Should the AFL have NBA type lottery draft.

[The invisible mullet]

This is a deadset whinge and doesn't relate to draft picks. And I've read it carefully...

Originally posted by Chris_Judd
Another reason the draft does not work. Yes.. clubs may not "throw" games... but what happens every single year. You may have to read carefully to see what I mean.

You have clubs by about Round 15 with 7 rounds to go.. they know they cannot make the finals... What is the first thing they do? Bring in youth. Say they are on 4 or 5 wins for the season... its not in their best interests to win 5 of their remaining 7 games and finish 9th to 11th.... so they bring in "youth to develop". This immediately weakens the clubs even further... these clubs can now lose games against betetr clubs by 4 or 5 goals and it can be seen as a "good effort" as they are blooding young players... its effectively giving them a reason for not winning...

but here is where it is really unfair...

by Round 15... who are these bottom of the ladder clubs playing? You guessed it... they are playing the teams they played from round 1 to 6. Given that they are a bottom of the ladder club... they probably lost the majority of those games... and now are playing those same teams with an even weaker younger lineup. Because of the uneveness of the draw it means those teams effectively get wins against weakened sides whilst others have harder draws. Imagine your team fighting to get into the finals while the side you directly above you ahs a round 20 game against a St Kilda team who have dropped all their experienced players to play youth... basically forefeiting any chance of winning.

 

[Portia]

Nah that post made sense. Clubs will go out to win any given game, but they might hamstring their odds of success in a manner they were unwilling to do earlier in the season when they were a real chance. Its the selectors tanking, not telling the players to

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by Porthos
Nah that post made sense. Clubs will go out to win any given game, but they might hamstring their odds of success in a manner they were unwilling to do earlier in the season when they were a real chance. Its the selectors tanking, not telling the players to

I seriously doubt a lottery draft system would change this trend.

This is done simply for the future benefit of the existing players at the club. If you can't make the finals why not improve your playing stocks for the next couple of years by developing them and giving them game time. I cannot accept this practice is done simply to get a higher draft pick. The culture of AFL is so different to NBA and teams just do not want to finish as low as they can.

****

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by ****
I seriously doubt a lottery draft system would change this trend.

This is done simply for the future benefit of the existing players at the club. If you can't make the finals why not improve your playing stocks for the next couple of years by developing them and giving them game time. I cannot accept this practice is done simply to get a higher draft pick.

Its not, its done for both reasons - they work concurrently so damn well.

Of course, both practices are also anti-competitive for the season they're playing in.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by Chris_Judd

All the more reason why the current draft system doesn't work. You have a few injuries for a few years and you all of a sudden you get 4 top 3 pick players in your club for the next 15 years. All of a sudden those injuries go away and you have a superclub. All the more reason to scrap it.

Yes I agree scrap it right now.

That way St.Kilda keep all of their high draft picks, become a super team, and then have a chance of more high draft picks.

I am laughing sooo hard at you Superstar CJ that I am almost wetting myself.

You are the biggest tool (apart from Rohan and Magpie Joffa) ever to have posted on this site.

Oh the Saints are gunna have a super team, oooooohhhh its not fair.

hahahahahahahahaha - cry me a river troll boy.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Porthos
Nah that post made sense. Clubs will go out to win any given game, but they might hamstring their odds of success in a manner they were unwilling to do earlier in the season when they were a real chance. Its the selectors tanking, not telling the players to

The problem is drafts are for following years, players are playing the current year. To help prevent players/clubs putting a less then full effort into it reward teams the higher up the ladder with financial incentives.

eg. Clubs get base 85% of salary cap a year. Each position above 16th gets 1% over that. 15 gets 86% up to 1st 100%. Then clubs get a reward as well. Say reduce their handouts from AFL likewise to 85% of current and top up accordingly. Clubs and players both then have incentives not to ditch matches during season for low draft picks and also reward teams/clubs on their merits payment wise.

Not a full solution by any means, but certainly would be a useful part of one.

 

[The Passenger]

I like the idea, but I would only want it done between the teams that miss the finals.

And It would have to be done before the trading period.

 

[Chris_Judd]

Originally posted by ****
I seriously doubt a lottery draft system would change this trend.

This is done simply for the future benefit of the existing players at the club. If you can't make the finals why not improve your playing stocks for the next couple of years by developing them and giving them game time. I cannot accept this practice is done simply to get a higher draft pick.

****

It would change it in that a lottery is exactly that... unlike the current system where you are guaranteed a high draft pick... with a lottery you might get 1 or 2 extra balls but that doesn't guarantee you a high pick.

Originally posted by ****
The culture of AFL is so different to NBA and teams just do not want to finish as low as they can.

Maybe so... but AFL is a sport with 22 players... and the difference between winning and losing by be a 1% change in intensity. 95% of AFL is played above the head.... you only have to be slightly off your game and you can lose by 10 goals. You only have to look at the results this year. A club may not "throw" a game on purpose but they may not have the same intensity as they would. Like I said... even as a supporter if you're team is in th ebottom 4 you can;t tell me that you aren't torn between seeing your team win and seeing your team lose with dignity and get higher draft picks. Players and clubs are no different. If you had a draft lottery then to a cerain extent positions on the ladder don't have as much importance on what position you get in the draft and players and clubs are 100% committed to winning.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by Andre
eg. Clubs get base 85% of salary cap a year. Each position above 16th gets 1% over that......

Absolutely and categorically NO!

This is just entrenching teams where they are on the ladder. If you already start behind the others in terms of payments then you can't expect to be able to get as competitive a team on the field. And then you slip behind a little and can't ever catch up.

Also, say a team has a lot of injuries one season (and you show me a team that hasn't at some stage), and as a consequence they drop off suddenly. The next year when the injured players return they all have to take a pay cut as the team now only has 88% of the cap to pay. Or suddenly players have to be offloaded to get under the new cap. I can forsee this being a big issue for the Dogs and Roos over the next couple of years already.

BTW I believe this is completely different to the northern team concessions - I believe these are required to bring those teams up to the standards of the rest of the competition.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Absolutely and categorically NO!

This is just entrenching teams where they are on the ladder. If you already start behind the others in terms of payments then you can't expect to be able to get as competitive a team on the field. And then you slip behind a little and can't ever catch up.

Also, say a team has a lot of injuries one season (and you show me a team that hasn't at some stage), and as a consequence they drop off suddenly. The next year when the injured players return they all have to take a pay cut as the team now only has 88% of the cap to pay. Or suddenly players have to be offloaded to get under the new cap. I can forsee this being a big issue for the Dogs and Roos over the next couple of years already.

BTW I believe this is completely different to the northern team concessions - I believe these are required to bring those teams up to the standards of the rest of the competition.

Teams wouldn't be able to pay any of the above 85% till after the seasons finished. So say last year brisbane would after the GF have an extra 15% to give out to it's players as they'd have seen fit. BUT come the start of this year in the players salaries again only have 85% to give. And with drafts less fixed then now how do players then know which teams are going to do well the following year ?

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Andre
The problem is drafts are for following years, players are playing the current year. To help prevent players/clubs putting a less then full effort into it reward teams the higher up the ladder with financial incentives.

eg. Clubs get base 85% of salary cap a year. Each position above 16th gets 1% over that. 15 gets 86% up to 1st 100%. Then clubs get a reward as well. Say reduce their handouts from AFL likewise to 85% of current and top up accordingly. Clubs and players both then have incentives not to ditch matches during season for low draft picks and also reward teams/clubs on their merits payment wise.

Not a full solution by any means, but certainly would be a useful part of one.

Ridiculous suggestion - most unequalisation.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Andre
Teams wouldn't be able to pay any of the above 85% till after the seasons finished. So say last year brisbane would after the GF have an extra 15% to give out to it's players as they'd have seen fit. BUT come the start of this year in the players salaries again only have 85% to give. And with drafts less fixed then now how do players then know which teams are going to do well the following year ?

For reasons why this will build superteams and counteract what the salary cap is supposed to do, referred to any of the 1000 threads complaining about Brisbane's salary cap bonus.

 

[naughty monkey]

Let me get this straight, we'll implement a WEIGHTED lottery so that it removes the incentive for a team to tank matches to get a higher draft pick.

Is that right?
Have I understood you correctly CJ?

Call me stupid if you like but if you were so concerned about teams tanking to get better draft picks, why not make the order of the picks completely independent of your finishing position!?!?!

I guess that would be too logical?

 

[Saturday@2]

Priority Picks the problem

The only flaw in our system is the awarding of priority picks. At MOST a team winning less than 6 matches should be given a priority pick AFTER the completition of Round One. Although I believe having the chance to pick one of the top one or two kids in the country is more than enough to equalise the competition. Scrapping (or modifying) the priority pick system would also lessen the motive for teams to tank the end of a season.

I also believe that creating a "winning" culture at a club (i.e. never tanking) far outweighs the short term gain of picking up a higher draft pick. This is especially true if there were no priority picks.

 

[Chris_Judd]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
Let me get this straight, we'll implement a WEIGHTED lottery so that it removes the incentive for a team to tank matches to get a higher draft pick.

Is that right?
Have I understood you correctly CJ?

No... its not to do with "tanking" games to finish lower on the ladder. I would never suggest an AFL club would throw a game so they could finish lower.... but they can play younger players... and not have as much incentive to win. I also think a draft lottery would add more excitement to the AFL draft day.

You tell me this... come around August 20th... you have 1 game to go in your season... your side is on the bottom of the ladder by 1 game but your % is better than the 15th placed team. A guy by the name of Wayne Carey (circa 1996) is playing in the TAC and is far and above the best player in the draft. What would you want your club to do? lose gracefully knowing that next year you get the next Wayne Carey for the next 15 years? or do you try your guts out knowing that a meaningless win means you miss out on Carey.

Under the draft lottery system the 15th and 16th placed teams would receive the same amount of balls in the lottery or very close to. It would still come down to the luck of the draw. Teams are going to try a damn lot harder in that last game knowing the only thing they are going to be certain of getting if they lose is not Carey but the wooden spoon. Thats where it would help.

Originally posted by naughty monkey
Call me stupid if you like but if you were so concerned about teams tanking to get better draft picks, why not make the order of the picks completely independent of your finishing position!?!?!

I guess that would be too logical?

Ok... how do you think we should have it completely independent of finishing positions? This should be a good one.

 

[Portia]

It would be interesting to ask Dogs fans if they'd trade their Round 22 win against Collingwood & Tim Walsh for Jared Brennan.

 

[Chris_Judd]

I think it was the year we got Chris Judd with the #3 pick when we lost most of our last remaining games... to remain on 5 wins for the year and get the Judd with the compensation pick. Without those compensation picks for the teams who finished on 5 wins or less it meant we never would have gotten Ashley Sampi with Pick #6 in that draft either. There is no way in hell I would have swapped 1 win in 2000 for that so I think there is an element of clubs "not trying" as hard once they can see a reward for not winning.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think its a great idea. I would like the allocations of draft picks to take place before the trading period so that draft picks can still be traded.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Chris_Judd
I think it was the year we got Chris Judd with the #3 pick when we lost most of our last remaining games... to remain on 5 wins for the year and get the Judd with the compensation pick. Without those compensation picks for the teams who finished on 5 wins or less it meant we never would have gotten Ashley Sampi with Pick #6 in that draft either. There is no way in hell I would have swapped 1 win in 2000 for that so I think there is an element of clubs "not trying" as hard once they can see a reward for not winning.

Yeah, West Coast lost their last three matches in 2001. Had they won any of them they would have only got pick #5 instead of picks #3 and #6.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Porthos


No doubt raising the draft age would encourage more tanking. I daresay that the likes of Graham John****, Corey Jones, Dion Woods, Adam McPhee and Ryan Lonie would go a bit earlier than they did when they got picked up in 2000.....I also doubt that Luke Livingston would be going in the top 5 either. The older the players drafted, the more valuable the early picks are.

I dont know about that
Because Medhurst was leading Goal scorer in the WAFL at hte age of 19.
Drafted when he was I think 20 and yet he still went a lowly 56.
It shows drafters still pay no respect to the older players and are only concerned with the raw recruits.

 

[Eago77]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Saints in future years they will have to fit all their young guns under the salary cap, not an easy thing to do unless you also have salary cap consessions.

From reading the above posts, perhaps scrapping the consession picks unless a team is a serial underperformer, say they finish bottom 2/3 for a number of years in a row, would be a good idea.

I dont think the lottery system would make a heck of a lot of difference, if it was implemented, surely only the bottom 4 or 8 need by included.

I also dont think that dropping games on purpose is currently a problem in the AFL.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by sabre_ac
I dont know about that
Because Medhurst was leading Goal scorer in the WAFL at hte age of 19.
Drafted when he was I think 20 and yet he still went a lowly 56.
It shows drafters still pay no respect to the older players and are only concerned with the raw recruits.

Yes, he did. That would be because he was a small forward playing in an inferior league. Put him in the same league, but with that league also having all 17-20 year olds that would normally be on AFL lists, and he'll be up against opposition that recruiters will rate.

There will still be players that go late, but the longer you leave it, the clearer it gets. Hell, just look at Pavlich - only one year needed for him to go from undrafted to top 5.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Porthos
Yes, he did. That would because he was a small forward playing in an inferior league. Put him in the same league, but with that league also having all 17-20 year olds that would normally be on AFL lists, and he'll be up against opposition that recruiters will rate.

There will still be players that go late, but the longer you leave it, the clearer it gets. Hell, just look at Pavlich - only one year needed for him to go from undrafted to top 5.

Your suggesting that the WAFL is an inferior league to that of the under 18s?
You have got to be joking.
The WAFL has recieved a bad rep for some time now and its probally why so few WA players were recruited last year.

 

[Ripper]

Good post C_J I think that the Extra picks should be scrapped unless team wins less than 5 games in 2 years.

While not an example of teams tanking games, Brisbane in 1998 (because of the merger) was a classic case of a team getting the No 1 pick even though there list was way better than the average wooden spooners.

Did they get a extra pick that year also?

 

[Chris_Judd]

Originally posted by sabre_ac
I dont know about that
Because Medhurst was leading Goal scorer in the WAFL at hte age of 19.
Drafted when he was I think 20 and yet he still went a lowly 56.
It shows drafters still pay no respect to the older players and are only concerned with the raw recruits.

They generally won't waste top 30 or even top 40 draft picks on older players... generally you go for raw talent in the hope they will develop into the next Wayne Carey or Kouta. The reason Medhurst went so late is because he was 19 and generally by the age of 19 you know how good someone is going to be. You'd have to be blind to not see Medhurst was going to be a good AFL Player if you had seen him in the WAFL.... but a club like the dockers could afford to gamble and wait and see if he was still available late in the draft which he was.