Jesse Hogan(mini-draft)- priority for us

[PapaJ]

I find the anger against the Dees a little mystifying. The system existed and they exploited it, fair play to 'em. Abuse of the set-up wide-spread and yet now we hear allot righteous talk about Melbourne's morally bankrupt culture whilst everyone else that had a crack (including ourselves most likely) is merely a victim. What a load of balls.
It was a corruption in which a significant majority had hand in. Why else the comparatively weak punishment? They can't explicitly punish them for tanking without it forcing out the evidence that a number clubs have done the same whilst AFL officials gave tacit approval. Everybody loses. Hence the pumped out outrage before and during the investigation followed by not actually doing anything. Hell they had prima facie evidence for the same investigation 3 and half years ago. Anyone who thought Melbourne as a club would carry the can for this were dreaming.

Spot on, but that doesn’t stop my dislike for them. With Melbourne it's a bit personal in that they tanked pretty much all year in 08/09 except when they played us- now we should have been good enough to beat them, but still, it annoyed me that bit more. Further, I don’t think any club have been as systematic in their tanking efforts, though granted we don’t know all the facts, but they stink pretty strong of it. Taken over from Carlton as the tankers par excellence AFAIC.

But for sure, Melbourne wears the emotional wrath at the moment, but the real nobs are at AFL headquarters. They’ve done a great job in recent years in many respects, I’m no Vlad hatter for the sake of it. But on this issue they’ve been truly stupid and they’ve set up a system where they can’t do anything but find a scapegoat, slap a wrist or two and wax lyrical that tanking doesn’t exist.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Spot on, but that doesn’t stop my dislike for them. With Melbourne it's a bit personal in that they tanked pretty much all year in 08/09 except when they played us- now we should have been good enough to beat them, but still, it annoyed me that bit more. Further, I don’t think any club have been as systematic in their tanking efforts, though granted we don’t know all the facts, but they stink pretty strong of it. Taken over from Carlton as the tankers par excellence AFAIC.

But for sure, Melbourne wears the emotional wrath at the moment, but the real nobs are at AFL headquarters. They’ve done a great job in recent years in many respects, I’m no Vlad hatter for the sake of it. But on this issue they’ve been truly stupid and they’ve set up a system where they can’t do anything but find a scapegoat, slap a wrist or two and wax lyrical that tanking doesn’t exist.

On the other hand, it wouldnt hurt for us to take Hogan off there hands in 2-3 years

 

[strobe00]

You are probably being a bit harsh on Melbourne, lets not forget Collingwood got Pendlebury through the same deal, as did the eagles and hawks (Buddy). At least melbourne didnt go from being in the finals one year to only winning four games and getting a bonus first round draft pick.

And by the eagles, I don't mind them winning occasionally as long as they finish 9th

Carltank also got Kruezer by tanking. If they hadn't tanked they might have had to give up that pick for Judd. As it was they just gave up their first non-priority pick (pick 3).

As for the Eagles, there's a huge difference between an end of first round pick and a before the first round pick. The before-the-first round pick was always an insanely rewarding thing. If the Eagles had lost a game or two at the end of that season they could have ended up with one. They didn't tank, and ended up winning enough games that they only ended up with an end of first round pick.

They are the only one of the clubs mentioned here that I don't reckon tanked. Darling was a pretty handy acquisition. But they could have gotten Polec, Conca, Caddy or Heppell instead if they'd done a Meltank or Carltank.

 

[go_the_dockers]

As for the Eagles, there's a huge difference between an end of first round pick and a before the first round pick. The before-the-first round pick was always an insanely rewarding thing. If the Eagles had lost a game or two at the end of that season they could have ended up with one. They didn't tank, and ended up winning enough games that they only ended up with an end of first round pick.

.

The afl updated the rules so you had to finish with under 5 wins for two season in a row to get a 1st round draft pick. This is why the eagles got a second round draft pick, not because they won too many games

 

[strobe00]

The afl updated the rules so you had to finish with under 5 wins for two season in a row to get a 1st round draft pick. This is why the eagles got a second round draft pick, not because they won too many games

As far as I'm aware, if they had kept losing that season they would have finished with under 5 wins for two seasons in a row. They won a game or two at the end, which left them with a end-of-first pick instead.

EDIT: looks like I was wrong. They won 4 in 2008, 8 in 2009 and 4 again in 2010. Must have been the year before (in 2009) that the scenario came up. If they'd won 4 or less that year they'd have gotten a shot at Dustin Martin or Mora. Dunno if they'd have had another priority pick in 2010 as well as they'd have finish with less than five wins for three seasons in a a row.

 

[go_the_dockers]

As far as I'm aware, if they had kept losing that season they would have finished with under 5 wins for two seasons in a row. They won a game or two at the end, which left them with a end-of-first pick instead.

First priority round amendment

By 1993, some of the weakest teams (e.g. Sydney Swans, Brisbane Bears and Richmond) were still enduring prolonged periods of poor performance, so the priority draft pick was introduced in the Draft of that year to further assist these teams. In its first incarnation:

• Teams received a priority draft pick if they finished with less than 20.5 premiership points (five wins) for the season.
• The entire priority round took place prior to the first round of the National Draft.
• Where more than one team participated in the same round of priority picks, selections were made in reverse ladder position order, as is the case for normal selection rounds.

It became clear, however, that a team with reasonable prospects could finish with five wins and receive a roster boosting priority draft pick as a result of an isolated poor season due to key players suffering injuries, internal dissent and/or other off-field trouble. This was unfair and counterproductive to the initial raison d'êtreof the priority pick, which was to help consistently poor teams with minimal or no prospects to rebuild.
For this reason, the AFL made further amendments to the priority pick rules in 2006.
2006 priority round amendment

From the 2006 draft, a club became eligible for a priority draft pick in the National Draft if it finished a season with fewer than 16.5 premiership points (four wins). The location of the priority draft picks within the overall National Draft now depended upon the team's performance over the previous two years:

• Where the team finished with more than 16.5 premiership points in the previous season, and fewer than 16.5 premiership points in the current season, the priority draft pick was taken between the first and second rounds of the National Draft.
• Where the team finished with fewer than 16.5 premiership points in both the previous season and the current season, the priority draft pick was taken prior to the first round of the National Draft.

Another way to describe this is that in a sequence of consecutive poor seasons, the priority draft pick in the first season would be taken after the first round, and any second or subsequent priority draft picks would be taken before the first round.



Also complicating the debate is the fact that different people have different opinions on what is acceptable behaviour. When speaking about West Coast's 2010 priority draft pick, coach John Worsfold openly defended his right to play young players in unfamiliar positions to assist their development;[5] but, when speaking about Carlton's 2007 priority draft pick, assistant coach Tony Liberatore said he personally thought it was wrong to play younger players in place of senior players whose niggling injuries would not be bad enough to force their omission if the team were playing finals,[4] and Brock McLean revealed that he requested to be traded away from the Melbourne Football Club because he disagreed with similar strategies in the lead-up to Melbourne's 2009 priority draft pick.[6]

 

[Taylor]

The wording of the AFL rule was that a club wins less than 4.5 games. I have no idea what it says four and a half wins.

 

[strobe00]

The wording of the AFL rule was that a club wins less than 4.5 games. I have no idea what it says four and a half wins.

A four wins and a draw (half a win?) would be enough for them to miss out I suspect.

 

[strobe00]

West Coast won 4 out of their last 5 games in 2009. If they'd lost all of them, they'd have ended up with a before the first round priority pick.

And it sounds like they would have gotten another priority pick the next year as they only won 4 games in 2010.

 

[Purple Suit]

Carltank also got Kruezer by tanking. If they hadn't tanked they might have had to give up that pick for Judd. As it was they just gave up their first non-priority pick (pick 3).

As for the Eagles, there's a huge difference between an end of first round pick and a before the first round pick. The before-the-first round pick was always an insanely rewarding thing. If the Eagles had lost a game or two at the end of that season they could have ended up with one. They didn't tank, and ended up winning enough games that they only ended up with an end of first round pick.

They are the only one of the clubs mentioned here that I don't reckon tanked. Darling was a pretty handy acquisition. But they could have gotten Polec, Conca, Caddy or Heppell instead if they'd done a Meltank or Carltank.

Are you on the right board? It seems like you are defending the eagles?

 

[strobe00]

Are you on the right board? It seems like you are defending the eagles?

I don't have the same level of Eagles hatred as some of my fellow Freo supporters. Most of the Weagle supporters I see frequently aren't particularly obnoxious. You can tell that I've never been to a derby live or I'd probably have changed my mind pretty quickly.

The reality is they could have gotten before-the-first round priority picks for two years in a row if they'd really Meltanked it. They didn't. We'd have missed out on Mora in 2009 if they'd tanked properly (Melbourne and Carlton style) that year. They then could have ended up with Polec, Conca... the next year.

 

[Purple Suit]

I don't have the same level of Eagles hatred as some of my fellow Freo supporters. Most of the Weagle supporters I see frequently aren't particularly obnoxious. You can tell that I've never been to a derby live or I'd probably have changed my mind pretty quickly.

The reality is they could have gotten before-the-first round priority picks for two years in a row if they'd really Meltanked it. They didn't. We'd have missed out on Mora in 2009 if they'd tanked properly (Melbourne and Carlton style) that year. They then could have ended up with Polec, Conca... the next year.

I don't think Melbourne or Carlton started their priority year with tanking in mind, they just carried it out in the last 8 weeks when they knew they were shot. I think the Eagles did the same, they just got lucky in 09 where they managed a few more wins than expected. This doesn't mean they didn't disguise a tank towards the end of 08 + 10 once they were gone, just that the incentive wasn't as great so therefore they weren't as blatant as the other two desperate teams.

The thing that I hated about Melbourne is that around Rd 18 2009, they thought they could do what Carlton did and get a priority without winning the spoon. That's why they were so desperate to lose to Richmond, but then played a normal game against us a few weeks later. Fortunately, we won a few other games so that scenario never occured. I believe this is why Melbourne were more exposed with their tanking, because they were try to pick and choose which games to win, rather than just losing everything.

 

[PapaJ]

I don't think Melbourne or Carlton started their priority year with tanking in mind, they just carried it out in the last 8 weeks when they knew they were shot. I think the Eagles did the same, they just got lucky in 09 where they managed a few more wins than expected. This doesn't mean they didn't disguise a tank towards the end of 08 + 10 once they were gone, just that the incentive wasn't as great so therefore they weren't as blatant as the other two desperate teams.

The thing that I hated about Melbourne is that around Rd 18 2009, they thought they could do what Carlton did and get a priority without winning the spoon. That's why they were so desperate to lose to Richmond, but then played a normal game against us a few weeks later. Fortunately, we won a few other games so that scenario never occured. I believe this is why Melbourne were more exposed with their tanking, because they were try to pick and choose which games to win, rather than just losing everything.

I'm with Strobe on this one. I don't think the Eagles ever sought to tank to the same degree that Carlton and Melbourne did. It's all a bit subjective from where we sit, but they're in a league of their own AFAIC.

But you've put nicely in the second par why I particularly dislike the way Meltank went about it. They were just that more openly conniving about it. Not saying others haven't done it on way or another, of course they have, but Melbourne took it to a new and openly more pathetic level.

 

[Silent Alarm]

The short-term plan of tanking (two to five years) doesn't come without longer term consequences. Having a losing mentality in a professional environment is suss. Everyone who gets to the AFL is hugely competitive. They've been made to be competitive for at least the few seasons before being drafted. Imagine going to a club where they heavily imply that you're not going to win?

But Hogan looks pretty good. Strong, footy-brained, skilful, and versatile is a pretty sound little combination. He's built like a man already. Plus, he's still got another season of development. I've only met him once, but he seemed an okay guy, even though he was being talked up at the time – pretty quiet if anything. The mutual friends we have always talked up about how he was good enough to be a big name, rather than the bloke who's happy to be on a list.

 

[Swan Districts Kid]

I'm with Strobe on this one. I don't think the Eagles ever sought to tank to the same degree that Carlton and Melbourne did. It's all a bit subjective from where we sit, but they're in a league of their own AFAIC.

But you've put nicely in the second par why I particularly dislike the way Meltank went about it. They were just that more openly conniving about it. Not saying others haven't done it on way or another, of course they have, but Melbourne took it to a new and openly more pathetic level.

Totally agree - at least Carlton are a generally successful club where languishing at the bottom of the ladder is more the exception than the rule. Ladder-wise & financially, Melbourne have been a basket-case ever since I started following VFL in the 70s. Yet rather than capitulate to a common-sense strategy of amalgamation with another Melbourne based club, they cling to this arrogant belief that they have some God given right to exist.

Every time I've had to watch them make public appeals to reduce club debt, or bring in a white knight like Joe Gutnick & have Lyon bang on about it on the Footy Show, I've just wished they'd go away & die. But they continue to exist, cheating along the way, & worst of all, thwarting us in our attempts to recruit the likes of Mitch Clark & Jesse Hogan. At least they inherited those self-serving vandal nepotists Schwab & Connolly - idiots!

I'm praying to the footy gods that Hogan does a Tom Scully & resists their inevitable overtures and takes his place at Fremantle as Pavlich's rightful heir.

 

[caterina]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/je...n-star-in-making/story-fndv8pdq-1226662745291

Surely he wouldn't be that silly?

 

[Seppo]

They are really struggling to make him smile, obviously doesn't want to be there.

 

[leungtl]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/je...n-star-in-making/story-fndv8pdq-1226662745291

Surely he wouldn't be that silly?

"Fly in, get the 2 years of compulsory match payments, fly out"

 

[PapaJ]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/je...n-star-in-making/story-fndv8pdq-1226662745291

Surely he wouldn't be that silly?

They're going to make it bloody hard for him to leave, no doubt about it. They're trying to do what all (except Adelaide I think who took a bit longer) and lock in these pre-selection picks well before other clubs have a chance to formally make offers.

As the article implies, the noise out of Melbourne is they are falling over this guy and they are looking after him in every way they can, not just with a big contract on the table. Him and Viney are being heavily protected from the crap around the club (as best they can), pampered, groomed and catered for in every way possible. Forgetting the $$$ in the contract, publicly and privately they'll make it very hard emotionally for him to leave. As much as I hate it, to get him away from there would be difficult.

 

[Nickos66]

**** off Melbourne.
Jack, get the hell out of there before you get Watts'D.

 

[Paracleet]

Anyone who thinks we're going to get him is in fantasy land. We would never agree to the amount they would want for him in trade and they hold the whip hand as no club is going to pass him over if he walks in the draft at the end of next year. He can't name his club. He will eventually sign any stupid deal they offer him because 1) it would be more than we or WC would be will to pay him at this stage of his career and 2) He will be under to pressue to sign by those around him and most particually by his agent who will have cartoon $ signs for eyes right about now.
Being at Melbourne is not going to hurt his development. Maybe less driven but talented players like Watts struggle at weak clubs but Triple A players like Hogan are going to be superstars wherever they play. Just like Pav was a superstar playing at then weak club with crumbling sh*thouse training facilities or just as Richo was still a star in side that made the finals once in his 282 games.

 

[Enya]

Didn't they make them twice in Richo's time? 1995 and 2001?

 

[mattis117]

Anyone who thinks we're going to get him is in fantasy land. We would never agree to the amount they would want for him in trade and they hold the whip hand as no club is going to pass him over if he walks in the draft at the end of next year. He can't name his club. He will eventually sign any stupid deal they offer him because 1) it would be more than we or WC would be will to pay him at this stage of his career and 2) He will be under to pressue to sign by those around him and most particually by his agent who will have cartoon $ signs for eyes right about now.
Being at Melbourne is not going to hurt his development. Maybe less driven but talented players like Watts struggle at weak clubs but Triple A players like Hogan are going to be superstars wherever they play. Just like Pav was a superstar playing at then weak club with crumbling sh*thouse training facilities or just as Richo was still a star in side that made the finals once in his 282 games.

Agree, we would have to offer a Steven Hill or similar to get him over here, we will never have the draft picks.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Didn't they make them twice in Richo's time? 1995 and 2001?

Richmond made the finals in both of those years. Looking at the other years it is painful, so many times they were top 8 with 2-3 rounds left and missed out.

 

[Paracleet]

Didn't they make them twice in Richo's time? 1995 and 2001?

He was out that season with a busted knee. I suppose you could argue it counts though