3 Free Lunches

[sharpie]

This is such bull****. Richmond get rewarded for being abolutely ****house not once, not twice, but 3 times.

They get the first pick in the draft for winning the wooden spoon (and it really does seem like it is winning the way they are coming out of this year's trade/draft periods). This is fair enough.

They get the top bonus draft pick for being incompetent and having an incompetent coach. This is debatable whether this is a good system at the moment. I am all for extra priority picks, but not through the current system. It should be based on performances over a few seasons. Just look at Melbourne - last year less than 5 wins, this year finished 5th after h&a without the help of the players taken with priority picks, and played finals 2 years ago. They were not deserving of a priority pick, they only had one pathetic season sandwiched between 2 competitive ones. The priority picks should be reserved for basket-cases - at least the bulldogs last year and richmond this year are worthy recipients.

On top of these hand outs, they can hold every club to ransom during trade week knowing that they get the pick of the best out of contract player in the december draft for free. So out of this, they get the pick of the youngsters in that draft and then the pick of the established players. 3 ready-made champions. and it costs them NOTHING.

I dont think this is good for the game. I dont think that st kilda's sudden rise up the ladder on the back of many year's inadequacies is good for football. It has not been on the back of good anything other than good draft picks, and lots of them. Geelong has done much the same. Instead of giving the bottom sides a huge leg-up to the top, the draft/trade week should be trying to lift those sides from bottom to mid-table, and reward the mid-table sides somehow better for consistency, whereas at the moment the mid-range teams get virtually no assistance at all.

One way I think it could be done is a lottery system that randomly allocates the draft picks in the december draft for uncontracted players. And only announcing the order after the trade week has fininshed. This would force richmond to find a deal with freo for simmonds instead of just sitting on their hands knowing they get him for free anyway. why would they want to make a trade and thus have to give up something for him?

I was always told there is no such thing as a free lunch. Now I'm confused.

[cruiser]

I tend to agree with your sentiment. Likewise I am not sure about the fairness in this football "socialism" for teams like Sydney. It seems very unfair that a club like Richmond, who have performed disgracefully on the field, on the terraces and in the club, are "rewarded" at the end of the year like this.

[NMWBloods]

I think the priority pick should reflect say only 10-11 wins in 2 seasons (or maybe 15-17 in 3 seasons).

The first pick is fair for Richmond, as is their ability to gain an early pick from Ottens. I don't see how either of these are 'free lunches'.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think the priority pick should reflect say only 10-11 wins in 2 seasons (or maybe 15-17 in 3 seasons).

The first pick is fair for Richmond, as is their ability to gain an early pick from Ottens. I don't see how either of these are 'free lunches'.

firstly, no offense, but from someone who always gets on his high horse when someone else takes something he wrote in his posts out of context, im suprised you dont read other people's posts more closely before commenting like you have above.

i said that richmond getting the first pick is fair enough.

i never commented on richmond's ability to gain an early draft pick from ottens.

what i said is that the priority picks give some teams a very unfair leg-up, such as Melbourne last year, while others like Richmond and the bulldogs recently have probably deserved them for multiple crap seasons.

also, i said it was unfair that richmond not only get their two high draft picks but also 1st pick in the december draft, as it means they can willfully stifle trades knowing that they get a good established player if he is uncontracted after this week, and dont have to give anything up for him.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
firstly, no offense, but from someone who always gets on his high horse when someone else takes something he wrote in his posts out of context, im suprised you dont read other people's posts more closely before commenting like you have above.

Fair comment - I did only skim-read what you wrote (there was a lot of it) but I did take my cue from the heading, which says 3 free lunches!

i said that richmond getting the first pick is fair enough.

i never commented on richmond's ability to gain an early draft pick from ottens.

However, you did say "On top of these hand outs, they can hold every club to ransom during trade week knowing that they get the pick of the best out of contract player in the december draft for free. So out of this, they get the pick of the youngsters in that draft and then the pick of the established players. 3 ready-made champions. and it costs them NOTHING."

which tends to suggest that the first draft pick is a handout and the early draft pick from Ottens is somehow unfair and costs them nothing.

what i said is that the priority picks give some teams a very unfair leg-up, such as Melbourne last year, while others like Richmond and the bulldogs recently have probably deserved them for multiple crap seasons.

And I agreed with this part.

also, i said it was unfair that richmond not only get their two high draft picks but also 1st pick in the december draft, as it means they can willfully stifle trades knowing that they get a good established player if he is uncontracted after this week, and dont have to give anything up for him.

But see, this is a part I commented on - I don't see why this is unfair. They are giving up Ottens to get this draft pick, so it's hardly nothing.

I'm a bit confused about which parts you see as unfair, besides the priority pick.

[sharpie]

One other thing:

in this current system, there is far too much incentive for mid-ladder teams to aim low and happily have a really bad season here and there so that they can keep up a healthy supply of top quality youngsters.

In ever single aspect of life there should NEVER be incentive to be average, or, worse still, to be pathetic.

This current drafting/trading system is heading a bit far towards rewarding downright hopelessness. The system needs to change.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]Fair comment - I did only skim-read what you wrote (there was a lot of it) but I did take my cue from the heading, which says 3 free lunches!


However, you did say "On top of these hand outs, they can hold every club to ransom during trade week knowing that they get the pick of the best out of contract player in the december draft for free. So out of this, they get the pick of the youngsters in that draft and then the pick of the established players. 3 ready-made champions. and it costs them NOTHING."

which tends to suggest that the first draft pick is a handout and the early draft pick from Ottens is somehow unfair and costs them nothing.

But see, this is a part I commented on - I don't see why this is unfair. They are giving up Ottens to get this draft pick, so it's hardly nothing.

I'm a bit confused about which parts you see as unfair, besides the priority pick.

I cant be bothered splitting up the quotes, but:

3 free lunches, maybe not, but a good way to get your attention. It worked on you!

sorry about the confusion about holding clubs to ransom. i actually wasnt referring to ottens at all. it is the simmonds deal that i am angry about. Simmonds would happily go to richmond if they agreed on a trade. But why would richmond want to give up anything in return for him knowing they get him for free by waiting until the december draft. Richmond are holding freo to ransom, and there is probably a roll-on effect that stifles further trading. So in addition to getting 2 of the best youngsters in the country, they also get an established star. 3 players who are all more than likely going to help make this team competitive. And they are giving up absolutely NOTHING to get them. They earned the first pick in the national draft. The other two should be re-assessed.

as for the ottens deal, that's entirely up to richmond. he is their player, they can ask for whatever they like in return for his services. it then comes down to negotiation. every club can do this, no matter where they finish on the ladder. it has nothing to do with what im angry about.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
I cant be bothered splitting up the quotes, but:

3 free lunches, maybe not, but a good way to get your attention. It worked on you!

Very clever journalistic endeavour by you!!

sorry about the confusion about holding clubs to ransom. i actually wasnt referring to ottens at all. it is the simmonds deal that i am angry about. Simmonds would happily go to richmond if they agreed on a trade. But why would richmond want to give up anything in return for him knowing they get him for free by waiting until the december draft. Richmond are holding freo to ransom, and there is probably a roll-on effect that stifles further trading. So in addition to getting 2 of the best youngsters in the country, they also get an established star. 3 players who are all more than likely going to help make this team competitive. And they are giving up absolutely NOTHING to get them. They earned the first pick in the national draft. The other two should be re-assessed.

Ah, I see now. Yes, I can understand your comment now that I see it is in reference to Simmonds and the PSD.

[dendol]

a draft lottery will fix this whole mess up! Bottom 4 teams go into a lottery for picks 1-4, and the priority picks are done over at least 2 seasons. Its so easy, but the AFL refuse to give it consideration.

[Mike_B]

I've never really thought about the PSD till now, but it has brought up a very important point.

Of the 3 free lunches, I think most are in agreement the priority pick system needs a review. I also agree with a lottery for draft picks, but am torn between a lottery on the national draft or the PSD (only one should have a lottery). The national draft is a bit of a lottery already (no form at senior level to base things on) so I'm probably more inclined to have a lottery for the PSD so there is no double benefit in finishing at the bottom, particularly when some quality players might be available in the PSD.

Thoughts?

[NMWBloods]

Makes perfect sense to me!!