Draft mechanisms under review

[Swanssince91]

Hawthorn tried to extend their time at the top by handing over first rounders for years.
I can't remember the last time we traded out our first for a player

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Had someone bid on Gulden at 10 they would have got him.

Yes, they would have. But he wasn't valued that high - despite now being the best performed of the draft.

But that's not really the point. The point is that no club should be able to select a player at pick 4 and then another player at pick 5 (with picks in the 30's) - (and still have enough capital to select again at pick 32 - with picks at the end of the draft).

It's indicative of a broken system.

 

[RUNVS]

Yes, they would have. But he wasn't valued that high - despite now being the best performed of the draft.

But that's not really the point. The point is that no club should be able to select a player at pick 4 and then another player at pick 5 (with picks in the 30's) - (and still have enough capital to select again at pick 32 - with picks at the end of the draft).

It's indicative of a broken system.

I can't remember the exact details but I am pretty sure Sydney had an extra pick because of a trade and we turned those picks into better points.

 

[Swanssince91]

Yes, they would have. But he wasn't valued that high - despite now being the best performed of the draft.

But that's not really the point. The point is that no club should be able to select a player at pick 4 and then another player at pick 5 (with picks in the 30's) - (and still have enough capital to select again at pick 32 - with picks at the end of the draft).

It's indicative of a broken system.

You traded out all your firsts for players, that's why your lists a mess

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I can't remember the exact details but I am pretty sure Sydney had an extra pick because of a trade and we turned those picks into better points.

Right - but there's no way in hell anyone would have made the same trade for pick 5. Pick 4 (now pick 5) this year fetched 3 first rounders. Imagine having to give up your first round pick for 3 years (or 2 years and a good player) to get your hands on Campbell. It would leave your list in a completely different situation (ie. the same as other clubs).

This isn't a criticism of Sydney at all - they are playing by the rules and doing it well (all clubs would do the same). The criticism is of the rules as they stand.

 

[sr36]

You traded out all your firsts for players, that's why your lists a mess

The point is they had to if they wanted to try to avoid the AFL cycle of dropping down to the bottom. Which is a precarious place for a Vic club to be as you have the same retention issues which Sydney fans claim is an enormous disadvantage. Probably worse as you don't have top recruits who have been indoctrinated into the club since they were 11 years old and are thus unlikely to leave, so you pay a shitload to retain or recruit quality because players want success and don't even have to move house to increase their chances of success or get a pay rise.

Sydney don't have to, they got a couple of top 3 kids when they were near the top and quality kids regularly since as well as a lot of their regular picks. They're protected from the cycle. With the current rules, they'll have to stuff up big time to have a stint at the bottom. Just as Collingwood would have to have stuffed up big time to have a lengthy stint down having gotten Moore Daicos Daicos and Quaynor through draft concessions. In fact we did stuff up big time, but still bounced straight back because having access to top talent through draft concessions is a massive advantage.

 

[Swanssince91]

The point is they had to if they wanted to try to avoid the AFL cycle of dropping down to the bottom. Which is a precarious place for a Vic club to be as you have the same retention issues which Sydney fans claim is an enormous disadvantage. Probably worse as you don't have top recruits who have been indoctrinated into the club since they were 11 years old and are thus unlikely to leave, so you pay a shitload to retain or recruit quality because players want success and don't even have to move house to increase their chances of success or get a pay rise.

Sydney don't have to, they got a couple of top 3 kids when they were near the top and quality kids regularly since as well as a lot of their regular picks. They're protected from the cycle. With the current rules, they'll have to stuff up big time to have a stint at the bottom. Just as Collingwood would have to have stuffed up big time to have a lengthy stint down having gotten Moore Daicos Daicos and Quaynor through draft concessions. In fact we did stuff up big time, but still bounced straight back because having access to top talent through draft concessions is a massive advantage.

They basically traded out every first rounder since 2010, it had to end one day

 

[sr36]

They basically traded out every first rounder since 2010, it had to end one day

First rounder sounds great, but when you look at draft data, they're not worth much when they're in the teens or beyond. The value play was to trade them which the top clubs did as part of the reason they were too is that they were using data more effectively than the other clubs - it wasn't just topping up. They valued these picks more accurately than the rest of the comp.

But once again, the point is it wouldn't have to end for Sydney. Because they've got top kids coming through regardless of ladder position.

 

[Swanssince91]

First rounder sounds great, but when you look at draft data, they're not worth much when they're in the teens or beyond. The value play was to trade them which the top clubs did as part of the reason they were too is that they were using data more effectively than the other clubs - it wasn't just topping up. They valued these picks more accurately than the rest of the comp.

Some of our best players are from beyond, although we get no credit for them.
Errol Gulden 33
Chad Warner 39
Luke Parker 40

 

[sr36]

Some of our best players are from beyond, although we get no credit for them.
Errol Gulden 33
Chad Warner 39
Luke Parker 40

There's a whole variety of reasons why Sydney have been good. You've had great footy departments. I'm happy to give Sydney credit for being a fantastically run club.

But some kids coming through from later picks is why the teen picks don't have much value. They're a bit, but not much more successful than picks in that range you've quoted. The top end picks however are worth a heap and you only have access to them if you're shit, get lucky with father sons or have the academy system tilting things favourably.

 

[Swanssince91]

There's a whole variety of reasons why Sydney have been good. You've had great footy departments.

But some top kids coming through from later picks is why the teen picks don't have much value. They're a bit, but not hugely more successful than picks in that range you've quoted. The top end picks however are worth a heap and you only have access to them if you're s**t, get lucky with father sons or have the academy system tilting things favourably.

Salary cap is the same so we'd just be spending on other players anyway

 

[sr36]

Salary cap is the same so we'd just be spending on other players anyway

You pay less to retain than poach, so you can afford a better list if you get them through the draft - I suspect the academies are an added advantage for that too - these kids have a strong connection to the club from a very early age - top kids who are less likely to shop themselves around to boost their salary.

The academies are necessary to develop the game and the Northern clubs. I think they're a good thing, but they are a big advantage. I don't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. I would like to see a change to the matching so that the advantage isn't as huge as it currently is.

 

[Swanssince91]

You pay less to retain than poach, so you can afford a better list if you get them through the draft - I suspect the academies are an added advantage for that too - these kids have a strong connection to the club from a very early age - top kids who are less likely to shop themselves around to boost their salary.

The academies are necessary to develop the game and the Northern clubs. I think they're a good thing, but they are a big advantage. I don't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. I would like to see a change to the matching so that the advantage isn't as huge as it currently is.

It costs us more to retain players as we don't have the draftees in Sydney.
1 draftee in 2022, gws academy player that we bid on.
At a guess 90% of your list would be from Victoria, much easier to retain.
We get zero credit for development

 

[Guardian Hawk]

You traded out all your firsts for players, that's why your lists a mess

Mate, this has nothing to do with Hawthorn (it was just one example from one season).

Even then, Hawthorn have only had 1 first rounder for years and most of the time, only a late first rounder. As I mentioned, no top 5 picks since 2005. Sydney, on the other hand, have has multiple extra (i.e. on top of their normal) top 5 picks, top 10 picks and 1st round picks

Let's pick a different example - Geelong - Geelong have not had a top 5 pick for at least 20+ years. Yet Sydney have had multiple 'extras'. They come round once in a blue moon for some clubs and are very highly valued when they do so to get them on top of your regular picks is a huge advantage.

Let's use another example - Melbourne have 3 top 5 picks on their list - Oliver, Petracca and Brayshaw. How would Melbourne fare without 2 of those 3 - would they have won in 2021?

In Richmond's dominant era - they had 2 top 5 picks - Dustin Martin and Trent Cotchin - how would they have gone without those 2?

Hawthorn had 2 top 5 picks across all years of their threepeat - Hodge and Roughead. Would we have won any flags without them.

Cos Sydney have had 2 extra top 5 picks, another top 10 pick, another first round pick, etc.

How would Sydney go if you took Mills (3), Heeney (18), Campbell (5), Gulden (32), Blakey (10), etc off their list and replaced them with some random 2nd -4th round picks.

Not that well I imagine.

Again, not a criticism of Sydney at all - just that the academy system is not set up well as the advantage is too large.

 

[Swanssince91]

Mate, this has nothing to do with Hawthorn (it was just one example from one season).

Even then, Hawthorn have only had 1 first rounder for years and most of the time, only a late first rounder. As I mentioned, no top 5 picks since 2005. Sydney, on the other hand, have has multiple extra (i.e. on top of their normal) top 5 picks, top 10 picks and 1st round picks

Let's pick a different example - Geelong - Geelong have not had a top 5 pick for at least 20+ years. Yet Sydney have had multiple 'extras'. They come round once in a blue moon for some clubs and are very highly valued when they do so to get them on top of your regular picks is a huge advantage.

Let's use another example - Melbourne have 3 top 5 picks on their list - Oliver, Petracca and Brayshaw. How would Melbourne fare without 2 of those 3 - would they have won in 2021?

In Richmond's dominant era - they had 2 top 5 picks - Dustin Martin and Trent Cotchin - how would they have gone without those 2?

Hawthorn had 2 top 5 picks across all years of their threepeat - Hodge and Roughead. Would we have won any flags without them.

Cos Sydney have had 2 extra top 5 picks, another top 10 pick, another first round pick, etc.

How would Sydney go if you took Mills (3), Heeney (18), Campbell (5), Gulden (32), Blakey (10), etc off their list and replaced them with some random 2nd -4th round picks.

Not that well I imagine.

Again, not a criticism of Sydney at all - just that the academy system is not set up well as the advantage is too large.

Omeara, Mitchell and Chad Wingard have put you where you are

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Some of our best players are from beyond, although we get no credit for them.
Errol Gulden 33
Chad Warner 39
Luke Parker 40

You do get credit but all clubs have these.

Our best player is Sicily and he was pick 56. Our most important player is Lewis and he was pick 76. Our next best player is Newcombe and he was a mid season draftee, etc, etc.

No one's whole list comes from first round picks.

But getting regular additional top picks at a huge discount is a very significant list advantage.

I'm not sure why it is hard to accept. Every club would say thak you and capitalise in the same scenario.

The problem is not Sydney - a well respected club. The problem is the AFL and rules that need addressing (which it seems they acknowledge).

 

[Swanssince91]

From the Mitchell trade to Hawthorn we basically turned that first and our own into Will Hayward

19

Will Hayward

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.8

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

9.0

2star

K

4.3

2star

HB

4.7

3star

M

2.7

3star

T

2.7

4star

G

0.7

4star

D

9.4

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.4

5star

and Ollie Florent.

If we were in Melbourne we could've landed Joe Daniher and Dunkley as father sons

 

[Caligo]

Omeara, Mitchell and Chad Wingard have put you where you are

Losing the best small forward in the league and a top 5 KPF both in their prime had a fair bit to do with that attempt at topping up not working.

There is not a team in the league who could lose that much talent in their prime and still be a flag favourite.

 

[Caligo]

You do get credit but all clubs have these.

Our best player is Sicily and he was pick 56. Our most important player is Lewis and he was pick 76. Our next best player is Newcombe and he was a mid season draftee, etc, etc.

No one's whole list comes from first round picks.

But getting regular additional top picks at a huge discount is a very significant list advantage.

I'm not sure why it is hard to accept. Every club would say thak you and capitalise in the same scenario.

The problem is not Sydney - a well respected club. The problem is the AFL and rules that need addressing (which it seems they acknowledge).

Most clubs don't actually have that. It is a measure of how good sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn are that they have such talent accessed from such bad draft picks.

 

[werdna78]

So how do we fix this Problem? Expand the WAFL from 10 to 12 WAFL sides? Make 2 new sides?

Give them academy's to focus on the cream of WA and SA

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Omeara, Mitchell and Chad Wingard have put you where you are

So? It has nothing to do with the point I am making or the point of the thread.

Hawthorn have made some poor choices. That doesn't make the Northern academy advantage any less significant.

Even then, Mitchell was traded for Pick 14 and delivered an MVP, Brownlow, multiple AA's, etc. A WAY better result than the average pick 14. Wingard was traded for Ryan Burton and the pick that became Xavier Duursma. A net loss for Hawthorn but swap the players and Hawthorn aren't much better. O'Meara was traded for picks that became Jack Bowes and Hunter Clark. O'Meara the best performed of those 3.

Now let's look at the hypothetical scenario of Hawthorn having access to the Sydney academy. Using the picks that we would have to match bids, these would be the ins and out of our list:

Out: Ryan Burton, Daniel Howe, Jacob Kochitzke, Matt Walker, Denver Grainger Barass and Connor Downie
In: Callum Mills, Isaac Heeney, Nick Blakey, Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden

We'd honestly be close to premiership favourites with those changes.

But again, this ISN'T about Hawthorn. It's just one working example that demonstrates the advantage that the current academy pick system provides.

 

[Swanssince91]

Give them academy's to focus on the cream of WA and SA

I've said it before, I would be happy if NSW was assigned to GWS and us.
If we finish lower we get to pick first.
We would still have free agency and other ways to top up.
Vic could have their own draft
SA could have their own draft
WA could have their own draft and so on

 

[Swanssince91]

So? It has nothing to do with the point I am making or the point of the thread.

Hawthorn have made some poor choices. That doesn't make the Northern academy advantage any less significant.

Even then, Mitchell was traded for Pick 14 and delivered an MVP, Brownlow, multiple AA's, etc. A WAY better result than the average pick 14. Wingard was traded for Ryan Burton and the pick that became Xavier Duursma. A net loss for Hawthorn but swap the players and Hawthorn aren't much better. O'Meara was traded for picks that became Jack Bowes and Hunter Clark. O'Meara the best performed of those 3.

Now let's look at the hypothetical scenario of Hawthorn having access to the Sydney academy. Using the picks that we would have to match bids, these would be the ins and out of our list:

Out: Ryan Burton, Daniel Howe, Jacob Kochitzke, Matt Walker, Denver Grainger Barass and Connor Downie
In: Callum Mills, Isaac Heeney, Nick Blakey, Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden

We'd honestly be close to premiership favourites with those changes.

But again, this ISN'T about Hawthorn. It's just one working example that demonstrates the advantage that the current academy pick system provides.

The point is taking Mitchell only gave you a few years, Florent and Hayward are long term

 

[sr36]

It costs us more to retain players as we don't have the draftees in Sydney.
1 draftee in 2022, gws academy player that we bid on.
At a guess 90% of your list would be from Victoria, much easier to retain.
We get zero credit for development

No one gets any credit for development. People seem to assume that it's all about the draft and players would be identical wherever they land.

I suspect it costs more to retain than the top Vic teams pay, but less than the bottom Vic clubs pay. I reckon you're probably in the middle. But we're both guessing.

 

[sr36]

Most clubs don't actually have that. It is a measure of how good sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn are that they have such talent accessed from such bad draft picks.

Most clubs do. Maybe not GC and GWS as they've rarely picked that late.