The first thing I would do is address the list and cap management. I'd get rid of unnecessary depth players, stop trading in unnecessary depth players, and stop giving inflated contracts to mediocre senior players. I'd also be much more rutheless about moving on guys who aren't good enough, even if they've played 150+ games. This would help free up salary cap space to either a) retain gun players; or b) trade in gun players from other teams. The goal here is to ensure we can compensate for the "Adelaide factor" which hurts both retention and acquisition. If we have to pay some local players less to achieve this, so be it.
I'd be much more aggressive at giving long term contracts to developing guns early on in their career. It didn't take long to realize Lever was a gun. I'd have signed him up to a 4-5 year deal after his first year, with performance clauses. Instead we gave him a 1-year extension. Teams like Sydney have given healthy extensions to players like Heeney and Mills before they can be tempted away by godfather offers. We should do the same.
Then I'd focus on the draft. We should be trading up (and only up) in the draft order to position ourselves such that if a gun SA youngster is available, we have the pick to acquire him. For example, if we believe Forgarty will be drafted around pick 7, we should attempt to trade up such that we have a pick in that range. If Fogarty is taken earlier, we still have a great pick to get an interstate player. If a player we rate 1 or 2 slides to 7, sure, grab them instead. But I'd prioritize our draft positioning around SA players within reason and trade up to get there.
Good post, it's obvious you've given this matter a lot of thought.
The Adelaide factor is real. I was listening to SEN a couple of weeks ago and Cam Mooney was asked if he ever received an offer from Adelaide.
He answered yes and said it was around $750,000 for three years.Good money back then.
They then then asked why he didn't take it and he said 'I didn't want to live in Adelaide.'
It is really hard to get a marquee player to come here especially if they're not from South Australia. I can't think of many non SA boys.
I agree, when you identify young talent sign them up quickly. Lever the perfect example but he's seems an exception.
The problem with that is that guys like Gunston weren't played enough. He was a obvious talent but as an administrator are you going to make the call and sign him up to a long deal without cementing a spot and going against the coaching staff's current assessment.
He also has to want to stay.
How many people here think the current crop of Gallucci, Poholke, Himmelberg, Signorello should be signed to long deals?
I would be happy with a couple of those names but list managers live and die on making the correct decision. tying up money is a risky business in their eyes.
Coaches aren't always right in their assessment either otherwise a player like Tom Lynch wouldn't be here in Adelaide.
The players themselves I'm guessing would be reluctant to sign for too long if they're not being played.
Let's not forget the player's manager. I'm positive Adelaide knew they had a talent in Lever but who knows if he was in Lever's ear and saying 'We'll test the market.' If that's the case they'll just wait and then it becomes a bidding war.
As for trading in depth players. The club is always
under pressure to improve.
Tambling was a perfect example, many wanted him here as 'Adelaide's superior training methods would turn him into a better player.' His signing was looked at in a positive move.
Many called for Toumpos, Aish ,Watts and Vickery to be signed as these players were apparently massive up grades in what we now have.
(Or we could turn them into much better players than their existing clubs.) How many would actually say that now?
Seedsman was a big signing because he wanted to actually come and he was an injection of new talent to our list. He's a nice player who must be on good coin but is he only depth or better? Could that money be spent on Lever and McGovern. It's a risk.
The trouble with not signing these types of players is that you miss out on the ones that are effective and do improve the team such as Tom Lynch and yes ...Josh Jenkins.
The draft is an obvious way of upgrading but our continued high performance never gives us low enough picks to trade up.
Opposition teams only want star players but we want to keep them if we can.
If a team knows a player wants to leave then our hands are somewhat tied as to the demands we can ask ala Dangerfield.
Now players actually nominate the clubs they want to go too and that complicates matters further as to what they have to trade back to us.
Some adjustments need to be negotiated to address this imbalance but as the interstate clubs appear to be on the losing percentage of these dealings I don't like our chances with the Vic clubs.
I'm not trying to be a killjoy Scorpus as your post is well thought out and actually has a considered solution.
Adelaide seems to have a particular strategy with dealing with player contracts and unless changes are made at the top level in the AFL to address some of inadequacies of the system I can't see us changing.
PS I do agree on getting in crap depth players...something to be said for organic growth.