News Suns to ask for Pick 1 as a priority pick

[briztoon]

As was mentioned on the Lions board, in this discussion, they need Kennedy from the Swans and Bruest from the Hawks as a starting point

Give them a beginning of first round PP, and they can trade the pick they get for Jack Martin when he requests a trade at the end of the season for Kennedy, and Lions pick they own for Bruest.

 

[Crow till I die]

Please explain to me under that circumstances a team should get a priority pick then? If Carlton or GCS don't tick enough boxes, then I don't see them giving them out.

Why should Carlton get one?
22 wins in 5 seasons.

If that does not tick enough boxes, then please tell me how many games we won which stopped the PP?

Why should GCS get one?

23 wins in 5 seasons....

Surely those points alone warrant a PP?

This is assuming you believe in PP, if not then this whole conversation is pointless.

Priority picks are not the answer - both clubs have had many picks at the pointy end of the draft and still sit low (although Carlton might be close to turning the corner after a slow rebuild). Both clubs through either a deliberate policy of trading out senior players or losing them to other clubs do not need more 18 year old kids - they need experience on the park and this is where the AFL could set up some out of salary cap payment benefits to allow both clubs to offer the big money needed to lure the better more experienced players across. I also thought the AFL concession to GWS where they had access to 2 x 17 year old kids but had to trade them via a mini draft scenario worked well as without compromising the current draft, it allowed clubs to bid for these players with GWS taking the highest bids. This would garner both clubs extra picks / players or maybe both. If the AFL is to help GC - who need it more than Carlton do for obvious reasons, then it must not under any circumstance compromise the draft but as noted above, there are plenty of different ways they can do that

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I also thought the AFL concession to GWS where they had access to 2 x 17 year old kids but had to trade them via a mini draft scenario worked well as without compromising the current draft, it allowed clubs to bid for these players with GWS taking the highest bids. This would garner both clubs extra picks / players or maybe both. If the AFL is to help GC - who need it more than Carlton do for obvious reasons, then it must not under any circumstance compromise the draft but as noted above, there are plenty of different ways they can do that

The mini-drafts simply deferred the compromising by a year.

 

[Crow till I die]

The mini-drafts simply deferred the compromising by a year.

but what it does do is allow clubs a long long way out to know who may not be available the following year rather than springing a PP on the rest of the comp when the draft order was settled. Also , the idea of a PP once live trading came in should have been banished forever as it compromises the integrity of trading picks. And as noted, there are plenty of more appropriate ways the AFL can help GC other than to give them another 18 year old kid

edit. further to the mini drafts deferring compromising the drafts, it isn't really because clubs have to bid for the right to the players - it is not just a handout given. For example, the crows coughed up pick 10 + the compo pick for Phil Davis for access to B Crouch

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Edit. further to the mini drafts deferring compromising the drafts, it isn't really because clubs have to bid for the right to the players - it is not just a handout given. For example, the crows coughed up pick 10 + the compo pick for Phil Davis for access to B Crouch

It absolutely is a handout. GWS were given assets (essentially future picks 1 & 2) that had to be traded and taken a year out.

If Crouch, O'Meara, Martin, Hogan or whoever are rated highly in the following draft (as they were) it doesn't matter that the buyer paid for the privilege or what the seller received, because it isn't necessarily those clubs missing out - it's the clubs at the top of the draft the following year that would otherwise have had access to those talents.

Let's say Brisbane were given a mini-draft pick to auction off after their awful 2017. Fremantle give up pick 2 for the rights to Sam Walsh, getting an arguably-better prospect at the cost of waiting a year. Brisbane win, they walk out with a pick 2 they wouldn't otherwise have. Who loses? Carlton, who don't get Walsh, Gold Coast, who don't get one of Luko and Rankine, and everyone else down the chain. The net effect is almost exactly the same as granting Brisbane the top pick outright - the only difference is who takes it and having to project an extra year in advance.

Where you're right is that it doesn't spring unexpected surprises on clubs, but neither would granting Gold Coast the 2020 pick 1 on a priority basis before any of those picks have been traded.

 

[Crow till I die]

It absolutely is a handout. GWS were given assets (essentially future picks 1 & 2) that had to be traded and taken a year out.

If Crouch, O'Meara, Martin, Hogan or whoever are rated highly in the following draft (as they were) it doesn't matter that the buyer paid for the privilege or what the seller received, because it isn't necessarily those clubs missing out - it's the clubs at the top of the draft the following year that would otherwise have had access to those talents.

Let's say Brisbane were given a mini-draft pick to auction off after their awful 2017. Fremantle give up pick 2 for the rights to Sam Walsh, getting an arguably-better prospect at the cost of waiting a year. Brisbane win, they walk out with a pick 2 they wouldn't otherwise have. Who loses? Carlton, who don't get Walsh, Gold Coast, who don't get one of Luko and Rankine, and everyone else down the chain. The net effect is almost exactly the same as granting Brisbane the top pick outright - the only difference is who takes it and having to project an extra year in advance.

Where you're right is that it doesn't spring unexpected surprises on clubs, but neither would granting Gold Coast the 2020 pick 1 on a priority basis before any of those picks have been traded.

The big unknown though here is a year out who really knows who is going to be great..we all knew after the U 18 champs last year that Walsh, Luko, Rankine were going to be topline, but a year earlier in 2017 - it would have been a lot more blurry and therefore increases the risk taking the kids a year earlier

 

[Procrastinator35]

No more hand-outs to basket-cases.

Either make em merge or wrap em up....The experiment has failed.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Priority picks are not the answer

They are not the ONLY answer, but they certainly help a struggling club. Assuming you think they don't help a club, then I don't see why you feel it is a bad concept giving it to them anyway. I mean if high draft picks are worth nothing, then what is your issue?

- both clubs have had many picks at the pointy end of the draft and still sit low (although Carlton might be close to turning the corner after a slow rebuild).

Yes, but the concept behind PP is to help a club rebuild QUICKER. Once again, it should not be the ONLY tool, but it is a tool to help speed up the rebuild.

Both clubs through either a deliberate policy of trading out senior players or losing them to other clubs do not need more 18 year old kids

Sometimes they don't have a choice, players are requesting to leave. I mean the Hawks traded out senior players as well, they just happen to be mid table at the moment. I think it is a smart call to trade away players that are just going to stop the development of younger players long term. Carlton removed recently the likes of Menzel, Yarran, so those have been great calls.

- they need experience on the park and this is where the AFL could set up some out of salary cap payment benefits to allow both clubs to offer the big money needed to lure the better more experienced players across.

That might be another tool to use, but once again, there is a concept called PP and IF THERE IS THIS CONCEPT, then I think GCS and Carlton should meet any criteria to gain a pick. Otherwise it is nearly impossible for a club to gain a PP and if this is the case, remove PP completely as it is a false concept.

I also thought the AFL concession to GWS where they had access to 2 x 17 year old kids but had to trade them via a mini draft scenario worked well as without compromising the current draft

No it only delays the compromised draft by one year, a draft will still be compromised. JOM, Cameron, Shiel.... If those guys were in the following years draft, they would be stronger. An example could be O'Driscoll being given this year as a 17 year old, that will reduce the talent pool for the 2020 draft.

, it allowed clubs to bid for these players with GWS taking the highest bids. This would garner both clubs extra picks / players or maybe both. If the AFL is to help GC - who need it more than Carlton do for obvious reasons, then it must not under any circumstance compromise the draft but as noted above, there are plenty of different ways they can do that

I personally think if there is a concept call a PP, then Carlton and GCS should meet the requirements. This is NOT an argument on if there should be a PP or not. That is a completely different argument that we could have.

I think if we are going to have PP, then some form of ladder position needs to be used.

I would personally select a number of wins over a three year period as a good concept.

3 years - Less than 15 wins - PP end of first round
4 years - Less than 20 wins - PP start of first round

Something along those lines should assist with teams to rebuild but not reward clubs that have that one year dip aka West Coast Eagles and then bounce back up the ladder.

 

[LemmingMaster]

The big unknown though here is a year out who really knows who is going to be great..we all knew after the U 18 champs last year that Walsh, Luko, Rankine were going to be topline, but a year earlier in 2017 - it would have been a lot more blurry and therefore increases the risk taking the kids a year earlier

Most years it is highly likely you can guess many of the top picks.
Rowell and Anderson this year have been pegged as top picks all year.
Luko, Walsh, Rankine, Rozee, King, King, Thomas, Blakey - They were all pegged to be top picks the previous year.

I could come close to naming a few top picks for next year already.

 

[Crow till I die]

I personally think if there is a concept call a PP, then Carlton and GCS should meet the requirements. This is NOT an argument on if there should be a PP or not. That is a completely different argument that we could have.

I think if we are going to have PP, then some form of ladder position needs to be used.

I would personally select a number of wins over a three year period as a good concept.

3 years - Less than 15 wins - PP end of first round
4 years - Less than 20 wins - PP start of first round

Something along those lines should assist with teams to rebuild but not reward clubs that have that one year dip aka West Coast Eagles and then bounce back up the ladder.

But these clubs have had plenty of top 5 picks and are still languishing around the bottom - that in itself shows more top draft picks are not the answer.

Also, with the advent of live trading, the whole premise of a priority pick should be shelved forever as it absolutely compromises this concept. By way of a very relevant example the crows might have had their eye on pick 1 or 2 when they did the trade with carlton expecting that Rowell or Anderson were the absolute standouts. All their research predicted Carlton were still going to be in the bottom 2 to the best of their knowledge, they therefore pulled the trigger to offload a 1st round pick last year and a 1st round pick this year to get Carltons 1st rounder and all year it looks like being that coveted top 2 pick. Then bang - the AFL says sorry - we have just given Priority Pick 1 to GC and they have pick 2 from ladder position as well. Do the crows still do that trade knowing they get bumped outside the top 2??? - could they have taken Sydney Stack with their pick last year that was traded to Carlton and will their pick 10-13 this year net them a player equivalent to the guy picked at 3 (because most recruiters are saying that you can throw a blanket over the next dozen kids??..The odds of Carlton finishing bottom are much less than Carlton finishing bottom 2, but if a PP is issued, it just took away those odds and made the deal worse straight off the bat.

Therefore, the AFL to maintain the integrity of the draft and its whole concept of live pick trading needs to keep well away from Priority picks and offer alternate assistance - ie greater salary cap to lure players, more money to the club development side, help with marketing to ensure they can retain players drafted etc etc etc..one single 18 year old kid makes no difference to performance

 

[LemmingMaster]

But these clubs have had plenty of top 5 picks and are still languishing around the bottom - that in itself shows more top draft picks are not the answer.

Also, with the advent of live trading, the whole premise of a priority pick should be shelved forever as it absolutely compromises this concept. By way of a very relevant example the crows might have had their eye on pick 1 or 2 when they did the trade with carlton expecting that Rowell or Anderson were the absolute standouts. All their research predicted Carlton were still going to be in the bottom 2 to the best of their knowledge, they therefore pulled the trigger to offload a 1st round pick last year and a 1st round pick this year to get Carltons 1st rounder and all year it looks like being that coveted top 2 pick. Then bang - the AFL says sorry - we have just given Priority Pick 1 to GC and they have pick 2 from ladder position as well. Do the crows still do that trade knowing they get bumped outside the top 2??? - could they have taken Sydney Stack with their pick last year that was traded to Carlton and will their pick 10-13 this year net them a player equivalent to the guy picked at 3 (because most recruiters are saying that you can throw a blanket over the next dozen kids??..The odds of Carlton finishing bottom are much less than Carlton finishing bottom 2, but if a PP is issued, it just took away those odds and made the deal worse straight off the bat.

Therefore, the AFL to maintain the integrity of the draft and its whole concept of live pick trading needs to keep well away from Priority picks and offer alternate assistance - ie greater salary cap to lure players, more money to the club development side, help with marketing to ensure they can retain players drafted etc etc etc..one single 18 year old kid makes no difference to performance

I cannot be bothered with this conversation as you think the PP should be scrapped, so that is another conversation which I am not talking about.

Rather simple concept.

There IS a PP system and I think due to the fact there is a system in place, Carlton and GCS should get a PP.

/end topic

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Carlton and melbourne have both recieved start of first round PP . Its GC turn to get some assistance .

Carlton gutted their list to get picks happy to let players go . They only have themselves to blame and their poor list managment.

Gold Coast on the other hand had much less in the way of start up compared to GWS .

Give them the PP and maybe money into their soft cap for coaching / player retention resources

 

[LemmingMaster]

Carlton gutted their list to get picks happy to let players go . They only have themselves to blame and their poor list managment.
Name players in the last 5 years that we have gutted out of the club that have been an incorrect decision. So we can determine if we have poor list management.

Gold Coast on the other hand had much less in the way of start up compared to GWS .

Give them the PP and maybe money into their soft cap for coaching / player retention resources

Feel free to back up your points with some valid facts rather than bluster.

 

[kirbatron]

They need decent guys in the 23-28 bracket.

Jarryd Lyon types... etc

 

[LemmingMaster]

Also, with the advent of live trading, the whole premise of a priority pick should be shelved forever as it absolutely compromises this concept.

btw, I agree the advent of live trading certainly makes trading future draft picks a lot harder. If GCS and then maybe Carlton both got first round picks, then Adelaide should rightly be insanely mad.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

They are not the ONLY answer, but they certainly help a struggling club. Assuming you think they don't help a club, then I don't see why you feel it is a bad concept giving it to them anyway. I mean if high draft picks are worth nothing, then what is your issue?

No one is saying high draft picks don't have value - but that clubs that get themselves into a position to qualify for them have had no shortage of high draft picks, having been crap for multiple years in a row. They self-evidently aren't the answer for those clubs, or those clubs wouldn't be in that position in the first place. Thus, the issue lies elsewhere.

Melbourne are a great example, having torched a generation of kids and needing a total overhaul to get where they are now - well, were last year.

I would personally select a number of wins over a three year period as a good concept.

3 years - Less than 15 wins - PP end of first round
4 years - Less than 20 wins - PP start of first round

I'm sorry but that's an awful proposal. Win-based triggers led directly to tanking under the old system and would do so again here.

It's entirely normal for clubs to be crap for a year or three, but the moment a crap club starts year four slowly what do you think their goal for the season will be?

The whole challenge is providing help without introducing moral hazard through incentives to lose.

 

[PMBangers]

They need a high level player with good leadership skills, someone in the Scott Pendlebury mould would be best for them. A Hodge type of scenario isn't enough for them at this stage as they need someone that can actually carry the team as well. The bigger issue is if anyone like that is available, or wants to move up to Queensland

 

[briztoon]

They need a high level player with good leadership skills, someone in the Scott Pendlebury mould would be best for them. A Hodge type of scenario isn't enough for them at this stage as they need someone that can actually carry the team as well. The bigger issue is if anyone like that is available, or wants to move up to Queensland

They need more than one such player. Probably 3 or 4.

 

[PMBangers]

They need more than one such player. Probably 3 or 4.

Depends on any other potential recruits, if they got one Pendlebury like player and then 2-3 players that are depth on other lists but first team quality (Like Anthony Miles was) that are in the 23-27 age bracket then they'd call that a successful trade period

 

[kaiserchief13]

They should give it to them on the provision they trade it for a mature player or 2. How this works I don't know but maybe the other clubs don't need to know this?

 

[kaiserchief13]

No more hand-outs to basket-cases.

Either make em merge or wrap em up....The experiment has failed.

In principle sure but then what happens to Dogs, North, St Kilda and Melbourne?

 

[briztoon]

Depends on any other potential recruits, if they got one Pendlebury like player and then 2-3 players that are depth on other lists but first team quality (Like Anthony Miles was) that are in the 23-27 age bracket then they'd call that a successful trade period

I posted this earlier.

As Gold Coast is finding out, most of the blokes they recruited from the State leagues and traded from Richmond and Geelong are garbage because they are being asked to perform above their abilities.

These were blokes who were fringe best 22 players as mature players. The weren't asked to carry a team at their old clubs, but play a role. They're not up to the role Gold Coast need from them. Sure they can set standards off the field, but these guys aren't able to set standards on the field, and that's the problem Gold Coast has found out this year.

You talk to most Gold Coast fans, Miles, GHS and Hombsch don't make the Suns best 22 when they have a full healthy list. Because their draftees have more talent. The only player that has been a success has been Sam Collins who does very well playing a similar role to what McGovern plays over at West Coast. Except Collins is now out injured for the rest of the season.

Gold Coast has 2 mature players on it's list who might come close to being considered A grade. David Swallow and Jarrod Harbrow.

They need 3 to 6 genuine A-B grade mature players who would be in that 6 to 12 range on most lists in terms of quality. Players who can actually help carry a team.

Another Anthony Miles or George-Horlin Smith isn't going to help.


Brisbane found this out in 2015 after the 2014 trade period when we traded in a heap of experienced players from other teams, after the Go home 5 disaster of 2013. We quickly realised that most of these players weren't up to carrying a weak team. Sure they look alright coming from strong teams, but as I mentioned above, they're weren't asked to carry a team. When put in such a situation, they don't have the athletic abilities and/or skills that such top players have.

We ended up in a position of that we couldn't wait to de-list these players to free up salary cap space.

And Brisbane was still in a stronger position then, than what Gold Coast find themselves in now.

 

[Sloane13]

I posted this earlier.

As Gold Coast is finding out, most of the blokes they recruited from the State leagues and traded from Richmond and Geelong are garbage because they are being asked to perform above their abilities.

These were blokes who were fringe best 22 players as mature players. The weren't asked to carry a team at their old clubs, but play a role. They're not up to the role Gold Coast need from them. Sure they can set standards off the field, but these guys aren't able to set standards on the field, and that's the problem Gold Coast has found out this year.

You talk to most Gold Coast fans, Miles, GHS and Hombsch don't make the Suns best 22 when they have a full healthy list. Because their draftees have more talent. The only player that has been a success has been Sam Collins who does very well playing a similar role to what McGovern plays over at West Coast. Except Collins is now out injured for the rest of the season.

Gold Coast has 2 mature players on it's list who might come close to being considered A grade. David Swallow and Jarrod Harbrow.

They need 3 to 6 genuine A-B grade mature players who would be in that 6 to 12 range on most lists in terms of quality. Players who can actually help carry a team.

Another Anthony Miles or George-Horlin Smith isn't going to help.


Brisbane found this out in 2015 after the 2014 trade period when we traded in a heap of experienced players from other teams, after the Go home 5 disaster of 2013. We quickly realised that most of these players weren't up to carrying a weak team. Sure they look alright coming from strong teams, but as I mentioned above, they're weren't asked to carry a team. When put in such a situation, they don't have the athletic abilities and/or skills that such top players have.

We ended up in a position of that we couldn't wait to de-list these players to free up salary cap space.

And Brisbane was still in a stronger position then, than what Gold Coast find themselves in now.

Do you think gc will trade out pick 1 for best free agency player they can find ? No they again go for 18 year old Rowell. Priority pick they want purely get Anderson as well. They don’t need or deserve it any thoughts. Maybe give them pick two if both used mature bodies any thoughts. Possibly get kellly Coniglio with pick 1 and 2 traded. Problem solvered but they won’t trade picks big issue and why they shouldn’t get pick

 

[briztoon]

Do you think gc will trade out pick 1 for best free agency player they can find ? No they again go for 18 year old Rowell. Priority pick they want purely get Anderson as well. They don’t need or deserve it any thoughts. Maybe give them pick two if both used mature bodies any thoughts. Possibly get kellly Coniglio with pick 1 and 2 traded. Problem solvered but they won’t trade picks big issue and why they shouldn’t get pick

Geez, did you breathe when you typed that.

You do know you can use paragraphs. Spell check, and punctuation.

To answer your question.

If they could attract a quality player such as Coniglio or Kelly, 100% Gold Coast would trade pick 1.

We saw Gold Coast trade pick 2 for Lachie Weller in 2017. And Weller in all fairness is probably really only worth about pick 10.

The problem for Gold Coast is that high quality players don’t want to go there.


Do I believe they need or deserve it? That’s a complicated question.

They need help. However the AFL can’t make players go to Gold Coast, so at the end of the day the easiest option for the AFL is to hand Gold Coast a PP.


Do they deserve it? Probably. The AFL is largely to blame for Gold Coasts current predicament, because they weren’t set up right like GWS in the first place.

But the majority of opposition fans don’t want to read about it, or even know what has happened in the past or going on off the field for Gold Coast now.

Because if they did, they know they’d likely have to change their point of view. And typically fans prefer to stick their head in the sand, then find out they were wrong.

 

[Sloane13]

Geez, did you breathe when you typed that.

You do know you can use paragraphs. Spell check, and punctuation.

To answer your question.

If they could attract a quality player such as Coniglio or Kelly, 100% Gold Coast would trade pick 1.

We saw Gold Coast trade pick 2 for Lachie Weller in 2017. And Weller in all fairness is probably really only worth about pick 10.

The problem for Gold Coast is that high quality players don’t want to go there.


Do I believe they need or deserve it? That’s a complicated question.

They need help. However the AFL can’t make players go to Gold Coast, so at the end of the day the easiest option for the AFL is to hand Gold Coast a PP.


Do they deserve it? Probably. The AFL is largely to blame for Gold Coasts current predicament, because they weren’t set up right like GWS in the first place.

But the majority of opposition fans don’t want to read about it, or even know what has happened in the past or going on off the field for Gold Coast now.

Because if they did, they know they’d likely have to change their point of view. And typically fans prefer to stick their head in the sand, then find out they were wrong.

Why should adelaide be penalised for doing first free live trading of pick swaps with Carlton. That’s not fair and makes a mockery of live trading. End of story sorry but that’s my thoughts.