Tom Rockliff

[barnz]

Joe?

[Serenity_Now]

Rockliff to Essendon confirmed!

[Deckham]

Jeez mate; no.

Bottom team gets pick 1, and pick 18. Second-bottom team gets pick 2, and pick 17. Third-bottom team gets pick 3, and pick 16. Fourth-bottom team gets pick 4, and pick 15. The top 4 teams don’t get any picks till their normal second round picks.

If the bottom four teams want the better of the top-4 team’s first round picks, they gotta try to do better than the other three. But whoever actually finishes bottom despite this (mild?) incentive, still gets pick 1.

It will get the bottom teams up faster (by giving them an extra first round pick), while also bringing the top teams down.

So the bottom team gives pick 1 to…

nah, just joking mate haha.
Thanks for clarifying it

[Ants]

I kinda like that idea (even though it seems to be in the wrong thread). It’s not just a problem that the bottom teams stay down for too long, but also the top teams seem to stay up for too long too. Maybe the top-4’s first round picks get given to the bottom-4, in reverse order to give some incentive to the bottom-4 not to tank.

The problem with this is that it might be fair for the premiership team, but for the rest of the top 4 it is going to cause howls. Its one thing if they’re a Sydney/Hawthorn/Geelong that have been up for years. But if (say) Richmond made a preliminary final this year, or the two years North made it, or if last year Bulldogs had lost to Sydney, none of those teams were strong enough that they should be stripped of picks.

Obviously if someone wins, then they don’t need one, but one pick isn’t making that much difference. And smooths out the bottoming out process potentially.

Crazy Vossy endorses these ideas. So he can go for a high risk trading strategy, and if it doesn’t work out, just shrug the shoulders, and hold out his hand to the AFL for a draft pick bail-out?

Why are people endorsing a system without consequences?

Because its damn hard to win a premiership, and the reality is you can do a lot of things right and still spend years in the wilderness. Especially if you’ve got structural disadvantages like Brisbane do. To reduce the time spent rebuilding, which keeps fan engagement/hopes up as well, improves the quality for every AFL fan whose team doesn’t happen to be a superpower at that point in time. We (fans) all live on hope, a system that removes it is not as good.

That sometimes teams were partly to blame for their current predicament shouldn’t cause us to say, well stuff their fans for a decade, your crazy Vossy got you there and its your own fault. I’m personally fine with giving them a little hope back.

[Ants]

The pre-first round priority picks haven’t been removed. It’s just that no one has clear rules on how to get one.

Personally, I think the solution is different. The problem with giving high priority picks is it is a long term solution to a short term problem. The AFL want a quicker solution.

GWS were given the ability to trade access to 4 underage guns… O’Meara, etc. to allow them to be competitive sooner. The AFL ■■■■■■ up though allowing clubs to trade picks. They should give a club like Bris, this ability to trade access to the best underage kid going around, but only allowing them to receive players in return. Thus providing them a massive bargaining chip to trade in a mature quality player that can make an immediate impact the following year. Plus of course they’ll still have pick 1 to help with their longer term success.

They may exist, but whereas there was probably once upon a time (on average) a couple a year, they are now doled out about once in a decade. So the reality is that they all but don’t exist.

Personally, I think priority picks are fine. Fans are ok with their club being rubbish if they can see hope. Two top 5 picks is a big dose of hope, and usually you then get to see them play the next year and start developing. Additional top 5 picks will also often be much better for the chances of winning a premiership over mid-tier talent.

As to your idea, I just can’t see it working. When has any club given up a player worth a top 5 pick voluntarily? You would have to go back to the St Kilda clear out which included Wakelin or Hawthorn and Croad/Rawlings (pick #1, pick #6) I believe. Every other one I can think of was either a lesser pick (Hay, Thompson, Everitt, Tarrant, Moloney, Lovett) or the original club would have preferred to keep the player, and was forced into the trade. So my suspicion is that the players given up would be of lesser quality, more in the Tuohy level. A player like that isn’t going to solve a bottom clubs problems, and may make it worse if instead of finishing last they finish 4th last. As such, I don’t think this solution works, although it wasn’t a bad idea.

[Reboot]

Discount, posted in wrong thread.

Too many tabs open.

[barnz]

Your reputation is shot.

[Reboot]

Your reputation is shot.

Again!

[IceTemple]

Your reputation is shot.

Actually he went up in my estimation.

[chester]

Yeah, by “top-4” I was really thinking about those teams who finished top-4 after the H&A season and are therefore given the extra chance in the finals. I reckon teams would still want to make the top-4 to get the significant advantage in winning the flag, even if it means they will lose a first-round pick. And if they don’t win the flag after being given (earning) the double chance, they only have themselves to blame.

Just shooting the breeze here though.

[Serenity_Now]

We get Rockliff at a discount!?!

YES!

[Reboot]

Lol

[samwoods]

Lol

… and we have a chuckle about it.

AWESOME!

[Aceman]

Obviously out of the loop currently but before I left I know Adelaide were very keen on him.

[Stallion]

If the Brisbane midfield can stat healthy they’ve got the making of a good team. I wouldn’t rate our chances of success much higher than theirs ATM.

We are miles ahead of them.

They are bottom of the ladder and we are competing strongly with top 4 sides.

They’ve also got to deal with player retention issues and wouldnt go remotely close to the lure we have for players to come to us.

I do wonder what wonderful

[Speedy_Gonzales]

HS article saying Crows are right into him

[Clone_Hirdy_Lid_Off]

Crows can’t get him and Gibbs.

[Speedy_Gonzales]

Crows can’t get him and Gibbs.

Gibbs cost too much vs Rocky cost zilch as FA

[Nocturnal]

They need help for Sloan.

Probably hedging their bets with Gibbs should he decide to stay.

[yaco55]

Effectively Rockliff replaces Thompson.