot more flexability for future drafts with the club having the ability to remove dead wood early.

All this does is put Matt Rendells job under a bit more pressure this year than he would have liked.

 

[mymansyd]

Regarding the so-called weakness of this year's draft. Isn't that more in relation to the lack of out-and-out stars, say first-round picks. I wouldn't of thought that once you get down to our picks 27,30,38 & 57 that it would make much difference from year-to-year.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[hey shorty]

Its an interesting question this. I think we'll save a pick for the PSD and if so does this put a guy like Brant Chambers back in the mix ?? Weve just lost a mature age forward, do we hope that Hentschel can fill the burden or do we throw all our eggs in the "Young Gun" basket.

 

[-VC-]

Regarding the so-called weakness of this year's draft. Isn't that more in relation to the lack of out-and-out stars, say first-round picks. I wouldn't of thought that once you get down to our picks 27,30,38 & 57 that it would make much difference from year-to-year.

Just thinking out loud.

You do have a point about there not being a huge difference between those Picks 27-57 from year to year, but the weakness of this draft is actually in it's depth, not in it's strength.

The first round and a bit is quite good. Nowhere near as good as last year obviously, but pretty much as good as any other year. The whole thing about this draft being low in quality early on is a myth perpetuated by a bit of Chinese Whispers. "This draft is not deep" becomes "this draft is not very good," which becomes "the first round of this draft is weak."

Most drafts even out at around the Pick 30 stage and become a bit of a lottery, but it all depends on how that draft crop looks. I guess you could say that Pick 27 last year was not that much greater than Pick 57 last year and the same can be said for this year too. But there is a world of difference between Pick 27 last year and Pick 27 this year if you get what I'm saying.

That's why I agree with Stiffy's post about the timing of this exodus being bad. Late picks last year were of a higher quality than late picks this year.

 

[beagle2]

So, how do we wish to balance our drafting? We'd be highly unlikely to take two players in the PSD, so the options would appear to be:

• 6 National Draft, 1 Pre-Season Draft
• 7 National Draft, 0 Pre-Season Draft

?

Another option is to reduce the main list and increase the number of rookies by including a veteran in the 38

 

[NikkiNoo]

Another option is to reduce the main list and increase the number of rookies by including a veteran in the 38

but there is a problem with the veterans list in terms of salary amounts. We have already lodged who our two veterans will be. You can have more, is my understanding, but then it changes as to how much of their salary is included under the 'veterans list'. So by only having the two means that there is more money available in our salary cap total.

 

[Vader]

but there is a problem with the veterans list in terms of salary amounts. We have already lodged who our two veterans will be. You can have more, is my understanding, but then it changes as to how much of their salary is included under the 'veterans list'. So by only having the two means that there is more money available in our salary cap total.

You can have veterans inside the main list and outside the main list. Both have the same impact on salary cap calculations.

beagle2's suggestion was actually quite a good one - assuming that next year's draft pool is deeper than this year's (and we don't have a similar level of turnover - first assumption is likely to be good, second looks doubtful at this stage).

We could well find ourselves with 38 players on our main list, one of whom is a "veteran inside", one veteran outside the main list and 5 rookies. Not something I had previously considered.

Rookies also have the advantage of being able to be delisted after 1 year. Given that it's a notoriously shallow pool of talent this year, the likelihood of the 100th player selected being any good is quite low.

 

[Cap]

cousins.....

 

[-VC-]

beagle2's suggestion was actually quite a good one - assuming that next year's draft pool is deeper than this year's (and we don't have a similar level of turnover - first assumption is likely to be good, second looks doubtful at this stage).

I like Beagle's suggestion there. Might not be a bad option to exercise that to give ourselves more rookie picks. You can afford to be more speculative there as it costs the club less money and is only a one year commitment.

For the record, it's impossible to read the depth of next year's draft at this early stage, but the first round of next year will be an absolute ball tearer. There's a couple of players who would be drafted in the first round this year, so imagine them with a year of development under their belts.

 

[NikkiNoo]

You can have veterans inside the main list and outside the main list. Both have the same impact on salary cap calculations.

Thanks for that Vader, but I am still a little confused. Did it used to be that a percentage of their salary was included under the veteran's list and not included as part of the main salary cap? Otherwise what on earth is the reason for having a veteran's list? Seems a bit silly to just have a special name for your older players on your list with no other benefit.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Stiffy, I Love your sense for dramatic effect, but lets face it there is no real good time to delist/trade the number of players we have done this year.

ROFL!!! Are you serious?! Tell that to Geelong circa 2001

Of course there is a good time and the bad time. You make the changes at the right time, not just for the sake of it!

I cannot believe that you cannot see the difference between a really strong draft and deep draft and average and shallow draft!

no quantity doesn't = quality but atleast its a start and it gives us a lot more flexability for future drafts with the club having the ability to remove dead wood early.

How so?!

Quantity just gives you a number with limited quality. Before you can start getting rid off the newly drafted deadwood, you have to wait a few years while you are getting rid off the older dead wood!

This gives us nothing other than lower age average for our list which in no way reflects on the quality of the list.

This was a crap year to start the overhaul. If we wanted to go down this path (and nothing wrong with that) it should have been done last year when the draft was good.

As for the flexibility, I am sick and tired of hearing that word. As a Sacramento Kings fan I have been hearing that crap for 3 years now and the only place that the bleeding of talent and acquisitions of "flexible pieces" have led us is to mediocrity!

I prefer to have 3 very good players as opposed to 2 good, 2 OK and 3 duds

 

[Cap]

ROFL!!! Are you serious?! Tell that to Geelong circa 2001

Of course there is a good time and the bad time. You make the changes at the right time, not just for the sake of it!

I cannot believe that you cannot see the difference between a really strong draft and deep draft and average and shallow draft!


How so?!

Quantity just gives you a number with limited quality. Before you can start getting rid off the newly drafted deadwood, you have to wait a few years while you are getting rid off the older dead wood!

This gives us nothing other than lower age average for our list which in no way reflects on the quality of the list.

This was a crap year to start the overhaul. If we wanted to go down this path (and nothing wrong with that) it should have been done last year when the draft was good.

As for the flexibility, I am sick and tired of hearing that word. As a Sacramento Kings fan I have been hearing that crap for 3 years now and the only place that the bleeding of talent and acquisitions of "flexible pieces" have led us is to mediocrity!

I prefer to have 3 very good players as opposed to 2 good, 2 OK and 3 duds

I do realise the difference between a strong and weak draft but neither give you a guarantee of every pick being a winner and you can get duds. What your saying is why not hold out for another year and accept mediocrity for another 12 months......


I'm not talking about flexible players, i'm talking about the ability to cut a certain number of players each year and having a youth rotation policy and the ability to enusre our list doesn't stagnate and needs mass pruning like we have this year. by starting this year as a base regardless of its depth we can ensure that we have regular players coming in and out of the club (which you need) instead of having our current situation of a group of players at 30+ who are out guns and a few players between 20-24 with nothing really in between.

 

[Mismatched]

Thanks for that Vader, but I am still a little confused. Did it used to be that a percentage of their salary was included under the veteran's list and not included as part of the main salary cap? Otherwise what on earth is the reason for having a veteran's list? Seems a bit silly to just have a special name for your older players on your list with no other benefit.

It does take a certain amount out, but the more veterans you take, the smaller amount it removes from each player. It is also 38 + the veterans rather than 38 including the veterans.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Would this put Sampi on our radar? I think it will depend on who is likely to be out of contract by on the 27th.

Not sure if it's in the on-line news article but in the Herald Sun today there was his picture ......god I thought it was an old man NOT a 23 year old ..........he definately looks more like a goat herder than a footballer

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I think you are spot on with this post!

A HUGE overhaul of the list this year but the timing couldn't possibly be any worse! In a draft year that is considered weak we have picks coming out of our backside. Quantity != Quality. This clean out should have been done 12 months ago in a draft year that was considered to be "super"

Anyway, since its a shallow draft, I cannot see us using all of our picks in the National Draft. I suspect we will leave one for the PSD and opt for a more mature age player from SANFL/WAFL/VFL.

The reason why we would want to leave one pick for the PSD is because we can offer a 1 year deal to players in the PSD rather than the mandatory 2 year deal to the new draftees in the ND. Thats one way to manage risk. If he doesn't pan out, delist him at the end of next year and his salary won't count against salary cap.

The only way I can see us not leaving a pick for the PSD is if there is a player there that we REALLY rate much higher and want to pick him up. !

I agree on all points

The other consideration and I think we'll take a PSD pick whereas b4 we may not have is that I think with so much experience gone now we will have to take a mature age player ......maybe a delistee.

We have lost now Welsh, Roo, Bode, Perrie from our forward line .......that means a whole new structure.

Does this mean also that where we may have been 50/50 with Keplar Bradley that maybe now that need to have him as an experienced forward option increases.

The other forward options of Gill and Biglands will have injury ????over their heads ........I agree Salter is worth a go .....but he's 20 and IMO opinion we need a little more experience back in the forward line.

 

[- PC -]

cousins.....

So a couple of Tasmanians?

 

[jarmanagic]

firstly this speculation about strength of the draft is just rubbish. That will be judged in 5-10 years. If it was an exact science we'd be stuffed anyway, most of our good players are rookied/PSD or taken after pick 30 (except for Burton, Reilly and maybe Douglas)

It might seem circular but I think there is an argument for taking Torney back with our last pick. The surprising departure of Welsh leaves us suddenly thin for depth

Why could we not sort Welsh situation out one way or other pre trade week? We would have got something for him. Or was Rendell and co outsmarted by the extraordinary Bulldogs footy dept yet again. In a pretty average last 6 weeks Rendell laughing about being left with pick 30 was the low point for me. Bring back Fantasia quick