Free Agency Stay or Go?

[Crankyhawk]

I'm not sure the examples of the lower teams losing players is all that valid so far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most have been restricted FA's and instead of exercising their right to match the offers the clubs have chosen to take the compo picks and run in the name of 'rebuilding'.

It's a bit rich to make decisions like that then turn around and complain that you've lost all your senior leaders.

Or unrealistic contracts that can't be matched.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

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

.

So buddy is worth 3 first rounders?

 

[Power Raid]

if it is required, just make the compensation a little more attractive

 

[Ambrosia]

I don't really care whether or not free agency stays or goes but the stupid compensation pick system needs a complete overhaul.

The compensation for losing a free agent is cap space. I wouldn't be totally against some compensation at the end of the second round but anything close to a first rounder and the club losing the free agent ends up benifiting from not being able to retain players

 

[Goggin Our Best]

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.

Just out of interest - who are the " Rubbish Teams" - give us your list

ps - i love your arrogance

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

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.

The afl has a minimum salary cap. don't know exactly how it works but something like 90% of maximum wage bill must be used every year. which makes it impossible for bad teams to mount huge offers to free agents. it will be can be a huge equilsation tool if this rule is removed.

 

[Blackas87]

"Clubs should be trying to retain their players". My question is - why? Why should clubs be trying to retain players, especially if they perceive them as non-important players? Clubs can't just go ahead and trade away any player they like because contracted players need to agree to the trade.

Compo picks are absolutely essential with free agency, and more importantly trading, the way it is. Using the Frawley example. Say he knows he doesn't want to play on at Melbourne and he decided this last year. Frawley decides that he wants to go to free agency to assess all his options and doesn't allow Melbourne to trade him. What is Melbourne supposed to do in this situation? You're advocating allowing players to walk in this situation and giving Melbourne the 'hard luck' treatment because they couldn't get a deal done (thanks to the player). At the very least the compo pick mitigates the blow for the club.

How do you define success? Would Fremantle deserve a compo pick if they lost Fyfe through free agency? They haven't won a flag but are a top team.

The compo picks were brought in for when clubs lose important players, if a player isn't important to a club then why should the club receive a compo pick?

Well for Fyfe it depends on why he leaves, if it's for more money then the salary cap is doing it's job, it's evening out the competition, Fremantle also have the right to to sign free agents themselves to lessen the blow.

As for Frawley leaving Melbourne, once again Melbourne would have the right and salary cap room to sign their own free agents, there have been reports that Melbourne is the front runner for Malceski, but as discussed on the Melbourne board if Frawely leaves then going after Malceski will delude the compo pick, the compensation picks are stopping further free agency take place. I think signing a mature player will lessen the blow for melbourne in 2015 then an 18 year old first year player.

From 2000-2010 every club finished in the top 4 or made a prelim final, the draft was working, you start compromising with the draft then you start compromising the evenness of the completion. The draft has been heavily comprised with GWS and Gold Coast entering the league and we've seen the same teams up the top and same teams down the bottom.

 

[AstonSouffle]

As for Frawley leaving Melbourne, once again Melbourne would have the right and salary cap room to sign their own free agents, there have been reports that Melbourne is the front runner for Malceski, but as discussed on the Melbourne board if Frawely leaves then going after Malceski will delude the compo pick, the compensation picks are stopping further free agency take place. I think signing a mature player will lessen the blow for melbourne in 2015 then an 18 year old first year player.

Not sure, if you know this... can't really gage from your post but losing a free agent, picking one up means you don't get compo. This has already happened.

Cap space isn't everything, there's the implicit costs of losing a quality player as well. That's what I feel the compo pick is geared towards.

 

[I am Jack]

I think the AFL will decrease the free agency age to 6 years to increase player movement.
Increasing player movement is supposed to benefit the bottom sides with more cap space - in theory.

I have no idea whether this evens the competition or not.

 

[Blackas87]

Not sure, if you know this... can't really gage from your post but losing a free agent, picking one up means you don't get compo. This has already happened.

Cap space isn't everything, there's the implicit costs of losing a quality player as well. That's what I feel the compo pick is geared towards.

Yeah that's what I'm saying, if a club is going to get a 1st round compo pick, then the club may not sign another free agent as it will lower that pick.

 

[liz]

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.

I didn't provide an opinion on whether it should stay or whether I was in favour of it. I wasn't when it appeared and that hasn't changed.

My observation was merely about how it came about and that it was never intended to be a competition equalisation measure. It is therefore pointless to assess its "success" against competition equalisation measures.

 

[the_interloper]

Had to laugh at Bob Murphy saying on 360 the other night that free agency was created for the good of the game. Absolute bullshit, was created for the players and good clubs, nothing more.

 

[Rob]

Just out of interest - who are the " Rubbish Teams" - give us your list

ps - i love your arrogance

The rubbish teams are the ones near the bottom.

Not sure where any arrogance comes into it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Rob]

The afl has a minimum salary cap. don't know exactly how it works but something like 90% of maximum wage bill must be used every year. which makes it impossible for bad teams to mount huge offers to free agents. it will be can be a huge equilsation tool if this rule is removed.

That's crap, because all you have to do is bring forward the payments for players on multi year deals. So if you have a player on $400k a year for 3 years, you can bring forward his payments so he gets $800k for year 1 then 2 years at $200k a year. This benefits the player as well as the club.

It's called good cap management.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Is there any other industry in Australia where the workers don’t decide where they’ll ply their trade? There’s certainly no comparison to the draft system, which decides where each 18-year-old will commence his AFL career, regularly sending them interstate and away from friends and family.

Players have supported the draft and salary cap as mechanisms to help achieve competitive balance in the AFL. They understand that they may have to start their career at a club that’s not their first preference. That’s how it goes in many sports.

But those sports also have some form of free agency in place so that, at some point, players get a choice where they play. Prior to 2012, the AFL was one of the only sporting competition’s in the world that didn’t have any form of free agency in place. In all other Australian football codes (NRL, Rugby Union and A-League) and other Australian professional sports (Netball and NBL), all out of contract players are free agents.

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/article/club-loyalty-and-free-agency-here-to-stay-prendergast/

 

[Slax]

Stay, but with some overall adjustments.

Compo picks to go, you either want the player or you don't.
Unrestricted FA goes.
2nd FA period exists post club's final listing submissions allowing players to sign with club of their chosing if delisted.
Draft rules get changed to allow trading of the following year's picks and PSD picks (ie. St Kilda can trade off pick 1 in the PSD by not guaranteeing they don't use all picks in the normal draft)
Copy NRL rules allow FA signings before June 30 deadline, but change rules so clubs are not allowed to make any new approach to the player or player's manager between 1st July and when that club finishes its season. Fans will be far more accepting of it than the AFL thinks, if it is couple with the knowledge that the sideshow that is August and player movements won't happen as clubs and managers can't do anything. Penalty for breach is loss of 1st round draft pick. If you want to stop something effectively don't stand there with a twig, grab a mace and show that you're willing to use it.

 

[Carlo]

Just out of interest - who are the " Rubbish Teams" - give us your list

ps - i love your arrogance

Melbourne
Saints
Lions
Doggies

Them for a start.

 

[swiftdog]

The compo picks were brought in for when clubs lose important players, if a player isn't important to a club then why should the club receive a compo pick?

Well for Fyfe it depends on why he leaves, if it's for more money then the salary cap is doing it's job, it's evening out the competition, Fremantle also have the right to to sign free agents themselves to lessen the blow.

As for Frawley leaving Melbourne, once again Melbourne would have the right and salary cap room to sign their own free agents, there have been reports that Melbourne is the front runner for Malceski, but as discussed on the Melbourne board if Frawely leaves then going after Malceski will delude the compo pick, the compensation picks are stopping further free agency take place. I think signing a mature player will lessen the blow for melbourne in 2015 then an 18 year old first year player.

From 2000-2010 every club finished in the top 4 or made a prelim final, the draft was working, you start compromising with the draft then you start compromising the evenness of the completion. The draft has been heavily comprised with GWS and Gold Coast entering the league and we've seen the same teams up the top and same teams down the bottom.

How do you define an 'important' player? I'm not 100% knowledgeable on the NHL system but I think they determine compensation based on player salary. If player x earns a certain amount then the club losing the free agent (restricted only) gets compensated a certain amount. It's completely transparent and there's no guesswork as to how much a club gets compensated.

But what if Fyfe goes to Hawthorn? A team that has performed better than Fremantle that now has the cap space because Buddy was offloaded? That's not evening up the competition. Our free agent pool is relatively very small compared to what is seen in the states. Cap space + potentially pick from a relatively shitty free agent pool is not enough for a club losing a good player.

I don't like the idea of signing another free agent diluting the compensation pick. The best case scenario for Melbourne is that they get a decent pick for Frawley and they can sign a half-decent free agent to help in the short term. It's a great way for a bottom team to accelerate their development.

I think the same teams are staying up the top because the dinosaur-like mentality of a cyclical AFL is somewhat dying. The compromised drafts have played a factor no doubt but clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong are getting smarter and shrewder rather than resting on their laurels with the players they have like they may have done 10-15+ years ago. The competition's going to keep evolving as clubs look for the best ways to get ahead. We've seen it with tactics on the field changing and the same thing will continue to happen off-field.

 

[Hawkers]

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.

That only works if clubs didn't have to pay a minimum percentage of their salary cap.
Why that minimum rule is in place I have no idea. It's really stupid

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

The whole 'it makes the strong getter stronger' is just an uneducated view.

Who has lost the most free agents currently? The answer is Hawthorn on pure numbers and also player ability. Player ability is subjective so how about the contract size given to free agents then. Hawthorn is number 1 in terms of both.

Of course the Swans benefit because they have a larger salary cap than every other team in the AFL. I just think that it is disgusting the the AFL introduced the FA system whilst the salary cap is compromised so badly. It blew up in the face of all the other teams but of course was exactly what the AFL engineered.

But on the flip side the FA is too restrictive for players just outside the 22 waiting for opportunities. Clubs still hold all the cards here.

Example, clubs are keen on Mitchell from the Swans. Lets pretend that he is playing for a club with a normal cap and is on a regular salary for someone his age/experience (he is currently on $400k +). He can't get a game at the Swans and is behind all their mids whom are basically all under 27. A player like Mitchell should be able to change easily to a club of their choice to achieve regular game time.

Hawthorn did the right thing by McGlynn and Kennedy when they left, they had been given massive offers to play for the Swans and weren't worthy of regular game time at Hawthorn. Hawthorn did the right thing by facilitating a trade to their club of choice. Hawthorn could have played hardball and forced them into the draft, essentially they got nothing for the 2 players.

Essentially the rule should be if you play less than 10 games per year for average over 2-3 years then you qualify as a restricted free agent.

 

[Blackas87]

How do you define an 'important' player? I'm not 100% knowledgeable on the NHL system but I think they determine compensation based on player salary. If player x earns a certain amount then the club losing the free agent (restricted only) gets compensated a certain amount. It's completely transparent and there's no guesswork as to how much a club gets compensated.

But what if Fyfe goes to Hawthorn? A team that has performed better than Fremantle that now has the cap space because Buddy was offloaded? That's not evening up the competition. Our free agent pool is relatively very small compared to what is seen in the states. Cap space + potentially pick from a relatively shitty free agent pool is not enough for a club losing a good player.

I don't like the idea of signing another free agent diluting the compensation pick. The best case scenario for Melbourne is that they get a decent pick for Frawley and they can sign a half-decent free agent to help in the short term. It's a great way for a bottom team to accelerate their development.

I think the same teams are staying up the top because the dinosaur-like mentality of a cyclical AFL is somewhat dying. The compromised drafts have played a factor no doubt but clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong are getting smarter and shrewder rather than resting on their laurels with the players they have like they may have done 10-15+ years ago. The competition's going to keep evolving as clubs look for the best ways to get ahead. We've seen it with tactics on the field changing and the same thing will continue to happen off-field.

Just going to quickly go over this, Hawthorn lose Franklin, receive an extra 1st round pick and a year later sign Fyfe with the extra cap space. So they lose one star but gain another, that's where it should stop, giving them extra 1st round pick on top is a massive advantage over the clubs rebuilding below them. Hawthorn are one of the favorites to sign Frawley this year, they have the cap room to take players from clubs rebuilding, they also have extra draft picks over clubs trying to rebuild. There is problem with that right there.

Melbourne may lose Frawely this year, they can try and sign Malceski this year, with the extra cap room they can also target Dangerfield and other to Free agents the following year, giving extra draft picks out is giving clubs a big leg up over others.

 

[JackFlash]

I don't like and it's not necessary in our game, Prendergast was running around in circles this week in response to Chris Scott's comments, from what he was proposing the situation would become diabolically worse for clubs.

 

[piesnz]

When have players wanting to change clubs ever not got to the club of their choice???

Scrap it.

Off the top of my head Nick Stevens from Port to Collingwood. Port told Pies to get stuffed since they wouldn't give them Didak and let him go to draft and then Carlton.

 

[Brasher]

Just going to quickly go over this, Hawthorn lose Franklin, receive an extra 1st round pick and a year later sign Fyfe with the extra cap space. So they lose one star but gain another, that's where it should stop, giving them extra 1st round pick on top is a massive advantage over the clubs rebuilding below them. .

Great point, I'm a fan of FA but the compensation pick system is less than perfect, even for a relatively mature system like the NFL. Clubs pick up compo picks for losing players but do not lose picks for signing FAs.

Maybe if the cost of losing a pick plus the pay packet of the player they are attracting away from their original club may make it that little bit less attractive. For starters they may not be willing to offer overs once they factor in the lost draft pick.

Would the Crows have signed Betts if it was also going to cost them a 2014 1st round draft pick?

 

[Freomaniac]

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.

Crap rule you just posted.

Jack Watts was the number 1 pick in the 2008 draft, and you guys should be heavily compensated because he is a number 1 pick? Rory Sloane was pick 44 in that same draft, and he is a much better player than Jack Watts. Going by that rule, since Rory sloane is a 3rd rounder, the crows should get a 3rd round pick when they lose rory sloane? Stuff that.