"Last uncompromised draft"

[Reg Hickey]

I'm hearing this phrase and variations of it thrown around willy nilly at the moment. It could be that I am sick today and not thinking straight, but I must confess I don't understand it, especially in the context of refusing to trade high picks for experienced players.

Sure, I know that GC then Western Sydney are going to be awarded a ridiculous number of early picks in the next 3-4 drafts, which means that all the other teams are going to be pushed further down the order. Whoever wins the flag next year might not get a pick until about 25 or 30.

BUT, we also know that if the GC turns out for its first game in 2011 with a team solely made up of 18-20 year olds, plus a handful of uncontracted older players, they are going to get smashed. And they can't afford that.

SO, isn't the logical conclusion that they will be very keen to trade a few of their plentiful high draft picks for seasoned players? I would guess too that they wouldn't have to be champions for the GC to give up a top 10 pick - merely decent players. I reckon guys like Prismall, Lovett, Corey Jones, Daniel Harris, Warnock, etc could easily get first rounders in 2010, simply because the GC will be desperate for those types of players and will have little else to trade with. So wouldn't that mean that a club like Geelong, with a magnificent depth of talent, would be well positioned to trade its way into a pretty decent draft position?

So if I was Port and Collingwood were willing to give me Didak for pick 4, or if I was Richmond and could get McIntosh for pick 8, baby, I'd be doing it because I reckon I could trade a much lesser player than that for the same pick in 2010.

Of course, if I believed that the outstanding quality of this draft meant that pick 8 will get me a better player than McIntosh, fine (even if clearly misguided), but thats got nothing to do with the future "compromised" drafts.

 

[year of the cat]

You are pretty much correct. We will be in a better position to trade some of our seasoned players to GC or WS in order to bring high picks and therefore young talent to the club.

Cam Mooney is an obvious example. He has already stated he would look closely at a move north for the later years of his career. In any other year he may only command a 2nd-3rd round pick at his age. We may be able to get one of GC's first round picks for him. They will need experienced talls if they are to be competitive in their first year.

It still is prudent though for the club to hold their first round picks in this draft as the top 25 picks are pretty special.

 

[Reg Hickey]

It still is prudent though for the club to hold their first round picks in this draft as the top 25 picks are pretty special.

Fair enough if this is an awesome draft, then the clubs should be less willing to trade high picks. But as I said, thats a different issue from the "compromised draft".

I actually think we've gone too far in valuing draft picks. Everyone looks at us and Hawthorn and says that we built our premiership teams through the draft, so they all want to hold on to their picks. But they seem to be forgetting that the draft can still be a bit of a lottery. The chances of getting a better player than Prismall at pick 23, for example, even in this draft, have got to be significantly less than even money. For every Daniel Kerr drafted in the teens, there's plenty of Charlie Gardiners, Daniel Fosters, Danny Meyers and Aaron Fioras.

 

[year of the cat]

If you go through the player for draft pick trades over the years, on almost every occasion the team that picks up the pick ends up better off.

 

[alfy!]

Well next years draft is compromised, so this is important for the next two years. 2010+ is very unpredictable, so may as well get the youngsters now.

 

[hamG]

If you go through the player for draft pick trades over the years, on almost every occasion the team that picks up the pick ends up better off.

Geelong: Premiership
Richmond: 2 duds

Gold Coast would be the only team who would give us anything for a 32 year old Mooney, hopefully they hire Freo's former club staff.

 

[Reg Hickey]

Well next years draft is compromised, so this is important for the next two years. 2010+ is very unpredictable, so may as well get the youngsters now.

???

Um, that sort of statement is why I started this thread in the first place ...

 

[thejester]

BUT, we also know that if the GC turns out for its first game in 2011 with a team solely made up of 18-20 year olds, plus a handful of uncontracted older players, they are going to get smashed. And they can't afford that.

I disagree. Given the ridiculously large amounts of cash the AFL is prepared to pump into them, they can afford to be bottom-ish in their first few seasons. Supporters will jump onboard once they start winning flags...and given the concessions given they have it will be almost impossible not to four-five years down the track.

AFAIK they're allowed up to 16 uncontracted players, with compensation to be given by the AFL. Coming into this week, look at some of the names they could potentially have picked up - Kerr, O'Keefe, Warnock, Prismall. Geelong and Hawthorn have shown that in the modern system the way to win premierships is to draft in depth over a period of a few years so that you have a large number of players entering the window simultaneously. Yes, draft picks will fail - in the '99 and '01 drafts we had just over a 50% success rate - but if you take a lot of them that won't matter. Couple that system with an unprecedented access to first rounders and I'd be jumping with glee. Imagine if they did it last year - a midfield of Cotchin, Palmer, Masten and Dangerfield with Kreuzer feeding the taps and a KPP (say, Henderson and Taylor) at either end. Given that four of the above names have shown they can play senior footy virtually all year, it would take some sort of offer for me to get rid of those picks given the dividends down the track.

 

[Reg Hickey]

If you go through the player for draft pick trades over the years, on almost every occasion the team that picks up the pick ends up better off.

I think there's examples both ways. And its probably true that draft picks have been undervalued over the years. There's no doubt that far more value is being put on picks now - I'm saying that it may have now swung too far that way.

 

[alfy!]

???

Um, that sort of statement is why I started this thread in the first place ...

What? No, it is effectively only 9 months worth of players, instead of 12 months.

 

[Reg Hickey]

I disagree. Given the ridiculously large amounts of cash the AFL is prepared to pump into them, they can afford to be bottom-ish in their first few seasons. Supporters will jump onboard once they start winning flags...and given the concessions given they have it will be almost impossible not to four-five years down the track.

AFAIK they're allowed up to 16 uncontracted players, with compensation to be given by the AFL. Coming into this week, look at some of the names they could potentially have picked up - Kerr, O'Keefe, Warnock, Prismall. Geelong and Hawthorn have shown that in the modern system the way to win premierships is to draft in depth over a period of a few years so that you have a large number of players entering the window simultaneously. Yes, draft picks will fail - in the '99 and '01 drafts we had just over a 50% success rate - but if you take a lot of them that won't matter. Couple that system with an unprecedented access to first rounders and I'd be jumping with glee. Imagine if they did it last year - a midfield of Cotchin, Palmer, Masten and Dangerfield with Kreuzer feeding the taps and a KPP (say, Henderson and Taylor) at either end. Given that four of the above names have shown they can play senior footy virtually all year, it would take some sort of offer for me to get rid of those picks given the dividends down the track.

I don't think they or the AFL will see it that way. I think they will be looking for at least 4-5 wins in their first season and finals by about year 3 or 4.

If they go into their first year with just newly drafted players they won't win a game, and that would be a complete PR disaster. They might not last long enough for all those young guns to mature into real players, irrespective of how much cash the AFL throws at them.

 

[thejester]

I don't think they or the AFL will see it that way. I think they will be looking for at least 4-5 wins in their first season and finals by about year 3 or 4.

If they go into their first year with just newly drafted players they won't win a game, and that would be a complete PR disaster.

As I said in the previous post, they will almost certainly net between 10-16 uncontracted players from others clubs. They won't have to pay a cent for them. Given that there were 9 players drafted last year who played 15 or more games, I don't think it's uncharitable to suggest that a 12-10 split between mature players and draftees would indeed win them 4-5 games.

Apart from anything else, much like Melbourne and West Coast they will have no choice to 'play the kids' because they are building towards a premiership. Treading water with recycled players will be far greater disaster for the AFL than GC copping some pain early (which everyone will anticipate) but winning flags within 5 years of its entering the competition.

They might not last long enough for all those young guns to mature into real players, irrespective of how much cash the AFL throws at them.

There is no way the AFL would let the GC fold within a decade of its creation. Just look at the sheer amounts of cash they have already demonstrated they are willing to pump into it.

 

[one 4 the road]

What? No, it is effectively only 9 months worth of players, instead of 12 months.

If you are gunna panic alfy then get it right.
Its 8 months worth.
Draft cut off dat changes from April 30 to December 31.

 

[alfy!]

panic? ty for the correction