Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[BloodySwan]

Last I checked, Parker, JPK, Rampe, Mills, Heeney and Lloyd weren't all on million dollar contracts.

This conversation is getting very 'woe is me' though, and is detracting from the discussion at hand.

Let's leave it there, as bringing Danger into this conversation hasn't really added anything to the convo - and is just going off on a different tangent.

Happy to leave it there. I mean I showed you why you're wrong and your counterargument? Just ignore it.

 

[Colonial]

You can cherry pick late draft steals at any club. Like how did North get Todd Goldstein at Pick 37? What a powerhouse!

The regular priority pick Academy talent in addition to Jordan Dawson types is where the Swans have the edge over the rest.

An automatic home ground GF gives clubs an edge too.

 

[Punts]

Rampe was also rookie pick at 37

 

[Tedeski]

Tom McCartin

30

Tom Mccartin

Age

25

Ht

194cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.3

2star

K

5.6

2star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.7

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

129.5

2star

D

7.2

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

2.8

2star

M

3.2

3star

T

0.8

1star

MG

87.4

2star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.0

4star

MG

168.0

3star

pick 33 from Geelong Falcons.
Hayden McLean

2

Hayden Mclean

Age

25

Ht

197cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.1

2star

K

5.1

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

4.0

5star

G

0.4

3star

D

7.5

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.3

4star

G

0.8

4star

D

10.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.6

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

4.4

5star

G

0.2

3star

? Mid season draft.
Am I missing something?
This is too funny.

 

[Tedeski]

You can cherry pick late draft steals at any club. Like how did North get Todd Goldstein at Pick 37? What a powerhouse!

The regular priority pick Academy talent in addition to Jordan Dawson types is where the Swans have the edge over the rest.

You think?
So not development of such player into your system & winning gameplan?

 

[Tedeski]

Rampe was also rookie pick at 37

Another advantage Punts.
What a rort.
My god he climbs goal posts as a bonus.
We didn't think he could do that as a pick 37 rookie.
Handed to us!

 

[mtooler]

If I was Gil and said you can keep your academies as is with the following updates:
- removal of the discount
- you can only match with points from your next available pick, otherwise you go into a deficit for next year.

would you be happy?

As long as same applies to father/son.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I just find it nauseating when the media gushes about their rebuild or the fact they rarely miss finals.

Pretty hard to stay sh*t when you get a top end priority pick every couple of years.

Otherwise I can understand the AFL's desire to grow the game in NSW.

Carlton have managed it.

 

[mtooler]

Gonna post this for the umpteenth time in this thread:



I'm actually fine with academies - it just needs to be changed to mirror NGA's moving forward and an open first round, in order to prevent double dipping with Top 20 selections. Most reasonable people agree with this (including the OP), I don't why some of you are so hell-bent on trying to prove that you should be able to use discounted points to pick up your own highly rated kid, plus another on top for free - that's what makes little sense to me.

No academy points in first round, it's really that simple.

************************************************

On reviewing the thread every few days and seeing the recycled arguments that seem to get put forward, I have to say, I think it's really disingenuous to start bringing in every inequality that Sydney faces, to use as some sort of measuring stick for how we should approach the drafting system.

No-one is arguing that academies aren't good for the game (at least most aren't), but the argument that 'we invested in it therefore we should be guaranteed it' - is absolute horsesh*t to be honest.

I've said it multiple times, and engaged in interesting discussion, however, I haven't seen one person here admit that the current system essentially allows Northern clubs to bypass the draft entirely, and select their player without using their actual pick.

The biggest thing that can ever happen, is that they somehow go into deficit, at which point, they always have future picks which alleviate the point losses in the next draft. They'll always get their player - and many have actually said the quiet part out loud by saying 'we invested in them, so we want a return on our investment.'

There is no need for these players to be in the draft, because you're getting them for a whole bunch of nothing picks by accumulating value on those picks when you lump them all together - and you get your 20% discount on top. When this happens, you then of course get to draft your own player, giving you a first round draftee, plus your own 1st round draftee from the academy.

No-one knows where someone will get drafted exactly, but it should be incumbent on a club to use their first round pick, to draft their player from the academy who is rated around that mark by other clubs OR draft a different player with your first round pick - because you prefer them instead.

As I have said MULTIPLE times, you may have invested in Campbell, but you sure as hell didn't invest in McDonald. You don't deserve both, just because the system allows you to have both by 'getting ahead' of the bid. That's the problem, that's what needs to be fixed.

Invest in your academy players, but use your draft collateral to pick them up and get your return on your investment - at least for kids touted as possible first round draftees.

There's no need to bring in any other issues, as this should be the same and extended across the board to Father/Sons, NGA's and Northern Academies. The rules shouldn't just change for some but not for all, as it just opens up a whole new can of worms, wherein clubs who had planned on drafting NGA's that they had put their own time and money into, are now unable to, but clubs like Collingwood and Sydney still get their F/S and Academy picks with no issue. It's just putting a bandaid over a bullethole.

As for the go home factor, it just doesn't work when it comes to Sydney - you can't use it as an argument. You lost Tom Mitchell, but your midfield was absolutely stacked at that point, and the opportunities weren't there. You also lost Zak Jones, but he was a fringe player at best. Gary Rohan who you were probably happy to lose, and a broken Hannebery - who'll never be the same again.

On the flip side, you've attracted the game's biggest FA of all time in Buddy Franklin, Kurt Tippett when he was the next big thing, had massive interest from Joe Daniher and kept Tom Papley as a result.

****************************************************

To provide one last example of how the system just isn't right, this was your draft haul in 2015:

2015 draft picks: 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90, 108, 126

Those are a bunch of nothing picks, overall, and for a club without an academy player with that 20% discount, they would have netted some fringe players and maybe one or two decent kids that slotted in as role players eventually.

What did you guys end up with? Pick 3 - Callum Mills. You were also still able to use Pick 56 to draft Jordan Dawson. So after making the Grand Final and finishing with Pick 14, you get a Top 3 pick, by lumping a bunch of nothing picks together. You didn't have to use any draft collateral, you just traded your top pick down for multiple picks that gave you more academy points, and ended up with a Top 3 draftee and a current solid Best 22 player.

Also, on top of that, you were planning on drafting Josh Dunkley as a F/S, with any leftover academy points.

If you guys can't see how ridiculous this is, and how it basically allows you to bottom out for a year or two and then rebound up the ladder again while other sides languish for years on end/trade away all their draft capital for established players to stay in contention - all the while losing their chance of drafting of top kids year on year (having to make that choice), then I'm not sure what else to say. The system is broken, and the only reason you guys have rebounded so quickly, is because you had an established core, that has been rejuvenated by a new core of gun youngsters. We may have picked up Cameron, but we get to give away all our draft capital to do so - we made the choice while you guys don't have to.

If say a club like Richmond, Geelong, West Coast, Adelaide or Hawthorn tried this in recent years, the best they could hope for would be a mid to late first round pick. You guys won a flag in 2005, were competitive for years, won another flag in 2012, were in another Grand Final in 2014 and then yet another in 2016 - all the while basically making Top 8 nearly every single year. Even when you were still competing, you were still picking up players like Heeney and Mills - while using very little draft collateral to do so.

If we want a fair draft system, it needs to be equal across the board. If it requires us having longer contracts for new draftees - so be it. If it requires more AFL investment in academies, to compensate their losses/complete AFL investment, then so be it. What can't continue happening though, is a system where a club can remain competitive for so long, and then essentially revamp their list without any actual shortfall.

As many have said, Geelong's list is aging, and our era probably has a few years left at absolute best, before we enter the wilderness for a bit and have to revamp and revitalize. For you guys though, if this academy system continues, you could essentially be back in Top 4 contention with half your 22 comprised of academy players, by the time we've bottomed out - even though we've both been in contention for around the same amount of time.

As the OP said, you'll only have more kids coming through, and your picks are only going to get worse as you improve - so the disparity between being a 'lower team' that's rebuilding, and one that is a genuine contender, will only continue to grow.

How do you think it's going to look if you're taking Top 3 kids with 5 picks in the 30's, and then using your first rounder to draft another kid. You'll have a team of Top 5 kids that can play together for 10+ years, and it'll only get worse every single year. It's not hard to see why this is all actually a real problem for the entire draft system - when you look at the big picture in totality.

TL; DR - Equalize the system and allow an 'open draft' for the First Round. All bets are off after that, and take whatever Academy kids you want with a bunch of later nothing picks. Get rid of the discount, and have a system that forces you to use your first rounder on your Academy kid OR another top prospect - not end up with both due to a flawed system.

Peace.

P.S. I would love for Grand Finals to be played at other grounds, but the MCC and the AFL will never give up those rights (it's locked in 'til 2057), and it's a completely moot conversation to have. We don't even get finals at our ground lol, due to 'supporter capacity', so expecting the AFL to hand over the GF to another state when it can just use the 'biggest stadium/more fans/tradition' argument - is just an argument that will go nowhere, and ultimately has no resolution.

As long as it applies to Father/Son as well its fine.

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah but I don’t get that you keep dodging the fact you were able to get Danger on the cheap. Why is it only our advantage that’s a problem?

Are you kidding me? I already answered this. I'm not answering it again. Read through the thread instead of making me repeat myself.

 

[youneverknow22]

Nothing worse than an entitled Victorian who watches their team leave Melbourne 3 times a year, then complains when a northern club drafts a gun kid that their team somehow overlooked in the draft.

 

[Tedeski]

Nothing worse than an entitled Victorian who watches their team leave Melbourne 3 times a year, then complains when a northern club drafts a gun kid that their team somehow overlooked in the draft.

But, but, but they don't have a home ground advantage.

 

[Shadow89]

Happy to leave it there. I mean I showed you why you're wrong and your counterargument? Just ignore it.

Oh for gods sake, why is BF so filled with people so eager to prove they're right? Why can't people just say 'we've made our points - moving on'? It's pathetic.

I literally answered earlier why it's hypocritical to bring Danger into the convo when you paid nothing in draft capital for Buddy, but yet you keep going on with nonsense about how 'we had to pay a large contract, because we had no other way of getting him.'

Never mind that you didn't even attempt to offer draft picks in place of a highly inflated contract. No you paid NOTHING in draft capital, and left Hawthorn with barely anything, and paid an inflated salary instead. We paid a lower salary, while also giving up our first, a second and a fringe player.

Also, if you want to act all 'answer the question', last time I provided my arguments, all I got back from you was 'wow you just don't get it.' You also offered no response to my comment regarding your best players all sticking around, you having a high retention rate, and you not having to pay them 'overs' like GWS or GC have - I guess it doesn't suit your argument though.

I didn't find it a constructive conversation, I'd said my point and you'd said yours, and I left it there as we'd reached an impasse - like an adult.

 

[BloodySwan]

Oh for gods sake, why is BF so filled with people so eager to prove they're right? Why can't people just say 'we've made our points - moving on'? It's pathetic.

I literally answered earlier why it's hypocritical to bring Danger into the convo when you paid nothing in draft capital for Buddy, but yet you keep going on with nonsense about how 'we had to pay a large contract, because we had no other way of getting him.'

Never mind that you didn't even attempt to offer draft picks in place of a highly inflated contract. No you paid NOTHING in draft capital, and left Hawthorn with barely anything, and paid an inflated salary instead. We paid a lower salary, while also giving up our first, a second and a fringe player.

Also, if you want to act all 'answer the question', last time I provided my arguments, all I got back from you was 'wow you just don't get it.' You also offered no response to my comment regarding your best players all sticking around, you having a high retention rate, and you not having to pay them 'overs' like GWS or GC have - I guess it doesn't suit your argument though.

I didn't find it a constructive conversation, I'd said my point and you'd said yours, and I left it there as we'd reached an impasse - like an adult.

Mate you brought up Danger, and I highlighted how you just didn't get it.

Anyway your arguments are tiring. Why don't we just drop them?

 

[Shadow89]

Mate you brought up Danger, and I highlighted how you just didn't get it.

Anyway your arguments are tiring. Why don't we just drop them?

Lol actually...you did. Wow. That's...that's interesting that you can't even remember that far back and you're shifting the blame.

"Wow you missed his point entirely. Do you really think pick 9 & Dean Gore was a fair trade for Danger?"

That was the original comment, hence why I replied with the Swans and Buddy are an example of why you guys shouldn't be commenting on perceived player movement fairness.

******************************

Yep, so are yours - hence the impasse. Leave it there, as I said the first time.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Well, well, Geelong supporters complaining about this when there is no more advantaged team in the league than Geelong.

Go home factor and having to pay players more to stay is a fact for all the northern clubs. There are 10 Victorian clubs white anting every Victorian draftee from the moment their name is called by a non Victorian team. That's 10 clubs trying to prise them loose from the club that drafted them. Now that is a massive disadvantage.

But lets have a whinge about a rookie and a pick 32 - hypocrites every Victorian club and a large number of their supporters. Still trying to put the V back into the AFL

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

As long as it applies to Father/Son as well its fine.

No. NO.

This is bullshit. Vic clubs responded to the “homesickness argument with “develop your own local talent”. So we have. Now Vic clubs are responding with “we want the talent you developed and paid for”.

Vic clubs can **** right off. After a decade of using the frontier clubs as breeding grounds for them to pick off at will, they bitch and moan that they’re developing some home grown talent, whilst at the same time AT BEST acknowledging but shrugging off the Grand Final venue issue as “nothing we can do”.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Of course not mate but I'm just struggling to see the important point you're making by singling out an arbitrary 90% figure used to point out Vic clubs have a large portion of their lists sourced locally as opposed to interstate clubs, when the reality is that it's 70 v 40 and still quite a difference. The essence of his point is unchanged by your factchecking isn't it?

For such a particular person as yourself who, when it's important, will argue to within a mm of the truth, to be so blase about someone using incorrect data to make a point is surprising to say the least.

As I've already stated, I think it IS important if you are going to present an argument you do it fairly and with facts, not "arbitrary" numbers. If I presented an argument with numbers inflated in my favour you would be all over it. You certainly wouldn't call them arbitrary then.

Also yes, I think an argument of 90v40 vs 70v40 does change the situation markedly. Take 20% off your ATAR and where are you now?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Oh for gods sake, why is BF so filled with people so eager to prove they're right? Why can't people just say 'we've made our points - moving on'? It's pathetic.

I literally answered earlier why it's hypocritical to bring Danger into the convo when you paid nothing in draft capital for Buddy, but yet you keep going on with nonsense about how 'we had to pay a large contract, because we had no other way of getting him.'

Never mind that you didn't even attempt to offer draft picks in place of a highly inflated contract. No you paid NOTHING in draft capital, and left Hawthorn with barely anything, and paid an inflated salary instead. We paid a lower salary, while also giving up our first, a second and a fringe player.

Also, if you want to act all 'answer the question', last time I provided my arguments, all I got back from you was 'wow you just don't get it.' You also offered no response to my comment regarding your best players all sticking around, you having a high retention rate, and you not having to pay them 'overs' like GWS or GC have - I guess it doesn't suit your argument though.

I didn't find it a constructive conversation, I'd said my point and you'd said yours, and I left it there as we'd reached an impasse - like an adult.

Mate we got a ****ing TRADE BAN for recruiting Buddy without breaking a single ****ing rule.

You got Danger for unders because you’re a cheap place to live and he wanted to go home. You simply cannot compare your pick9 plus steak knives with a $10 million contract.

 

[SM]

For such a particular person as yourself who, when it's important, will argue to within a mm of the truth, to be so blase about someone using incorrect data to make a point is surprising to say the least.

As I've already stated, I think it IS important if you are going to present an argument you do it fairly and with facts, not "arbitrary" numbers. If I presented an argument with numbers inflated in my favour you would be all over it. You certainly wouldn't call them arbitrary then.

Also yes, I think an argument of 90v40 vs 70v40 does change the situation markedly. Take 20% off your ATAR and where are you now?

Except I didn't make the post?

If you've got examples of me splitting hairs over details in an argument that don't change the narrative of the argument, go ahead and be my guest, but your perception of me really is rather warped if you think that's the case. The point being made was that the Victorian clubs have large chunks of their list from their state, that was quite clear. You jumping in and trying to undercut the point by saying it was 70 not 90 came off as rather silly especially when the highest percentage in a non-Vic team is just over 40.

Your final question is so bizarre I don't know if you're being serious or not.

 

[Shadow89]

Mate we got a ******* TRADE BAN for recruiting Buddy without breaking a single ******* rule.

You got Danger for unders because you’re a cheap place to live and he wanted to go home. You simply cannot compare your pick9 plus steak knives with a $10 million contract.

You guys chose to give him that contract, in order to use all your spare COLA money to recruit Tippett and Buddy. It showed that the COLA wasn't being used at it should, and it was revoked.

You did break a rule, not using the COLA for what it was meant to be used for - paying current players a higher wage to cope with higher living costs in the Sydney region. No instead, you paid your players the same, and recruited two massive names at the time, because you had a whole bunch of extra cash that you could throw at these players.

Without COLA, you would have maybe got Tippett still, but certainly not Buddy. You went on a nice little spending spree with your extra handout, so excuse me if I don't cry a river of tears for you rorting a privilege that was completely misused.

 

[SM]

You guys chose to give him that contract, in order to use all your spare COLA money to recruit Tippett and Buddy. It showed that the COLA wasn't being used at it should, and it was revoked.

You did break a rule, not using the COLA for what it was meant to be used for - paying current players a higher wage to cope with higher living costs in the Sydney region. No instead, you paid your players the same, and recruited two massive names at the time, because you had a whole bunch of extra cash that you could throw at these players.

Without COLA, you would have maybe got Tippett still, but certainly not Buddy. You went on a nice little spending spree with your extra handout, so excuse me if I don't cry a river of tears for you rorting a privilege that was completely misused.

COLA isn't a slush fund though, I don't know why people struggle to understand this.. it's a loading on contracts just like the rental assistance is.

Do you have a single source to back up your assertions? All our players had a COLA loading in their contract, that was the entire point of it.

You just recruited Jeremy Cameron after appearing in a GF but there's been nothing made of it. An unnfancied Swans team won the 2012 flag and brought Tippett in and suddenly it was cheating?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You guys chose to give him that contract, in order to use all your spare COLA money to recruit Tippett and Buddy. It showed that the COLA wasn't being used at it should, and it was revoked.

You did break a rule, not using the COLA for what it was meant to be used for - paying current players a higher wage to cope with higher living costs in the Sydney region. No instead, you paid your players the same, and recruited two massive names at the time, because you had a whole bunch of extra cash that you could throw at these players.

Without COLA, you would have maybe got Tippett still, but certainly not Buddy. You went on a nice little spending spree with your extra handout, so excuse me if I don't cry a river of tears for you rorting a privilege that was completely misused.

Wrong on all counts, as Andrew Dillon acknowledged at the time.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Except I didn't make the post?

If you've got examples of me splitting hairs over details in an argument that don't change the narrative of the argument, go ahead and be my guest, but your perception of me really is rather warped if you think that's the case. The point being made was that the Victorian clubs have large chunks of their list from their state, that was quite clear. You jumping in and trying to undercut the point by saying it was 70 not 90 came off as rather silly especially when the highest percentage in a non-Vic team is just over 40.

Your final question is so bizarre I don't know if you're being serious or not.

Your interjection was weird to start with. And taking my single point off on various strawman is not unexpected.

My entire point, I say for the 3rd or 4th time, is if people are going to argue, use facts. Inflating the argument is disingenuous at best.
That is my point, that's it. Nothing else. Use facts, don't (possibly deliberately) misrepresent a position to strengthen a point. If it's a good point, it doesn't need it.

 

[SM]

I just find it nauseating when the media gushes about their rebuild or the fact they rarely miss finals.

Pretty hard to stay sh*t when you get a top end priority pick every couple of years.

Otherwise I can understand the AFL's desire to grow the game in NSW.

"Top end priority pick"?

GWS are plummeting back down the ladder despite actually having priority picks. GCS have had endless priorities and are only slowly starting to get it together. We get one maybe two A-grade Academy players into our side in Heeney and Mills and draft some kids to start the season 3-0 and suddenly we've got endless top end talent coming out of our ears.

Reminds me of in 2012 when heading into the GF we were an average list of plodders who had done well with a good game plan, then after winning the flag and recruiting Tippett were a star studded list that surely couldn't afford everyone in our cap without cheating.