The draft myth?

[Messenger]

Murphy?

Tom Murphy. Went to GC as a free agent in 2013 IIRC. Now delisted.

 

[boncer34]

Tom Murphy. Went to GC as a free agent in 2013 IIRC. Now delisted.

Cheers. I had, and still don't really if I'm honest, no idea who it was.

 

[DrEvil_]

Cheers. I had, and still don't really if I'm honest, no idea who it was.

He's the whipping boy.

 

[gbatman]

Yep without Jon Simpkin being the sub in 2013 or Frawley this year there is no way we would have won 3 flags in a row.

Brian Lake.

 

[Furn2]

Brian Lake.

Was traded.

 

[Gunstall555]

Brian Lake.

gave up pick 20 and 42 for 27 and Lake. NOT A FREE AGENT.

 

[gbatman]

gave up pick 20 and 42 for 27 and Lake. NOT A FREE AGENT.

fair enough

 

[Ants]

The measure of equalisation is not just who wins premierships. As has been pointed out, Hawthorn has often just sneaked through the prelims. A major measure is does your team get into a position to have a shot? Which is probably best measured as making prelims.

In 2006 Fremantle made a preliminary final for the first time. At the time there was much crowing that in the decade to 2006, every single team made a preliminary final. During the same decade there were seven different premiers. With one year left in the following decade, what has been achieved? Five teams (ignoring GCS/GWS) are yet to make a prelim, and only four teams have been premiers. So what changed and why?

During the (very) late nineties and early 2000's clubs finally realised what the draft could do. But it wasn't just that - it was priority picks. The problem with the draft is its not equalising enough. I've been harping on this for years before some in the media started mentioning it, but the difference between finishing 1st and last without priority picks is a single pick. Which is nowhere near enough to fill the gap between the best and worst teams. You need more, priority picks gave it. It wasn't a guarantee of building a team to make a PF (example - Carlton), but most of the teams with them did (St Kilda, WCE, Hawthorn, Freo, Collingwood, Bulldogs). Additionally, this period had no FA and no floor on the cap.

But 2006 wasn't just the year Freo made a prelim. Its also when the AFL started watering down the draft concessions and making it more and more pure. Priority picks were moved to after the first round, and then phased out. The F/S rule was diluted. Free Agency was introduced. And somewhere in there (not sure of the year) the AFLPA negotiated that the salary cap floor was 95% (to be honest, I'm not sure how big an effect this is with front loading contracts).

There were also three hugely compromised drafts (2010 to 2012) and all later drafts were partially compromised by compo picks for the new teams and FA, and the 17yr old mini-drafts.

All of this has made a situation where finishing last is worse and worse. Pre-2006 a team finishing the season last who were rubbish got pick #1, another pick in the top 5 (potentially #2), pick 18'ish, 34'ish, and first pick in the PSD (which sometimes had value back then). Now days they're likely to get pick #1, #20 odd (if any FA compo before 2nd round/academy picks), pick #40 odd (some more academy, compo picks probably). Nobody even used the PSD last year.

So in (say) 2005 they got four picks in the top 35 with two in the top 5, three in the top 20. In 2015 they'd have got 3 picks in the top 35. That's a big difference, especially if you're down for a couple of years. That's a big shot of talent in the team who will all come through together, and historically usually pushed a side into a PF about 5-6 years later. Now days the odds are unless you draft and trade phenomenally well on top of that, you'll struggle.

When saying who might have knocked off Hawthorn and using WCE as an example, the issue isn't the talent they might have got during the compromised drafts. It is that in 2008 they might have had Hartlett instead of Swift (if the priority pick was pre-draft) and in 2010 might have got Swallow AND Gaff. That might have made a difference on GF day if you add Hartlett and Swallow into the side. Maybe not. But its an example of how the system might have worked without compromised drafts and with priority picks.

Obviously FA has also made it much easier for clubs like Hawthorn to stay at the top. Not all just FA, but FA has reduced the trade price of older players. If youth doesn't matter as much, then you can fill up easier than ever on older (but not ancient) players. Sydney have been great at this, Hawthorn took it to a new level, and we'll have to see if Geelong will also do this or go bust with their trading.

But the major issue was the removal of priority picks, and diluting the value of picks with FA compo and academy selections. These changes the AFL made should be unwound. I want to be in a competition where my team will make a preliminary final at least once a decade. Not one where when you're out, you need extraordinary good luck/drafting/development to get back in with a shot.

 

[dickballsack]

A lot of posters are actually looking at the issue back to front. One thing to remember, the top or dominant teams have a squad that is collectively paid the same as all other clubs. They are successful because they have instilled a culture that players want to play for and will stay for less money. That should be (and I'm sure is) he goal of all clubs, to make it a place that people want to be a part of. Hawks, cats and swans the best at it so it's no surprise a lot of free agents want to go to these clubs.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

I love the 'compromised drafts make it harder for other teams to catch Hawthorn' one, it's a killer.

From last year's premiership team, Hawthorn has managed to acquire the following players since the AFL announced that Gold Coast & GWS were coming in:

- Josh Gibson in a trade (available to everybody).
- Ben McEvoy in a trade (available to everybody).
- Taylor Duryea at pick 69 in the 2009 National Draft (available to everybody).
- Shaun Burgoyne in a trade (available to everybody).
- Brad Hill at pick 33 in 2011 National Draft (available to everybody except Collingwood and Melbourne).
- James Frawley via free agency (available to everybody).
- Isaac Smith at pick 19 in the 2010 National Draft (available everybody except Collingwood, Fremantle, St Kilda, Sydney and the Dogs).
- Brian Lake in a trade (available to everybody).
- Jack Gunston in a trade (available to everybody).
- David Hale in a trade (available to everybody).
- Luke Breust at pick 47 in the 2009 Rookie Draft (available to everybody).
- Ben Stratton at pick 49 in the 2009 National Draft (available to everybody).
- Paul Puopolo at pick 66 in the 2010 National Draft (available to everybody).

That's well over half of a premiership team acquired since 2009, all players that were pretty much available to anyone.

Not included in that list are premiership players Will Langford (available to everybody), Matt Spangher (available to everybody) and Jonathan Simpkin (available to everybody). Hawthorn has managed to pick up sixteen premiership players in the time that other clubs can't rebuild effectively.

These two are a bit disingenuous. Lake told the Dogs to trade him to Hawthorn now or I'll walk there next year and you'll get nothing. So he wasn't available to everyone and his movement to Hawthorn has a lot to do with FA.

Also, i seem to remember that Gunston only wanted to go to Hawthorn - so again he wasn't really available to everyone

 

[manboob]

I think that the new teams have had a massive impact on other teams being able to be closer to Hawks. It delayed it while Hawks had its core already set.

No way they would have won this many premierships had the normal being allowed. In particular strength of freo has been severely diluted as they would have being able to get slightly better players to get them over the line.

Sure they would have. The fact that GWS and Suns are yet to play finals 4 years on is proof of this.

Do you really think one or two extra players available to every team would have made such a difference? That Freo would have taken power forwards and won a grand final by now? Unlikely.

It's not a coincidence that the 3 best run clubs in the league share 8 of the last 9 flags?

What's your excuse for when Port/Brisbane dominated for 5 years?

 

[manboob]

The measure of equalisation is not just who wins premierships. As has been pointed out, Hawthorn has often just sneaked through the prelims. A major measure is does your team get into a position to have a shot? Which is probably best measured as making prelims.

It certainly is a platitude but clubs don't talk about making top 4 for teh lulz.

 

[manboob]

But the major issue was the removal of priority picks, and diluting the value of picks with FA compo and academy selections. These changes the AFL made should be unwound. I want to be in a competition where my team will make a preliminary final at least once a decade. Not one where when you're out, you need extraordinary good luck/drafting/development to get back in with a shot.

Dunno about this there's only so much you can do about it. Dees had pick after pick, year after year, and look where they are...

Granted you do need to have a couple of lucky years to put yourself in flag contention. Drafts where you fully cash in.
e.g. Cats in 1999 Joel Corey (8) Paul Chapman (31 ) Cameron Ling (38) and Corey Enright (47)
or Cats in 2001 and Hawks that same year and again in 2004.*

But there's much more to it than good drafting. And why should clubs be punished for that ability and subsequent development of players. I mean when you're taking blokes like Enright at 47 and Mitchell at pick 36 I think the other clubs have run out of excuses.

In your system it becomes a race to the bottom - the Spud Cup between Melbourne and Carlton is the perfect example of this.


*Inb4 Father son / priority picks

 

[Lach72]

Teams like The Cats, Swans and Freo who have been up the top end weren't any more disadvantaged than Hawthorn by the new sides as far as the draft goes.

In part yes...we saw the issue coming and gutted our list through 08/09 and killed the 08 draft.

The issue for us, particularly with GWS coming in is that they've been able to rip the guts out of the quality talls available before we've had a pick.
McCarthy at a minimum would be at Freo if not for the depth of concessions granted to both teams. Both of the drafts where GC and GWS had lots of picks have been heavy on talls, and they took them

 

[Ants]

A lot of posters are actually looking at the issue back to front. One thing to remember, the top or dominant teams have a squad that is collectively paid the same as all other clubs. They are successful because they have instilled a culture that players want to play for and will stay for less money. That should be (and I'm sure is) he goal of all clubs, to make it a place that people want to be a part of. Hawks, cats and swans the best at it so it's no surprise a lot of free agents want to go to these clubs.

I think you have it around the wrong way. Players want to win premierships and are willing to take a pay cut to do it. Both at their current team and to join a team who is near the top. Its not the culture they've created, its that their winning. Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong have capitalised on this, and its one of the reasons why FA was such a daft idea that would unduly benefit the established teams.

That the AFL won't crack down on trading and allow players to hold their clubs over a barrel also helps the top teams.

That said, Hawthorn and Sydney's ability to not only do this but identify under-valued players at other clubs is one of their strengths.

 

[Ants]

Dunno about this there's only so much you can do about it. Dees had pick after pick, year after year, and look where they are...

Granted you do need to have a couple of lucky years to put yourself in flag contention. Drafts where you fully cash in.
e.g. Cats in 1999 Joel Corey (8) Paul Chapman (31 ) Cameron Ling (38) and Corey Enright (47)
or Cats in 2001 and Hawks that same year and again in 2004.*

But there's much more to it than good drafting. And why should clubs be punished for that ability and subsequent development of players. I mean when you're taking blokes like Enright at 47 and Mitchell at pick 36 I think the other clubs have run out of excuses.

In your system it becomes a race to the bottom - the Spud Cup between Melbourne and Carlton is the perfect example of this.


*Inb4 Father son / priority picks

The demons obviously screwed it up, as did Carlton. But many more clubs who went through the period with priority picks came out the other side with teams that made the top four.

Its not a matter of punishing good sides. Its about helping teams' with poor lists.Its recognising that with 22 man teams (and really a core of 25 players) that a single extra good player is not going to seriously impact a team's ability. You need multiple good picks, probably coming through together. It won't help if you then stuff up every other pick (Carlton) or have crap development (Melbourne), but it gives the team a shot and fans something to get behind. It gives them some hope.

Its also not just about the picks, but the quantity of picks. Look at Geelong's 1999 draft, that's (rightfully) talked about as one of the top ones ever. Look at how many picks in the top 30 they blew on nobodies. Hawthorn's drafting included Thorpe, Dowler, Ellis, Muston and other blown top 25 picks - but between priority picks and trading they had enough that the ones that didn't work didn't outweigh the ones that did. So part of priority picks is giving teams with poor lists more picks to give them more shots at getting it right.

And yes, you do get a little bit of a race to the bottom. But plenty of teams finished on 4-5 wins even after priority picks were stripped out and with compromised drafts. At least the fans having to face that know they'll get a big boost at the end of the year, and it wasn't all for nothing.

 

[Pessimistic]

Professionals will stay at large firms if there is a lot of support and interesting work which can boost their resume.

Inevitably they will move on, whereas at a smaller form a hot shot might get more and have a slightly longer career

In this 'free' market between uni and profession, the top firms get the best graduates.
AFL has the opposite and it only seems to benefit the northern clubs

 

[Brown n Gold]

IMO the big issue with the draft is that 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks can easily thrive at strong clubs learning from gun players and vice versa talented kids can really struggle at lower clubs with more expectation on them and fewer stars to learn from.

So really the draft is not the problem, you can't do any better than giving the lower clubs access to the best talent. Unfortunately flags will never go at an average of 1 per 18 years some clubs will win 2-3 flags in that time while others will continue to struggle to add to their 0-1 flags in their history. Life wasn't meant to be fair!!

 

[coerced]

The measure of equalisation is not just who wins premierships. As has been pointed out, Hawthorn has often just sneaked through the prelims. A major measure is does your team get into a position to have a shot? Which is probably best measured as making prelims.

In 2006 Fremantle made a preliminary final for the first time. At the time there was much crowing that in the decade to 2006, every single team made a preliminary final. During the same decade there were seven different premiers. With one year left in the following decade, what has been achieved? Five teams (ignoring GCS/GWS) are yet to make a prelim, and only four teams have been premiers. So what changed and why?

During the (very) late nineties and early 2000's clubs finally realised what the draft could do. But it wasn't just that - it was priority picks. The problem with the draft is its not equalising enough. I've been harping on this for years before some in the media started mentioning it, but the difference between finishing 1st and last without priority picks is a single pick. Which is nowhere near enough to fill the gap between the best and worst teams. You need more, priority picks gave it. It wasn't a guarantee of building a team to make a PF (example - Carlton), but most of the teams with them did (St Kilda, WCE, Hawthorn, Freo, Collingwood, Bulldogs). Additionally, this period had no FA and no floor on the cap.

But 2006 wasn't just the year Freo made a prelim. Its also when the AFL started watering down the draft concessions and making it more and more pure. Priority picks were moved to after the first round, and then phased out. The F/S rule was diluted. Free Agency was introduced. And somewhere in there (not sure of the year) the AFLPA negotiated that the salary cap floor was 95% (to be honest, I'm not sure how big an effect this is with front loading contracts).

There were also three hugely compromised drafts (2010 to 2012) and all later drafts were partially compromised by compo picks for the new teams and FA, and the 17yr old mini-drafts.

All of this has made a situation where finishing last is worse and worse. Pre-2006 a team finishing the season last who were rubbish got pick #1, another pick in the top 5 (potentially #2), pick 18'ish, 34'ish, and first pick in the PSD (which sometimes had value back then). Now days they're likely to get pick #1, #20 odd (if any FA compo before 2nd round/academy picks), pick #40 odd (some more academy, compo picks probably). Nobody even used the PSD last year.

So in (say) 2005 they got four picks in the top 35 with two in the top 5, three in the top 20. In 2015 they'd have got 3 picks in the top 35. That's a big difference, especially if you're down for a couple of years. That's a big shot of talent in the team who will all come through together, and historically usually pushed a side into a PF about 5-6 years later. Now days the odds are unless you draft and trade phenomenally well on top of that, you'll struggle.

When saying who might have knocked off Hawthorn and using WCE as an example, the issue isn't the talent they might have got during the compromised drafts. It is that in 2008 they might have had Hartlett instead of Swift (if the priority pick was pre-draft) and in 2010 might have got Swallow AND Gaff. That might have made a difference on GF day if you add Hartlett and Swallow into the side. Maybe not. But its an example of how the system might have worked without compromised drafts and with priority picks.

Obviously FA has also made it much easier for clubs like Hawthorn to stay at the top. Not all just FA, but FA has reduced the trade price of older players. If youth doesn't matter as much, then you can fill up easier than ever on older (but not ancient) players. Sydney have been great at this, Hawthorn took it to a new level, and we'll have to see if Geelong will also do this or go bust with their trading.

But the major issue was the removal of priority picks, and diluting the value of picks with FA compo and academy selections. These changes the AFL made should be unwound. I want to be in a competition where my team will make a preliminary final at least once a decade. Not one where when you're out, you need extraordinary good luck/drafting/development to get back in with a shot.

When you refer to top five picks and the decade to 2006, it must be noted that not a single top five pick since the 2005 draft (which netted Thomas, Ellis and Pendlebury) has played in a premiership, whereas the decade from 1996-2005 drafts averaged around one-two top five picks per year going on to play in premierships. Those being:

1996: Heffernan
1997: Ottens, Croad, Power
1998: Headland, Fosdike
1999: Brown
2000: Didak
2001: Hodge, Judd
2002: McVeigh
2003: none
2004: Roughead, Franklin
2005: Thomas, Ellis, Pendlebury

2006-2014 drafts: none

And while it may be that we haven't had enough time to see all the top five draft cohort get a chance to win a premiership, for the draftees taken between 1996-2005, the median length of time to win a premiership for those who did was five years.

That implies something is going wrong with the draft, because at least one player from each of the top five taken in drafts from 2006-2010 should have played in a premiership by now. Instead we've seen none.

 

[Pessimistic]

When you refer to top five picks and the decade to 2006, it must be noted that not a single top five pick since the 2005 draft (which netted Thomas, Ellis and Pendlebury) has played in a premiership, whereas the decade from 1996-2005 drafts averaged around one-two top five picks per year going on to play in premierships. Those being:

1996: Heffernan
1997: Ottens, Croad, Power
1998: Headland, Fosdike
1999: Brown
2000: Didak
2001: Hodge, Judd
2002: McVeigh
2003: none
2004: Roughead, Franklin
2005: Thomas, Ellis, Pendlebury

2006-2014 drafts: none

And while it may be that we haven't had enough time to see all the top five draft cohort get a chance to win a premiership, for the draftees taken between 1996-2005, the median length of time to win a premiership for those who did was five years.

That implies something is going wrong with the draft, because at least one player from each of the top five taken in drafts from 2006-2010 should have played in a premiership by now. Instead we've seen none.

Carlton have three of the number 1s since then. It s a very weird phenomenon which is hard to explain. If you also count the various St Kilda players (who nearly scored a flag) and its even starker.

The only thing I can think of is recruiters got too cute and drafted project players instead of the obvious ones. PPs did get phased out late 2000s and then of course theres the GC and GWC concessions

Noted that in that time, hawks cats and crows had no sub 5 draft picks

kan, port rich fre each had two. stk had two also syd, coll one each but later years and traded for

gws: 11 gc: 4 and melb: 8 had the most by far, but not much before that to build on.

all the rest have 3 each

edit: drafting two (or more) guns of the same player type in one draft seems to be a clue, (think also kosi and roo, hodge and mitchell, ablett and bartell, Kelly and Johnson) . Maybe internal competition, even of a little 'false' (both will be getting a game) is part of the culture. plus you can trade one later when the salary cap bites

 

[Ants]

Carlton have three of the number 1s since then. It s a very weird phenomenon which is hard to explain. If you also count the various St Kilda players (who nearly scored a flag) and its even starker.

The only thing I can think of is recruiters got too cute and drafted project players instead of the obvious ones. PPs did get phased out late 2000s and then of course theres the GC and GWC concessions

Noted that in that time, hawks cats and crows had no sub 5 draft picks

kan, port rich fre each had two. stk had two also syd, coll one each but later years and traded for

gws: 11 gc: 4 and melb: 8 had the most by far, but not much before that to build on.

all the rest have 3 each

edit: drafting two (or more) guns of the same player type in one draft seems to be a clue, (think also kosi and roo, hodge and mitchell, ablett and bartell, Kelly and Johnson) . Maybe internal competition, even of a little 'false' (both will be getting a game) is part of the culture. plus you can trade one later when the salary cap bites

I think a big element was that the priority picks, often over more than one year, meant a team bottoming out got a group of players coming through together. So I think you get this core of quality which helps. Obviously a lot else also needs to go right.

 

[coerced]

Carlton have three of the number 1s since then. It s a very weird phenomenon which is hard to explain. If you also count the various St Kilda players (who nearly scored a flag) and its even starker.

The only thing I can think of is recruiters got too cute and drafted project players instead of the obvious ones. PPs did get phased out late 2000s and then of course theres the GC and GWC concessions

Noted that in that time, hawks cats and crows had no sub 5 draft picks

kan, port rich fre each had two. stk had two also syd, coll one each but later years and traded for

gws: 11 gc: 4 and melb: 8 had the most by far, but not much before that to build on.

all the rest have 3 each

edit: drafting two (or more) guns of the same player type in one draft seems to be a clue, (think also kosi and roo, hodge and mitchell, ablett and bartell, Kelly and Johnson) . Maybe internal competition, even of a little 'false' (both will be getting a game) is part of the culture. plus you can trade one later when the salary cap bites

It is more that the same quality isn't coming out of the draft. Only one Brownlow winner has been drafted after 2005: Fyfe. No Coleman medallists have been drafted since 2006, Jack Riewoldt the youngest.

Again, people might assert that "of course there have been no Coleman medallists drafted in 2006, they're still all too young".

But Riewoldt won his first within 4 years of drafting, Franklin within four years of his drafting, Lloyd within five years of his. Similarly with the Brownlow, Judd won with in three, Black within five, Goodes, Bartel and Cooney within six.

 

[Furn2]

It is more that the same quality isn't coming out of the draft. Only one Brownlow winner has been drafted after 2005: Fyfe. No Coleman medallists have been drafted since 2006, Jack Riewoldt the youngest.

Again, people might assert that "of course there have been no Coleman medallists drafted in 2006, they're still all too young".

But Riewoldt won his first within 4 years of drafting, Franklin within four years of his drafting, Lloyd within five years of his. Similarly with the Brownlow, Judd won with in three, Black within five, Goodes, Bartel and Cooney within six.

Or is it that the best talent is going to clubs where they aren't being developed ?

 

[coerced]

Or is it that the best talent is going to clubs where they aren't being developed ?

Maybe, but my belief is that the quality of players coming through the draft ain't what it was. The players taken in the 2001 draft still loom large over the comp.

 

[Pessimistic]

Dunno about this there's only so much you can do about it. Dees had pick after pick, year after year, and look where they are...

Granted you do need to have a couple of lucky years to put yourself in flag contention. Drafts where you fully cash in.
e.g. Cats in 1999 Joel Corey (8) Paul Chapman (31 ) Cameron Ling (38) and Corey Enright (47)
or Cats in 2001 and Hawks that same year and again in 2004.*

But there's much more to it than good drafting. And why should clubs be punished for that ability and subsequent development of players. I mean when you're taking blokes like Enright at 47 and Mitchell at pick 36 I think the other clubs have run out of excuses.

In your system it becomes a race to the bottom - the Spud Cup between Melbourne and Carlton is the perfect example of this.


*Inb4 Father son / priority picks

I know the hawks better than other clubs. But as you say there was no pp in 2001 and all the other clubs had a chance to draft and develop just as mich lalent from that year. Hodge and mitchell have excelled in the last three years where the majority of those draftees have relired or been delisted. There must be a large management factor.
Also just five of the 2008 premiers completed the threepeat. Its well known the hawks lost a lot of the 2008 premiership team very quickly and although they had pps in 2005 and 2006, a large part of the threepeaters was recruited, expending draft picks or drafted late in years post 2009.

With exceptions, it seems FA is becoming PSD with teeth. Players want to move, they know where they want to move, and they are happy for trades to take place. Even ablett seemed to promote that the cats get a very early compo pick.
The exception seems to be franklin, surely the worst compensation for loss in a long time. Dangerfield was happy for a trade, as was judd. In the main they have been very fair

Its even more reason to be dissappointed in the franklin thing, maybe only tippett comes close. Theres ared and white link there
Maybe FA isnt the bad thing it seems to be.

On thing seems to have happened though. Since the expansion drafts, the overall number of draftees hasnt risn much, certainly not by 12% it should have. Clubs dont seem to be so keen to shed players in favour of lots of youngsters. And why would you cut a loyal servant for a project youngster who is more likely to want to leave after being developed for several years before even being up to scratch?