The Rebuilding Myth?

[WayneJudson42]

Ok, here's some food for thought...

We hear about the "cycle" and how teams must now "bottom" out and rebuild. Last year, everyone was praising Pt Adelaide about how quickly they did it etc.

Under Eade, and now Roos, I think Sydney has missed the finals for only 1 or 2 years in 12 (IIRC).

So, is the rebuilding cycle a myth? Can teams buck the system through astute trading and recruiting? And salary cap control?

The trend is to draft kids for the long term, yet this has some risk involved. And teams that finish mid-table do not benefit because they don't get the top picks.

My view is that the window closed for us for the initial group we had from '02 onwards. With Hamill and Gherig, Pecket, Loewe, Burke, and Thommo gone.

We currently have a solid core who were yesterday's kids. Can we buck the trend and trade / recruit / and rookielist our way to a period of prolonged success?

Are you better off trading for kids who have 50 games under them if you can't get top 3 picks?

Your thoughts?

[Con Gorozidis]

You cant cheat the trend. I think the Swans have had a great run with injuries but I think they might have some lean years ahead. West Coast went down so dramatically because of Judd and Cousins. Both genuine freaks back in 04/05.

I believe you should be in one of 3 "Premiership states"

1. Genuine Contender(Dogs, Geelong08)
2. Young list on the rise (Pies, Hawks,08)
3. Replenishing stocks (Eagles08)

If you arent in the 3 states above you have a problem. Deciding what state you are in is also not clear cut. What of the 3 states are the 08 Saints in? Well we arent in 2 or 3. So we need to hope we are in 1 - and that means a top 5 finish.

If we fall outside the top 4 in the next 2 years. Then we know we need to go for State 3. The team i would least want to be according to this state theory is the Dockers. They are definitely and clearly not in any of the 3 states above.

[bigcarl]

Are you better off trading for kids who have 50 games under them if you can't get top 3 picks?

no. believe in and develop the national draft for all it is worth and keep the kids coming through.

at the same time if there is a bargain to be had in trading for a player under 24, then take it.

[Con Gorozidis]

Are you better off trading for kids who have 50 games under them if you can't get top 3 picks?

no. believe in and develop the national draft for all it is worth and keep the kids coming through.

at the same time if there is a bargain to be had in trading, then take it.

you need to take it on a case by case basis where the basic rule is - get the best player available. but im not worried whther someone is 18, 19 , 20 or even 21, 22. also depends where you consider yourself in the 3 states.

[WayneJudson42]

Ok, let me throw you a leggie...

Suppose we are not far from being genuine contenders. Would you swap a 1st round for Kerr in the knowledge that you can snag a flag?

Or do you keep chasing the kids, knowing that (a) they may be 2 or 3 years away and (b) by that time, teh core group has either passed it, or salary cap dictates that you off load?

IMHO we tried the former in 05 and 06, but the trades were shyt.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Ok, here's some food for thought...

We hear about the "cycle" and how teams must now "bottom" out and rebuild. Last year, everyone was praising Pt Adelaide about how quickly they did it etc.

Under Eade, and now Roos, I think Sydney has missed the finals for only 1 or 2 years in 12 (IIRC).

So, is the rebuilding cycle a myth? Can teams buck the system through astute trading and recruiting? And salary cap control?

The trend is to draft kids for the long term, yet this has some risk involved. And teams that finish mid-table do not benefit because they don't get the top picks.

My view is that the window closed for us for the initial group we had from '02 onwards. With Hamill and Gherig, Pecket, Loewe, Burke, and Thommo gone.

We currently have a solid core who were yesterday's kids. Can we buck the trend and trade / recruit / and rookielist our way to a period of prolonged success?

Are you better off trading for kids who have 50 games under them if you can't get top 3 picks?

Your thoughts?

Have Sydney actually missed under Roos other than the year he took over?

The evidence that the trend can be bucked is out there. The AFL is not the only pro league in the world that uses a draft. Sydney aren't the only team that's achieved it.

The biggest factor in "bucking" the trend is actually identifying it. How long does quality development take? 3 years? 5 years? How long can a group of players remain at the top without a fresh injection of front line talent to take the pressure off, ala Harvey being a quality mid in hsi 30s, but no longer copping 1st tag and expected to carry the team every week.

There is a common factor in every team that truly "bucks" the cycle, and that's strong development... especially in AFL with no free agency available. To point to the WCE (who are now at the bottom and tanking, but had it not been for the unforseen departures of Cousins and Judd would likely be at the other end of the table), they've shown great patience with players like Glass and Lynch, used their rookie list well (obviously Cox, but Priddis as well). Sydney has quietly injected players like Malceski, and has some new ones this year, and used trades for first Plugger then Hall.

Odds will favour the high draft picks... but bucking the trend is about finding your players where you can, and any team in a draft league which defies the cycle has examples of such players.

The cycle is not a myth, but neither is it truly inevitable.

[bigcarl]

Suppose we are not far from being genuine contenders. Would you swap a 1st round for Kerr in the knowledge that you can snag a flag?

it would be a tempting proposition, but one i'd resist. i think constant renewal with new and young blood coming through is the way to go. grow and develop your own.

[WayneJudson42]

Go for the flag, then clean out the next year.

[Con Gorozidis]

Ok, let me throw you a leggie...

Suppose we are not far from being genuine contenders. Would you swap a 1st round for Kerr in the knowledge that you can snag a flag?

Or do you keep chasing the kids, knowing that (a) they may be 2 or 3 years away and (b) by that time, teh core group has either passed it, or salary cap dictates that you off load?

IMHO we tried the former in 05 and 06, but the trades were shyt.

i tihnk you make the call on where you think you are at and how you rate kerr. if you really think you are a geniune contender and you rate kerr highly. you take him.

clubs make mistakes when they get older players because they think they are geniune contenders when they arent and make errors in their judgments of players.

in the saints case - had kerr been avaliable at the start of 07 and given i would have said we were geniue contenders and kerr a geniune champ. id have gone for him for certain over a round 1 draft pick.

[saintsRrising]

Your thoughts?

1/ PA had everything fall their way last year..in the H&A..and then a dream run in the finals. Actually making the GF too early probably did them more harm than good. If it is possible PA "over achieved last year".

They won a lot of close games...this year they lost a lot of close game. They area better team than their results last year, but arenot as good as last years results.

I think you will find that PA will be better next year.

2/ Teams are effectively rebuilding...or should be....all the time. all teams needa regular supply of new blood, but yes the quantity of new blood may vary from year to year.


MOST younger players ,whether gained by the main draft or the rookie draft take several years of development in the reserves and then more in the seniors to become good players. The Riewoldt and Selwoods are the exception and not the norm.

For example the Saints all have McEvoy, Steven, Eljay on the list this year...all players that need time to bloom.....despite that we are also seeking to try and win the flag this year.

All teams need to have an eye on the future and includea good dose of youth in their yearly aquistions.
But the draft system limits how much anyone team can do in anyone year. There is no point grabbing extra young players who have no chance of making it.

However
*IF a team views it as being closer to a Flag some may try and trade for that missing link in their structure (ie Ottens)
*Teams not really in the finals race may seek to fast track development of younger players by giving them more senior games early on than merit would indicate.
*Conversely teams seeing themselves in the finals race, may hold onto senior players at the end of their careers to try and snag a flag. (The Crows are say an example of this).

The Hawks in "rebuilding" sought to increase the number of younger players that they have coming through by trading off some older players for more picks.

Different clubs can use different approaches to build a team...but at the end of the day to be successful it is about getting most (not all as no one is perfect) of your player calls right (whether they be draft picks or trades) both in their ability as well as in the needs and balance of one's list....and then in developing well the talent you have gained.

Are there cycles?

Yes. No team stays succesful and all teams will be up down.

However a badly run team may have few up periods.

Some teams will maintain their success for a while, others like the 97 Saints will be brief.

The Saints Window

Yes agree. I posted two years back that our first Window based upon our older core of Hamill etc was closing...BUT that our new window based on the new younger core (Roo, Dal etc) was about to open soon as long as we got a lot of things right (which I listed back then).

IMO if our list had been better managed we would have continued to rise, but three years of poor rades and drafts denied us the steady flow of new blood that all teams need...and so we staggered and dipped.

Not in a vaccum
All clubs are not in a vaccum, but have other teams rising and falling as well.

The Dogs for example have over time mainly built a list through good drafting. The last two years they have topped up with players as they thought that they were close to a Flag...but are doing so at a time when the Cats are also peaking. Aka, Hudon and welssh have improved their team....to boost the now mature bodies of Cooney and Co.

[Con Gorozidis]

yep. good post saintsrising.

[saintsRrising]

IMHO we tried the former in 05 and 06, but the trades were shyt.

And there lies the difference between success and failure.

Getting most of your trades and draft selections right.

Good Coaches/Teams out perform in this over time.

Bad Coaches/Teams decrease team value by getting their calls wrong.


The real key is gaining good talent and developing it.....but there are different ways to assemble the talent.

The Cats drafted well, boosted by a favourable father son rule...and made some trades that worked for them in Ottens and Mooney (though both tooka while to bloom).

The Swans traded a lot.

The Weagles drafted well including very good use of the rookie system.

[spert]

Teams need a continual flow of new blood and then can develop a core of young players to build on. Our next core group mainly revolves around Jones, Eddy, Armo, McEvoy, Howard, Geary, Gilbert and Allen. This is a group not unlike the Geelong crew who are now the experienced quality players who have helped them win a flag. That group for Geelong played together as a group mostly and developed together and so it is important for our young core group to get as much senior experience together as possible.

[evertonfc]

Ok, here's some food for thought...

We hear about the "cycle" and how teams must now "bottom" out and rebuild. Last year, everyone was praising Pt Adelaide about how quickly they did it etc.

No they weren't. Everyone knew at the time that Port Adelaide 'peaked' prematurely and well before their next cycle was due - it was, in fact, their old stagers which powered them to competitiveness.

Their youngsters are still getting ready and are probably 2-3 years away.

[Lynch Beast]

You cant cheat the trend. I think the Swans have had a great run with injuries but I think they might have some lean years ahead. West Coast went down so dramatically because of Judd and Cousins. Both genuine freaks back in 04/05.

I believe you should be in one of 3 "Premiership states"

1. Genuine Contender(Dogs, Geelong08)
2. Young list on the rise (Pies, Hawks,08)
3. Replenishing stocks (Eagles08)

If you arent in the 3 states above you have a problem. Deciding what state you are in is also not clear cut. What of the 3 states are the 08 Saints in? Well we arent in 2 or 3. So we need to hope we are in 1 - and that means a top 5 finish.

If we fall outside the top 4 in the next 2 years. Then we know we need to go for State 3. The team i would least want to be according to this state theory is the Dockers. They are definitely and clearly not in any of the 3 states above.

Very good post right there

I like to look at it like this

If we take Jack Watts in the draft (which I'm starting to get a strong feeling about) we will have 2 top 4 picks on key forwards (Kennedy & Watts) + Mitch Brown (16) - that's the key forwards set for about 12 seasons. Mackenzie, Schofield, Spangher & Wilkes are all good defenders - the one to really look out for is Tony Notte - I have never seen a player read the play as well as him at either end of the ground. When the ball is in the air it's like it's in slow motion for him and when you combine his pace/leap/disposal and marking then he is just going to be an awesome CHB or FF

Top 3 pick on a midfielder (Masten) and around 5 or 6 more top 20 picks on other midfielders in Butler, Ebert, Waters, Hurn & Daniel Kerr and some very exciting midfield prospects in this years draft that will slip to the priority picks due to the amount of talls being taken ahead of them.

So in one year down at the bottom the list has been re tooled so to speak, pretty much avoiding the need for an extended period at the bottom of the ladder.

It's been a shocking season on the field but the overall change in culture off the field is HUGE - the only player to be concerned about that is still at the club is Kerr and he is very much on his own now.

West Coast were at a point where it was going to start to decline in 09 with the retirements of Braun, Fletcher, Cousins & decline of Embley, we are just taking extraordinary measurements to speed up the process of rebuilding

[JeffDunne]

The AFL is not the only pro league in the world that uses a draft.

True, but we're probably only one without any form of free agency.

[rodgerfox]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again....

You don't have to rebuild.

If your top 6-8 are genuine stars, you just build around them.

But, you need to ensure you always have 6-8 stars. Once one star fades, another must be there to fill that gap.

Depth is a myth.

Your bottom 6 don't matter. They only matter when your best 6-8 are either unfit, or not that good.

You don't rebuild your whole list - you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly.

This is why there is no rule to recruiting discards, rejects, or kids. It doesn't matter as long as your best players are stars and they're fit.

West Coast's bottom 6 haven't declined - they lost their top 6.

Port had their top 6 up and about last year. In 2006 and this year, they don't.


Our form since 2003 up until last Saturday has coincided with the fitness and availability of our stars.

Our current 'depth' players are no better than the ones we discarded for them. It's just these ones look better because they're riding the coat tails of fit superstars.

[saintsRrising]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again....

You don't have to rebuild..

- you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly.

So is that you don't rebuild...or that you do?

[rodgerfox]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again....

You don't have to rebuild..

- you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly.

So is that you don't rebuild...or that you do?

You obviously missed this bit....


"You don't rebuild your whole list - you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly."

[saintsRrising]

"You don't rebuild your whole list - you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly."

Would not players 9-45 on your list get a bit old in the tooth then?

Also since players 6-8 are genuine stars (which IMO is way too many for any one club to actually have depending on your definition.)...how does one only source genuine stars???

That would be mighty impressive drafting and trading.

[Lynch Beast]

How do you expect to rebuild the top 6-8 though ?

They are the premium players and with so much research going into junior development it is becoming very very hard to get these players later in the draft.

[saintsRrising]

How do you expect to rebuild the top 6-8 though ?

They are the premium players and with so much research going into junior development it is becoming very very hard to get these players later in the draft.

That would be my thoughts too.

[JeffDunne]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again....

You don't have to rebuild..

- you just rebuild your top 6-8 constantly.

So is that you don't rebuild...or that you do?

Jesus, do you ever give it up?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The AFL is not the only pro league in the world that uses a draft.

True, but we're probably only one without any form of free agency.

If we're talking about the US leagues, Free Agents have tended to be a good way to dealy the cycle, but have a questionable value as a way to build a core as there's a limited time frame one can keep them around for given:
1) Age restrictions before acquiring.
2) Competition for such players when they come out of contract.
3) Salary cap considerations outside MLB.

Teams still need to have a core of players that they develop themselves.

The best at avoiding the cycle aren't necessarily the ones with the big budgets, they're the ones with the best approach to development (I'm thinking right now of the Detroit Red Wings).

Free agency has a big impact on the capability to avoid the Cycle, but IMO more teams over there shoot themselves in the foot than really use it effectively replace rebuilding.

If you remove free agency as in teh AFL situation, I don't think the cycle becomes any more inevitable, just more likely given that AFL teams (mainly through budget) employ less process in recruitment and development than the US leagues.

[Dan Warna]

How do you expect to rebuild the top 6-8 though ?

They are the premium players and with so much research going into junior development it is becoming very very hard to get these players later in the draft.

some luck, Bartel, sam Fisher, NDS, Goose, they are around.

Sydney have done it by developing their own and buying in marquee players (I believe they are clearing the decks to go spending again, Nick davis, barry hall and spider maybe cleared out), North and Port have traded in talent and draft picks, and brisbane have built a winning culture under lethal.

geelong has had the benift of F/S but thats just the luck of the draw, collingwood and richmond have struggled to get return on their F/S players.

Freo, Carlton and Melbourne have had a massive dip into the draft pool for little effective return.

Footscray have had a mixed blessing of trading and drafting.