New Gold Coast side makes a play for Ablett

[The Coon Dog]

JAKE NIALL
December 8, 2009


New Gold Coast side makes a play for Ablett
JAKE NIALL
December 8, 2009

GEELONG champion Gary Ablett held a meeting with Gold Coast officials on the weekend, confirming that the AFL's 17th club has already started what is expected to be a massive play for the player widely regarded as the game's best.

Ablett and his management met with the 17th team's key officials - coach Guy McKenna, recruiting supremo Scott Clayton, chief executive Travis Auld and football manager Marcus Ashcroft - on Sunday at an apartment complex in Broadbeach, where it is understood that the incoming club made their first pitch at the Brownlow medallist.

While the meeting was obviously meant to be secret, it took a surprising twist when Ablett and his manager, Liam Pickering, were seen talking to Gold Coast officials by several Port Adelaide players.

Article in full... (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-gold-coast-side-makes-a-play-for-ablett-20091207-kfat.html)

[chef]

Good luck to Geelong keeping him, but i just can't see it happening.

[aker39]

For our sake, I hope Gold Coast get him. It will mean they have less money to offer Cooney.

[LostDoggy]

For our sake, I hope Gold Coast get him. It will mean they have less money to offer Cooney.

Thats just what I was thinking!

[Go_Dogs]

Did anyone else think it was almost Freo-like how they got sprung at this supposed secret meeting by the whole Power squad and coaches who are having their camp in the Gold Coast, and staying at the very same hotel in which the meeting took place?

Surely that is something you would've known about and tried to avoid!

[LostDoggy]

Reading today that GC17 are planning to take Luke Ablett in the rookie draft, is this part of some sort of side play to 'lay the groundwork' for Gablett to feel more at home on the coast?

[The Coon Dog]

Reading today that GC17 are planning to take Luke Ablett in the rookie draft, is this part of some sort of side play to 'lay the groundwork' for Gablett to feel more at home on the coast?

It might have legs if they drafted Shane & Travis Tuck too. ;)

[The Coon Dog]

Pick 26 for Gary Ablett?


Mark Stevens - H/S - 19 February

GEELONG would have to accept a draft pick as low as 26 if it wanted immediate compensation for a successful Gold Coast raid on Gary Ablett.

If Ablett walks later this year, the Cats' compensatory pick in the 2010 national draft will have to be pushed back to the end of the first round.

With Gold Coast's raft of concession picks stretching the first round out to 25 picks, that leaves 26 as the magic number for a Ablett "freebie".

Link (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/pick-26-for-gary-ablett/story-e6frf9jf-1225831972227)

[Mantis]

^^^^

That hardly seems fair.

GC should be made to give up atleast one of their premium picks in order to gain a player of Ablett's ability, but I guess it is the AFL who are overseeing the compensatory picks process so no wonder it's a balls up.

You can just feel that there is going to be a lot of hate directed towards the AFL by supporters of the clubs who lose players and don't get compensated in a way that seems fair and reasonable.

[Bulldog4life]

Under the AFL's criteria it appears that we would get a very poor draft pick for Harbrow if he left.

[ledge]

Didnt the teams agree to all this way of doing it?

[hujsh]

"At least it provides something for a club that loses a player."

Oh year that's really great Andrew Dillon. Well done.

[LostDoggy]

Under the AFL's criteria it appears that we would get a very poor draft pick for Harbrow if he left.

If Gablett Jnr is pick 26, the AFL may as well give us a rookie pick for Jarrod (as much as I love him).

[Swoop]

Am I right in saying the hypotheticial pick 26 would only be for the next two drafts as they're compromised due to GC & GWS however following those years the draft pick would than return to it's higher position and the club has the option of keeping until than?

You would the AFL panel that decides what a players worth truly compensate the clubs accordingly but we are talking about the AFL afterall!

[LostDoggy]

You would the AFL panel that decides what a players worth truly compensate the clubs accordingly but we are talking about the AFL afterall!

Yep. And that just opens up a whole new can of worms anyway. Previously, we let the 'market' decide, so an unwanted Aker was worth a second-rounder, a Judd in prime was a third-pick plus young gun, Ball, who was picked ahead of Judd in their draft, went for pick 30, Fev went for a bottle of milk and a young tall, Hall, a key forward was worth a third rounder, and a wayward speedster in Lovett went to the Saints for a first round pick. A clear, "supply and demand" type logic to the exchanges, but certainly not based on individual talent or history.

Trades are by their very nature laden with history, context, form, personality fits, trading nous etc. etc. etc. How can a tribunal hope to replicate that fairly in any way, shape or form?

And that's even before throwing in curly ones like how an independent tribunal is going to decide if Franklin or Ablett is worth a higher pick (for example). None of us can even agree on a top ten best players in AFL list -- is a gun midfielder worth more than a good key position player? -- but a tribunal is going to play Mike Sheahan and give us their version of a player ranking system. If you think we argue about Mike's 'Top 50' lists, we ain't seen nothing yet; just wait until the Dogs and Saints argue about whether Hayes or Cooney should have gone for the higher pick.

It's just a recipe for disaster.

[LostDoggy]

Yep. And that just opens up a whole new can of worms anyway. Previously, we let the 'market' decide, so an unwanted Aker was worth a second-rounder, a Judd in prime was a third-pick plus young gun, Ball, who was picked ahead of Judd in their draft, went for pick 30, Fev went for a bottle of milk and a young tall, Hall, a key forward was worth a third rounder, and a wayward speedster in Lovett went to the Saints for a first round pick. A clear, "supply and demand" type logic to the exchanges, but certainly not based on individual talent or history.

Trades are by their very nature laden with history, context, form, personality fits, trading nous etc. etc. etc. How can a tribunal hope to replicate that fairly in any way, shape or form?
It's just a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.

[Swoop]

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.
How would that work in the situation of comparing Riewoldt with Harbrow for example?

[LostDoggy]

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.

And yet, the reality is that Hall will actually end up playing (hopefully) far more games than Lovett, which your very reasonable point will end up missing, because it just doesn't take into account enough variables (and you never can, which is why trades are essentially exercises in risk management, and attempts to value that risk). At least in a two-way trade the only people involved in valuing the risk are the buyer and seller, based on a barter/negotiate system that limits the risk to the parties involved.

When you expand the boundaries of the risk to include essentially the entire competition, your variables become so large as to become near meaningless when comparing apples with oranges.

That's the problem with an independent tribunal making very arbitrary value judgements based on shaky logic-- what may well seem fair enough at face value will have very little resemblance to actual reality which will just lead to a lot of people being ripped off.

[Go_Dogs]

^^^^

That hardly seems fair.

GC should be made to give up atleast one of their premium picks in order to gain a player of Ablett's ability, but I guess it is the AFL who are overseeing the compensatory picks process so no wonder it's a balls up.

They need to ensure they get this process right, I hope they continue to review and consult with the clubs.