What they should do and it would solve every issue they have is lower the minimum cap spend from 95% to 65%, then you wouldn't have any need to hand out priority picks because the bottom clubs would be able to offer a martin or a fyfe 2mil a year or half a dozen players well over what they are worth to become competitive again.
Priority Picks vs. Soft Cap Relief
- Thread starter Lavender Bushranger
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Priority picks aren't necessary but they help. The history shows that they are no booming advantage and no one was making hay with them apart from perhaps Hawthorn and that was only a small part of their story.
So why were they got rid of? For memory it was betting agencies. They hated that teams would play for picks and tank. Not that tanking was actually much of an issue. I mean it never affected the outcome of the season and it was only the odd game at the end of the year in uninteresting games played by bottom sides. Who cares, well the bookies did.
A lot of clubs burnt priority picks but I think now, clubs are getting better at drafting, that may not happen quite so much.
The way I see it resources have been shifted away from bottom clubs and handed to top clubs and we are seeing that with the sustained success some of the top sides are having.
You have free agency which is seeing players leave or force trades from bottom clubs to top clubs. Draft picks are 18 picks apart and not 16 anymore which becomes more significant as the rounds progress plus the style of the game means young players don't usually impact for a number of seasons.
I think a PP should be awarded but somewhere between pick 10-14. I just think that the balance is off at the moment.
I don't know about the total player payments, clubs seem to get around that ok by bringing in older "salary dump" players but it couldn't hurt.
I think if you did lower the total player payments then that might bring bottom sides into the free agency game.
The whole no handouts argument and forcing clubs to sort out their problems is the biggest load of garbage. You can have a bottom club that does that but then what? You can't just make 10 or 20 odd really good players out of thin air. You need the opportunity and resources to do so.
Carlton have a great off field team, but they can't just make the young players mature and good, it helps but people are overrating the impact a coach actually has.
You need a good mature team. That's what you must allow bottom teams to achieve. Give them more good picks and they will improve sooner. Give them an ability to open the salary cap up more and they can chase big names in trades and free agency and they get better quicker.
Being hard on clubs and saying they should get their s**t together and saying handouts don't work is rubbish. The more resources you give a club the more opportunity you give them to get better quicker and if they burn those opportunities then that's the clubs fault, not the system.
I think if you give a PP between 10-14 and maybe another one at the start of the 3rd round. You give them an opportunity to trade more and draft a gun. You lower the minimum player payments you allow bottom clubs to really open up their salary cap and that brings bottom clubs into free agency contention and gives them a chance to improve instantly.
At this stage the changes the AFL have made have off balanced things so something needs to be done to rebalance things.
I think it's up to the AFL to create a system to identify list strength and clubs who have just had a bad season from clubs who are rebuilding and genuinely bad. You don't want a PP going to a club who played finals the season before but teams like Brisbane, St Kilda, Suns, Carlton etc who are genuinely rebuilding and have genuinely weak lists so it shouldn't be rewarded for having one bad season but perhaps after a second then an assistance package should be triggered.
The AFL need to ask themselves how long do they want teams to be down the bottom and how long do they want teams to be out of finals. It's not all about clubs not having their s**t together, clubs do get their s**t together and in the current system it can be 5-7 years, no matter how well you do things before you're a genuine chance from a full rebuild.
So why were they got rid of? For memory it was betting agencies. They hated that teams would play for picks and tank. Not that tanking was actually much of an issue. I mean it never affected the outcome of the season and it was only the odd game at the end of the year in uninteresting games played by bottom sides. Who cares, well the bookies did.
A lot of clubs burnt priority picks but I think now, clubs are getting better at drafting, that may not happen quite so much.
The way I see it resources have been shifted away from bottom clubs and handed to top clubs and we are seeing that with the sustained success some of the top sides are having.
You have free agency which is seeing players leave or force trades from bottom clubs to top clubs. Draft picks are 18 picks apart and not 16 anymore which becomes more significant as the rounds progress plus the style of the game means young players don't usually impact for a number of seasons.
I think a PP should be awarded but somewhere between pick 10-14. I just think that the balance is off at the moment.
I don't know about the total player payments, clubs seem to get around that ok by bringing in older "salary dump" players but it couldn't hurt.
I think if you did lower the total player payments then that might bring bottom sides into the free agency game.
The whole no handouts argument and forcing clubs to sort out their problems is the biggest load of garbage. You can have a bottom club that does that but then what? You can't just make 10 or 20 odd really good players out of thin air. You need the opportunity and resources to do so.
Carlton have a great off field team, but they can't just make the young players mature and good, it helps but people are overrating the impact a coach actually has.
You need a good mature team. That's what you must allow bottom teams to achieve. Give them more good picks and they will improve sooner. Give them an ability to open the salary cap up more and they can chase big names in trades and free agency and they get better quicker.
Being hard on clubs and saying they should get their s**t together and saying handouts don't work is rubbish. The more resources you give a club the more opportunity you give them to get better quicker and if they burn those opportunities then that's the clubs fault, not the system.
I think if you give a PP between 10-14 and maybe another one at the start of the 3rd round. You give them an opportunity to trade more and draft a gun. You lower the minimum player payments you allow bottom clubs to really open up their salary cap and that brings bottom clubs into free agency contention and gives them a chance to improve instantly.
At this stage the changes the AFL have made have off balanced things so something needs to be done to rebalance things.
I think it's up to the AFL to create a system to identify list strength and clubs who have just had a bad season from clubs who are rebuilding and genuinely bad. You don't want a PP going to a club who played finals the season before but teams like Brisbane, St Kilda, Suns, Carlton etc who are genuinely rebuilding and have genuinely weak lists so it shouldn't be rewarded for having one bad season but perhaps after a second then an assistance package should be triggered.
The AFL need to ask themselves how long do they want teams to be down the bottom and how long do they want teams to be out of finals. It's not all about clubs not having their s**t together, clubs do get their s**t together and in the current system it can be 5-7 years, no matter how well you do things before you're a genuine chance from a full rebuild.
- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,018
- 11,290
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
AFL have apparently clarified there will be no pre draft PP's. If given they will be post first round - ie picks 19/20
- Thread starter
- #54
I think St Kilda need it more.
Thing is though. Giving them an extra pick doesn't just advantage them, other clubs which have done nothing wrong are disadvantaged by having their pick downgraded. They got themselves into it and they can get themselves out
- Oct 8, 2004
- 17,905
- 24,135
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
OK with this. Just.
- Aug 10, 2005
- 46,545
- 42,486
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Some teams even got captains from it
No they didn't, you're making things up. That pick was traded to Port for their first pick in 2017, which was traded to Adelaide for Charlie Cameron. In other words, the exact sort of trade for mature aged talent that you suggested.
Some of those weren't priority picks, at least for the clubs they were drafted to, Hodge for example came from the Croad trade. Most of the ones that were priority picks were right up the top of the draft, and the AFL seems reluctant to do that again after bending over backwards for certain clubs in the past. End of first round priority picks usually don't have the same impact.
Last edited:
I don't see the problem with the priority pick, it was always after the bottom club's first and it never really lead to those clubs having an unfair advantage and becoming super powers but I think it did it's job. I didn't think it disadvantaged the other clubs looking back either. I think it actually worked.
It's not about teams deserving it, it's about making sure the draft works and it has, the draft is about keeping things even but recent changes have hindered that a bit.
A lot of these bottom clubs have got their act together, it's just that the current system, it takes a lot of time and a lot of drafts and trades before there's an impact.
The AFL need to make sure that free agency is an option for all clubs because at the moment it isn't. If it's not that then what is it? I think some sort of stimulus package needs to be manufactured to better resource these teams.
I'd go a pick in between 10-14 and a pick at the start of the 3rd round. That encourages trading and gives teams the opportunity to draft elite talent. Lower the TPP and you let bottom sides have access to free agency. This might actually put more pressure on the top clubs as their talent may be targeted harder by lower clubs.
Clubs are going to f*** up, that's great, it'll always happen but they need to be resourced properly to get things right.
It's not about teams deserving it, it's about making sure the draft works and it has, the draft is about keeping things even but recent changes have hindered that a bit.
A lot of these bottom clubs have got their act together, it's just that the current system, it takes a lot of time and a lot of drafts and trades before there's an impact.
The AFL need to make sure that free agency is an option for all clubs because at the moment it isn't. If it's not that then what is it? I think some sort of stimulus package needs to be manufactured to better resource these teams.
I'd go a pick in between 10-14 and a pick at the start of the 3rd round. That encourages trading and gives teams the opportunity to draft elite talent. Lower the TPP and you let bottom sides have access to free agency. This might actually put more pressure on the top clubs as their talent may be targeted harder by lower clubs.
Clubs are going to f*** up, that's great, it'll always happen but they need to be resourced properly to get things right.
Yeah they've certainly drafted well. Just a pity that Cameron got injured and couldn't bring us up the ladder more.
Dustin Credible
Club Legend
In the era of free agency, salary cap space becomes more important. Or more accurately the salary floor becomes more important, can't help but think there are going to be some ordinary players getting over paid just to make the floor at some clubs.
Free agency in part was to enable clubs at the bottom to get good players by being able to pay them more....personally I don't feel the salary floor allows them to do this. My solution would be a salary floor reduction of 0.5% x the clubs average ladder position over the last 5 years (rolling)
e.g. if you finished last 5 years straight you'd potentially end up with an extra 9% of salary cap to play with. That could allow clubs to make some serious 'godfather' offers. This would have more impact than priority picks imo.
It won't stop players wanting to move for success/family reasons but that's uncontrollable.
Free agency in part was to enable clubs at the bottom to get good players by being able to pay them more....personally I don't feel the salary floor allows them to do this. My solution would be a salary floor reduction of 0.5% x the clubs average ladder position over the last 5 years (rolling)
e.g. if you finished last 5 years straight you'd potentially end up with an extra 9% of salary cap to play with. That could allow clubs to make some serious 'godfather' offers. This would have more impact than priority picks imo.
It won't stop players wanting to move for success/family reasons but that's uncontrollable.
Imagine the Ross Lyon melt when he loses by 140 pts and ends up with pick 9 lol!
Very rich coming from the Handout Hawks!
I have nothing to do with Hawthorn other than supporting them lol
2004 AFL Ladder
Team P W L D PF PA % Pts
12th Adelaide 22 8 14 0 1950 2039 95.64 32
13th Collingwood 22 8 14 0 1899 2082 91.21 32
14th Western Bulldogs 22 5 17 0 1957 2459 79.59 20
15th Hawthorn 22 4 18 0 1668 2375 70.23 16
16th Richmond 22 4 18 0 1693 2445 69.24 16
Key: P = Played, W = Won, L = Lost, D = Drawn, PF = Points for, PA = Points against
National Draft 2004
# Club Player
Priority 1 Richmond Brett Deledio
Priority 2 Hawthorn Jarryd Roughead
Priority 3 Western Bulldogs Ryan Griffen
4 Richmond Richard Tambling
5 Hawthorn Lance Franklin
7 Hawthorn Jordan Lewis
National Draft 2005
# Club Player
Priority 3 Hawthorn Xavier Ellis
6 Hawthorn Beau Dowler
Indeed!!! rofl
I'm not part of Hawthorn though so not sure how that is relevant
- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,018
- 11,290
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Regardless you can still agree that Hawthorn in the '00's also received a load of PP's that disadvantaged other clubs by having their picks downgraded
Hawthorn: 3 picks in the top 7 in 2004, including roughy and buddster as PPs
THEN back again the year after with another PP in the top 3.
NOW complaining when clubs talking about getting pick 19.
The pot calling kettle black. They Hypocrite Hawks.
- Sep 21, 2011
- 1,357
- 1,141
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Did your 13 year old little brother hack into your Big Footy account when he wrote the OP ?
- Sep 21, 2011
- 1,357
- 1,141
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You are a club (Hawks) supporter like 99.9 % of all Big Footy posters and you are criticizing others teams for seeking the same advantage
that formed the basis of a Hawthorn quadruple flag era ... that is the relevance !!!
