I can imagine the quandary it would put the list manager in if Zaharakis tried to play hardball over dollars.
Poor guy must be losing sleep over it.
2 Likes
ONE. GAME.
I just want to go into my argument in a bit more detail. Iâm also going to say where Iâm coming from, which to you HAP will probably be no surprise as youâve also been on this site for a long time.
##List building historically
In the old days of the late nineties and first decade of the new millennium, there were a few ways to go about a rebuild.
- Sell âassetsâ, finish low (often with priority picks), trade in for the finishing bit of the puzzle as needed. Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood, Bulldogs (of 2000âs) and WCE (partially) all implemented. Needs good to very good drafting, trading and development. Selling assets was sometimes voluntary (Hawthorn, St Kilda, Collingwood), and sometimes it was involuntary (Geelong, WCE). It always helped if you had someone willing to be an idiot on the other side of the trade.
- Trading in players, many of whom are preferably underpriced. Sydney and Hawthorn did this, but are really the only teams to have successfully implemented. Of course, when this merry go round stops you often have a big crash.
- Get very lucky with father-son picks. More of a complementary approach usually, but boy did Geelong benefit from this. Now days this is of course also covering academy picks.
- Just draft absolutely brilliantly, with no other benefits. No club used this approach on its own.
Options 3 and 4 are most likely to be complimentary, rather than individual strategies, with the possible exception in the future with the northern clubsâ academies.
######(BTW, when did blood and âyâ become a swear word to filter???
##Post-18 team world
The post-18 team world has changed. Priority picks are virtually gone. 18 teams mean second and third round picks have less value, further accentuated by the fact academy picks push them further out. Free agency, our saga, and GWSâs surplus of talent has all led to players often getting far less in trade value than they used to. The exact nature of rebuilding is still being assessed. I think it is riskier than it used to be, with better odds that a re-build just wonât have any effect.
Of the approaches above, the easiest most obvious route (#1), is now significantly diluted. Whereas once upon a time two bad years near the bottom and trading out a key player (or two) could net you 7 (Collingwood) or even 10 (Hawthorn)
top 30 picks, that is usually a lot harder. It is still possible, Brisbane have 7 from the last two years. However, whereas Collingwood had 4 top 10 picks and Hawthorn 5, Brisbane only had 2.
As the old method reduces in effectiveness, this in conjunction is pushing more emphasis on building through the trade period. Especially with GWSâs cast offs. The effectiveness is still uncertain. Bulldogs are really the only âpost-18â team world to win a premiership. They benefited from very strong drafting, fantastic luck with F/S just before the rules changed, trading out assets (Griffen & Cooney) and smart âpurchasesâ (Crameri, Suckling, Biggs, Boyd), and a few low finishes getting draft picks well used. So no single approach, a mixed amalgam where they didnât really stuff up anything. And finished 7th, and arguably got the premiership on the back of their best acquisition - their coach.
The other teams to commit rebuilds post-18 are Melbourne and St Kilda. Others have âre-setâ (Port, Richmond) or are still so little into their rebuild (Carlton, Freo, North) that there arenât any lessons to learn. Looking at Melbourne and St Kilda, the efficacy of their approaches is still uncertain. St Kilda probably are looking more to 2019 anyway given they have two 1st round picks this year, but have generally used a combination of good trades to push their rebuild. Melbourne have done the same. Tyson, Hibberd, Melksham, Vince, Lewis, Bruce, Steele, Carlisle, Freeman, Stevens, Membrey have all been brought in to supplement drafting with low picks. Weâll see the impact.
What I suspect is:
- Unless a team is willing to do a ~4 year rebuild in the bottom 4 playing rubbish and get priority picks, you have to use free agency and trades to fill the hole from less picks than historical.
- A team will have to time its âriseâ right. You need a base of talent, a good reputation, and salary cap space to attract talent at the right time.
- Drafting is still absolutely vital.
- Trading for multiple picks/players and nailing them will become more important. So deals like St Kildaâs with Hawthorn, Melbourneâs with Suns and Giants, may be the way forward.
- When attracting players, top end talent will (mostly) only go to lists at the top or seen as improving. Older players will move for premiership shots (so same targets) or certain game time, depending on ability. Youngsters will generally want a team who will go places, but currently has best 22 list spots for game time.
- With the dilution of talent via less priority picks and more teams, rebuilding will be harder unless you nail everything. But teams who do achieve it, should be able to stay at the top longer. Dynasties will be easier.
##Implications for Essendon
So why have I rambled on about all this? I suppose to say that I think getting a rebuild right is becoming much harder, and nailing it is trickier. And I think timing is critical.
In my view, our list may need to rebuild. But it may not. Although the loss of draft picks and reduced âsaleâ value during the saga hurts us (hugely) it does mean weâve taken a number of picks during a short period. And it looks like we may have nailed later picks with Hartley, Ambrose, Fantasia, Walla, Brown.
I see two scenarios for the list:
- Weâre actually ârisingâ now, and that while the older players are still capable of elite football there is an opportunity to pinch a premiership. This would also establish us as a place for FA/young players to come, and the transitioning out of older players and mid-tier players would show there are list spots to come to. In this case we should be going for it now to both attract other clubâs players and utilise Goddard/Watson/Stanton while theyâre still top players.
- Weâre not close enough, need more picks, and the kids are still 3-5 years away. In which case getting anything out of the older players is pointless since they wonât be around, and even players like Hooker/Hurley will be moving into age groups where they may start declining. In which case weâre still in a âfinish low, draft playersâ and attract young talent stage. In this scenario then playing older players and keeping mid-level depth actually hurts us as it means we may finish higher, have less list spots for youngsters, and are less attractive for young talent who want a pretty certain best 22 berth.
HAP, you appear to be arguing weâre in position #2. And Iâm arguing - we donât know. I think we could actually be in #1, and using that and our (reputed) cap space to get in more talent is the way to go. If we are in scenario 1, then we want to finish higher to attract more talent (or win the whole thing). We do not want to be perceived as stuffing returning players around. If weâre in Scenario 2, we should be absolutely be doing what youâre suggesting and prioritise development and the future over wins (I would call this tanking, and be fine with it. But I gather some are sensitive to the word 
).
##So where are we?
I look at the list, and there is a lot of uncertainty due to 2016, and just generally where the list is at. The issues I see are:
- What level are the older players at, and how long will they still be top class? I mean Goddard, Watson, Stanton and Bags.
- Will there be permanent effects of the year off for other players? How will Hurley, Hooker, Colyer, Heppell, Myers deal with the 2017 AFL playing style, and the year off?
- How good was our 2014-2016 drafting? Do we have the core of a new talent base with Langford, Laverde, Francis, Parish, McGrath, Begley, Redman, McKenna, etc? If we do, then we donât need to prioritise finishing low. If we donât, we absolutely must.
- How will second year players Hartley, Walla, Brown, and players who have just âreached AFL levelâ in Parish, Ambrose, Francis, Dea continue
- Will the long-term injured players Myers and Belly get back to their best and over injuries? And yes, I think this is pretty important from list structure discussions.
- How good, or not, will Green and Stewart be after being released from other clubs?
On paper, I can see a pretty solid list. We have key positions players who vary from âgoodâ to âtopâ level at both ends, depth, and generally a pretty good age distribution. Weâre weakest in the ruck, but if Belly and Leuy are fit and firing it is nowhere near a weakness. The small forwards potential is high. The small backs are serviceable, with hopes a few may step up to more than that.
Midfield is strong IF Parish develops fast, and Goddard, Stanton and Watson stay strong. If Langford/Laverde/Mutch/McGrath can move in there, or Begley/Redman develop to release Walla and Fantasia into the middle with better engines. With a (fit) Myers, Bird, we have some depth as well.
If all that happens, even with a decline in the oldest players, we could be fine and challenging soon. Especially if we can use free agency to smooth over their transition. The faster rust is removed and players get to speed with the game plan the better of course.
So, I donât think we should be giving up on Scenario #1 quite yet and going all in on development. Not at least until half way through the season, when we should be re-evaluating. Which is why Iâm against your wholesale play the kids approach.
There is also one final element in the decision. I said in 2015 we should rebuild, and trade out some quality. I questioned last year in the mammoth thread you missed on if getting ALL the banned players back if doing so was the right approach. But we did neither. Which means we do have all these players back. Presumably that was on the back of telling them we had a good list, and were going to give it a crack. Would it be fair now to go back on that promise? I personally donât think so. This supports my view we should be going for it, until (if) it becomes obvious in 2017 that the list isnât strong enough and needs to focus on development.
16 Likes
Two slight corrections.
- I forgot to add Kelly to that group of older but currently first class players.
- My point on second year players appears unfinished. I was saying that guys like Walla, Hartley, Brown may find it tougher now they get attention. And similarly guys who appeared to get to the required level (or be on the cusp) such as Fantasia, Parish, and Ambrose will similarly start being tested more, and have to continue to progress.
1 Like
Good post, Ants.
I donât think weâre in either of your positions Ants. In fact, I donât think that dichotomy exists. We are where we are, we have to work out where we realistically sit and make decisions accordingly.
Which leads into your question about not being able to act because âhow do we knowâ how good we are. Of course someone has to appraise that and make that decision. This thread is about planning the medium term, so of course Iâm making a call on where I think we are. You may disagree. Thatâs fine.
So what do people think? Will we able to win a/many finals with most of the Watson/Goddard age group intact? Will we win finals with the Hocking/Myers age group? Or is it the Heppell-and-younger guys?
My main thrust is that we also need to make that decision, so there we agree.
But I donât think you can find out where you are going half-pace and focussing on developing. You need to give it a crack to learn where you are, who is up to it, who has what weaknesses. Especially given a big element is how those mature players have come back. If it turns out weâre well off the pace after round 12, fine, change the focus. But if you go development, play the older players in the VFL, play kids for development sake even if theyâre not ready, you have no chance of finding out if weâre actually good enough now. I also think youâre breaking our word to the returnning players.
3 Likes
Fark Carlton played well in the rainâŚjust sayin
Half a year playing Hocking and dudes like this if weâre losing? Yikes.
If its obvious weâre off the pace earlier, then pull the plug on winning earlier. But currently weâre 2:1, and if it hadnât been wet weâd probably be 3:0. A little early to be pulling the plug surely?
In our 2 wins it was the younger players that kept us in it then won it for us.
was our word to the players really there to be given?
IMO if we didnât have the saga our window closes last year or this year. instead we got the saga our list got set back 3 years, players got mentally fatigued and a year off footy may not have solved that. Also in that year off the game changed a lot. I donât think those returning players couldâve coped with the change, especially since so many of them are not known for their speed.
1 Like
look at the formline
Brisbane. Almost lost to GC.
Hawthorn. Actually lost to GC.
And Carlton.
We are the team that finished last, we play the other 5 shittest teams twice. so we make the 8 this year, when we get given a harder draw we probably fall out of it.
Just watch erryone here be up and about after round 5 or 6 then we play Freo over there, Geelong, WCE, Richmond, GWS. Lucky to win one of those IMO.
âOh turns out none of our B graders from 2-3 years ago have gotten better with a year off. Who knew?â
Super predictable.
1 Like
waiting on 3-4 special someones to come in and call us â â â â fans.
1 Like
Weâll have another top 10 pick this year.
Lock it in
Given I think GC will be challenging for the eight and has one of the best young spines in the business, thatâs not much of an argument.
Given I think Freo will finish bottom 4, and I donât rate Richmond, I guess I see things differently to you.
But lets be honest here - you donât care about our win/loss record. Because youâre ignoring it. And even by your criteria, we havenât really faced any âtestsâ yet. You want us to start tanking and developing regardless. Thatâs fine - but own up to it. Donât go arguing " We are where we are, we have to work out where we realistically sit and make decisions accordingly", and then go, heh, we havenât beaten anyone good yet, but lets start developing anyway. Especially when we would expect ourselves to be most rusty at the beginning of the year and a slow starter. No, we may not have faced any tests yet, have won 2 of 3, but lets throw in the towel!
Iâve also got these things called eyes. I use them to appraise where I think weâre at.
I have no idea what we told the returning players. But I find it hard to believe we had all but one re-sign with us if that isnât what we were saying. I personally argued last year that if one of Hooker/Hurley left and we got a top 5 (would have been pick #2) from it, and a couple of Myers/Howlett/Hocking left (picks #22 or #40) it wouldnât have been the end of the world. My priorities for re-signing was Heppell, Colyer and one of Hurley/Hooker (and Myers until I learned it was a three year deal). But we didnât, we signed them all except Pears and Hibberd.
Now, if we said, look guys itâs going to be a rebuilding year and youngsters will have priority, fine. I would still say we should go for it (for now), but that particular argument goes away. On the other hand, if we told them weâre going for broke in 2017 and if youâre best 22 youâre in the side, and they signed up on that basis, then turning around 3 rounds into the season and going âguys, I know weâve won everything in the dry so far, but weâre going to focus on youth right nowâ, well I think that is out of line.
If we look at the year and go, hmm, you know even with the wins weâre still nowhere near then fine, we move into 2018 rebuilding. It would also depend though on other factors - if our youngsters won the VFL you might say, ok, keep going but bring in more youth. Or a third option is to try and trade for what we identify as missing. But I think this is going to be a bunfight for the eight, so if we made it I think it would probably indicate the list is in a good spot.
But my main point is that we should be trying to win to establish where the list is at. If weâre good enough to make the eight, great. If we identify after 5 rounds or 15 rounds that weâre not good enough and shift focus, fine. In my view, we need to go for it to establish where this list is at. I challenge anyone to know right now with so much unproven or uncertain about the list.
I hope not. I disagree with the point of view that we should focus on development now, but its hardly a terrible argument. And contrary views should be welcome as long as theyâre politely worded, starts a good debate.
So what youâre actually saying is you think weâre crap, and weâre going the wrong way about getting out of that. Cool.
Iâm not sure where weâre at, but Iâm leaning towards you being wrong.
Out of curiousity, if you donât think either of my scenarios of where we sit are correct, but based on your eyes you do have a view where we do sit ⌠where do you think we sit?