Priority Picks fair?

[MarkT]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
But I draw your attention to

Nick Dal Santo – pick 13 2001
Matt McGuire – pick 21 2001

Both would now be ahead of the six you mention. It's all a simplistic arguement.

But these guys, who were good gets, alone would mean SFA. Add them to some quality early picks and some good trading on the back of having a pre season pick to threaten clubs with and they make a difference. Alone they would be promising pklayers in a bottom side.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
But I draw your attention to

Nick Dal Santo – pick 13 2001
Matt McGuire – pick 21 2001

Both would now be ahead of the six you mention. It's all a simplistic arguement.

No doubt that the draft order spreads the talent based on performance. That's the whole point of having a draft. The P/P in reality give you a second pick before the other teams. The first pick you already get because of the draft order.

So we get Kosi & X.Clarke becasue of P/P's. Big fricken deal. They aren't the difference between us being 1st or 16th.

thats it in a nutshell - all i can say is that it looks to me that Stkilda's choices have really kicked on - ( as opposed to the doggies and the cats where there youngsters have been talked up but not really performed at a high enough level.
At melbourne we drafted at high picks, travis johnstone, steven armstrong, luke moylan and Scott Thompson. At the other end we have cameron bruce, matty Whelan, russell robertson - certainly the last four have been better value - its a turkey shoot !

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
But I draw your attention to

Nick Dal Santo – pick 13 2001
Matt McGuire – pick 21 2001

Both would now be ahead of the six you mention. It's all a simplistic arguement.

Try and at least be ****ing relevant. Yes, you can get picks later in the draft by good recruiting. THIS IS NOT A RELEVANT POINT.

We're talking about early first round picks here, the ones that you earn by losing. At the time, the players were selected in approximately the order that most judges would agree they should've gone at the time. This is the best you can ever do.

If you reckon it was obvious at the time that Dal Santo and McGuire were going to be better than Koschitzke, well, you should be St Kilda's recruiter.

The point under discussion here is that priority picks are stealing value from teams that only just failed to qualify for them AT THE TIME. This includes trade value, and usually the quality of player.

So we get Kosi & X.Clarke becasue of P/P's. Big fricken deal. They aren't the difference between us being 1st or 16th.

Maybe you should explain why you reckon priority picks should be kept then.

What if you'd taken Koschitzke first and Riewoldt second....would you be so easily saying the same thing? Beyond the other high value of priority picks, its also that they're not just giving you one good player, they're a second chance not to **** up as well.

Clubs with more than five wins don't get that luxury....ask Adelaide about Angwin.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by MarkT
But these guys, who were good gets, alone would mean SFA. Add them to some quality early picks and some good trading on the back of having a pre season pick to threaten clubs with and they make a difference. Alone they would be promising pklayers in a bottom side.

No doubt, but to categorise StKilda's improvement on a couple of draft picks is moronically simplistic.

But I guess no more moronically simplistic than suggesting that a team that has dominated the competition for three years has done so because of an extra $400k in salary cap space, when the team that sits bottom has spent almost $2 Mil more than the team sitting outright second on the ladder.

 

[nutbeennn]

i ask again - can someone list the priority picks so far and exactly what good it has done the clubs that have received them.
The AFL wants an even comp and it is getting that. It may even out the comp but it so far hasnt won premierships.
Essendon have not received priority picks or even early draft picks and continue to be up there.
Collingwood ? Sydney ? Brisbane - no priority picks no high picks

Its an argument without substance

 

[evo]

Yeh it's an absolute farce.A couple weeks ago a few of my Tiger mates were actually happy we were getting flogged "think of the picks we'll get,look at Saints..."
Now we're winning a couple they re actually spewing.

What sort of sport rewards failure?

Having the draft from bottom to top is more than enough,stop priority picks altogether.

 

[utility]

St Kilda and Fremantle have been the biggest recipients of priority draft picks from mediocre performance. Is it any surprise they are now performing as well as they are? I don't think so.

I agree with Malthouse, if you finish last you get the first pick, that is a big enough advantage. Don't reward mediocrity.

And remember, by having priority picks, clubs with these also push the other clubs' picks down... take for example North in 2001, finish 4th last in 2001 but their first pick was 7th... their second, third,fourth pick etc. also lower.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Mead

Aside from our players probably having a bit too much pride to do that, what logical reason is there for an average side to finish 7th-12th rather than cellar dwelling for draft picks?

The obvious flaw in that argument is if a few teams are all trying to do that, one will always win playing the other.
Just means more wins for the top teams and less for the teams that finish just out of the eight.
Six or so teams all trying to win less than six games would lead to some ludicrous games. Their fans wouldn't bother going and financially it would spell trouble.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by utility
St Kilda and Fremantle have been the biggest recipients of priority draft picks from mediocre performance. Is it any surprise they are now performing as well as they are? I don't think so.

I agree with Malthouse, if you finish last you get the first pick, that is a big enough advantage. Don't reward mediocrity.

And remember, by having priority picks, clubs with these also push the other clubs' picks down... take for example North in 2001, finish 4th last in 2001 but their first pick was 7th... their second, third,fourth pick etc. also lower.

Stkilda and Fremantle are the biggest recipients of the priority draft.
Since the inception of the priority draft - Stkilda finals campaigns 1 Fremantle finals campaigns 1 - what a difference the picks have made ! So endth your argument.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Porthos
Try and at least be ****ing relevant. Yes, you can get picks later in the draft by good recruiting. THIS IS NOT A RELEVANT POINT.

Christ you turn nasty after losing to the Throws!

We're talking about early first round picks here, the ones that you earn by losing. At the time, the players were selected in approximately the order that most judges would agree they should've gone at the time. This is the best you can ever do.

I understand. But in most drafts, post the 3rd pick, the playing talent can be that even that clubs pick on needs as much as rating. We got 'lucky' in 2000. When no other club gets a priority pick you get 1&2. If three teams do, you get 1&4. We got 'lucky' again with Carltons misfortune, when we picked up Goddard. Both these events have skewed people's perceptions a little IMO.

If you reckon it was obvious at the time that Dal Santo and McGuire were going to be better than Koschitzke, well, you should be St Kilda's recruiter.

The point under discussion here is that priority picks are stealing value from teams that only just failed to qualify for them AT THE TIME. This includes trade value, and usually the quality of player.

I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the missed picks you all missed two of the gems in the draft. The order you get to pick is one thing, using them wisely is another. The value is how you use them. Carlton got pick 4 when we signed Hamill. Did they use it wisely?

Maybe you should explain why you reckon priority picks should be kept then.

What if you'd taken Koschitzke first and Riewoldt second....would you be so easily saying the same thing? Beyond the other high value of priority picks, its also that they're not just giving you one good player, they're a second chance not to **** up as well.

Clubs with more than five wins don't get that luxury....ask Adelaide about Angwin.

Riewoldt was always going at 1. This was a no-brainer.

Hey, I'm not defending the P/P's, just pointing out the arguement is a little hollow when you look at the overall picture with StKilda.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fred
Six or so teams all trying to win less than six games would lead to some ludicrous games. Their fans wouldn't bother going and financially it would spell trouble.

Yeah, thats rather what I'm afraid of actually.

At the moment the system has been preserved by the fiction that scraping into the 8 gives you some chance at a premiership and because there are enough clubs going around who have some pride in their level of performance to actually try and win pointless games.
But the way this year is unfolding, I think clubs are beginning to sit up and take notice of what extended periods of crapness have done for the likes of St Kilda and Fremantle. The Roos are the classic side really- they've overachieved for the last 5 years, and they have nothing to show for it. Sooner or later teams like that are going to sit up and ask themselves why they should worry about trying to win games which mean nothing in the context of larger success, and if anything are probably threatening their chances of building sustained onfield success and the off-field financial security that tends to follow.

I think for me, the final straw was looking at the ladder this morning and actually feeling a twinge of excitement that my club was sitting 14th and looking at some outstanding picks if we don't turn things around pronto. At the moment I suppose I hope we'll still be able to make the finals, but if we drop the next three or four games, part of me would be really really hoping that we didn't win another one this year.

Thats bull****, its not what football is about, and a system which encourages that shouldn't be in place.

 

[BonIsGood]

EVERYONE CALM DOWN!
From reading what youve all said you are all saying the same thing.

Joffa is saying that StKilda doesnt rely on 3 players (PPs) and that is correct.
Everyone else is stating that those PPs have helped and that is correct also.
I dont think anyone believes PP's are the be end of all but people please understand when you use PPs to describe how StKilda is going it sounds as if we were given 1st place. Which is very incorrect.

PPs help theres no doubt about that, everyone agrees on that.
You expect your topline players to play well and stKilda's have been and thats all they can do (dont blame them for kicking ass)

What joffa and saint fans dont stand for is the blatant disregard of the remarkable rise of players in...

B Voss
M Maguire
L Penny
H.Black
N Dal Santo
S Milne
J Blake
S Baker
B Guerra
T.Knobel


and old heads who everyone thought were gone are still playing great footy...
A.Thompson
A Jones

these players are why StKilda are the "IN" team ATM. A footy team is only as good as its mid range players and if you look above thats a fantastic mid range.


Just give credit where credits due.

 

[JeffDunne]

The bottom line in this debate is if Pies, Blues, Eagle and Port fans are willing to finish bottom for a couple of years with less than 5 wins, the rest of the competition will be more than willing to accomodate.

Go for it guys.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
The bottom line in this debate is if Pies, Blues, Eagle and Port fans are willing to finish bottom for a couple of years with less than 5 wins, the rest of the competition will be more than willing to accomodate.

Go for it guys.

Sorry we have DIGNITY.

As mentioned before.....not many teams are prostitutes like StKilda.

 

[BonIsGood]

Would it be possible to inplace a system where players play where they live OR even better whom they barrack for??? that would be great put the pride back in the game.

The best players of the area get a guernsey while the second best can go into a draft. that way all the best players playing where they live.

Could it be done? didnt we use to do it that way?

 

[Fred]

OK, I'm convinced. Drop the P/P immediately.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Christ you turn nasty after losing to the Throws!

I get cranky when people try to tell me that black is white because grey is grey, or that John Brown is better than Warren Tredrea and similar such dubious arguments.

I understand. But in most drafts, post the 3rd pick, the playing talent can be that even that clubs pick on needs as much as rating.

Being able to pick on needs is another advantage being deprived to the clubs that just miss out on priority picks.

I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the missed picks you all missed two of the gems in the draft. The order you get to pick is one thing, using them wisely is another. The value is how you use them. Carlton got pick 4 when we signed Hamill. Did they use it wisely?

No, they didn't. And if St Kilda hadn't had a priority pick, do you reckon Port would've traded a potential Didak pick for Wakelin? Of course, Collingwood probably would've picked him anyway. Again, there is a big difference AT THE TIME between pick #3 and #4.

Riewoldt was always going at 1. This was a no-brainer.

Yeah, you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa).

Hey, I'm not defending the P/P's, just pointing out the arguement is a little hollow when you look at the overall picture with StKilda.

Priority picks are not the major part of anyone success, but they are still a significant gain and a significant loss for the clubs that don't qualify.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by BonIsGood
Would it be possible to inplace a system where players play where they live OR even better whom they barrack for??? that would be great put the pride back in the game.

The best players of the area get a guernsey while the second best can go into a draft. that way all the best players playing where they live.

Could it be done? didnt we use to do it that way?

Thats actually a reasonable possibility, although it would require some adjustment for Sydney and Brisbane.

Here's my ideal system-

Scrap the draft.

Dramatically expand player lists to around 60 places, the 40 or so who are eligible to play AFL and get paid and so on, and another 20 development spots.
Teams can approach any youngster 16+ from anywhere in the country and ask them to join their development list. No money changes hands, but if the youngster agrees he is signed on, gets to use the clubs facilities and coaching and train with them or whatever whilst they make their way through colts and the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and so on. Such players are considered to be 'on the list' similarly to rookie listed players, and cannot be signed by any other club without the consent of the player and the club whose list they're on. (ie, if they want to be traded and the club is prepared to, they can).


Basically, that would encourage AFL teams to get actively involved with the development of the game at junior levels. Teams would be rewarded on field for the excellence of their development programs, and for providing a positive environment for young guys to learn in.
Isn't that by far the simplest and most equitable arrangement?

 

[Ari]

Originally posted by MarkT
Joffa

No matter how you like to cut it the Saints have had good quality given to them for being crap. They are by no means the only ones and they have made the most of the opportunities being crap has afforded them but it is an indisputable fact that they have been rewarded for being crap. That is what I hate about the system. When you line up Freo, St. Kilda and Collingwood who have had draft choices for their poor performance and compare them to Kanga's, Essendon, etc who have battled to be as good as they can and damn well been good at it, it is just unfair.

Worse than being unfair in an AFL that completely ignores equity at every level is the fact that teams and supporters see that being the worst they can be is good for their future. This is what can destroy the fabric of a 100 year old competition in a relatively short period. Not destroy it in the sense it will die or disappear, but destroy it in the sense that it removes or dramatically lessens one of the things that made it great. That is, the weekly fight to the death for supremacy over your rivals which builds the sort of passion we see.

The fact is that for Collingwood this year it may well be better to lie down and get the first and second draft picks and it may well be better to let Hawthorn beat us when we play them. That is a massive flaw in the AFL operative system and a massive threat to passion that has built great clubs and a great competition. I don’t want Collingwood supporters to have a reason to be happy about losing and I don't want our board to have any reason to show silver linings in losing clouds. All clubs should play to win every game every year and no club should accept honorable losses with a draft pick consolation prize. Unfortunately is does happen.

I hear Carlton supporters say the best thing to do is lay low and gather draft picks to get quality players. In the past they would have said they wanted to work their arses off to get back into the finals this year and then go up from there.

One of the best posts I have read in some time.

I am an Essendon supporter and feel bitterly ripped off that because our coaching staff and administration are so good they keep us around mid-ladder....even while rebuilding.

We miss out.

I have absolutely no idea if and when we will ever receive another #1 draft pick. It's just not fair.

So the supposed AFL clock goes around..... but the thing is, not all teams go to the bottom.... not all teams go to 6 o'clock as the AFL believe they do.

Teams like Essendon, Kangas etc are not rewarded. It just aint fair.

NBA lottery style is about the best way to do it. It's not working for 16 teams in the competition.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
But I draw your attention to

Nick Dal Santo – pick 13 2001
Matt McGuire – pick 21 2001

Both would now be ahead of the six you mention. It's all a simplistic arguement.

Add to thoseLenny Hayes – pick 11 1998
Xavier Clarke – pick 5 2001
Aussie Jones – high 40’s 1994

plus trades

Gehrig was traded for Sierokwiski and draft pick No 18 in 2000 (WC picked up Kerr).

Black was traded for draft pick #17 (J.Kelly)in 2001
Penny was traded for draft pick # 17 (C.Faulkener) in 2002
Powell in the preseason draft 2002.
Guerra for pick 39 to Port Adelaide.
No 4 in 2000 for Hamill (Carlton picked up Livingstone)

Apparently all of these players were "given" to the Saints as well


Sure Riewoldt, Kosi, Ball, and Goddard are cream, no doubt about that.
We were fortunate with Reiwoldt and Kosi, and it was Carlton who gave us Goddard.

Hawthorn could have picked Ball and we could have picked Judd, but we picked ball and allowed him to sit out his first year, Hawthorn weren't prepared to do this.

You people really need to look at the way the Saints have put this team together, and not complain about unfairness. Seems like a total cop out and sour grapes.

 

[nutbeennn]

Porthos

Yeah, you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa).


There-in lies the weakness in your argument.

Lets leave alone "if the werent priority drafts then such and such would have come in four places earlier and we would have had him" because as you said above "you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa)."

The FACT is fremantle and Stkilda are playing better this season. One season ago Stkilda was crap and the season before that both were crap.
The priority pick doesnt win premierships. Doesnt even get you into a finals series. Being lucky enough to get youth to perform does make for improvement. Stkildas early draft picks have performed. But up to now Geelong and Bulldogs and Melbournes havent.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
Porthos

Yeah, you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa).

There-in lies the weakness in your argument.

So please, explain.

Lets leave alone "if the werent priority drafts then such and such would have come in four places earlier and we would have had him" because as you said above "you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa)."

The FACT is fremantle and Stkilda are playing better this season. One season ago Stkilda was crap and the season before that both were crap.
The priority pick doesnt win premierships. Doesnt even get you into a finals series. Being lucky enough to get youth to perform does make for improvement. Stkildas early draft picks have performed. But up to now Geelong and Bulldogs and Melbournes havent.

I'm sorry, I still don't see the weakness in my argument. You have simply thrown out a core fact arbitrarily and then said that St Kilda are just better right now, which isn't even the issue I'm discussing.

You obviously don't understand the point being made at all. Try again, idiot.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by SurreyBlue
Sorry we have DIGNITY.

As mentioned before.....not many teams are prostitutes like StKilda.

Dignity? Win a game recently did we? Just be happy and shut up on this one. Your club were rooted because of crap drafting, paying players far too much, blatant cheating, . . . I don't need to go on. Priority and early picks, paying $1 Mil over the cap and you've still got a crap list.

Didn't anyone mention to you Andrew Walker? Despite cheating you still got a P/P.

Oh, and please explain how we are prostitutes?

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by Joffaboy

Apparently all of these players were "given" to the Saints as well

Well, Gehrig, Powell and Hamill all came because of the high preseason draft picks, and forced the AFL to change the rules (which they since changed back).

Good recruiting, but not exactly good recruiting without and advantage for being crap.

On topic, the priority picks have and always will be a disgrace. Supporters talking about tanking even semiseriously after round 5 or 7 shows what a complete and utter farce it is.

If Port hadnt won six of the last 10 in 2000 wed have had picks 2 and 4 in that draft. Ridiculous for one injury riddled and underachieving season.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
Porthos

Yeah, you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa).


There-in lies the weakness in your argument.

Lets leave alone "if the werent priority drafts then such and such would have come in four places earlier and we would have had him" because as you said above "you hear a lot of things draft related are no-brainers after the fact when they're often not (or vice-versa)."

The FACT is fremantle and Stkilda are playing better this season. One season ago Stkilda was crap and the season before that both were crap.
The priority pick doesnt win premierships. Doesnt even get you into a finals series. Being lucky enough to get youth to perform does make for improvement. Stkildas early draft picks have performed. But up to now Geelong and Bulldogs and Melbournes havent.

As Joffa so kindly pointed out

St Kilda (1st) 5 top 5 picks since 1998
Melbourne (2nd) 5 top 5 picks since 1998
Fremantle (5th) 7 top5 picks since 1998.

I would say that is pretty danged conclusive evidence of the advantage priority picks offer.
Is it entirely a coincidence that the three biggest recipient of AFL draft pick charity over the last 5 years are sitting 1st, 2nd and 5th on the ladder? In the old days, drafts picks might not have guaranteed you success, but with the current quality scouting programs that most clubs have, I'd say now they are pretty damn handy.