The calumny of the AFL's priority pick policy

[olisik 4,060]

Don’t know why people are using Lynch and May leaving as justification. They got picks 3 & 6 already for those 2 players.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,223]

They'll definitely get picks 1 and 2, they would've got it last year but Carlton stuffed up their plans by being so [censored]

Noone will care if we get screwed because we finished top 4 last year and should rebound next year and the tanking thing is still recent history. Carlton traded out their first pick so people won't care if Adelaide gets knocked back one spot in the draft. The only team who will be upset is us and the AFL won't care because we won't say anything.

Gold coast will get picks 1 and 2 this year take it to the bank

[grey wolf 226]

Sorry but perhaps too much Tempranillo... much of this sounds as though we are miffed at missing out on pick 2 ... give the suns the first round entirely... as long as we get ... Langdon, thomlinson, Roughead, zjones, cutler, .......

[darkhorse72 1,920]

Apparently a huge range of options are on the discussion board.  The one with the most support is them taking experienced players in the Hodge model outside or most outside the salary cap to build the culture of the club in a playing.coaching role. They do not need young talent yet.  They have lots of talent, just no direction.  You can see some improvements in their games this year but currently don't have the experience or maturity to close them out.

 

[Adzman 2,154]

We were rabble when we got a in 2008 yet our pp was at the end of the first round (Sam Blease). If a pp is to be dished out, end of the first round is a good place to start. It's also much easier to deal pick 19 for an established player which is what they need up at the gcs. Pick 1 or 2 are harder to trade. 

[Little Goffy 14,574]

Gold Coast just dropped Martin and Wright.

So, they are either actually tanking or they are proving that no amount of top picks will be the answer to their problem.

[dazzledavey36 54,947]

8 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Gold Coast just dropped Martin and Wright.

So, they are either actually tanking or they are proving that no amount of top picks will be the answer to their problem.

Martin will leave, does he net a late 1st rounder?

[whatwhat say what 22,772]

54 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Gold Coast just dropped Martin and Wright.

So, they are either actually tanking or they are proving that no amount of top picks will be the answer to their problem.

almost as blatant as us keeping o mac in

[Youngwilliam 381]

13 hours ago, olisik said:

Or when we took Oliver over Parish

Oliver over Parish was a good decision in my book. 

[Supermercado 2,797]

Of course they'll lobby against it. And the AFL will pretend to be interested before doing whatever they want. We have zero influence so hopefully Adelaide hit the roof.

The thing about Gold Coast is that they're no good, but they're a hell of a lot better than we were in 2013 (+1 win, +13%). The difference is the league is desperate to get them up and going so they'll treat them like the worst side in history and give them everything they want. They're also kicking a goal a game more than than us in 2014.

What about giving them an extra pick after all the non-finals teams? I'm saying this out of self-interest but they've got to get something out of picks 1 and 11 and it's not disadvantaging the other pox teams in the competition.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Supermercado

[deebug 1,754]

It should be a second round pick, not a pick in the top 10.

Bugger them.?

[Tony Tea 2,809]

16 hours ago, olisik said:

Or when we took Oliver over Parish

You mean All Australian Oliver?

[ManDee 7,153]

Another early pick is not the answer. Look at where they are now with all those early picks.

1- Give them access to one free agent outside the salary cap.

2- Give them an end of first round pick that they must swap for a player over 24yo.

3- Embargo free agency from GCS to any side above them on the ladder for 4 years.

 

Edit: 1 I would like to ban free agents going to a top 6 side or leaving a bottom 6 side all together.

2 Destination clubs should pay a fair price to the departure side in all free agency moves.

Edited August 9, 2019 by ManDee

[RalphiusMaximus 6,054]

23 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I can't see the problem. So we get pick 3 instead of pick 2 (or 4 instead of 3). The history of drafting suggests there's no difference between the likelihood of pick 2 being better than pick 3 (or vice versa). The bigger picture of getting the Suns competitive is a far more compelling issue.

The issue is that the top two players are so far ahead of the next best. There's one and two then daylight. Giving them both to GCS is therefore a much bigger advantage to them and a correspondingly greater loss to the team coming second last.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

17 hours ago, olisik said:

Or when we took Oliver over Parish

I'm not sure what your point or train of thought is with this one.

But we were lucky we didn't have pick 1 or 2 in this draft or we would have ended up with Weitering, Mills or Shache. 

 

[buck_nekkid 5,868]

Gil is a priority p(r)ick.

[Little Goffy 14,574]

The evidence has come through again and again that top picks aren't the decisive factor for a climb back up the ladder.

Quality coaching and development, a bit of stability and confidence at the club, 'culture' and all that, are what counts.

If anything, the AFL should be looking at ways to push more of the support resources to the weaker clubs, such as through the soft cap rules.

Possibly also an expansion of reserves-style listings to bring in mature players as needed.

After all, the goal of any equalisation policy cannot be to have all teams reach the pinnacle - but it can realistcally be to prevent any teams from declining to the point of lasting non-competitiveness.

Of course, a sensible policy would also include a massive general injection of professional resouces into the second-tier competitions, greatly enhancing the depth of competant playing stocks, the diversity of pathways for players who lack AFL-level discipline at age 18, and the available depth and quality of coaching, medical and conditioning staff.

But that's kind of the 'Carthage must be destroyed' of any AFL debate at the moment.

[Master Deebater 492]

2 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Gil is a priority p(r)ick.

Gil is athe priority p(r)ick.

[george_on_the_outer 7,604]

Priority picks are not the answer, and we should want no more proof than to look at our own history.

IF the AFL want to help GC, then simply increase their salary cap to enable them to retain the high draft picks they have had for the past couple of years.  The COLA that Sydney were given enabled them to win a Premiership, and outbid others for Franklin. 

One extra 17 year old player will not make the slightest difference.  2 or 3 more experienced will, or one or two of their own not leaving to go to greener pastures ( Lynch/May), thus keeping experience and skill within the club. 

Then when things have turned around, the extra money can be taken back, to re-level the field.

[Elwood 3184 1,313]

I agree with all of the arguments about early picks etc not being the answer but I would still like to see the club throw out a curve ball by applying for a priority pick on the basis of our mediocre performance this year. After all, even Garry Lyon thinks we’re cr@p and we’ve played in the finals once in 13 years. 

Oops, sorry. We’re nice guys. We don’t rock boats, we sink in them.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

On 8/9/2019 at 3:49 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

Priority picks are not the answer, and we should want no more proof than to look at our own history.

IF the AFL want to help GC, then simply increase their salary cap to enable them to retain the high draft picks they have had for the past couple of years.  The COLA that Sydney were given enabled them to win a Premiership, and outbid others for Franklin. 

One extra 17 year old player will not make the slightest difference.  2 or 3 more experienced will, or one or two of their own not leaving to go to greener pastures ( Lynch/May), thus keeping experience and skill within the club. 

Then when things have turned around, the extra money can be taken back, to re-level the field.

Posters keep forgetting that a priority pick enables greater bargaining power to land those types of players (if under contract).

That's the whole point here. A priority pick enables greater flexibility around drafting and trading for experience/talent.

I don't think anyone believes it would be in Gold Coast's best interest to only hit the draft with picks.

Edited August 10, 2019 by stevethemanjordan

[Thehardtackler 785]

Immaterial. I think that we will end up with Pick 3 anyway, as we will win our last 2 games. Lol

[Willmoy1947 4,091]

No First round picks for top Eight finishing Clubs for following year. They just move down draft order.....and so on.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

On 8/8/2019 at 2:58 PM, Lord Nev said:

The Crossley situation may hurt their chances of getting a PP now.

 

It sure will and i thoroughly expect our club and the media alike to bring it up to make the point. We got screwed when we were on our knees when GC and BWS came in the compitition. We got the scraps from the 3 drafts that were disgracefully compromised like everything else in the AFL. 

GC dont need further priority picks they need further assistance with better assistant coaches and development. Its obviously poor to non existent from the output they are producing.

You've made the problem AFL, so don't take the easy option in trying to solve it with a priority pick.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

GC could get the first 10 draft picks, it won’t make a difference.