u cant possibly exaggerate the theft that gcs got from the afl,our academy is rubbish has when a gun comes, we basically cant get him,almost inpossible,no discount should apply at all plus a limit of 2 academy players per year for any club.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Father Son Rule Change
- Thread starter tigerlove
- Start date
remember its not possible for richmond to do what gcs did,and thats grossly unfair.
Yeah I showed in another thread the theft they got away, not only did they gain by being able to sell higher draft picks for lower ones (I don't actually have a problem with them doing this), but they then get to use those lower picks (which they essentially bought for a discount because of the premium applied by the purchasing club for the higher picks) and match a further discounted price. It was something like a points gain across both of 3,600 points, 20% more than the number 1 draft pick. It was an outrageous outcome.
The 1st part I don't have a problem with as it provides opportunities for the other 17 clubs to get higher up the draft board and get players they previously didn't have access to, but its the discount that gets me. As I mentioned there should be a weighted and growing premium applied for the ability to match.
As long as the changes dont screw our ability to score big from our raft of late picks, I'll be happy
Yes what if. Sure in the unlikely scenario we finish 4th on the ladder and son is top 5 it would be a sweet deal. Previously you could stack later picks and keep your 15. The benefit is getting diluted over time.
Pickett is 32yo. Argument of many is the father-son. Have discussed many times why at this point in time you'd play a youngster on the wing over a slowing, mistake-riddled 32yo. Saying that Kmac goes first. He's struggling far worse. Right now a lot of injuries but as we get players back they should be replaced.
No, you have to use your next pick after the bid. You'd have to trade 15 in that scenario or it'd have to be used to match the bid.
Ok fair enough, so you could still trade it out for later picks or a pretty good player and still get the father - son? New rules, the incentive is much lower, particularly if you finish low on the ladder. Seems to me to favour stronger performing clubs. But let's face it, the chance of Pickett's kids being gun 1st round picks is extremely unlikely and gain in draft, the way it is being diluted even further, is minimal.
Out of interest our laat 2 father sons to play at least 100 games were Joel Bowden 1995 and Richo 1992. Since then Nick Jewell 1 game, Tom Roach 11, Patrick Naish 9, Maurice Rioli 32.
Here's a question, 17 games to the end of season, 16 games to get to his 100. If Pickett doesn't play 16 due to injury or court case, which is a high possibility (hasn't played a full season any year) then does he go around again as a 33yo?
Yes.
It can go either way. Eg. this year Adelaide has Tyler Welsh as a f/son. He's a first-round talent, possibly top-10, but probably not top-5. So if they finish bottom 5 they get to use their first pick on another kid and match Welsh with later picks.
Marlion Jr is 14 this year. He plays at Blair Hartley's junior club. I imagine we have a pretty good idea if he is shaping to have a shot. Latrell kicked 8 goals in 15 minutes a year or two back, I imagine we're following him closely.
The gain is you know what you're getting. Look at Brisbane: knowing they were getting two gun f/son mids in the Ashcrofts, they could pick highly talented flankers Wilmot and Lohmann. They also get professional development earlier than other kids.
What way is it being diluted, out of interest?
It's a good question. He's only missed 12 games since his debut and half of those were due to suspension. So he's pretty durable. He might have a trigger clause in his contract (he did last year) that if he plays a certain number of games he gets another year. I would keep him on. We're losing a lot of experience anyway, and he won't be an old 33 (i.e. physically he'll still be up to the task). KMac goes first, for me. Plus Grimes, Prestia, maybe Dusty, maybe Bakes, maybe Graham. That's a *smile* sh!t-ton of experience as it is. (and with the team gutted this year, it's also why Marlion will get picked every week.)
As I said, Blair is in the box seat to know if it's worth getting him to 100, and is the man to decide if he'll get the chance if he doesn't get there this year.
Diluted as in comparing current rules with what they want to bring in. Using your example, Welsh, yes as rules currently are, use their top pick for someone else if they have a top 5 but if another team then bids Welsh at say 8, Adelaide have to have another 1st rounder to get him under changed rules. They currently don't and to try and get one is costly. So the risk is now alot greater, you're not getting the same benefit cost-wise so father-son no longer as exciting prospect.
Yes we will be losing a lot of experience. I don't see that as a reason to keep someone another year under-performing and out of contract unless there's an almost guaranteed benefit and I think it's a clutch, really in the scheme of things there haven't been that many gun father-son over time. I'm just not a fan of the philosophy of rewarding mediocrity particularly now when it's so important now to blood the youngsters (already 2 years too late).
Anyhow it will be interesting. But I' ll spew if our 2 wingers next year are still KMac & Pickett yet we lose Baker, Rioli and Dusty.
Who says that's what the change will be?
I think you're overreacting to Pickett's (often glaring) mistakes and not seeing the good he does. He's still comfortably in our best 22. PRE Player of the Year (the best, most accurate and prestigious award in football) voting has seen him get a stack of votes in R0, a few in R1, none in R2, plenty in the R3 win over Sydney, none in R4, none in R5. So in half our games somewhere between a few to half of voters had him in our best 5.
I agree that only one of Pickett and KMac should be playing next year. On the ones we're losing though, we might not have a choice with Bakes and Dusty.
I don't think I am over reacting. Directly cost 3 goals last week, a trend that is far too common. Yes he is top 22 atm, that's a reflection on our development program, partly understandable due to the glory years. It's now about developing the youngsters, not playing average 32yo's. If he was a leader, maybe, but I don't think he has ever been in the leadership group.
The potential changes to rules have been reported as per my original post.
The potential changes to rules have been speculated about. That's it.
Strange point of view. Dusty retires, ta muchly for all the good times. Bakes gets a god father offer to go back to W.A. n we get fair value for him in the trade. Sausage for whatever reason decides he's jack of living in Smelbourne, pleads to be released from his contract and we again get fair value for another player who no longer wants to play for us. Some of this *smile* does happen sometimes and the only option is to suck it up n make the best of the unpleasantness.
So now you're going to be pissed off because KMac n Foosh are still playing for us??? Pissed off at the two mature players who we'll more than likely need for seniority n leadership around the team? Pissed off at the club for being unable to lock in your preferred players?? Pissed off at the players who helped to give us so much premiership joy but now want to move on or adjust n improve their lives and future???
Maybe the trigger clause should be that if he has a certain amount of sex, he gets another year in his contract.
If you look at what's happened at the dogs, it's almost like the club was supplying its list with condoms, but poking holes in them before they handed them out!
