Pick Purchase System - Valid or Rubbish ??

[master bate]

Gold Coast got the last laugh, the player the Suns drafted with the pick they got from the Crows (Bailey Humphrey) is a sure fire winner and a far better prospect than Bowes or the local player Geelong got with pick 7.

They also cleared up valuable cap space which enabled them to re-sign Noah Anderson.

Its hard to believe, but the footy dept at the Gold Coast actually know what they are doing these days.

Ummm they could’ve had Humphrey and someone else with pick 7

Or matched the money on Rankine and kept him and got Humphrey at 7.

It’s ridiculous with how young their core list is that they were under salary cap pressure to begin with. Of course they should sign Anderson, apart from King and Rowell who are they paying top dollar for?

Especially when they used cash the season before to sign free agents like Atkins to mostly play in the 2’s when they were paying insane money to unproven young players left right and centre.

 

[theasian]

They would almost always use them on new players, its good for young teams to load up with talent, bad if you want an even comp and not having 4 or 5 unwatchable games every week.

But if teams manage it properly, it can allow for a faster rebuild.

Hawthorn and Richmond's success and even St Kilda's GF sides of 2009/10 were built on the back of multiple top end draft picks.

I also have no doubt that the current Hawthorn team will get it right and be succesful in 4-5 years.

 

[master bate]

But if teams manage it properly, it can allow for a faster rebuild.

Hawthorn and Richmond's success and even St Kilda's GF sides of 2009/10 were built on the back of multiple top end draft picks.

I also have no doubt that the current Hawthorn team will get it right and be succesful in 4-5 years.

Teams like Hawthorn and St Kilda started improving because they were well coached and bought in some good veterans to go with the kids. Guys like Gilham, Guerra to the Hawks, Hamill to the Saints, Houli and Grigg at Richmond.

When they were good they were great and they really didn’t need Riewoldt and Kosi or Buddy and Roughy. (I mean, the Saints would say we didn’t win a flag but it wasn’t through lack of high end talent).

Buddy and Jordan Lisle would’ve got the job for at least one flag at Hawthorn.

Richmond had no help with priority picks and a core of Dustin, Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt. Hardwick coached up a terrible list to finals in only a few years and kept building from there.

If you bring this system in I bet the Pies and Geelong will sign a bunch of good players and the Hawks will purposely delay their build and create a super team. None of that helps the competitive balance of the league.

 

[Sphynx]

My opinion has nothing to do with how my club is going.

The only part of why I don’t like it for Melbourne is because this will further help the big clubs that stock pile mature talent, making it easier for them to stay at the top. Melbourne aren’t a destination club.

Rebuilding takes 7-10 years because teams decide to be bad for minimum of 4 years, stock pile massive amounts of picks and then hope they come good.

The Crows have pulled off a rebuild in 4 years because they kept most of their core players, went to the draft for a few years and targeted Dawson and Rankine to get them better in a hurry.

If you widen the period of time for which clubs are doing nothing but drafting then you widen the length of the rebuild.

The last thing North need is more picks who might be good in 5 years time. They’ve got plenty of talent.

The big issue is not enough players move every year because free agency is cooked and trading is very costly (for the club and for the player too with how painful the system is). If you want to fix the length of rebuilds you should allow more free agency and let bad teams weaponise their cap for actual players who will improve them now not in 5 years.

That will also lead to more salary dumps which will once again allow bad teams to use their cap on picks and players who make them better.

The last thing Melbourne ever needed was more picks.

And guess what, that sheer volume of top picks eventually netted Petracca, Oliver, Jackson and enabled you to trade high end currency for Lever and May....

 

[WillHayward]

My opinion has nothing to do with how my club is going.

The only part of why I don’t like it for Melbourne is because this will further help the big clubs that stock pile mature talent, making it easier for them to stay at the top. Melbourne aren’t a destination club.

Rebuilding takes 7-10 years because teams decide to be bad for minimum of 4 years, stock pile massive amounts of picks and then hope they come good.

The Crows have pulled off a rebuild in 4 years because they kept most of their core players, went to the draft for a few years and targeted Dawson and Rankine to get them better in a hurry.

If you widen the period of time for which clubs are doing nothing but drafting then you widen the length of the rebuild.

The last thing North need is more picks who might be good in 5 years time. They’ve got plenty of talent.

The big issue is not enough players move every year because free agency is cooked and trading is very costly (for the club and for the player too with how painful the system is). If you want to fix the length of rebuilds you should allow more free agency and let bad teams weaponise their cap for actual players who will improve them now not in 5 years.

That will also lead to more salary dumps which will once again allow bad teams to use their cap on picks and players who make them better.

Some fair points.

But "buying" picks can also get you a mature player.

Gives the lower club more flexibility of how they can get young or mature players in.

For example:

North could "buy" pick 12 off someone like Freo who need cap space.

Then onsell it for a mature player if something comes up from say a Richmond who might find suddenly they want more picks.

So North end up with pick 2 plus Liam Baker.

Richmond end up with picks 6 and 12.

That would suit both clubs.

As it stands North only get pick 2 and up over paying their existing players.

 

[Moonatic77]

Some fair points.

But "buying" picks can also get you a mature player.

Gives the lower club more flexibility of how they can get young or mature players in.

For example:

North could "buy" pick 12 off someone like Freo who need cap space.

Then onsell it for a mature player if something comes up from say a Richmond who might find suddenly they want more picks.

So North end up with pick 2 plus Liam Baker.

Richmond end up with picks 6 and 12.

That would suit both clubs.

As it stands North only get pick 2 and up over paying their existing players.

Unfortunately we don't have our first rounder this year, but I get your point though. In this scenario the salary trade has netted a mature player with pick 12, a pick they never had beforehand.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

In theory it's great.
The problem is that certain clubs have a lot of assets to encourage players to take understand, so it'll end up with the asset rich clubs just getting good young talent to go with the talented free agents they attract.

It would work right now in fast tracking the hawks, roos, eagles whilst the other clubs are put on the spot, but long term it'll fail

 

[Kappa]

How so?
Lower teams now are forced to pay 96% of their cap for s**t players.

Lets look at North the last 5 years - they are restricted to only one single first round draft pick and then being forced to over-pay for average players (Polec, Logue, Corr).

Id much rather see them not be forced over-pay for s**t players but instead have access to more actual genuine talent in the first round of the draft.

I like the idea a lot. Its valid.

With free agency it’s their problem if they overpay for s**t players. They can also front end the contracts of their genuine good players to free up space later… or sign their good young kids to front ended contracts.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Hate it. Just lower the cap floor and s**t teams can use the spare cash to attract players.
The whole thing has got far too complex, each attempt to balance one thing throws ir out and something new gets added. All these extra outs and stuff are rubbish.
Cap (properly and harshly policed), floor, one draft (which is one too many for my taste but we're stuck with it), one list, done.
No rookie lists, no banking, no mid-year draft, no forced minimum delistings. Maybe not even a mandated list size. Put your list together and that's it for a year.