Free Agency discussion (taken from Garlett thread)

[fishardansin]

+ Goddard

I feel a little guilty about the whole free agent thing. Not because Saints lost him, because there is no doubt that once this list of ours is in need of an overhaul, hopefully not for another 6 years with 3 more premierships in the bag #nopressure, but because every other club pays for it.

Think about it. Saints get a first round compensation pick so every club after that pick goes back in the order. I personally think that there should be no compensation or the club that gets the player has to give up what the AFL thinks is fair. This way the players can still have more freedom of movement, the O'Keefe attempt for a trade is a good example. He would have nominated Essendon or Carlton and Sydney wouldn't be able to hold up the deal with silly demands the AFL would just look at what the club he chose had to give and pick a fair price from that, with a chance of arbitration for both clubs. The Caddy deal is another.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I feel a little guilty about the whole free agent thing. Not because Saints lost him, because there is no doubt that once this list of ours is in need of an overhaul, hopefully not for another 6 years with 3 more premierships in the bag #nopressure, but because every other club pays for it.

Think about it. Saints get a first round compensation pick so every club after that pick goes back in the order. I personally think that there should be no compensation or the club that gets the player has to give up what the AFL thinks is fair. This way the players can still have more freedom of movement, the O'Keefe attempt for a trade is a good example. He would have nominated Essendon or Carlton and Sydney wouldn't be able to hold up the deal with silly demands the AFL would just look at what the club he chose had to give and pick a fair price from that, with a chance of arbitration for both clubs. The Caddy deal is another.

I've argued incessently that there should be no compensation.

No doubt the AFL will keep the compo picks for a few years, and then promptly abolish them the year we lose a big name.

 

[Kong]

I've argued incessently that there should be no compensation.

No doubt the AFL will keep the compo picks for a few years, and then promptly abolish them the year we lose a big name.

Why don't you like the compensation, out of interest?

I haven't really given it too much thought, but I like that clubs get compensated for losing a player, like they would in a trade (losing Goddard for nothing would have been brutal).

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Why don't you like the compensation, out of interest?

I haven't really given it too much thought, but I like that clubs get compensated for losing a player, like they would in a trade (losing Goddard for nothing would have been brutal).

quite a few reasons actually.

First, it punishes every other club who wasn't involved in the deal. Why should they all shuffle down a spot just because the Saints couldn't or wouldn't come to terms with Goddard?

Secondly, it instutionalises a compromised draft. This is unacceptable in my opinion. You finish 12th, you should get pick 7. Simple. Not maybe pick 7, or maybe pick 9 if two clubs below you lose players. It creates a compromised draft into perpetuity.

Thirdly, it rewards mediocrity. Again. Take Goddard. It's really sad that the Saints couldn't keep him. Or is it? They were unwilling to at the end of the day. They were unwilling to pay him what he wanted/deserved, they were unwilling to give him the security he craved. Why on earth should they get compensated for being unwilling to cut a deal? Every other club has been punished because Watters had a personality clash with Goddard. How is that acceptable?

Fourth, look at Port Adelaide. They deliberately did no more FA deals after "winning" two 2nd round picks, because doing deals would jeapordise their entitlements. That's plain wrong and against the spirit of FA, which is INCREASED player movement, not decreased movement.

Fifth, Take St Kilda again. They ALREADY got compromised: by freeing up approx half a million dollars of salary cap space. This gives them a war chest to go after another player this year. They already got their compensation as far as I'm concerned. Let's do a thought exercise: they target Jobe next year. Now, obviously he's never going to go, but imagine if he was the kind of guy who would. Is it fair that they have half a mill extra to spend due to losing Goddard, secure Jobe, AND get pick 13 this year? * no!

Free Agency is exactly that. A mechanism for players to move who've given service. There should be no compensation whatsoever. I've given 5 good reasons why there shouldn't be, and I'm yet to hear a single one that says there should be, other than "woe is me".

 

[fishardansin]

The first point is the main one for me. Every other club has had to pay St Kilda for Goddard coming to us. Sure it's fun now but if it was Pendlebury going to Carlton and we were paying you'd be spitting chips!!

 

[Essendonia]

I've argued incessently that there should be no compensation.

No doubt the AFL will keep the compo picks for a few years, and then promptly abolish them the year we lose a big name.

No doubt. Always a strange coincidence that rule changes roll us. Flawed system is flawed, though.

 

[Beerfish]

The first point is the main one for me. Every other club has had to pay St Kilda for Goddard coming to us. Sure it's fun now but if it was Pendlebury going to Carlton and we were paying you'd be spitting chips!!

The other points are equally compelling for mine.

Logic is logic.

 

[D-Shackle]

You think the clubs would have unanimously signed of on FA if there was no compensation?

 

[Beerfish]

You think the clubs would have unanimously signed of on FA if there was no compensation?

Guess it depends how far the AFLPA was prepared to go.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You think the clubs would have unanimously signed of on FA if there was no compensation?

irrelevant. Not only is there no proof that that was a factor or a driver, at the end of the day, it's not really a club issue. It's a player and AFLPA issue. In any case, the compensation was so screwed up that most clubs either disagreed with it or decryed it all together.

Brian Cook is one guy who, you would have to say, knows his footy.

http://thesidelineagenda.com/2012/10/23/afl-clubs-in-dispute-over-free-agent-compensation/

However, another argument is being put forward suggesting that compensation isn’t necessary at all, given that teams losing free agents gain significant salary cap space to chase another player. Supporters of this argument say that’s the idea of free agency – to give both the players and clubs more flexibility in their future planning.

Geelong chief executive Brian Cook is one prominent figure back this concept.

‘I have a principle that we should not necessarily be compensated, as clubs, for losing free agents, but I’m not sure that would be shared by everyone outside,” he said according to the official AFL website.

”The rightful compensation for losing a free agent is to get another one back in, really.”

http://thesidelineagenda.com/2012/10/23/afl-clubs-in-dispute-over-free-agent-compensation/

 

[Kong]

Lance Uppercut

Fair enough. I'm not really for or against, though probably leaning towards "for"; for me it's like politics, I don't really feel passionately for either side, so I'll just go point by point.

First, it punishes every other club who wasn't involved in the deal. Why should they all shuffle down a spot just because the Saints couldn't or wouldn't come to terms with Goddard?

Good point.

Secondly, it instutionalises a compromised draft. This is unacceptable in my opinion. You finish 12th, you should get pick 7. Simple. Not maybe pick 7, or maybe pick 9 if two clubs below you lose players. It creates a compromised draft into perpetuity.

I don't have a retort, but I can't say I really care, haha.

Again, I haven't given that point much thought, though.

Thirdly, it rewards mediocrity. Again. Take Goddard. It's really sad that the Saints couldn't keep him. Or is it? They were unwilling to at the end of the day. They were unwilling to pay him what he wanted/deserved, they were unwilling to give him the security he craved. Why on earth should they get compensated for being unwilling to cut a deal? Every other club has been punished because Watters had a personality clash with Goddard. How is that acceptable?

How is that different from the old system, of losing a player to trade, though?

Some players walk into drafts, but how many have been guns, or near Goddard's level?

Nick Stevens is the only example I can think of. Tippett's the other, but the AFL had a big part in that.

Under the old system, with Goddard, either:

A) He would've stayed, because the clubs wouldn't have been able to broker a deal
B) St Kilda would have been unwilling to give him the security/cash he wanted, and we would've struck a deal, giving them at the very least, a 1st round pick

Fourth, look at Port Adelaide. They deliberately did no more FA deals after "winning" two 2nd round picks, because doing deals would jeapordise their entitlements. That's plain wrong and against the spirit of FA, which is INCREASED player movement, not decreased movement.

Agree, that was farcical, but I'd argue that's more of an issue with the whole "accumulative compensation" thing.

I'd prefer that each individual player transaction was weighed up, eg:

Port:

1st round pick for Pearce
2nd round pick for Chaplin
5th round pick for Rodan

Essendon:

2nd round pick for Monfries

Rather than "well they lose Pearce, Chaplin and Rodan, but if they get Monfries, their compensation should be less".

For me, with the aim being to allow players greater freedom to move clubs, each player transaction should be looked at individually; what David Rodan did should have no bearing on what Angus Monfries did, basically.

Fifth, Take St Kilda again. They ALREADY got compromised: by freeing up approx half a million dollars of salary cap space. This gives them a war chest to go after another player this year. They already got their compensation as far as I'm concerned. Let's do a thought exercise: they target Jobe next year. Now, obviously he's never going to go, but imagine if he was the kind of guy who would. Is it fair that they have half a mill extra to spend due to losing Goddard, secure Jobe, AND get pick 13 this year? **** no!

In that situation, it'd just about even out, though:

St Kilda: loses Goddard, gains 1st round pick; gains Watson
Essendon: loses Watson, gains 1st round pick; gains Goddard

So everybody sort of wins; the clubs get compensated with a pick to cover the player, and the players get to the club of their choice, which is what the whole concept was introduced for.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance Uppercut

Fair enough. I'm not really for or against, though probably leaning towards "for"; for me it's like politics, I don't really feel passionately for either side, so I'll just go point by point.Good point.I don't have a retort, but I can't say I really care, haha.

I reckon you'd care if you had your eye on, say, a gun midfielder but the club who got the compo pick grabbed him with their compo pick right after the star forward they nabbed with their original pick!

Again, I haven't given that point much thought, though.How is that different from the old system, of losing a player to trade, though?

Some players walk into drafts, but how many have been guns, or near Goddard's level?

Nick Stevens is the only example I can think of. Tippett's the other, but the AFL had a big part in that.

Under the old system, with Goddard, either:

A) He would've stayed, because the clubs wouldn't have been able to broker a deal
B) St Kilda would have been unwilling to give him the security/cash he wanted, and we would've struck a deal, giving them at the very least, a 1st round pickAgree, that was farcical, but I'd argue that's more of an issue with the whole "accumulative compensation" thing.

They could stare Goddard down knowing they were going to get handsomely compensated no matter what, rather than relying on the vagaries of the trade table and market forces.

I'd prefer that each individual player transaction was weighed up, eg:

Port:

1st round pick for Pearce
2nd round pick for Chaplin
5th round pick for Rodan

Essendon:

2nd round pick for Monfries

Rather than "well they lose Pearce, Chaplin and Rodan, but if they get Monfries, their compensation should be less".

That can't work though, can it? It needs to be Net if you're going to compensate surely? You honestly think we deserve a second round pick as well as getting Goddard, for the loss of Monfries? WE need compensation??? That takes compensation and entitlement to a new level!

For me, with the aim being to allow players greater freedom to move clubs, each player transaction should be looked at individually; what David Rodan did should have no bearing on what Angus Monfries did, basically.In that situation, it'd just about even out, though:

St Kilda: loses Goddard, gains 1st round pick; gains Watson
Essendon: loses Watson, gains 1st round pick; loses Watson

So everybody sort of wins; the clubs get compensated with a pick to cover the player, and the players get to the club of their choice, which is what the whole concept was introduced for.

I think you might have made a mistake there (bolded), so I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I can't see how it's fair that St Kilda could concievably get an extra first round pick and Watson for the loss of Goddard in that scenario.

The whole thing is a bit skewed because it's the first year. Your compensation for losing a player is that you are in prime position to gain a player the following year. IF you manage your club properly. You don't need to penalise every other club and taint the draft forever by creating picks out of thin air because a player and club can't come to terms. I mean, stiff s**t. Free agency is what it is. Eggs, omelettes.

 

[Tommy08]

Could you imagine if two clubs conspired to trade like-for-like players via free agency, just so both clubs could get extra draft picks? The other 16 clubs would be seriously pissed off.

Neither club would receive compensation as they have recruited through free agency.

 

[Kong]

"Essendon: loses Watson, gains 1st round pick; gains Goddard"

I was too slow with the edit.

That can't work though, can it? It needs to be Net if you're going to compensate surely? You honestly think we deserve a second round pick as well as getting Goddard, for the loss of Monfries?

Deserve? Probably not.

But I didn't think Melbourne deserved pick #11 for Brock McLean, and that could've stopped, say, the Bulldogs, from swooping on Gysberts. It's just the way it is.

I'm not a fan of free agency in general; I don't like the idea of clubs being able to pinch players, essentially at no cost to themselves, from other clubs. I really hate that about international sports, as a personal preference.

But if it's to exist, and clearly the AFLPA made sure that it would/will, I like that clubs are compensated, and I don't agree that cap space is enough compensation.

Again, to compare it to the old (trade) system, if a club was unwilling or unable to meet a player's demands, and were forced to let him go to another club, that club would almost always be compensated with pick(s) and/or other player(s).

I like that, I think it's just.

tl;dr: I don't think cap space is adequate compensation.

 

[Benno30]

I was too slow with the edit.Deserve? Probably not.

But I didn't think Melbourne deserved pick #11 for Brock McLean, and that could've stopped, say, the Bulldogs, from swooping on Gysberts. It's just the way it is.

I'm not a fan of free agency in general; I don't like the idea of clubs being able to pinch players, essentially at no cost to themselves, from other clubs. I really hate that about international sports, as a personal preference.

But if it's to exist, and clearly the AFLPA made sure that it would/will, I like that clubs are compensated, and I don't agree that cap space is enough compensation.

Again, to compare it to the old (trade) system, if a club was unwilling or unable to meet a player's demands, and were forced to let him go to another club, that club would almost always be compensated with pick(s) and/or other player(s).

I like that, I think it's just.

tl;dr: I don't think cap space is adequate compensation.

There should be no compensation IMO.

If a player is not happy where he is he has a right to leave when his contract expires as does any other normal person in society. Now why should a team get compensation for that. That got 10 good years and 205 games out of goddard. Do you think they really lost out 10 years after they drafted him. Scully is a different story and i could see why melbourne was compensated there but in general free agency the compensation just opens up too many grey areas.

The port scenario was a big one for me. They could have signed gussy, jordan russell or even slattery was the talk at 1 stage, but decided against it because they would have lost compensation. Now if port was not compensated the deal would have more than likely gone through with north melbourne for jacobs because the pick offered would have helped improve there position but with the compensation it did not.

The next big issue for me is fair compensation. Goddard as good as he is was apparently worth pick 13. He has been around 10 years and lets face it,l his best footy may very well be behind him(possibilty). What if watson left us next year what would he be worth. A Brownlow medal and 3 Club Champion Awards. Goddard no brownlow and how many B&F's has he won, but flip side has played in a few grand finals and performed better than most in those games. So what would watson be worth is the question.

Was Hawthorn fairly compensated for losing Young and Murphy. A premiership player and a fringe 22 player. I think they recieved pick 66 please correct me if i am wrong. And then Port receives 2 second round picks for Pearce and Chaplin. A little bit of a discrepancy there in my eyes.

Also teams were holding off trades for far too long in waiting to see what compensation they were getting. Compensation just slows everything else down and causes to many grey areas. Scrap it and you will no longer have that problem.

You can count on it every year there will be debates about it until it is gone.
Should live by the old saying.
"What goes around comes"
It will all balance out in the wash

 

[monty1104]

The port scenario was a big one for me. They could have signed gussy, jordan russell or even slattery was the talk at 1 stage, but decided against it because they would have lost compensation. Now if port was not compensated the deal would have more than likely gone through with north melbourne for jacobs because the pick offered would have helped improve there position but with the compensation it did not.

This is the only part I disagree with here. Either way, Port "lose compensation". If they had have taken Monfries as a FA, then their compensation drops. However they decided to trade him, for a pick. Port didn't lose out there in reality, or win. We probably came off pretty well, because I doubt we would have got what we did for Monfries as a FA compensation.

 

[yaco55]

Doubt that the clubs will approve no compensation for the loss of RFA/FA.

And lets face it, you will never get more than 1 or 2 GUN players leave under FA per year.

RFA/FA is really targetted at the mid level players - We dont want to jeopardise their ability to move clubs.

 

[Benno30]

This is the only part I disagree with here. Either way, Port "lose compensation". If they had have taken Monfries as a FA, then their compensation drops. However they decided to trade him, for a pick. Port didn't lose out there in reality, or win. We probably came off pretty well, because I doubt we would have got what we did for Monfries as a FA compensation.

Well port upgraded there picks with compensation. So they got something and monfries would in my eyes have been worth roughly the same as pierce was but due to goddard we would not have got anything. Which at the end of they day would not have worried me if the rules were no compensation full stop.