The Draft is Overrated

[mehow2g]

You keep saying that but none of it stands up to scrutiny.

The draft remains the most reliable, most important way to build a successful side. In that sense, it is not overrated at all. You haven't addressed this at all.

But if the draft is indeed a lottery, would you be willing to trade Geelong's first-rounder this season for an established ruckman? You've said draft picks are not so valuable, so presumably you'd trade it in a heartbeat.

Back up your argument or concede that it's broken.

You can't just say "that's my point" every time you are challenged.

Tell me, with the current eagles team that played on the weekend who have they drafted that made them a 9 in a row side with Shuey, priddis Mitchell and petrie out?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

hawthorn 1st rounders: franklin, roughead, hodge, Mitchell, lewis, rioli,
bullodgs 1st rounders: macrae, stringer, bontempelli, tom boyd as well as hunter, liberatore and wallis as father sons.
richmond 1st rounders: rance, riewoldt, dusty, cotchin,
collingwood 1st rounders: didak, pendlebury, thomas, ben reid, sidebottom as well as shaw and cloke father sons.

These teams all built their cores through the draft.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

OP has no idea.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

These teams all built their cores through the draft.

yeah i'm in the 'the draft works' camp on this one

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Tell me, with the current eagles team that played on the weekend who have they drafted that made them a 9 in a row side with Shuey, priddis Mitchell and petrie out?

You mean over the past 10+ years?

Yeo and Kennedy are the big trade acquisitions, although neither arrived as "established players".

Redden and Jetta are the two readymades who arrived since 2015, along with Ah Chee, although it's not clear if he's best 22.

If you look at the players WC have drafted who played on the weekend, the list includes Naitanui, Gaff, Darling, Hurn, Sheppard, McGovern, LeCras, Sheed, Duggan, Barrass, Rioli, Waterman, Masten and Cole. Hopefully Shuey is back this week.

Throw in Ryan, Venables, Allen, Ainsworth, Brander, Petruccelle and Nelson as other recent draftees.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hawthorn's recent three peat and dominance of the comp was largely the result of some handy top end picks in Hodge, Rioli, Roughead, Franklin and Mitchell (the only non-first round pick in that lot).

And Lewis.

The most reliable way to build a successful team is to load up on picks and get enough of them right that you have a talented group develop and go through together.

Why do people think Melbourne are on the cusp of some long-awaited success?

Trading for Vince, Lewis, Hibberd, Melksham etc has been useful but the real momentum is generated by kids they drafted.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Hawthorn's recent three peat and dominance of the comp was largely the result of some handy top end picks in Hodge, Rioli, Roughead, Franklin and Mitchell (the only non-first round pick in that lot).

yep shouldn't have included mitchell there.

It'll be interesting to see how many of these sides that trade picks for players to avoid bottoming out go in the coming years. maybe their bad times are fewer but it seems real top end success is overwhelmingly skewed towards sides that accumulate good talent at the top of the draft.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

RedVest4 why won't you answer this question?

If the draft is indeed a lottery, what would you want in return for Geelong's first-rounder this year?

You have argued that the draft is overrated and a lottery, so teams should just trade away early picks for established players. So presumably you would be willing to trade Geelong's first-rounder for an established ruckman – Scott Lycett, for example – who would walk into your 22. You would do that deal in a heartbeat because the draft is a lottery and "it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players". Right?

Put your money where your mouth is and tell everyone how cheaply you'd sell Geelong's first-round pick.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

The Hawks brains trust agree with the OP i think. Most of our team on the weekend was made up of players who started their careers elsewhere. And most of the Hawk draftees in the team were either old players or late draft picks.

We have traded most of our first round picks since 2007... our last selection was Schoenmakers or Issac Smith (we also picked Burton at 19, for a traded in pick).

I personally think Geelong excel at picks in the second round or early third (and late first round picks). I think those picks can be underrated if you get enough of them, and have an excellent recruiter.

Very interested too see what the Hawks do with their first round pick this year.

Lets see how Hawthorn go in the post Hodge/Mitchell/Roughead/Lewis world before judging your long term recruitment strategy and the benifits of avoiding the draft.

Hawthorn recruited incredibly well between 08 and 13. You took players who others thought were either done (or just disinterested), or who looked limited at other clubs, and turned them into elites, either by finding the perfect role for them, or developing them further.
But - that is so much easier to do when you are already a champion team with pieces already in place and are just looking to fill specific gaps.
Its also easier decision to give up a late first rounder than it is a top 5 pick.

Lets also not forgot that a key part of that dominant squad was built from draft picks recieved via a trade where you sent Croad and McPharlin to freo (with a return of pick 1 - Hodge, and 36 - Mitchell)

---
I think it is simplistic to just say that its better to trade out a pick than use it.

Every draft pick has value - the higher the pick, the greater the value.
Every possible trade also has value.

It just comes down to talent recognition and scouting, awareness of where your list is actually at, developing those players right when you get them, and a fair bit of luck thrown in.

Some clubs do this much better than others. But every decision needs to be made on its merits.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

NBA players are older when drafted and have a more rigorous college experience compared to the under 18s that our players play in. There is also much more publicised and advanced scouting. The consequence of this is that there is less guess work in the draft.

So whilst the AFL draft positions would have a similar trend, I doubt it would be as strong. However, I would be very curious to see the data.

I agree with all of that.
And personally im a supporter of the idea of increasing the draft age by 1 or 2 years: will really benefit state leagues and their exposure, and also greatly increase the value of the draft as an equalisation tool.
But thats for another thread.

I also agree that the data would likely not be as strong - but i think the curve would still be there, whatever metric you use.
There will always be more value in Pick 1 than say pick 2 or 3 or 4 (or 20).

Its just about rightly valuing that pick, possible draft recruits, and possible trades.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

RedVest4 why won't you answer this question?

If the draft is indeed a lottery, what would you want in return for Geelong's first-rounder this year?

You have argued that the draft is overrated and a lottery, so teams should just trade away early picks for established players. So presumably you would be willing to trade Geelong's first-rounder for an established ruckman – Scott Lycett, for example – who would walk into your 22. You would do that deal in a heartbeat because the draft is a lottery and "it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players". Right?

Put your money where your mouth is and tell everyone how cheaply you'd sell Geelong's first-round pick.

Yeah I'd do that trade.

 

[Damon_3388]

The AFL is a best of the best comp or supposed to be anyway, not a colts comp.
Let them develop against men in the second tier and play when they are ready without excuses.

If you want to watch the colts then turn up at 10am to see them, not in the AFL.

Well, that brings up some other questions:

- Should clubs focus on drafting more mature players who are closer to their prime, as more of a certain (lower risk, but potentially lower reward) "quicker fix" than an 18-year-old (higher risk, but potentially higher reward down the track)?

- Should the league be forcing this, by raising the minimum draft age?

- If the draft age is raised, will there be lost/missed/unmet potential? Eg. if an elite junior spends three years at state league level, then goes to the AFL at age 21, will he end up being a better or worse player in his prime years, than if he'd been in the AFL system from age 18?

- Rather than a national reserves league, do we need an AFL U/21s league instead, to still keep the elite kids under the AFL development pathway, but to ease the transition to the big league, and ensure that the AFL is still the domain of elite senior players only?

 

[db swannie]

Exactly, so you may as well trade away first rounders that I’ve proven to be a lottery and supposedly have more value, for established players.

I think clubs are starting to figure this out.

It also depends on who’s on the market at the time as well, but I do tend to agree. Up until a couple of years ago we’d been shite with our first round picks, yet very astute with our selections in the rookie draft.

Thing with the rookie draft is if you have a good recruiting system in place you’ll find some absolute crackers there at bargain prices. I think a lot of clubs are paying close attention to what the swans have been doing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hey RedVest4 – if the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated and clubs should just go after established players, then how come you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated, then how come you said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Remember, draft picks are overrated. Established players are more valuable. Right?

I wonder if the Hawthorn fans in this thread would have thought Breust or Smith or McEvoy were worth first-rounders as well? Luv_our_club Collins-Langford-Ayres Rusty Brookes

Sounds like you have some pretty flexible ideas about the value of draft picks.

Which of your various statements here would you like to reverse? Because they can't all be accurate.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Lets see how Hawthorn go in the post Hodge/Mitchell/Roughead/Lewis world before judging your long term recruitment strategy and the benifits of avoiding the draft.

Hawthorn recruited incredibly well between 08 and 13. You took players who others thought were either done (or just disinterested), or who looked limited at other clubs, and turned them into elites, either by finding the perfect role for them, or developing them further.
But - that is so much easier to do when you are already a champion team with pieces already in place and are just looking to fill specific gaps.
Its also easier decision to give up a late first rounder than it is a top 5 pick.

Lets also not forgot that a key part of that dominant squad was built from draft picks recieved via a trade where you sent Croad and McPharlin to freo (with a return of pick 1 - Hodge, and 36 - Mitchell)

---
I think it is simplistic to just say that its better to trade out a pick than use it.

Every draft pick has value - the higher the pick, the greater the value.
Every possible trade also has value.

It just comes down to talent recognition and scouting, awareness of where your list is actually at, developing those players right when you get them, and a fair bit of luck thrown in.

Some clubs do this much better than others. But every decision needs to be made on its merits.

I intentionally made no value judgment in my post. Did you assume it perhaps based on our recent success? I was intending just to observe what my team was doing.

I agree our flags were at least 50% draft driven. That % score would depend on how much you value the top-ups we brought in from other clubs as bridging the gap (and making the critical difference) between being so close but oh-so-far and winning a flag.

 

[Damon_3388]

Scarlett was never going to be a high pick so F/S or not we didn't get lucky there. He was nearly delisted early on.

Surely any early potential delisting was more to do with attitude and behaviour, rather than talent or value to the club, though?

Scarlett became a regular player during his 3rd season (2000), was an International Rules representative in his 5th (2002), and All-Australian in his 6th and 7th seasons (2003-2004). It's not like he took an especially long time to become a serviceable AFL player, and vaulted up to very good/elite status perhaps a year or two earlier than you'd expect on a standard development timeline.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Well, that brings up some other questions:

- Should clubs focus on drafting more mature players who are closer to their prime, as more of a certain (lower risk, but potentially lower reward) "quicker fix" than an 18-year-old (higher risk, but potentially higher reward down the track)?

- Should the league be forcing this, by raising the minimum draft age?

- If the draft age is raised, will there be lost/missed/unmet potential? Eg. if an elite junior spends three years at state league level, then goes to the AFL at age 21, will he end up being a better or worse player in his prime years, than if he'd been in the AFL system from age 18?

- Rather than a national reserves league, do we need an AFL U/21s league instead, to still keep the elite kids under the AFL development pathway, but to ease the transition to the big league, and ensure that the AFL is still the domain of elite senior players only?

I would suggest raising it by one or two years and these kids playing in the state leagues:
The AFL would pay a basic stipend to say 40 kids identified as likely round 1 or 2 draft picks (Say 25k/yr - totals to 1m - easily affordable for the AFL) and that each VFL/SANFL/WAFL club (could include NEAFL) gets one or two development spots for this. The AFL would also then provide specific coaching and delopment to these kids (say through expanding the academy) in addition to their club coaching.

Would help the state leagues with media and attention from having potential No 1 Picks running around.

Would also really improve the "hit" rate of draft picks - both getting to scout in full mens competitions, having guys who are more physically and emotionally ready for the AFL, and also having a clearer idea of whos bodies break down once they start playing against men.

The AFLPA would probably be the biggest opponent - but with the salary cap left the same it just means more money and squad positions available for older guys who might otherwise be pushed out, or for mature guys who didnt get drafted.

 

[PhatBoy]

Wouldn’t an easier argument be this:

‘Hey everyone, look at Carlton, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast over the last 10-15 years and how they’ve gone with heaps of high draft picks.’

Draft guarantees you nothing. High picks guarantee you nothing.

Comparing it to the NBA by the way is absolutely pointless because a) if you’re touted as the best possible NBA youngster, that’s because you’ve stood out in a field of absolutely thousands. B) you also stand out in a five man sport. You can have a huge impact on your side’s fortunes for better or worse. An afl draftee can’t do that.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Hey RedVest4 – if the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated and clubs should just go after established players, then how come you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated, then how come you said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Remember, draft picks are overrated. Established players are more valuable. Right?

I wonder if the Hawthorn fans in this thread would have thought Breust or Smith or McEvoy were worth first-rounders as well? Luv_our_club Collins-Langford-Ayres Rusty Brookes

Sounds like you have some pretty flexible ideas about the value of draft picks.

Which of your various statements here would you like to reverse? Because they can't all be accurate.

Wow dude. Going through his post history?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Wow dude. Going through his post history?

It took 5 seconds to search his posts on the drafts & trading board and another 5 seconds to find him contradicting the statements he's made in this thread about the value of draft picks.

Is referring to someone's previous posts a taboo that I don't know about?

Let's see if RedVest4 will return to explain these apparent contradictions.

If the draft is a lottery and picks are overrated and clubs should just trade them away for established players, then how come he said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

I'm confused. Which one is it?

 

[tony__montana]

I agree with the op that the draft is overrated somewhat - for the vast majority of players you are at your highest value in your career pre draft unless you go on to become a superstar like Judd, Danger, martin, franklin etc

Example - when we traded pick 6 for prestia everyone laughed, so too when we brought in caddy, both players arguably werent worth to the footy public what they were drafted at, certainly not the case now.

Look at the players on your list and where they were drafted and ask yourself what would they be worth on the trade table in terms of picks..

You need to be able to blend the following

Drafting
rookie list
trading in players
and player development/culture.

Most recent premiership sides have their fair share of all the above combined

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look at the players on your list and where they were drafted and ask yourself what would they be worth on the trade table in terms of picks.

What would this demonstrate? Needless to say, it will vary dramatically depending on the player.

Who are Richmond's four best players and how did you recruit them?

Jack Riewoldt #13, 2006 draft
Trent Cotchin #2, 2007 draft
Alex Rance #18, 2007 draft
Dustin Martin #3, 2009 draft

 

[The 747]

You’ve named 7 players out of a list of probably 30 that were successful, Ablett and Scarlett would not have been taken in the first round anyway.

The draft is overrated and a lottery - you may as well take players later on as opposed to going hard early - then get established players you know what you’ll get with - safer option.

Sorry but you are wrong, those 7 players were the core of our successful sides, plus there were quite a few early seconds who also formed that core. We built that side by nailing 2-3 drafts, then augmenting it with good trades and topped it off with some FS bonuses - Ablett and Hawkins.

The trick to it is getting the right players with your first and second round picks, and if possible having them develop around each other.

 

[Damon_3388]

I would suggest raising it by one or two years and these kids playing in the state leagues:
The AFL would pay a basic stipend to say 40 kids identified as likely round 1 or 2 draft picks (Say 25k/yr - totals to 1m - easily affordable for the AFL) and that each VFL/SANFL/WAFL club (could include NEAFL) gets one or two development spots for this. The AFL would also then provide specific coaching and delopment to these kids (say through expanding the academy) in addition to their club coaching.

Would help the state leagues with media and attention from having potential No 1 Picks running around.

Would also really improve the "hit" rate of draft picks - both getting to scout in full mens competitions, having guys who are more physically and emotionally ready for the AFL, and also having a clearer idea of whos bodies break down once they start playing against men.

The AFLPA would probably be the biggest opponent - but with the salary cap left the same it just means more money and squad positions available for older guys who might otherwise be pushed out, or for mature guys who didnt get drafted.

This also sounds like a good way to manage it.

You could transition it fairly easily, too, without a draft class getting "lost" in between, with the current 2018 draft class (born 2000) being eligible this year, and making it 21+ from 2019 onwards (born 1998 and earlier, originally the 2016 draft class), meaning the 2001 kids would be the first under the new system.

 

[Damon_3388]

I would suggest raising it by one or two years and these kids playing in the state leagues:
The AFL would pay a basic stipend to say 40 kids identified as likely round 1 or 2 draft picks (Say 25k/yr - totals to 1m - easily affordable for the AFL) and that each VFL/SANFL/WAFL club (could include NEAFL) gets one or two development spots for this. The AFL would also then provide specific coaching and delopment to these kids (say through expanding the academy) in addition to their club coaching.

Would help the state leagues with media and attention from having potential No 1 Picks running around.

Would also really improve the "hit" rate of draft picks - both getting to scout in full mens competitions, having guys who are more physically and emotionally ready for the AFL, and also having a clearer idea of whos bodies break down once they start playing against men.

The AFLPA would probably be the biggest opponent - but with the salary cap left the same it just means more money and squad positions available for older guys who might otherwise be pushed out, or for mature guys who didnt get drafted.

This also sounds like a good way to manage it.

You could transition it fairly easily, too, without a draft class getting "lost" in between, with the current 2018 draft class (born 2000) being eligible this year, and making it 21+ from 2019 onwards (born 1998 and earlier, originally the 2016 draft class), meaning the 2001 kids would be the first under the new system.