Free Agency Stay or Go?

[Tulip]

The one way of equalising it may be that the side taking the player gives up one of their own picks.

What the formula would be to determine which pick goes first, I have no idea.

 

[manboob]

I like the idea in theory, but I think it will just lead to players walking to the PSD and end up totally screwing their old club. Ala Luke Ball. Though in part that was the Saints fault for refusing to trade.

 

[LeverPuller]

Suggestion for restricted free agents (instead of the current system).

Each team has to tender a value for each of its RFAs. That value corresponds with a draft pick and a contract.

Example:
First round tender - $700k/year for 3 years
Second round tender - $450k/year for 3 years
Third round tender - $300k/year for 3 years

If a team wants a restricted free agent, they have to give up the pick that the team tenders. If the team doesn't have their player picked up, they must give the player a contract matching or greater than the tender value. Means that there is a definitive price attached to RFAs with a pick surrendered, and that other sides don't lose out over RFAs with compos.

Of course, it means UFAs need to be sorted out.

 

[BobaFett]

Let's not get too excited, mediocre footballer at best.

He's no chris mayne that's for sure...

 

[didaksrightfoot]

The one way of equalising it may be that the side taking the player gives up one of their own picks.

What the formula would be to determine which pick goes first, I have no idea.

But how is that free agency?
That is no different to Trading.

A team picking up a free agent loses salary cap space, a team losing someone gains cap space. (And as I have said above - teams worried about a player leaving as a free agent should be given more power to trade that player)

 

[Tulip]

But how is that free agency?
That is no different to Trading.

A team picking up a free agent loses salary cap space, a team losing someone gains cap space. (And as I have said above - teams worried about a player leaving as a free agent should be given more power to trade that player)

It's different to trading because clubs can't hold a player back and insist that they don't go somewhere unless a certain value is met.

They can go where they like, so long as the club is willing to pay something and not just cherry pick them.

Sounds like a nice balance to me.

 

[Lsta062]

I also wish I could go to work and be a free agent so that another company/department could snap me up at a higher wage

 

[AM]

Like it or not it's here to stay if for no other reason than it makes it less likely a player would head to the courts armed with a restraint of trade brief.

 

[Lsta062]

Honestly, I think that free agency is causing the competition to be somewhat uneven. If the same top teams keep getting the good players and the same bottom teams keep losing their players to free agency, supporters of the bottom teams will lose interest in their team and either will support one of those top teams or will stop following AFL all together. I don't think it will be extremely uneven because there is a salary cap in place. It just means that rebuilding and declining phases will occur at slower rates.

However, I think it is too early to tell whether or not free agency will cause bottom teams to stay on the bottom. My team is proof that you can stay on the bottom for decades even without free agency being in place

 

[mike14]

But in the NHL you have to give up your own draft picks to secure an RFA, so not sure what your objection to Stews proposal is?

Yeah, for a RFA, not a UFA. Compo for UFA is just ????.

If you want to poach 24 year old G Ablett from the Cats who is out of contract with the club then yeah, you are giving up a shed load of picks (or other assets if you can make a trade) to get him as the club still 'owns' him, even without a current contract.
If you want 29 year old G Ablett who's out of contract with the Suns, then you can make an offer like any other club. there's no compo because once the last day of the season occurs the Suns don't 'own' him any more

 

[TedDougChris]

One Scott is saying that, not "coaches".

But it was introduced for the players and not the competition anyway.

While I said I mis-spoke (or typed) earlier, it seems I may not have been too far off the mark...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-than-nrl-nathan-buckley-20140730-zyhul.html

"There was really robust discussion about it. I think the unanimous view was that it does benefit 'destination' clubs and that it's not a method of equalisation in any shape or form," he said.
"Anything that's not equalising the competition is [a means to create a more even competition] being taken away, and I think free agency falls into that basket."

 

[TedDougChris]

And yes - it will always require lower (I disagree with poorer) clubs to offer more. That has always been the case, and applies worldwide in every sport. If you cannot offer success, then you have to be able to offer something else (generally - more money).

Anything that requires the clubs lower on the ladder to pay more or give up more in order to attract a player will not work in favour of equalisation.

Players are looking for success primarily. They want a premiership. Most players who are in that premiership window will not leave a club, unless forced. Most players not in that window will be looking to find a way into it.

There is longer term trend that the poorer clubs (in terms of both on and off field spending) are occupying the lower ladder positions. A few years back, the only two clubs in the finals that weren't in the top 8 in terms of total football department expenditure were the Dogs and Saints. The Hawks, Geelong, Swans, Pies etc have all been able to play multiple back-to-back finals campaigns. Look at the Dogs and Saints now...

FA will long term be a method for players to get to the club they want, a destination club, in a premiership window... God help your club if you aren't in that window...

The process to get Buddy started after the 2012 finals... Can you imagine if they reduce it to 6 years and allow the 6 month signing on agreement ahead of the end of the year ?? Clubs will be targeting players after only 4 - 4.5 years... For the Dogs that means Libba is fair game, so is Roughead, Dahl. Stringer, Macrae in another 2 years... How the * are you meant to rebuild a club if you only get a few years out of these guys before they leave, and then you get no compensation ?? Who is going to join a club that's just seen the heart of it's potential rise up the ladder ripped out by FA ???

How the * do you develop a KPF or a ruckman ??? They take 4 - 6 years just to make an impact... If the AFLPA get their way, this will potentially kill off some clubs, it's just ******* madness...

 

[mattymac]

Let's not get too excited, mediocre footballer at best.

servicable I would say.

 

[Off The Couch]

Stay but clubs shouldn't receive any compo - it's ridiculous that it's based on ladder positioning. I'm deadset against mid year signings - just doesn't sit right. Imagine if that player and the club he has signed with are playing in a grand final - the thought would always be there

 

[Rob]

Not sure why the rubbish teams should be disadvantaged. If they're well managed, they should have a heap more salary cap space and be able to attract free agents.

Of course, if they're committed to paying their spud players shitloads then they're in trouble. But equalisation isn't about making badly managed clubs better.

 

[Shoota Welsh]

Free agency was never about contributing to the goal of an even competition. It is player driven and enables players to maximize their leverage to pursue their individual goals, whether that be contract length, pay or simply mobility. It was always doubtful it would be to the benefit of the competition as a whole, but it is here and almost certainly here to stay.

of course sydney and hawthorn want it to stay because right now they are the two destination clubs. but if you look at it from a competition perspective it ruins it.

 

[SA HAWK]

of course sydney and hawthorn want it to stay because right now they are the two destination clubs. but if you look at it from a competition perspective it ruins it.

Hawthorn have lost 4 players to free agency so far (Franklin, Ellis, Young & Murphy) and gained only 1 (Simpkin) so it hasn't really done us much good so far.

 

[crownie]

for people who know about NFL, last years 2 superbowl teams will have contrasting fortunes with free agency. Denver broncos are signing many great players on the cheap because they want to be part of a championship, while the seattle seahawks team is totally stacked and they're accepting the fact that they will lose multiple star players because they won't be able to pay everyone what they're worth. but it's worth noting that NFL contracts range between 500k and 20m a year so maybe when things change when we're talking that kind of money....so it's not totally comparable to AFL.

I was for free agency in the AFL as it has been effective in helping bad teams progress quicker and getting more teams competitive in the NFL but im against it now as i think the depth of talent in the AFL is not deep enough to be spread across of the whole comp.

 

[Cdreamer]

Its here to stay. The players wanted it. Deal with it.

 

[Shoota Welsh]

Hawthorn have lost 4 players to free agency so far (Franklin, Ellis, Young & Murphy) and gained only 1 (Simpkin) so it hasn't really done us much good so far.

franklin is the only real one that made your squad worse (marginally), and hawthorn would be front runners for any good player sussing the FA market. to be fair you probably havent had much space in the cap before buddy and not much time to lure a free agent after he left. still got many players for just about nothing anyway being the destination club you have been for last 6 or so years including one of the best young talents at my team (still not happy!) and burgoyne

 

[Shoota Welsh]

Hawthorn have lost 4 players to free agency so far (Franklin, Ellis, Young & Murphy) and gained only 1 (Simpkin) so it hasn't really done us much good so far.

also didnt you get lake/gibson from free agency?

 

[TedDougChris]

also didnt you get lake/gibson from free agency?

Lake was a trade after threatening to leave via FA the following year unless he was traded to the Hawks....

 

[Stranglers]

also didnt you get lake/gibson from free agency?

Gibson was traded at the end of 2009 (3 years before introduction of FA) for a second and third rounder. There might have been a swap of picks in there somewhere too.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Introduce trading up until May/June. If a player who is in his final year of contract and will become a UFA, if his club by this time suspects he'll walk then the club has time to trade him for picks and/or players. It will also allow a team that is already out of finals contention to trade earlier and rebuild quicker (teams in finals contention may pay a premium for a player).

Also introduce the ability to trade future picks as well, which will make trading more flexible.

Compensation can then also be watered down to a 3rd round pick.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Already has.

Melbourne losses to FA:
Brent Moloney
Jared Rivers
Colin Sylvia

Melbourne potential FA (considered gone by many)
James Frawley

Melbourne gains by FA
Shannon Byrnes (to be delisted most assume)
Daniel Cross (been good, but was a delisted FA, not a RFA/UFA)
Tom Gillies (already gone, useless)

Laugh all you want at the Sylvia one, but it's still 3 senior players with a 4th to come possibly.

Hawthorn losses to FA
Buddy
Young
Murphy
Ellis (delisted FA)

Gains to FA
Simpkin (delisted FA)

THe only reason I want to keep it is at the moment we are losers from it, want to get something out of it before scrapping it.