molsey wrote:
Dare I say it nytdog but each of the 3 additional clubs you mention there have, up until this year for the Eagles, retained substantial salary cap advantages over your common club.
For years the Eagles have been able to pay higher effective salaries based on Perth's (then) lower property prices; Adelaide even more so. sydney have had additional player salary allowances on top of this.
This doesn't impact on draft picks as such, but it allows greater player retention (ie Wirrpanda, Judd - until now) and the ability to attract very good but solid players to your Club on a better wage eg Stenglein to the Eagles. For the Crows, they could retain 2 of the best 10 players in the past decade in McLeod and the Roo plus support a good young list for this very reason. The Swans...well....pffft.
Draft picks is but one element for sure - economics, coaching, evenness of list are others - but it is implausible to deny that loading up with picks increases the probability of developing a better list.
ps I'm not a tanker and want the Blues to win more than 4 games this year. I just don't buy in to your analysis as an argument against it.
Your comments here are contradictory. Sydney has a higher cost of living and therefore higher salary cap. But then you say Adelaide and Perth have a lower cost of living with the same salary cap. So are you saying that the Syndey model is correct and fair? You can't have it both ways.
Molsey, we can try to find excuses about salary cap and costs of living, or we can face the facts. We now have the talent on the list - it's just a matter of time and development. Compared to WC, Sydney and Adelaide, our draft picks are favourable. So now its a matter of putting it to good use. WC, Sydney, Adelaide all proved that you don't need a bunch of high draft picks to be a successfull club. Tanking isn't going to help the blues. Draft picks aren't the magic answer. They are one component, but it's all the other stuff that matters more. And what helps you get the other stuff. MONEY! How do you make money... by winning!
Winning/money provides sponsorship, membership, supporters, facilities, coaching resources, development resources, scouting, etc.
Winning/money attracts players from other clubs, it retains players, it boosts moral and it speeds up development. Look what winning did for average players in the 1990s like Rice, Clape, Pierce, Whitehead, Franchina, Manton, Beaumont, Hogg, etc...
We all want more talent coming into the club. But advocating tanking is not the way to do it. We now have a core group of talented players. We will add to it organically through our poor finish this year. If we are at round 19-20 with 3-4 wins, then i wouldn't have a problem with putting a losing team on the field full of youngsters. At that point 2-3 more losses won't kill the club and the PP would be more valuable than those wins. But tanking at round 7/8/9 will hurt the club more than help it.
The point of the analysis is to provides some facts, instead of the subjective comments that many like to spit out... To show that WC, Adelaide and Sydney have built very successful clubs on everything else other than high draft picks. If Carlton thinks that high drafts picks are going to magically provide us with success, we're very wrong. They will help, but they are a small part of the equation.
The question is, what is more valuable to Carlton. Wins or one additional draft pick, coupled with some big losses? Because tanking means playing a team that is guaranteed to lose - which means losing by a lot. At least right now we are putting our best team on the park that's playing patches of very good footy and losing because we aren't good enough, not because we're trying to lose.