The calumny of the AFL's priority pick policy

[Macca 16,173]

31 minutes ago, A F said:

I think it's an oversimplification and disingenuous to say/imply you can build a whole team with the trading of first round picks.

It is not an oversimplification at all. And certainly not disingenuous. 

Of course you can build the guts of your team around trading.  Do the maths AF

And I am not late to the part either.  Nothing is in hindsight.  I have had the same stance for decades

Examples ...

Instead of drafting Morton we use that pick on a proven top player.  That player would have almost certainly had a great career with us and might even still be playing for us now.  Morton had a forgettable career with us

Ditto for Watts

Ditto for Trengove

Ditto for Gysberts

Ditto for Strauss

Ditto for Maric

Ditto for Tapscott

Ditto for Blease

Ditto for Cook

Ditto for Toumpas

Ditto for Scully (although we did get Hogan and subsequently May for Scully)

We wasted pick 12 on a non B+ player in Clark.

Ugly hey?

Draft picks are overrated as well so we may well have picked up (through trading) at least a dozen top players in that time period.  Perhaps a few more if we were able to add in any number of the 2nd & 3rd rounders.

It should be noted that we traded Melksham,  Hibberd & Frost for 2nd rounders.

But still,  we're 5 and 17 after all that and you still believe in drafting?  Astonishing. 

You probably think it's just the clubs making colossal errors.  It's a system failure that hasn't been outed.

[Macca 16,173]

55 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

Nice argument. Well argued. I am from the "take your pick to the draft" belief and absolutely love new untried talent, but you are correct, especially with Melbourne (consider Jack Watts), we heap unrealistic pressure on them and they rarely deliver.

You've got me almost agreeing with you but I love Oliver and I still am more than happy to go to the draft. As you say its my "belief system"

My way sees the club trading for Oliver or trading for a similar player

So you don't lose and the clubs overvalue first round picks anyway

Still not convinced?

[Macca 16,173]

56 minutes ago, A F said:

See, this is all great in some dream world, but how many teams would give up an A grade talent at 21-22 or even in their prime at 24-26? Not many. Only GWS and GCS probably.

I get the strategy and I think it can/does work, but it's the exact strategy we've clearly changed to in the last 2-3 years in order to land Lever and May. They've both had A grade seasons previously - Lever is young and May is nearing the end. 

We've built our midfield at the draft, we're trying to build our backline via FA and trading, and our forwardline should be a mixture of drafting/trading and FA. 

But to be fair to the MFC, you can't just throw first round picks around if the rest of your list is puss. You won't attract anyone this way. You need to build a reasonable core first and then you can attract with money and potential.

You left out the bit where I bundle up picks for proven talent.  And trading out our off-cuts to get even more picks to trade for talent.

And plenty of good players have been traded for draft picks.  Lynch,  Treloar,  Dangerfield,  Judd,  Mitchell,  O'Meara and numerous others.  Buddy went for free didn't he?

Free agency is another area where we've been virtually dormant.  I reckon we're just happy to roll on and be a participant. 

[Macca 16,173]

19 minutes ago, A F said:

Sorry mate, but I've been thinking about this comment as well.

If anything, I'd argue that it's almost entirely up to system and whether a coach is capable of devising a successful system and then their ability to implement that system with the players at their disposal.

Richmond are a really good example. They've got 4 or 5 absolute guns and then the rest are role players within a finely tuned system, where every player knows his role.

We're right to blame coaching 9 times out of 10, because most teams have a few really good players, and a team of decent players can look A grade in a top system.

But I'm a believer in system over almost everything, like you're a believer in trading picks.

I played a lot of sport and all the successful teams I played with or played against had loads of talent

The same principle applies at the top end of sport.  Mate,  we're 5 & 17 for a reason.  3/4's of the list aren't much chop

Our disposal skills and decision making is woeful.  And it's up to the players to improve their own form and abilities.

Unless you want the coach to hold their hands?

Coach killers - Our list

You want to blame Goodwin the same as others blamed Bailey & Neeld.  Do that and you're going to get it wrong.  The coach can only do so much.

Hardwick,  Clarkson or Simpson would turn our list over. 

[Binmans PA 25,923]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

It is not an oversimplification at all. And certainly not disingenuous. 

Of course you can build the guts of your team around trading.  Do the maths AF

And I am not late to the part either.  Nothing is in hindsight.  I have had the same stance for decades

Examples ...

Instead of drafting Morton we use that pick on a proven top player.  That player would have almost certainly had a great career with us and might even still be playing for us now.  Morton had a forgettable career with us

Ditto for Watts

Ditto for Trengove

Ditto for Gysberts

Ditto for Strauss

Ditto for Maric

Ditto for Tapscott

Ditto for Blease

Ditto for Cook

Ditto for Toumpas

Ditto for Scully (although we did get Hogan and subsequently May for Scully)

We wasted pick 12 on a non B+ player in Clark.

Ugly hey?

Draft picks are overrated as well so we may well have picked up (through trading) at least a dozen top players in that time period.  Perhaps a few more if we were able to add in any number of the 2nd & 3rd rounders.

It should be noted that we traded Melksham,  Hibberd & Frost for 2nd rounders.

But still,  we're 5 and 17 after all that and you still believe in drafting?  Astonishing. 

You probably think it's just the clubs making colossal errors.  It's a system failure that hasn't been outed.

You're just saying the same thing again though. I've done the maths and I struggle to see how you could build the guts of a team by only trading.

You need to have one or two guns to begin with and then you need to be average enough to stockpile enough picks, not lose your guns in the meantime, and then those picks can be traded. But first rounders come once a year, unless you're trading a future first rounder as well.

How do these numbers work?

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[Binmans PA 25,923]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

You left out the bit where I bundle up picks for proven talent.  And trading out our off-cuts to get even more picks to trade for talent.

And plenty of good players have been traded for draft picks.  Lynch,  Treloar,  Dangerfield,  Judd,  Mitchell,  O'Meara and numerous others.  Buddy went for free didn't he?

Free agency is another area where we've been virtually dormant.  I reckon we're just happy to roll on and be a participant. 

I'd argue we've been dormant until last year because we needed to build the core first to attract FAs. Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood etc were strong clubs when FA started. Our timing was unlucky and theirs was anything but. 

We were able to get May effectively because they would risk losing him for less as a FA compo this year, so I class May as effectively a FA get. We're having a look around this year too seemingly, but you've got to convince players to choose you. That only happens if you want to put your cap out of whack.

[Macca 16,173]

3 minutes ago, A F said:

You're just saying the same thing again though. I've done the maths and I struggle to see how you could build the guts of a team by simply trading.

You need to have one or two guns to begin with and then you need to be average enough to stockpile enough picks, not lose your guns in the meantime, and then those picks can be traded. But first rounders come once a year, unless you're trading a future first rounder as well.

How do these numbers work?

You're building a list through trading for 21-23yo proven talent.  And you use draft picks to trade. And I'm not talking anything less than B+.  You also bring in quality free agents.  You might still draft when it suits but trading is the main M.O.

So what is so hard to understand?  As you add more talent you get better.

To be honest,  I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about

I think you've got drafting 18 year old's on the brain.  Let it go mate.  There are other ways to get to the finishing line.

[Binmans PA 25,923]

56 minutes ago, Macca said:

I played a lot of sport and all the successful teams I played with or played against had loads of talent

The same principle applies at the top end of sport.  Mate,  we're 5 & 17 for a reason.  3/4's of the list aren't much chop

Our disposal skills and decision making is woeful.  And it's up to the players to improve their own form and abilities.

Unless you want the coach to hold their hands?

Coach killers - Our list

You want to blame Goodwin the same as others blamed Bailey & Neeld.  Do that and you're going to get it wrong.  The coach can only do so much.

Hardwick,  Clarkson or Simpson would turn our list over. 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't keep turning our list over. I'm arguing that we can't simply build a team by trading in players on big wages, because we'll risk losing the players (Gawn, Oliver, Lever, May) we want to keep.

I get that we have to pull the trigger at some point, but you need to be smart about it.

Do you really think we haven't inquired about the likes of Dangerfield (when he was on the move) and a few of the other stars that have moved? Just because it hasn't leaked, doesn't mean we haven't. Those players just haven't wanted to come, because we've been puss.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, and without building a core first (mostly through good drafting), you can't attract these players. That's my argument. 

[Macca 16,173]

5 minutes ago, A F said:

I'd argue we've been dormant until last year because we needed to build the core first to attract FAs. Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood etc were strong clubs when FA started. Our timing was unlucky and theirs was anything but. 

We were able to get May effectively because they would risk losing him for less as a FA compo this year, so I class May as effectively a FA get. We're having a look around this year too seemingly, but you've got to convince players to choose you. That only happens if you want to put your cap out of whack.

Ok then ... we'll just sit on our hands and hope for the best hey AF?

Your way hasn't worked.  My way hasn't even been tried. 

You might want to read up on the New England Patriots.

Arguably the most successful team going around and they have turned trading picks into an absolute artform.  They are brilliant at it

Broaden those horizons and look outside the AFL bubble.

 

[Macca 16,173]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

To be clear, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't keep turning our list over. I'm arguing that we can't simply build a team by trading in players on big wages, because we'll risk losing the players (Gawn, Oliver, Lever, May) we want to keep.

I get that we have to pull the trigger at some point, but you need to be smart about it.

Do you really think we haven't inquired about the likes of Dangerfield (when he was on the move) and a few of the other stars that have moved? Just because it hasn't leaked, doesn't mean we haven't. Those players just haven't wanted to come, because we've been puss.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, and without building a core first (mostly through good drafting), you can't attract these players. That's my argument. 

We've played 1 finals series in the last 13 years ... there's your answer.

And we won't be playing finals next year without a healthy dose of added talent.

We are a long way off and the reason we're in that spot is because of our putrid recruiting. 

Numerous draft picks going wrong could have been avoided. 

Trade for talent.

 May,  Lever,  Melksham & Hibberd is a good start so we're at least not putting all our eggs in one basket with drafting  (as we did previously)

And I've never been one to say we should have picked another player in the draft.  That really is hindsight nonsense.

[Binmans PA 25,923]

48 minutes ago, Macca said:

Ok then ... we'll just sit on our hands and hope for the best hey AF?

Your way hasn't worked.  My way hasn't even been tried. 

You might want to read up on the New England Patriots.

Arguably the most successful team going around and they have turned trading picks into an absolute artform.  They are brilliant at it

Broaden those horizons and look outside the AFL bubble.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.

We now have the core to build around and that core attracted the likes of Lever and May.

We can go all out now, but we couldn't until we got that core together.

And drafting exclusively is not 'my way'. I believe you need to use every mechanism at your disposal to build a great list.

All the dynasty teams of the modern era have used the draft, trading and FA to prolong and enhance their success.

I'm not sure you can point to a single team that has only used trading as a way to build success. There's literally not one example. Hawthorn drafted their core and then got lucky with the advent of FA and used trading very cleverly too.

Richmond drafted their core and then used trading to get B graders like Houli and Caddy into the club, before attracting FA targets in Prestia and Lynch.

Geelong got lucky with their father-son selections at the top of this century, which enabled them to build a gun team. They also selected beautifully in the draft.

West Coast are perhaps the only example where probably more of their stars have been traded in (Kennedy and Yeo), but you could argue just as many (Shuey, Barrass, McGovern, Sheed and NikNat) have been drafted.

Can you point to a single AFL team that has used exclusively trading top picks to build a core?

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[Binmans PA 25,923]

42 minutes ago, Macca said:

We've played 1 finals series in the last 13 years ... there's your answer.

And we won't be playing finals next year without a healthy dose of added talent.

We are a long way off and the reason we're in that spot is because of our putrid recruiting. 

Numerous draft picks going wrong could have been avoided. 

Trade for talent.

 May,  Lever,  Melksham & Hibberd is a good start so we're at least not putting all our eggs in one basket with drafting  (as we did previously)

And I've never been one to say we should have picked another player in the draft.  That really is hindsight nonsense.

I agree with all of this.

We now have the core, we can trade our top picks for proven talent. This is how it works.

Who would you target and what is the carrot to get them over the line?

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[Macca 16,173]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

I'm not sure you can point to a single team that has only used trading as a way to build success. There's literally not one example.

That's because it's never been tried ... why are you so convinced that it can't work?

New information difficult to process?

Primarily trade too ... not totally as a club does have to draft 3 players per season.

Perhaps you need to start thinking outside the square a bit more.  Your way is far too conservative and there's too much company policy involved in your argument

You really think the pick 2 or 3 is the answer if the player is an 18yo draftee?

The messiah mentality will rear it's ugly head again.  Expectations through the roof and the kid is still at high school.

 

[Binmans PA 25,923]

40 minutes ago, Macca said:

That's because it's never been tried ... why are you so convinced that it can't work?

New information difficult to process?

Primarily trade too ... not totally as a club does have to draft 3 players per season.

Perhaps you need to start thinking outside the square a bit more.  Your way is far too conservative and there's too much company policy involved in your argument

You really think the pick 2 or 3 is the answer if the player is an 18yo draftee?

The messiah mentality will rear it's ugly head again.  Expectations through the roof and the kid is still at high school.

 

You still haven't answered my original question, which was how does the maths work?

Also, the strawman nature of the idea, that a proven talent in the 21-23 age bracket would go to a basketcase, hasn't really been dealt with in your answers.

If you're building a core from scratch (which we would have been - Jones is not and has never been, an A grader, but for a long time was our only half decent player), you need to think about the players you are trying to lure. 

As if an A grader in the 21-23 age bracket would have chosen us in 2008 or 2009. That's not how it works. Players go for success or they go for money. So you're not dealing with the financial realities of paying overs (which you need to in order to attract most good players).

If you had 3 or 4 early first rounders (HTF do you obtain them?), you could go about building a core of A graders from other clubs, but that's not how the paradigm is set up. 

Unless you get rid of draft picks and change the paradigm completely, you must work within the paradigm and you get 1 first rounder a year...

[Macca 16,173]

Ķ

22 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree with all of this.

We now have the core, we can trade our top picks for proven talent. This is how it works.

Who would you target and what is the carrot to get them over the line?

As previously stated I would play the long game with trading for talent

If it was me calling the shots every player B+ or A grade could get called upon (via their manager) and they would know the offer was a fair chance of happening.

It would never be a last minute offer.  So take your pick.  Every talented player is an option.

My view on footy is that X amount of top players = X amount of wins.  In an ideal world we'd have 6-8 more top players than our nearest rival.

And that does happen ...all the way back to the Demons of the 50's & 60's with a whole bunch of dynasty teams in between. 

[Binmans PA 25,923]

41 minutes ago, Macca said:

Ķ

As previously stated I would play the long game with trading for talent

If it was me calling the shots every player B+ or A grade could get called upon (via their manager) and they would know the offer was a fair chance of happening.

It would never be a last minute offer.  So take your pick.  Every talented player is an option.

My view on footy is that X amount of top players = X amount of wins.  In an ideal world we'd have 6-8 more top players than our nearest rival.

And that does happen ...all the way back to the Demons of the 50's & 60's with a whole bunch of dynasty teams in between. 

Yep, okay. Now that we have our core, we could play the long game from here on out.

[Macca 16,173]

8 minutes ago, A F said:

Also, the strawman nature of the idea, that a proven talent in the 21-23 age bracket would go to a basketcase, hasn't really been dealt with in your answers.

 

Don't assume that all the circumstances would remain the same.  And don't assume that we would have become a basket case. 

So at the end of 2005 the club notes that we've some talent on the list but it is ageing. 

That's when you bring in a couple of talented players.  We're playing finals so we're a destination club yeah? 

So,  with a lot of creative recruiting,  you're able to trade for those 2 good players.  Not too old but 25 or 26 is ok if the player is a gun.

And then keep repeating the process.  You don't bottom out and you don't become a basket case. 

And don't wait until you become a basket case and then have too much faith in drafting.  But of course,  that is what we did.

I did try and warn people both here and elsewhere.  Most I know now agree with my stance.  Even a few here.  ?

[Macca 16,173]

2 hours ago, A F said:

Yep, okay. Now that we have our core, we could play the long game from here on out.

Not sure we've got that strong a core AF.  I might have said so at the end of 2018 but our list of top players has dropped away to a point where we don't have that many

Top player = plays well in 4 of 5 games by either winning his position or beating his opponent.  In the midfield breaking even with your opponent counts but those top players still need to get 'wins'

We had any number of our better players down on form this season and that is a worrying trend.  We became lazy.  Didn't work hard enough for wins.  Did the players think it was all just going to happen? 

We now are a team that looks good on paper only.  The core that you speak of only managed 5 wins.  And that's not good enough.

Make no mistake,  we need a big injection of talent over the next 4 - 5 years.  If that happens,  we can challenge for the flag.  But not before

Sure,  we can get back up to 9 or 10 wins and maybe even 12-13 wins at a stretch but to be a true contender we are a fair way off.  Above all else,  we're just too slow right now.

I don't believe in aberration moments in sport nor outlier moments.  Flukes don't count although they can happen.  Just never rely on them.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Macca

[Binmans PA 25,923]

5 hours ago, Macca said:

Don't assume that all the circumstances would remain the same.  And don't assume that we would have become a basket case. 

So at the end of 2005 the club notes that we've some talent on the list but it is ageing. 

That's when you bring in a couple of talented players.  We're playing finals so we're a destination club yeah? 

So,  with a lot of creative recruiting,  you're able to trade for those 2 good players.  Not too old but 25 or 26 is ok if the player is a gun.

And then keep repeating the process.  You don't bottom out and you don't become a basket case. 

And don't wait until you become a basket case and then have too much faith in drafting.  But of course,  that is what we did.

I did try and warn people both here and elsewhere.  Most I know now agree with my stance.  Even a few here.  ?

Yep, that could have worked in 2005 and it could work now.

4 hours ago, Macca said:

Not sure we've got that strong a core AF.  I might have said so at the end of 2018 but our list of top players has dropped away to a point where we don't have that many

Top player = plays well in 4 of 5 games by either winning his position or beating his opponent.  In the midfield breaking even with your opponent counts but those top players still need to get 'wins'

We had any number of our better players down on form this season and that is a worrying trend.  We became lazy.  Didn't work hard enough for wins.  Did the players think it was all just going to happen? 

Completely agree that we seemed to become lazy this year and that the trend is worrying with our better players. Our core of Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, Lever, Gawn and May is still pretty bloody good. Brayshaw struggled this year and Lever did with injury, but let's reassess this after a strong pre season. They can all get better, but 6 potential A graders is decent.

Quote

We now are a team that looks good on paper only.  The core that you speak of only managed 5 wins.  And that's not good enough.

Make no mistake,  we need a big injection of talent over the next 4 - 5 years.  If that happens,  we can challenge for the flag.  But not before

Agreed. It looks good on paper and they played well in 2018 too. They showed what they are capable of.

Quote

Sure,  we can get back up to 9 or 10 wins and maybe even 12-13 wins at a stretch but to be a true contender we are a fair way off.  Above all else,  we're just too slow right now.

Agreed. Far too slow. We need at least another 2 or 3 to join the aforementioned group and for that group to lift and rise above 2018 standards.

Quote

I don't believe in aberration moments in sport nor outlier moments.  Flukes don't count although they can happen.  Just never rely on them.

I also wouldn't say the good form of the above players is an aberration.

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[markc 975]

thankyou AF and Macca for some very good reading and a very good debate 

and no personal attacks 

mark

[chook fowler 18,187]

Can you envisage the Pies  or Toiges blog using the word calumny - very much doubt it.

[Macca 16,173]

9 hours ago, A F said:

Yep, that could have worked in 2005 and it could work now.

Completely agree that we seemed to become lazy this year and that the trend is worrying with our better players. Our core of Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, Lever, Gawn and May is still pretty bloody good. Brayshaw struggled this year and Lever did with injury, but let's reassess this after a strong pre season. They can all get better, but 6 potential A graders is decent.

Agreed. It looks good on paper and they played well in 2018 too. They showed what they are capable of.

Agreed. Far too slow. We need at least another 2 or 3 to join the aforementioned group and for that group to lift and rise above 2018 standards.

I also wouldn't say the good form of the above players is an aberration.

It must also be pointed out that we have used our last 3 first round picks on Lever & May

Prior to that we used 2nd round picks on Frost,  Melksham & Hibberd

All good moves in my book regardless of the injuries. 

Draftees like Brayshaw,  Petracca & Hogan all suffered major injuries or setbacks so it works both ways

So what I'm advocating is actually happening. 

[whatwhat say what 18,831]

should be announced today

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,860]

5 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

should be announced today

With regards to GCS citing keeping the mates together as justification for picks 1 & 2. Hasn’t one of the Adelaide boys from last year not re signed whilst the other has?

[3183 Dee 2,602]

They will give GC top two picks for Rowell and Anderson - those kids are best mates and so will be more likely to stick it out up there together.