Opinion Mandatory three year contracts for top 20 picks - good or bad?

[juss]

Surprisingly, I think the AFL has actually signed off on a good decision here.

For all clubs, the first rounders are key investments, and this gives clubs better control on the players that are most likely the ones they build their list around.

 

[Freomaniac]

Surprisingly, I think the AFL has actually signed off on a good decision here.

For all clubs, the first rounders are key investments, and this gives clubs better control on the players that are most likely the ones they build their list around.

Key word here is the top 20 picks.

So.... 18 sides. Does that mean the bottom 2 sides can secure 2 blokes on 3 year deals?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wouldnt have wanted one more year to keep Henry and convince him to stay ?

Good question.

Flip side is why retain players who don’t want to be there. Who knows really but maybe Henry didn’t buy in to flys ethos and he would have demanded a trade after two years anyway.

Of course he might have decided to stay too after three years given what he knows now about Geelongs trajectory compared to Collingwoods . Might make in into our best 23, squeezing Ginnivan out of the sub position.

 

[HairyO]

Good question.

Flip side is why retain players who don’t want to be there. Who knows really but maybe Henry didn’t buy in to flys ethos and he would have demanded a trade after two years anyway.

Of course he might have decided to stay too after three years given what he knows now about Geelongs trajectory compared to Collingwoods . Might make in into our best 23, squeezing Ginnivan out of the sub position.

Papley was off to Carlton then a year later signs another contract with the Swans.

Time changes minds.

 

[Freomaniac]

Good question.

Flip side is why retain players who don’t want to be there. Who knows really but maybe Henry didn’t buy in to flys ethos and he would have demanded a trade after two years anyway.

Of course he might have decided to stay too after three years given what he knows now about Geelongs trajectory compared to Collingwoods . Might make in into our best 23, squeezing Ginnivan out of the sub position.

There's only one reason you want to retain a player that doesn't want to be there.

Only if that player plays in a position the team has a lack of options there.

An example if you only got one decent full forward or ruckman on the list, would you at least trade in another one to replace that one that wants to leave?

 

[juss]

Key word here is the top 20 picks.

So.... 18 sides. Does that mean the bottom 2 sides can secure 2 blokes on 3 year deals?

It's probably better to be first rounders, but I don't think it's a disaster if it's top 20. Realistically is anyone losing sleep if picks 19 and 20 are also on 3 year deals? Probably not, I don't think that tears this idea apart.

But yeh, maybe it will be first rounders makes more sense. We're probably moving to 20 teams anyway within the next 15 years though

 

[The 747]

Still would like to understand how a pick 21 can make more money than a pick 20 in year 3 and that not be an issue. Restraint of trade anyone?

 

[Freomaniac]

Still would like to understand how a pick 21 can make more money than a pick 20 in year 3 and that not be an issue. Restraint of trade anyone?

I guess you don't follow the NBA then?

1st round picks get 3 year deals at 3-6 million a year.

Pick 60 in the NBA gets a 2 year deal at $500,000 a year.

You can call it restraint of trade, I call it a struggling side needs to retain their best youth

 

[Caligo]

So a Nick Daicos comes along and dominates for his team. The team are already getting his output at a huge discount as the contracts are fixed price by the AFL. Now he has play a third year for way under market value before he can get paid properly. That is around half or more of the average AFL career.

Then a Tom Stewart drafted outside the top 20 in the same year. Dominates in his second year and is awarded AA. Gets a much deserved large contract.

Now Daicos is playing for way below market value while his peer from the same draft is earning 500K (or whatever).

One more year of the lower contract for a player like daicos who probably has a 15 year plus career (and there aren't many like daicos in the first place) seems like a small price to pay to begin to fix the problem of elite talent walking out on clubs too early.

Stewart is quite an edge case too honestly. Very very few players get drafted outside the first round and are AA within two years. You would struggle to find more than half a dozen of them in the last 30 years.

 

[Caligo]

Still would like to understand how a pick 21 can make more money than a pick 20 in year 3 and that not be an issue. Restraint of trade anyone?

Everything about the AFL system is restraint of trade. If that is the path you want to go down you don't need to look at this specific rule change.

 

[The 747]

I guess you don't follow the NBA then?

1st round picks get 3 year deals at 3-6 million a year.

Pick 60 in the NBA gets a 2 year deal at $500,000 a year.

You can call it restraint of trade, I call it a struggling side needs to retain their best youth

If the first round picks are getting a significant salary increase then it makes sense. No I don't follow the NBA.

 

[The 747]

One more year of the lower contract for a player like daicos who probably has a 15 year plus career (and there aren't many like daicos in the first place) seems like a small price to pay to begin to fix the problem of elite talent walking out on clubs too early.

Stewart is quite an edge case too honestly. Very very few players get drafted outside the first round and are AA within two years. You would struggle to find more than half a dozen of them in the last 30 years.

They are both edge cases, that is why I used them. Unless there is a massive bump in the salary for the top 20 picks, you have a situation where the lesser ranked player has greater OTE than a higher ranked player in year 3. And again the average AFL career is about six years.

 

[Caligo]

They are both edge cases, that is why I used them. Unless there is a massive bump in the salary for the top 20 picks, you have a situation where the lesser ranked player has greater OTE than a higher ranked player in year 3. And again the average AFL career is about six years.

The average first rounder isn't 6 years.

I agree though raising the first rounder rookie wage is a good solution to the issue though.

Overall I like what the AFL is trying to do.

 

[The 747]

The average first rounder isn't 6 years.

I agree though raising the first rounder rookie wage is a good solution to the issue though.

Overall I like what the AFL is trying to do.

I don't, but we can agree to disagree on that. A poorly thought out idea that will have ramifications down the track that they haven't considered.

So if you draft Mitch Thorp again you are stuck with him for three years eh?

 

[MarcMaverick]

What about mid-season trading as an idea?

 

[Hamingja]

I don't think it changes anything tbh.

Will it stop players requesting trades in contract with an extra year? No.

JHF was contracted for another season also, doesn't really impact much, you aren't going to hold a disgruntled 19 year old kid at your club for 2 years just to prove a point.

100%

It was completely untenable for North to keep JHF given the circus it turned into over the last few weeks of the season

The destination club will just leverage that unrest off against the extra year on the contract in trade discussions

I reckon it will result in more players asking to be traded out after the first year personally

If a kid ends up somewhere they don't want to be, another 2 years is going to look like an eternity

I'm sure there are plenty of players that don't like where they end up and after the first year sit down with their managers and/or the club and decide to give the second year a go to fulfil the contract

Some might even change their minds during that second year and stay

Now I think they will be much more likely to say screw it I'm out, after one year, with no hope on the horizon

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Should be 4 years with clubs having the option to cut after year 2 and 3.

 

[Hamingja]

So if you draft Mitch Thorp again you are stuck with him for three years eh?

Thorp was on the Hawks list for 3 years. Clubs are basically never going to delist a first round pick within 3 years short of sexual assault, multiple drug convictions or the like, they are not going to admit they were wrong that quickly

 

[Caligo]

Thorp was on the Hawks list for 3 years. Clubs are basically never going to delist a first round pick within 3 years short of sexual assault, multiple drug convictions or the like, they are not going to admit they were wrong that quickly

Who was the last first rounder not to get at least 3 years (without, as you say, some extreme external factors)?

I can't actually think of one.

 

[Clark G]

Like some others have said already, this may not change much because players can ask to leave, and do leave, mid contract quite often.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Still would like to understand how a pick 21 can make more money than a pick 20 in year 3 and that not be an issue. Restraint of trade anyone?

There would presumably be nothing stopping a club from extending a contract, and higher paying, in the first or second year to tie down a 5 or 6 year deal. Or the third year having a higher guaranteed minimum.
Not that an arbitrary amount of players makes much sense to me, just do it for all draftees - or at least all first-time draftees. If we really must have a draft.