Tanking and Picks

[Little Goffy 12,653]

While we might be able to knock over Freo at Subi, and Carlton might be able to put a real spanner in the Kangaroos finals postition, chances are we are going to be faced with an awful, awful prospect in round 22.

Carlton wins, they lose pick number one.

Melbourne wins, they lose pick 18(19?) and their pick 2 becomes pick 3 because Carlton keep the bonus pick at 1.

For both teams, we're talking about picks and draft positions that would normally only be achieved by trading a star player.

For losing.

It's a blazing banner shouting to the world that the priority pick system is screwed up, seriously.

There has to be a better way than the simple-minded setting of the bar at four games, which makes it an all or nothing benefit based on one extra win for a season.

I like the draft order going from bottom to top, that's a fair enough equaliser in my opinion, and is incremental so wouldn't become such a disincentive to win (or, more fairly to the clubs, a disincentive for supporters to want cheer a win)

What changes should be made?

Option 1 -scrap it, it's stupid anyway.

Option 2 -base it on a 'rolling' period of losses - eg. last 22 games rather than in a given season means that there won't be an 'all or nothing must-lose' situation.

Option 3 -allow clubs to underpay the salary cap when performing poorly, and become entitled to additional picks based on how much they have underpaid the cap! (Freaky, completely out of thin air). This would base priority picks on the accepted market 'value' of the existing player group - if you have a weak team then you get early picks, but if you don't pay legitimate champions then they will, obivously, leave. So you can't 'tank' your salary payments.

Let's hear better ideas than mine, because when we smack the $%%#$ out of the blues we'll be losing a Jared Rivers level draft pick, and I'm not happy about being punished for winning.

[godees 651]

Actually if we win our pick would be #4 compared to #2 if we lose.

So basically it is:

Carlton win --> they get picks 3 and 21, we get pick 2, 18, 20

We win --> they get picks 1, 3, and about 20, we get pick 4, 21

It is definitely a ridiculous system. They should scrap the before round 1 priority pick and only have priority picks after the first round. Surely a pick in the top 5 and two other picks in the top 20 is enough for a poor season.

And lets not forget that it is Carlton's salary cap cheating that has them with such a crap list.

[Little Goffy 12,653]

And lets not forget that it is Carlton's salary cap cheating that has them with such a crap list.

I'd laugh for a month if Carlton got penalised for tanking/match fixing and missed out on high draft picks.

Cheating to win, cheating to lose - that'd be Carlton culture at it's finest!

[Demons 32 235]

Follow the NBA system.

Have lottery involiving the 5 bottom teams with the lowest placed team with the highest chance of number 1. It is fair, adds excitment to the draft and has never ever failed the NBA, ther has never been this talk with the NBA system.

[John Dee 438]

Just scrap this stupid rolling two year priority pick. If it were not there, we would be talking about the match being the difference between picks 2 and 3 with the extra pick that either of us would get for finishing under 16.5 points coming in at pick 18. With the extra pick coming in at pick 1, there is too much of a perception that Carlton cannot afford to win the match. If Carlton win, they lose pick 1 and swap pick 2 for pick 3, if we win we lose pick 18 and swap pick 2 for pick 3.

What we should do is play out the game as per normal, Carlton will hit the front at about the time-on stage of the last quarter and all of their supporters will be very smug knowing that this is when they lay down and play dead; we should then out doggo them and refuse to win.

[Rogue 585]

Option 3 -allow clubs to underpay the salary cap when performing poorly, and become entitled to additional picks based on how much they have underpaid the cap! (Freaky, completely out of thin air). This would base priority picks on the accepted market 'value' of the existing player group - if you have a weak team then you get early picks, but if you don't pay legitimate champions then they will, obivously, leave. So you can't 'tank' your salary payments.

Players have taken less $ to try and keep a team together etc. What would stop them doing this to get some great picks, with the understanding their next contract will reward them?

[demonfanjezza 1]

Follow the NBA system.

Have lottery involiving the 5 bottom teams with the lowest placed team with the highest chance of number 1. It is fair, adds excitment to the draft and has never ever failed the NBA, ther has never been this talk with the NBA system.

I like this system

or

Totally get rid of the draft

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If you want to remove the smear of tanking, you need to remove the nexus between the outcome and reward. In other abolish/reduce the automatic entitlement to a priority pick when you win less than a certain number of games.

[Little Goffy 12,653]

Players have taken less $ to try and keep a team together etc. What would stop them doing this to get some great picks, with the understanding their next contract will reward them?

If players are willing to take pay cuts for the sake of the club, more power to them I say.

But you're right that it could be manipulated by heavy back-ending or front-ending of contracts to create a 'dip' year.

But, how does the club hold on to the players expecting rewards in their next contract, AND keep the bright new champs payed appropriately?

The annual salary cap sets a maximum, so if you don't pay out, say, $600,000 that you otherwise would in a given year, then that cap amount is gone, never to be seen again. The playing list as a whole gets paid less.

Maybe the second round of the draft could go lowest to highest player payments?

Then again, as a special for the Demons, maybe the second round could go in order of DAMNED BLOODY INJURIES.

(That was irrelevent, I know, but it felt good.)

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,618]

See my Topic thread on "MATCH OF THE CENTURY", which was considered barely worth a comment by most Demonlanders, and ridiculed by a few.

[whitito 187]

I have said it before but teams 9-16 should be in a lottery with one chance each, therefore there is no incentive to tank at all.

After the first 3 picks have been drawn, it reverts to the ladder order. Therefore team 16 will pick 4 at worst.

Think of the players picked at 4 and above of late, Mclean, Franklin, Selwood etc.

[Sir Why You Little 34,611]

I'd laugh for a month if Carlton got penalised for tanking/match fixing and missed out on high draft picks.

Cheating to win, cheating to lose - that'd be Carlton culture at it's finest!

Exactly-Never Underestimate that Carlton are The Lowest Form of Sporting Club-They Cheated the System for years-and are now using Sannctioned AFL Rules to get the Best Young Talent to thier club-Its an outrage!!!

[Toad33 57]

I don't like the priority pick.

I don't like any form of 'raffle' either. No matter how many 'chances' the lowest team has, It doesn't mean the lowest team will ever benefit from the best draft selection!!!!!

Given that the AFL brought in the draft to even out the competition over a period of time, which it has largely done, I believe it should just revert back to 'worst to best' draft selections in any given year. However, I think they should add that first round draft picks CANNOT be traded. That way the worst team gets, and has to use, the best pick. Just the way the draft system was set up for.

I am also a big fan of the salary cap 'range' too.

My model would be.....

Clubs should have to pay a set minimum amount and payments are capped to a maximum. Everything about the base payment should be based on performance!!!

Clubs should have to find the minimum payment $ but the AFL should determine the criteria of who to and how much the performance based bonus' are and pay it using the $ they give clubs in TV moneys etc.

It should be a set criteria, largely weighted to player performance, BOTH ON AND OFF THE FIELD, but also including some team based aspects. I don't think it would work if the best team got the biggest bonus all the time, they already get that in sponsorship $.

This system would give every player incentive to perform to their best ALL the time and could in a round about way take tanking out of the picture. It could also take drunken punch-ups out of the picture, drink driving etc. The system would also include aspects that cater for players who do a lot of community service and game promotion etc.

In it's simplest form it would reward young players having a good first or second year giving them a well deserved BIG bonus (Selwood, Pendelbury etc.) and conversely seasoned players who are underperforming take home base payments (Whitnall, Yze etc.), and all players in between get what they have earned based on their performance.

Food for thought.?

Go Dees - Onward and Upward

[Rogue 585]

I think they should add that first round draft picks CANNOT be traded. That way the worst team gets, and has to use, the best pick. Just the way the draft system was set up for.

I think Clubs should be free to trade first round picks if they wish.

[deewag 22]

This is a bit of a bizarre solution, but the Dees and Carlton should do a deal with the AFL. Toss for the priority pick before the game and get that factor out of the game. Then get out there and bloody play football to win like its a Grand Final

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think Clubs should be free to trade first round picks if they wish.

Agree. These days very few clubs would trade a priority pick. It would have to be a monster deal to do so. I dont see what benefit restricting the use of the priority pick what do.

[Waltham33 409]

No priority picks - that is my answer. Tanking has less reward when you are only tanking for one pick as opposed to potentially two.

The NBA lottery system is great in theory, but wait to the day when we finish bottom and then ONLY end up with the 5th pick. We would be complaining for ever more.

[Demons 32 235]

No priority picks - that is my answer. Tanking has less reward when you are only tanking for one pick as opposed to potentially two.

The NBA lottery system is great in theory, but wait to the day when we finish bottom and then ONLY end up with the 5th pick. We would be complaining for ever more.

It is impossible for the worst team in the league to get that low of a pick, 4 is as low as you can go, and that is with 12 lottery teams, this would consist of of 4-6.

Therefore you would still end with a high top 3 pick regardless. You have the majority of the chance out of 1000 to get number 1.

You will find in past NBA drafts the team with the most chances usually gets top 2. Except for this year which massively pushed the Boston Celtics to number 4.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In order to maintain the evenness of the competition I think there are benefits in the lower performing clubs getting a leg up with PP. But only with certain safeguards. i think abolishing the PP altogether cruels the legitimate bottom ranked side.

The lottery system should reflect some bias in the system to ultimately support the lower rung club.

I saw a post from another poster that outlined the probabilities that favoured the lowest ranked team against other teams.

I think its important to remove the automatic entitlement to a PP just because you finish last. Its the automatic entitlement that creates the actual or perceived tanking environment.

If you put that entitlement at risk then you reduce the incentive for sides to tank.

[demonfanjezza 1]

I just hate this is idea of tanking to get a good draft pick

[Demon Disciple 11,031]

it definitely needs to come under review by the AFL, Carlton are clearly tanking and yet they get away with it.

I reckon that the priority system needs to be removed. Surely getting the first pick in draft is enough.

Round 22 will be very interesting, although i don't condone it, if Melbourne lose just for the sake of taking away Carlton's priority pick, some part of me will be content in the fact that we stuffed up Carlton's plans big time. Yes, i would take some heart from that

[Toad33 57]

Agree. These days very few clubs would trade a priority pick. It would have to be a monster deal to do so. I dont see what benefit restricting the use of the priority pick what do.

I am talking about NOT TRADING FIRST ROUND PICKS.

Thinking logically, the draft WON'T work they way it was set up to 'even out the competition' if clubs trade the picks they get.

I am all for trading player(s) for player(s) and second round and beyond draft picks; but if the AFL truely want the draft to do what it is designed to do then they should make sure that at least the first round is set in concrete at the end of round 22.

Think about why Hawthorn and the Kangaroos are where they are now. Because they, 'short shifted' the system and traded players for early draft picks.

Why have the system if it is not being used how it was designed to be used?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for doing whatever the system allows, but trading early draft picks is clearly compromising the system.

Go Dees - Onward and Upward.

[grazman 6,487]

Serve the boys all a very dodgy curry the night before!

[Jaded No More 58,264]

Serve the boys all a very dodgy curry the night before!

Can we fake 5-6 injuries, leaving us with only 17 on the ground?

That way we won't look pathetic or as if we're tanking when we lose.

If all else fails, the dodgy curry and a bottle of Vodka will work just as well! :D

[Geddy Lee 582]

I sure as hell don't want Pick #4, except Pavlich it's usually crap.