2015 Trade/FA Discussion (cont. in Pt.2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do get the feeling we'll lose one of either Burger or Adcock...Burger would arguably be the bigger loss as rucks dont grow on trees. Although we have West at least. Adcock would get us a 2nd bander, maybe a third. Burger SHOULD be a 1band but would get pushed to a 2.
 
I do get the feeling we'll lose one of either Burger or Adcock...Burger would arguably be the bigger loss as rucks dont grow on trees. Although we have West at least. Adcock would get us a 2nd bander, maybe a third. Burger SHOULD be a 1band but would get pushed to a 2.

Depends on what people pay them.

It's all at the AFL's three man committee's discretion. Daisy and Goddard got 4 years for reputedly $625,000 and $800,000 a year each respectively and that was seemingly what it took to get Band 1 compo. Although last year Frawley's $2.2million 4 year contract was enough to get band 1. If he wasn't leaving the Demons, I'd be skeptical that would be enough but it's got to be precedent now. It would take a massive year from Leuie for another club to offer him a 4 year contract worth more than $2.2 million. If he has a year that does that then he's arguably worth more to us than the compo pick.

I agree with the Leuey sentiments, but it does seem that FA rewards still map quite reasonably on to yearly salary rather than discretion. Contract length and age is also supposed to factor in, but yearly salary seems to be the main guide. The only published total I can find for Frawley is $2.5m for four years which puts him right in the mid first round area.

1st rounder:

Franklin, $1.1m per year (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/highest-paid-athletes/4993232)
Goddard, $750k+ per year (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...season-kicks-off/story-fnca0u4y-1226486144725)
Thomas, $700k per year (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ouryear-deal-with-carlton-20131003-2uv5i.html)
Frawley, $650k per year (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...o-join-the-hawks/story-fnca0u4y-1227078366410)

End of 1st rounder:

None.

2nd rounder:

Chaplin, $433k per year (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...adelaides-sights/story-e6frf9mo-1226637857500)
Pearce, $375k per year (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/15031074/danyle-in-the-dockers-den/)
Sylvia, $350k per year (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/19244278/ellis-next-in-freo-sights/)
 
I'm not really up to speed with these things, but I think, like the MRP/Tribunal, precedent doesn't mean a lot, and nor should it. For this sort of system, each player/situation has to be taken on it's own merits. Arguably, Franklin was less valuable to Hawthorn than Frawley was to Melbourne. So it's not just what's on offer, or what they are currently being paid, but also the perceived importance to their current team, hence the discretionary powers of the committee.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Personally I think Cutler is probably as good a kick as Suckling. Maybe not as long but quality just the same. He is also taller which is an advantage in itself. I would hope that if we wanted to get another quality user into the back half we would be giving him a long look first.

Edit - just to clarify some of Suckling's kicks are sublime and more than Cutler can produce at this stage but overall I think things probably even out.
I'm sorry, but as a fellow left footer, I just can't bring myself to agree with this statement
 
I'm not really up to speed with these things, but I think, like the MRP/Tribunal, precedent doesn't mean a lot, and nor should it. For this sort of system, each player/situation has to be taken on it's own merits. Arguably, Franklin was less valuable to Hawthorn than Frawley was to Melbourne. So it's not just what's on offer, or what they are currently being paid, but also the perceived importance to their current team, hence the discretionary powers of the committee.

The way it works is that there's a (secret) formula the AFL plugs in the age of the player and their contract dollars and length and it spits out the appropriate compensation. It's not meant to be a discretionary decision. Of course, the delight fans take in finding conspiracy theories means YMMV. ;)
 
The way it works is that there's a (secret) formula the AFL plugs in the age of the player and their contract dollars and length and it spits out the appropriate compensation. It's not meant to be a discretionary decision. Of course, the delight fans take in finding conspiracy theories means YMMV. ;)
I wonder if this paves the way for a club who may have an agreement for a FA to leave in 12 months time, to adjust their pay to suitably gain better compensation. Bit of a stretch perhaps, but in certain circumstances, there may be some collusion if there is a specific target and the spend reaps a desired dividend.
 
Without getting too off track I was thinking today (while watching the hawks and their list of fa poachings) if Melbourne and St Kilda get no compensation for Crawley and McEvoy, do they match the compo instead of letting them go?
 
What happened there?
We plan to bid a very reasonable offer to Hogan and looked like we might be in the box seat to get him. Melbourne decide to up the offer as they fear losing their draft picks due to the tanking debacle and end up getting him instead. So essentially we lost Hogan because of Melbournes prior tanking which looked like it would cost them their draft picks at the time. Same reason they were able to bid two picks for Dawes I think.
 
Without getting too off track I was thinking today (while watching the hawks and their list of fa poachings) if Melbourne and St Kilda get no compensation for Crawley and McEvoy, do they match the compo instead of letting them go?

IMO this is the massive flaw in the system - Reigning premiers the Hawks get a 26 year old all Australian for nothing, the D's get pick 3 & the rest of the comp pays for it with draft downgrades. Hawthorn must at least lose their next draft pick.

It is a bigger issue than the academies Eddie.
 
We plan to bid a very reasonable offer to Hogan and looked like we might be in the box seat to get him. Melbourne decide to up the offer as they fear losing their draft picks due to the tanking debacle and end up getting him instead. So essentially we lost Hogan because of Melbournes prior tanking which looked like it would cost them their draft picks at the time. Same reason they were able to bid two picks for Dawes I think.

It wasn't the "upping of the offer" that sucked about it, it was them doing a dodgy deal with the Suns to stop them bidding a first rounder on Viney so that they still had the high draft picks to go after Hogan. Was basically draft tampering but you can't prove it.
 
It wasn't the "upping of the offer" that sucked about it, it was them doing a dodgy deal with the Suns to stop them bidding a first rounder on Viney so that they still had the high draft picks to go after Hogan. Was basically draft tampering but you can't prove it.
Oh well, Melbourne are still s**t.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It wasn't the "upping of the offer" that sucked about it, it was them doing a dodgy deal with the Suns to stop them bidding a first rounder on Viney so that they still had the high draft picks to go after Hogan. Was basically draft tampering but you can't prove it.
Yeah I actually blocked that bit out too. Either way you look at it we really got screwed. Any other year or any other club wouldn't have been able to offer what they did for one player.
 
Is Ben Keays going to play in the Lions NEAFL team?? Personally I am hoping he has an absolute cracker of a year so he takes No.1 away from Mills.

Still you guys can have fun with Eddie annoyed at you.....It will be even sweeter if Keays/Mills are clearly the best mids and collingwood have no2 pick and cant get either of them...
 
Is Ben Keays going to play in the Lions NEAFL team?? Personally I am hoping he has an absolute cracker of a year so he takes No.1 away from Mills.

Still you guys can have fun with Eddie annoyed at you.....It will be even sweeter if Keays/Mills are clearly the best mids and collingwood have no2 pick and cant get either of them...
Keays isn't even certain to be top 10 at this stage I believe.
 
Keays isn't even certain to be top 10 at this stage I believe.
Hold the phone, there is a certain phantom draft bloke that has 3 academy players top 3 and also a father son to add to that mix. Actually are there any other palyers in the draft?!

I look forward to the champs to actually start to get other blokes more into the conversation (even though there already is but you wouldn't know about it).
 
Hold the phone, there is a certain phantom draft bloke that has 3 academy players top 3 and also a father son to add to that mix. Actually are there any other palyers in the draft?!

I look forward to the champs to actually start to get other blokes more into the conversation (even though there already is but you wouldn't know about it).

I'd like to get your thoughts on the Academy guys sitting out champs.

I heard whispers of the GWS considering a while back but nothing happened. I mean your team will know the players value, as they have trained for years with club etc... and will be hard for scouts to judge them on NEAFL form alone.
 
I'd like to get your thoughts on the Academy guys sitting out champs.

I heard whispers of the GWS considering a while back but nothing happened. I mean your team will know the players value, as they have trained for years with club etc... and will be hard for scouts to judge them on NEAFL form alone.

You mean the AFL clubs with academies get them to sit out so other teams are less inclined to bid for them?

That would be an indefensibly stupid idea. Bad for the academy host clubs who don't see how they stack up against the rest of the draft class, awful public relations, and absolutely terrible for young kids who are trying to get drafted. What if the academy host club ultimately decides not to take them? Their chances of being drafted by another club would be severely harmed.

AFL clubs probably can't compel their academy players to sit out in any case.
 
You mean the AFL clubs with academies get them to sit out so other teams are less inclined to bid for them?

That would be an indefensibly stupid idea. Bad for the academy host clubs who don't see how they stack up against the rest of the draft class, awful public relations, and absolutely terrible for young kids who are trying to get drafted. What if the academy host club ultimately decides not to take them? Their chances of being drafted by another club would be severely harmed.

AFL clubs probably can't compel their academy players to sit out in any case.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think its fair for the player, who cannot be contractually forced to sit them out, I also think it would stunt player growth. But on a very shortsighted view I could see a club consider it.
 
Compensation picks aside, if either Jed/Bergs leave a player I would love at the club is big Tommy Bellchambers. I really like what he brings as a stay at home KPF and it wouldn't be beyond us bringing him in as a restricted FA. Only 25yo, would really settle our side IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top