On 07/02/2015 at 06:05, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

My last word on draft accuracy is that it is accurate. It will never be perfect, but it already follows a pattern. And that's why you get the picks distributed for every round and every year. Toumpas might not be great. But Petracca might be. Or at least together both are better than two pick 15's. Pretty much I think you're planning on flipping the junior development and draft age etc etc when there isn't much to gain. To allow kids to finish school and start other study/work is noble. But there's nothing stopping them from rising to the challenge of doing both how it is nor anything that will force them to study seriously. You're aware of how all NFL players have attended college yet clearly many are not scholars!

Back on topic. If we have strict tampering rules and you can't sign free agents until after the season then it would be a foolish player to signal their intentions definitively before the end of the year. As it is in the US sports players openly ponder whether their contracts and pay will have them back in town. So I'm fine with that. There's a difference between discussing hypotheticals and announcing that you wont be back and have already signed to the opposition.

The issue we have with contracted players should be countered when free agency becomes more open and accepted. Teams will deal players with 1 year to go or keep them based on free agency compensation OR being able to replace them at the end of the contract. Expanded free agency should actually counter against the Beams style situation where a player forces a trade as the alternative is them being traded a year later or the PSD. Compensation or a viable market place for a replacement will get rid of that sillyness. Of course the compassionate case for a player to be released or trade from a contract might still come up, but that should be an individual case by case thing.

You talk about player rights. At the moment clubs are not allowed to sack players mid way through the season. It's only happened rarely and usually with just cause (see Josh Bootsma, Dayle Garlett etc). I know players will still be playing and finishing contracts but I think along the same lines I don't think players should be able to effectively give notice of their next job whilst still finishing out their current contracts.

There wont be anything to stop a player telling their current team they have plans to leave if they can secure a contract elsewhere. I don't buy that clubs will be shocked all that often. Typically if a player isn't signed up ahead of time then they are unlikely to change their minds at the last minute. I just don't see the benefit for the fans in allowing players to sign with new teams mid year and I think it will actually harm some of the players anyway if they sign early before opportunity and form changes. Let's get used to players moving around and open up their rights in regards to that first, then we can worry about mid season deals.

And my last word on the draft is that I have come to terms with it (a long time ago) and I accept it for what it is. I don't like it and I reserve the right to criticise it but ... I understand the workings of it and it's imperfections. It's probably not going to change but I'm not going to turn around and say it's a great system just because it may never change.

Therefore, I never lash out at our recruiters nor do I ever lash out at the player or players involved (look at some of the things that have been said about Lucas Cook on this site)

Where we disagree is that I believe it's worth exploring a better system whereas you seem to want to keep it as it is. The bit I can't get is when other people refer back to the draft as if it's some sort of accurate measure.

Let's face it, it's just a bunch of blokes with different agenda's who may or may not know what they're doing trying to put a bunch of 17/18 year old's in some sort of logical order. That's a big ask.

My thinking is that if one was to admit that the draft is largely flawed then one then forfeits the right to make harsh criticisms surrounding the draft. However, that's probably not going to stop people generally doing that ... maybe 1 or 2 here might have a re-think.

Great players are often a total enigma, and - thank goodness - there's always going to be that tantalising element of sheer chance in football. Garry Ablett was no good at Hawthorn, went back to the bush, then had another go at Geelong; weird guy, too. Robbie Flower was only 17, ridiculously skinny and timid, with his coke bottle glasses. What Liam Jurrah could do was not in any manual, and nor was what ended up happening in his life. Recruiters are never going to have criteria that guarantee anything. What a boring game it would be if they ever did - if it was predictable and by-the-numbers! (And I still think the way Roos relates to people, the type of person he is, is at least as important as his methods and system etc. We won't rise just because of more coaches watching the training drills, etc - not in my view anyway.)

The draft is unfair to the kids who must submit to it if they want to play. Loyalty, vision, etc - and the sense of ownership about their ambition - these things matter, and the draft is disrespectful of all of that, and simply commodifies talented kids. It may suit the AFL and even the clubs, but it's fundamentally unfair and I imagine probably not in the spirit of protections we generally have against "restraint of trade" and even free world freedom of choice. So, for me, the bullying rules of the AFL denying players free agency in the use of their own talents stinks, and any way players can be freed of it is good.

Totalitarianism stinks, no matter how convenient it may be for those with the power: it rarely maximises creativity, happiness or productivity in the long run.

Let the players free from these coerced and I think unconscionable (in the sense of being drawn up by parties with very unequal strength and power) contracts: let them move when it suits them; and redraft some governing rules that don't set out to restrain the player's trade, but rather aim simply to protect the league and the clubs from a level of disruption that would threaten the teams getting onto the park on game day. Not so easy maybe, but fairer. Football is, to me (and I suspect to lots of supporters) primarily about the footballers. If my boss tried to treat me the way players get treated by the AFL, I'd tell him to F off with such bullstit, and if he persisted I'd have the bastard in the Industrial Commission.

Rant. Sorry. But I'm glad my sons didn't play AFL. The money just doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Respect is what kids are entitled to.

And I liked Frawley.

  On 07/02/2015 at 05:08, pantaloons said:

This. It's unthinkably moronic to even entertain the thought of following rugby's laughable path here. It's all well and good for Gil go on a junket to watch the super bowl, but rather than come back and say "Hey, what about a night Grand Final so Cindy Lauper can perform under lights", how about looking at the (many) systemic things US sports leagues do well. I realise this free agent stuff isn't necessarily coming out of his mouth though.

I'm pretty sure he was talking US football (NFL) not the NRL 'pantaloons'. Heaven forbid we follow the NRL system but in NFL is worth a look at.

If the players want free agency and the rules are changed to allow in season signings to rival clubs then clubs should be allowed to trade players without consent. The players have far too much say in the current environment.

Its a farce where a Tom Boyd or Dayne Beams can say I want out. That is definitely the bell ringing for contractual changes as its the way things are going.

My belief is that if it comes to the point where a player says he's leaving mid-year then that actually will put the acid on them to perform. Supporters will have to get over it because its gonna happen. But at least if we know the player wont be able to run around half arsed like Frawley did. Everyone will call them out for being lazy money grubbing mercenaries. And whether we drop them or not will highly subjective. But I suspect it means future contracts will have performance clauses built in - if you don't average x possessions then we wont pay you - (don't think this could be contracted but some kind of performance based thing where a player had to perform all the way up to the end of their contract.)

The players and their managers are bringing this on themselves. ANd clubs will undoubtedly trade earlier rather than wait till the end.

NRL clubs don't always do it mid-season, one guy announced he was off after Round 1 last year. Shambolic.

  On 07/02/2015 at 04:14, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

So commercially viable whilst paying players 1-2k or more per game. Looking at a few million dollars turnover per club. That's going to take a heck of a TV deal and a good crowd and it's all to compete against the AFL from within. Plus it kills the state leagues that are still very popular in WA and SA. How do you work out which player goes where? Do you have a draft to start this D league?

Then there's this belief that junior footy isn't AFL footy. I think you've taken some words from Paul Roos and run with them. No doubt AFL is much more defensive. But half of that is work rate and tackling. Important skills, but it's winning and using the ball that still makes most of a footballer. JKH and Salem both did pretty well last year and you could see their talent. They don't need 3 years in a D league to learn to chase and tackle like AFL players.

Even if Roos thinks they do I bet that Ken Hinkley has an alternative opinion especially if you tried to take Wingard and Wines out of his team.

Being older and more physically mature I'm sure the players would be more ready to go and impact games. But I'm not convinced it will sort the issues in the draft. What are the issues anyway? We completely botched our picks and our development, but every other team seemed to do it pretty well. Port and Richmond were down the bottom, now are back up. Gold Coast and GWS are building on the back of great picks. Even the dogs seemed to be making some progress and you can see their top picks adding to the side.

The draft works. The best players get drafted the highest. The best clubs develop them the smartest and they go on to have long careers. The smart individuals study or gain work experience part time and come out ahead whether their career lasted 3 years or 13 years.

This is games played per draft pick. Just because Melbourne found a way through culture, development, recruiting etc to completely botch the system it doesn't mean it's broken.

Looks like we should trade out pick 35 for pick 40/...

  On 08/02/2015 at 01:27, Supermercado said:

NRL clubs don't always do it mid-season, one guy announced he was off after Round 1 last year. Shambolic.

If one is to look at things from a practical viewpoint, all this change is inevitable. My personal view is much the same as yours Super, but you know what? We really don't count all that much.

Over time, most will get used to players signaling their intentions just like most of us ended up getting used to the all the other changes that have happened to the sport. Players signaling their intentions may or may not become an everyday event either. It might only happen on an occasional basis.

Just look at the initial opposition to the advertising on the actual footy, 36 players in one quarter of the ground, hundreds of 'rotations', teams resting their best players in non vital games, kicking backwards, killing the clock, screaming adverts at the games, ... people are gradually no longer really caring about those changes when initially, they hated these changes.

There's been a raft of other changes too ... no 'reserves' on match days, clash geurnseys, the Brownlow is now a midfielders medal, positional play is dying, kicking to contests is now frowned upon, 'keepings off' has taken over ... I could go on and on.

With regards to how players are viewed, nearly all the professional sports head down the same path ... when you factor in lots of money - greed, lies, spin, bs, deceit, envy, jealousy and all those other human traits take over. The word commodity is not out of place.

I'd dearly like to be able to turn the clock back but I know that that can't and won't happen.

Loyalty? It's largely a thing of the past (as we knew it) and also, loyalty it is a 2-way street. We'll still get loyalty but it will never be right across the board.

So how does a club not lose their best players? Become a well run club that has success on the field and hope for the best (there's always going to be a 'buddy' but the Hawks just won a flag without him) They might even win it again this season - who would bet against them?

At least we'll still all be able to abuse the umpires in much the same way (not that I ever do that )

The other thing about the draft is the psychology.

Not many clubs are prepared to go against the orthodox picks in the top 5. They are too worried about being pilloried for giving away the 250 game champion (say a Joel Selwood for example)

Plus if you have one of those picks it is most likely that you don't do as much homework on picks 10 to say 20. Whereas the clubs with picks at 10-20 do a huge amount of work on a wide range of players.

Just sayin..

  On 08/02/2015 at 02:28, Macca said:

If one is to look at things from a practical viewpoint, all this change is inevitable. My personal view is much the same as yours Super, but you know what? We really don't count all that much.

Over time, most will get used to players signaling their intentions just like most of us ended up getting used to the all the other changes that have happened to the sport. Players signaling their intentions may or may not become an everyday event either. It might only happen on an occasional basis.

The only thing I hate about the early contract signing is that there's no chance for a player to change their mind. If they're doing dodgy backroom deals and negotiations but aren't allowed to sign until a certain point then I'll cop that as 'progress' but I hate the idea of players signing at Round 7 then have second thoughts by the end of the year. Look at Mick Ennis in the NRL, I'm sure that when he got injured in the Prelim and couldn't captain his side to the Grand Final that he'd have considered staying instead of leaving but had no option but to make the most of it and move on.

You're right though, the fans mean nothing in all of this. Rapidly losing interest in anything not MFC related.

  On 08/02/2015 at 09:09, Supermercado said:

The only thing I hate about the early contract signing is that there's no chance for a player to change their mind. If they're doing dodgy backroom deals and negotiations but aren't allowed to sign until a certain point then I'll cop that as 'progress' but I hate the idea of players signing at Round 7 then have second thoughts by the end of the year. Look at Mick Ennis in the NRL, I'm sure that when he got injured in the Prelim and couldn't captain his side to the Grand Final that he'd have considered staying instead of leaving but had no option but to make the most of it and move on.

You're right though, the fans mean nothing in all of this. Rapidly losing interest in anything not MFC related.

My way of dealing with things is very similar - an increased interest in all things MFC (probably due to this site) and way less interest in the AFL as a whole (replaced by watching a myriad of different sports)

I've become used to all the changes and just put it down to the professional era - the mid 90's was when the game starting looking different and there's a lot more money in the sport now. Most of the professional sports overseas has a certain pattern - why would we be any different?

Also, many have grown up with the 'new' footy and I come across a lot of people who don't have any issues at all with all the changes that have taken place. It's hard to miss what you never had.

Let's face it, most people just want to see their team win - and we're overdue.

Anyway, it would have been interesting to see the reaction here if say Rivers had have signalled his intentions half way through 2012 ... as it was, he was going anyway wasn't he? It seemed that way in the finish.

As jnrmac intimated above in post #30, a whole different dynamic is created. If a player has made up his mind to leave, I think I'd rather know. But I can fully understand those not wanting to know.

I tend to think that the supporters tend to emulate the players in that they follow the clubs that are successful to the extent that they support success.

In Sth Sydney's case the supporter base seemed to treble in a very short space of time.

That being said we are probably looking at a fickle and floating "I've supported Hawthorn all my life creep" until they start losing.

I've been around long enough to know i'll die supporting Melb

  On 08/02/2015 at 02:36, jnrmac said:

The other thing about the draft is the psychology.

Not many clubs are prepared to go against the orthodox picks in the top 5. They are too worried about being pilloried for giving away the 250 game champion (say a Joel Selwood for example)

Plus if you have one of those picks it is most likely that you don't do as much homework on picks 10 to say 20. Whereas the clubs with picks at 10-20 do a huge amount of work on a wide range of players.

Just sayin..

The draft talk isn't that relevant to this thread, but .....remember Joel Selwood had a dodgy knee. Probably still does. The guy is just the type who wouldn't stop anyway. And you can analyse a guys perseverance, but you can't analyse a guys response to injury, some degenerative knees hold up and can be played through, some turn to bone and the player just can't cope. But injuries should always be taken in to account even if you then decide to go with that player.

I think your second point is disrespectful to recruiters. Of course there is a confirmation bias that sucks some of them in. Inexperienced types more likely than not, which is why I was glad we got Jason Taylor from Collingwood where he was 2IC recruiting instead of picking a person from some other footy role who hadn't been involve in the dedicated process. But remember they look at these kids for 2 years without knowing who they will pick and where they will pick. The year we picked Morton at 4 over a host of good players we then had pick 14 for Grimes. So there's no way we wouldn't have been looking at every single player who was going top 10 etc. The recruiters line up a list, that's what they do. Towards the draft they may well save time by not interviewing or closely monitoring certain players in the months of Oct/Nov when all games and testing is over. That's just being realistic. But clubs don't just plain ignore good prospects. Remember each recruiting team features about 15 people in various states with different preferences etc.