Demons could get priority pick

[Redleg 41,627]

I agree all the way with this...We had numerous chances to get it right under the previous regime and in fact the problems got worse. Some visible to us the supporter and others concealed

That is why now we need to recruit "ready made" players rather than 17-18 year olds so the public has a team to watch...The 5 year plan can no longer be an option...

I don't care how we get better, whether it be older players traded or draft picks or Roos making a comeback.

I simply stated AFL rules and how we have complied with them.

Forget us stuffing up with earlier picks, the whole footy world agrees with that.

Respond to what I said and explain where you think I have got it wrong in my staement of AFL rules and how we have complied with those stated rules and why the AFL should not follow those same rules.

[The Chazz 4,077]

It was an AFL rule that created 2 new clubs and gave them all of the top end of the draft, at a time when we were crap and were trying to recover.

Sorry about the way I have put my original quote in, which you disagreed with, but I am not great at computers.

Now to your response. Could you please tell me what part of the line you highlighted, which I have included above your reply, is incorrect and in what way.

I was stating a fact and you seem to have drawn a conclusion from it somehow.

I apologise Redleg. It came across that you were saying that the drafts were compromised, by the 2 new teams created, when we were also relying on these draft to "recover". I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

I have answered your question, now if you would be so kind in clarifying what you meant for me that would be appreciated.

Fact is, in 2010/11/12 and 13, we shouldn't have been in recovery mode. The early years of this decade should've been about fine tuning a superb list that we had built in the last half of the previous decade, not looking for new saviours.

[Gipsy Danger 1,067]

Melbourne need to go to rehab for draft pick addiction... maybe a few posters on here could go too and we might get a package deal

[Dr. Gonzo 24,344]

The HUN starts writing about priority picks I wish they would curl up and disappear. Robbo go away it is rubbish journalism.

I want to see the club compete and win some games and have a better 2nd half of the season and take some momentum into next year.

This is the same press that mercilessly accused us of tanking have they now decided that we haven't nada good list for a while and maybe we weren't tanking as badly as they thought.

Don't worry OD they've already plotted out how this story runs

1) Melbourne are poor, need PP

2) AFL grant MFC PP

3) Herald-Sun - "Melbourne played Frawley & Dunn forward and Howe & Pedersen in defense against GWS, clearly they were tanking"

[Sir Why You Little 37,191]

I don't care how we get better, whether it be older players traded or draft picks or Roos making a comeback.

I simply stated AFL rules and how we have complied with them.

Forget us stuffing up with earlier picks, the whole footy world agrees with that.

Respond to what I said and explain where you think I have got it wrong in my staement of AFL rules and how we have complied with those stated rules and why the AFL should not follow those same rules.

I was responding to what Billy said...You can relax

[Redleg 41,627]

I apologise Redleg. It came across that you were saying that the drafts were compromised, by the 2 new teams created, when we were also relying on these draft to "recover". I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

I have answered your question, now if you would be so kind in clarifying what you meant for me that would be appreciated.

Fact is, in 2010/11/12 and 13, we shouldn't have been in recovery mode. The early years of this decade should've been about fine tuning a superb list that we had built in the last half of the previous decade, not looking for new saviours.

Thanks.

Agree with your last line, we have stuffed up over several drafts and trades. But it is what it is.

What I meant to say is that the AFL makes rules, some of those rules have hurt us and continue to do so. Nevertheless we comply with the rules.

When changing the PP rule from an automatic one, to a discretionary one, administered by the AFL, the AFL last year disobeyed their own rule by using matters that were irrelevant, like "Clark will come back and be a star and we won't have injuries this year". They were not part of their listed criteria. They made it up to justify a breach of their own rule after bowing to the pressure of the Eddies and Newbolds.

I want the AFL to follow their own rules and give a team with many years of failure what the rule provides, nothing more nothing less.

BTW, of course I would love us to be a good team and not need help, but ATM we are not. That is a combination of our stuff ups and AFL rule changes.

[Redleg 41,627]

I was responding to what Billy said...You can relax

I am in a transedental meditation state as I respond.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,344]

I agree all the way with this...We had numerous chances to get it right under the previous regime and in fact the problems got worse. Some visible to us the supporter and others concealed

That is why now we need to recruit "ready made" players rather than 17-18 year olds so the public has a team to watch...The 5 year plan can no longer be an option...

I don't disagree with this but where do we "recruit" them from wyl? What currency do we have to trade them in?

This is a cut & paste of a post I wrote on BF yesterday but it covers the same issues as here;

The only way to improve is to get better players on our list - we can do that through either trades, draft or Free Agency.

Trades, we could throw money at players but still need something to offer the other club otherwise they're not going to deal. There are no FA's worth throwing money at this year, Mundy maybe but he's getting on and not sure how much we would really benefit from that. We can trade out players for picks but our list is so poor that 1) most clubs don't what what we would offer and 2) the players other clubs would want we have to hang on to because they are our only good players. We could look to offload some like Trengove or Grimes who have underperformed but their currency would be low at this stage so we probably wouldn't get anything to make it worthwhile ditching them and the culture would probably suffer.

So basically our only avenue is through the draft/trading early picks for good players. Based on our performances over the last 2-3 years (let alone the last 7-8 years) I don't see how we don't qualify for a pick assuming we win less than 4 games this year and/or finish last especially considering we have just lost our most talented player (OK he hasn't really played for over a year but still).

Our other avenue is to try to find hidden gems like a Barlow or Podsiadly through the state leagues but we've tried this already and the guys we picked while serviceable aren't going to turn the club around (M. Jones, Terlich, Clisby, Georgiou).

[The Chazz 4,077]

Thanks.

Agree with your last line, we have stuffed up over several drafts and trades. But it is what it is.

What I meant to say is that the AFL makes rules, some of those rules have hurt us and continue to do so. Nevertheless we comply with the rules.

When changing the PP rule from an automatic one, to a discretionary one, administered by the AFL, the AFL last year disobeyed their own rule by using matters that were irrelevant, like "Clark will come back and be a star and we won't have injuries this year". They were not part of their listed criteria. They made it up to justify a breach of their own rule after bowing to the pressure of the Eddies and Newbolds.

I want the AFL to follow their own rules and give a team with many years of failure what the rule provides, nothing more nothing less.

BTW, of course I would love us to be a good team and not need help, but ATM we are not. That is a combination of our stuff ups and AFL rule changes.

When changing the rules of the PP system, I would imagine the AFL didn't think that a team, who had a number of first round picks during a 3 year period, would require a PP within 4 years of their "rebuild".

The AFL did everything possible to scrap the PP system to eliminate rewarding poor performace, we just managed to find grey areas because of our own incompetence. The fact there was a grey area for us to expose is poor on the AFL's behalf, but not anywhere near as poor as the bed we made.

Edit - it could be argued that it was because of certain clubs, and the MFC is at the top of that list, that forced the AFL to make radical changes to the PP system. We exposed (although weren't found guilty) loop holes in the previous system and milked it to our "advantage". The AFL rightly changed the previous system, and now we are crying poor over the current system becasue it has disadvantaged us.

Edited April 10, 2014 by billy2803

[ManDee 7,226]

Personally, I think any "Priority Pick", based on poor performance, should require the side to trade that pick. The whole idea of "awarding" a club a PP is to assist with their improvement. Generally speaking, if a club is to use that pick on a 17/18 year old, you are looking at 3 years until that pick has a reasonable chance of improving that list.

Trading that pick - which regardless of it being a number 1 pick (ie $cully), an "after first round" pick, a mid-first round pick, and end of first round pick, the pick will be in the range of 1-19. Under trade conditions, a pick of that calibre will improve the list in the following year without doubt.

That's my view on how/why the AFL should award Priority Picks - to improve the club's list the following year, not "hope" that picking an 18 year old juniors star will improve the club in 3 years time.

I disagree about having to wait 3 years for improvement. Early picks can have good first seasons. Daniel Rich. Oliver Wines David Swallow Dustin Martin. Mature bodies.

I do not disagree with the principle however that a PP should be traded.

[Redleg 41,627]

When changing the rules of the PP system, I would imagine the AFL didn't think that a team, who had a number of first round picks during a 3 year period, would require a PP within 4 years of their "rebuild".

That could be a correct assumption.

Did the AFL also think that when bringing in FA that bottom clubs could be raped by the strong clubs, which is happening and which we seem to have been the major loser in number of players lost.

I note Danny Frawley and David King, just to name 2 commentators, see this rule as an absolute disgrace, as it will help to keep bottom clubs at the bottom. We groom them and they take them. Fantastic rule.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Redleg

[olisik 4,060]

Amazingly, Olisik, players like Bail, Terlich and Nicholson were actually picked up using draft picks.

Players like Vince and Tyson were brought to the club via trade.

Which players have made the biggest impact so far?

If we end up with Pick 1, it would take rare circumstances to even consider trading it. If we end up with 1&2 (because of Frawley's possible/likely departure), you keep pick 1, and possible look at a trade with pick 2, similar to the deal we did last year with GWS/Tyson/Salem.

Given you have clearly witnessed the last 7 years, like I have, you would see the need to find a balance of bringing kids in as well as experience. The important part is getting "good" experienced players, not hacks that are in the twilight of their careers and playing a large amount of reserves footy at their current club.

Vince and Tyson were obtained by trading high draft picks. Hence without the picks we have no currency to bring in Talent.

We will not become a good team without quality draft picks.

[Redleg 41,627]

Vince and Tyson were obtained by trading high draft picks. Hence without the picks we have no currency to bring in Talent.

We will not become a good team without quality draft picks.

Amen.

[Machsy 2,858]

If we did finish last and Frawley left, I'm not asking for special assistance, I just want the AFL to follow their own rules and not change them in order to disadvantage Melbourne. Journalists like Mark Stevens tweeting that pick 2 for Fraley would be 'overs' simply don't get it. If he meets the criteria for a pick after our first pick, which he will, then it must be given to us. As for the priority pick, the AFL need to stop fluffing about and make a clear decision. If we do finish bottom, then either give us pick 3 as warranted or scrap the system.

Exactly.

Stevens doesn't get it, because the FA compensation isn't purely about what Frawley is worth on an open market; it's about what Frawley is worth to the team losing him.

To a team sitting last or 2nd last (perennially), to be properly compensated for losing a player of Frawley's calibre, it is worth pick 2.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Pick 20 and 40 should also help, thats a Dunstan and JKH on top of a Boyd, Kelly and Grundy. 5 good to go.

Vince and Tyson were obtained by trading high draft picks. Hence without the picks we have no currency to bring in Talent.

We will not become a good team without quality draft picks.

In one breath you are saying we should use our top picks on drafting the best kids in the draft, then in the next you are supporting our use of high draft picks to trade in talent.

Which one is it?

An AFL-enforced rule that any PP we receive must be traded will ensure we get some form of talented, current player, and our onfield results will ensure we get first crack at the best kid in the land. It's the balance that I spoke about in one of my eearlier replies to you.

[stuie 7,374]

I know it has been said but we have to stop thinking about high draft picks as the answer...I would prefer to recruit hardened players (3-4 years in the system) for at least the next 2-3 years..

How do you think we're going to get those players? All our free agents leave, hardly any want to come to us, NO ONE wants to get traded to us. Our best currency to make a trade happen is high draft picks.

Do the people arguing against wanting a PP really think we have a list that's going to take us forward?!

Edited April 10, 2014 by stuie

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

In one breath you are saying we should use our top picks on drafting the best kids in the draft, then in the next you are supporting our use of high draft picks to trade in talent.

Which one is it?

An AFL-enforced rule that any PP we receive must be traded will ensure we get some form of talented, current player, and our onfield results will ensure we get first crack at the best kid in the land. It's the balance that I spoke about in one of my eearlier replies to you.

The thing about forcing us to trade it is that we have to get something for it, it almost puts the other clubs in a position of power, i'd like to see the rule being we'd have to make a genuine effort to trade it but if a good deal didn't come up we could then take it to the draft, really for pick 1 you'd be wanting 1 or 2 good players, not every team is going to offer that.

[The Chazz 4,077]

A big issue on this thread is that when people say that we need high draft picks, it's presumed that the poster means going to the draft with these picks.

I can understand the confusion, as I'm in that camp is making the presumption.

Unless it's Olisik that's posting, then I have NFI what they are on about.

The thing about forcing us to trade it is that we have to get something for it, it almost puts the other clubs in a position of power, i'd like to see the rule being we'd have to make a genuine effort to trade it but if a good deal didn't come up we could then take it to the draft, really for pick 1 you'd be wanting 1 or 2 good players, not every team is going to offer that.

We won't get a number 1 PP, but the rest of your post has merit, although it'll be up to the AFL to police it, and that reduces my confidence levels of a fair outcome for all involved.

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

A big issue on this thread is that when people say that we need high draft picks, it's presumed that the poster means going to the draft with these picks.

I can understand the confusion, as I'm in that camp is making the presumption.

Unless it's Olisik that's posting, then I have NFI what they are on about.

We won't get a number 1 PP, but the rest of your post has merit, although it'll be up to the AFL to police it, and that reduces my confidence levels of a fair outcome for all involved.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, if we finish last PJ will ferociously fight for PP1 with a huge argument that we should get it, if Frawley leaves i reckon it's nearly certain

[jackaub 1,402]

Redleg, the sooner some realise that the above is incorrect, the better. We were in the "perfect" window to bottom out. We had 3 drafts to nail it, 2007, 2008 & 2009 before the drafts were severley compromised. Fact is, we fcuked our chance up by picking spuds. You could argue to some degree that the 2009 draft was compromised in our favour - 4 picks in the top 18 - including the number 1 & 2 picks, with just two of those players left on our list, and both those not in the senior team. If any club/s have been disadvantged by bottoming out at the wrong time, it'd be St Kilda and Brisbane.

There is absolutely no excuse for us being in the position that we are currently in. We can't blame the AFL or any other external body. We have to take 100% responsibility for poor decisions made during this time. We can whinge about the AFL gifting GWS with our former number 1 pick, but gee, they looked after us in regards to compensation. It's too early to tell if we are the winners from all that - given our recent history I wouldn't be surprised if we lost out of it all. However, if it turns out we won from it, it'll prove to me that we may have turned a corner.

This makes the most sense of any post so far

The club is responsible for we we are no one else always the next draft /coach /player / board yayayyayaayayayaayayya

We have been given ample opportunity to get back on track and its been completely mismanaged

[olisik 4,060]

In one breath you are saying we should use our top picks on drafting the best kids in the draft, then in the next you are supporting our use of high draft picks to trade in talent.

Which one is it?

An AFL-enforced rule that any PP we receive must be traded will ensure we get some form of talented, current player, and our onfield results will ensure we get first crack at the best kid in the land. It's the balance that I spoke about in one of my eearlier replies to you.

I am not saying what we should do wuth them. I am simply saying we need them to get talent on oue list, either by drafting or trading.

There are some here saying we should not rely on draft picks but they are the only type of currency we can get to improve our list at the moment.

You are making the assumption in my posts that I prefer to draft or trade but I favor neither. I just want some early picks to fix our lack of talent anyway we can.

[rpfc 28,813]

Saying that we shouldn't receive assistance because we have 'brought this on ourselves' is a terrible argument.

Everyone 'brings it on themselves.' We have drafted poorly and developed sub-optimally. That is not being disputed.

But equalisation isn't a 'we tried, it didn't work, move on' scenario. The draft gives the best players to the worst teams every year.

Simply because we have been consistently bad at picking kids out of the Teenage Lottery that is the AFL Draft doesn't mean we have less claims for more access to equalisation - it should enhance our claims.

And the chosen vehicle for equalisation by the AFL is the draft, and more to the point - priority picks.

Follow the god-damn rules.

Edited April 10, 2014 by rpfc

[The Chazz 4,077]

Saying that we shouldn't receive assistance because we have 'brought this on ourselves' is a terrible argument.

Everyone 'brings it on themselves.' We have drafted poorly and developed sub-optimally. That is not being disputed.

But equalisation isn't a 'we tried, it didn't work, move on' scenario. The draft gives the best players to the worst teams every year.

Simply because we have been consistently bad at picking kids out of the Teenage Lottery that is the AFL Draft doesn't mean we have less claims for more access to equalisation - it should mean enhance our claims.

And the chosen vehicle for equalisation by the AFL is the draft, and more to the point - priority picks.

Follow the god-damn rules.

Who is using this in their argument about receiving assistance or not?

[The Chazz 4,077]

If Dunn leaves we could get pick 1 2 3 and 4

Pick 20 and 40 should also help, thats a Dunstan and JKH on top of a Boyd, Kelly and Grundy. 5 good to go.

I am not saying what we should do wuth them. I am simply saying we need them to get talent on oue list, either by drafting or trading.

There are some here saying we should not rely on draft picks but they are the only type of currency we can get to improve our list at the moment.

You are making the assumption in my posts that I prefer to draft or trade but I favor neither. I just want some early picks to fix our lack of talent anyway we can.

Given that if we received the 6 picks you floated above, and have clearly filled 5 of those spots with potential kids from this year's draft (by using a comparison with other recent 1st year players to make an immediate impact), I'm pretty sure I know which method you favour currently.

[chook fowler 19,585]

The hawks would take him in a heartbeat as would the other sides mentioned