Opinion: Alterations to free agency that SHOULD be made

[Matchu]

The problem I have with FA is basically your last sentence.

GWS puts 8 years development into Boyd yet face the possibility of losing him for nothing when he is expected to return the dividends. Now assuming Boyd pans out as expected by being the best player in his draft year, the logic of FA is to replace him with a different elite player or players who can contribute just as much as Boyd. I don't think its that easy and especially for one of the smaller clubs.


I actually think the 8 and 10 years is fine. Obviously the compensation is what causing the biggest issue and IMO if you are going to reward compensation, make it for the following years draft and make it all end of rounds to avoid tanking.

Some people would argue that if GWS can't convince Boyd to stay after eight seasons at the club then they don't deserve to hold on to a guy who has most likely played more than half his career for you. Obviously you can't control or predict who will be available in eight years time so they should be doing everything in their power (presuming Boyd turns out to be the player most predict he will) to convince him to stay.

Yes, it can.

1/- The PSD must now be abolished, it no longer serves a purpose other than picks 1 and maybe 2. The Free Agency system has replaced it in part, plus the players can nominate for the National Draft, plus there is the delisted players free agency period. An adjustment must be made though, if a player refuses to sign a new contract and no trade can be worked out he would need to be delisted prior to the National Draft.

2/- With the PSD gone, the bottom one or two clubs no longer have that sledge hammer to hold over any other club, therefore if they want a player, a reasonable trade must be worked out, otherwise the draft lottery will happen.

3/- The clubs losing players need to become trading savvy, some clubs are acknowledged as very good trading clubs, others need to learn how & why, employ the right people, but don't sook if they cannot get quality for quality, if they don't, it is their own fault.

My system will do away with the Tom Scully moving to GWS for nothing scenario, the Dees would have been rewarded with players or draft picks of suitable quality.

Of course it doesn't happen, the players have the right to veto a trade.

I want the players to keep that right, they should also be able to say I want to join xyz.

Look at the Polec trade, Port were fair, the Lions got adequate compensation, I see nothing wrong with that.

If the player cannot choose, you are sanctioning clubs being able to hold a veritable auction for a player, that's wrong on so many levels.

When was the last time a player served two years at a club and then went through the PSD? I haven't checked but I would have thought that was a very rare occurrence. The problem for the Brisbane Lions wasn't that their players went through the PSD, it was that they weren't receiving draft picks that matched up with their player's previous value. Obviously everyone's opinion will vary on what a player is worth but I think Brisbane got it pretty rough last year.

Jared Polec (2010 #5 pick), pick 29 and 45 = picks 22, 34 and 48

• Pretty minor upgrade on their original picks despite offering up a player that went top 5 in the draft three seasons ago.

Sam Docherty (2011 #12 pick) = pick 33

• Docherty goes 12 in his draft two seasons ago and Brisbane receive a late second rounder for him.

Billy Longer (2011 #8 pick) and pick 48 = pick 25 and 41

• A ruckman that went top 10 just two seasons ago and you receive pick 25 for him with a slight upgrade in your third rounder? Pretty rough.

Brisbane traded three guys that went top 12 in their respective drafts just 2-3 seasons prior to their trade and received second rounders for every one of them. How can you possibly rebuild effectively in that situation?

 

[dlanod]

How do you feel about the Polec trade?

Do you consider it to have been equitable?

I do, we gave up a quality pick, you gave up a player yet to show quality, but the potential is there.

I don't object to the Polec trade. Port were pretty good - pick 22 was in the ballpark for someone with Polec's talent but injury prone and hadn't really put it together.

I object to the Yeo trade (pick 28 for a best 22 player in both the team he's leaving and the team he's going to), the Longer trade (pick 25 for a player who was pick 7 only two years ago, at a position where he's going to come into his peak in another 3 to 5 years) and the Docherty trade (pick 33 for a player who was pick 12 two years ago). I also object to the Gunston trade - pick 24 for a good KPP with two years development.

We're seeing 18 and 21 pick falls for players who only got selected two years ago. Why on earth should any club be using the draft, when they can just trade their second round picks for players taken in the first round a couple of years earlier? Why bother having free agency when a kid can force his way to a club of his choice, and the previous club gets less compensation than if they'd gone in free agency? Or, alternatively, why bother having a trade period instead of all free agency? Or general talent scouting instead of the draft?

Basically the draft, trade week, all of that is done in terms of equalization. Being able to lure "homesick" kids is by nature unequal. Qld and NSW clubs will cop the worst of it. SA clubs will too - fewer people and fewer draftees means fewer to come home to counteract those who will be leaving. WA clubs already draft primarily Western Australians and provide enough draftees elsewhere to be able to balance out the equation. Victorian clubs obviously have a huge advantage in terms of draftees. That's why I'd be in favour of extending the base rookie contract. Most of the Qld and NSW clubs already try to sign draftees to three year deals off the bat for precisely that reason, but have no recourse if they decline.

they didn't have a leg to stand on.

And that's why I italiced try. From my understanding of Australian employment law, that's correct.

 

[Matchu]

I don't object to the Polec trade. Port were pretty good - pick 22 was in the ballpark for someone with Polec's talent but injury prone and hadn't really put it together.

I object to the Yeo trade (pick 28 for a best 22 player in both the team he's leaving and the team he's going to), the Longer trade (pick 25 for a player who was pick 7 only two years ago, at a position where he's going to come into his peak in another 3 to 5 years) and the Docherty trade (pick 33 for a player who was pick 12 two years ago). I also object to the Gunston trade - pick 24 for a good KPP with two years development.

We're seeing 18 and 21 pick falls for players who only got selected two years ago. Why on earth should any club be using the draft, when they can just trade their second round picks for players taken in the first round a couple of years earlier? Why bother having free agency when a kid can force his way to a club of his choice, and the previous club gets less compensation than if they'd gone in free agency? Or, alternatively, why bother having a trade period instead of all free agency? Or general talent scouting instead of the draft?

Basically the draft, trade week, all of that is done in terms of equalization. Being able to lure "homesick" kids is by nature unequal. Qld and NSW clubs will cop the worst of it. SA clubs will too - fewer people and fewer draftees means fewer to come home to counteract those who will be leaving. WA clubs already draft primarily Western Australians and provide enough draftees elsewhere to be able to balance out the equation. Victorian clubs obviously have a huge advantage in terms of draftees. That's why I'd be in favour of extending the base rookie contract. Most of the Qld and NSW clubs already try to sign draftees to three year deals off the bat for precisely that reason, but have no recourse if they decline.

I think you summed it up perfectly. The draftee contract should definitely be extended beyond 2 years in an attempt to counteract what we saw with Brisbane last year. I also think shortening years before being eligible for FA will help keep players for that little bit longer as well. We know taller players generally take around 4-5 years to really kick on so if they were to become a restricted free agent after 6 years then the original club would be able to push for a trade by matching the offer and that would see them get much more value for their player (in most cases) than they would after just 2 seasons.

 

[pazza]

If we are to have it, then it should only kick in after 10 years and not 8.

 

[Matchu]

I think at the end of the first contract the player should be allowed to choose which state they want to go to, but not which team. If the player desperately wants to go a particular club, they can play out 5-6 years then go to that club, or go there if their current club approves of the move before that time. Also that contract should run for 3-4 years.

I'd understand the 6 years then restricted status and after that the next contract the player is unrestricted. That makes sense.

What I don't get the grasp of is why anyone would want to completely remove compensation. Free agency currently helps teams stay around the top for longer without bottoming out, while compensation makes it more probable that a lower team can rise in the ranks with a talented 18yo they received for the free agent. That makes for a competition where there are many teams in contention and it levels the playing field to an extent.
By removing compensation, doesn't it completely throw the balance out? The strong get stronger, yep I support that, but why would anyone want the weak to get weaker?
If Melbourne lost Frawley this year with no compo provided, they get even weaker while another stronger team like Gold Coast or Hawthorn get even stronger. They stay down the bottom for even longer. Players would know that they don't have to hang around too long and leave and make the club even weaker on a pretty consistent basis.
Please no one say that their reward is more free cap space. Melbourne or St. Kilda don't need that at all. So why get rid of compensation when it appears it contradicts equalisation?

FA goes both ways. Lance Franklin left the club that finished number 1 on the ladder and won the premiership. Obviously the AFL would have preferred Buddy to end up at GWS over the Swans but that is another issue. The issue being the amount of maximum years a club can offer a player which I personally feel should be capped to around 6 years. You cap it to 6 years and suddenly the GWS offer looks a lot more appealing than Sydney's.

The AFLPA is only suggesting removing compensation for unrestricted free agents at this point in time. This means that Melbourne will receive compensation if Frawley decides to walk. The problem is that clubs are now relying on compensation to replenish their list. I firmly believe the AFL's preference is to see restricted free agency offers matched and for trades to occur (a sign-and-trade in the NBA) but it is very unlikely that will happen as long as compensation exists. The AFL needs to make trading more appealing for all three parties. In the NBA there are certain benefits to trading vs free agency which include bird rights (being able to offer more money) and maximum years on a contract, among other things.

You have to also remember that compensation in itself can compromise equalisation. If FA compo were to be completely removed tomorrow, you would find the Demons would be pushing a lot harder for Frawley to sign now and would definitely match any offer at the end of the season with the idea of trading him. The Demons then have some say in what they feel is adequate for Frawley instead of relying on the AFL to tell Melbourne what they feel Frawley is worth.

 

[juddy_Like]

Some people would argue that if GWS can't convince Boyd to stay after eight seasons at the club then they don't deserve to hold on to a guy who has most likely played more than half his career for you. Obviously you can't control or predict who will be available in eight years time so they should be doing everything in their power (presuming Boyd turns out to be the player most predict he will) to convince him to stay.

Point taken.

It is however a hell of a lot easier to convince a Steele Sidebottom to stay at Collingwood than for a Elliott Yeo to stay in Brisbane.

It'll be a bit like if we lose Eric Mackenzie in the next 2 years (not exactly sure of the years but its in the ballpark). We spend a good 5 years developing him. Has a couple of very good years and now as we start to see the peak of his powers, he bolts for a ridiculously un-matchable deal.

When was the last time a player served two years at a club and then went through the PSD? I haven't checked but I would have thought that was a very rare occurrence. The problem for the Brisbane Lions wasn't that their players went through the PSD, it was that they weren't receiving draft picks that matched up with their player's previous value. Obviously everyone's opinion will vary on what a player is worth but I think Brisbane got it pretty rough last year.

Jared Polec (2010 #5 pick), pick 29 and 45 = picks 22, 34 and 48

• Pretty minor upgrade on their original picks despite offering up a player that went top 5 in the draft three seasons ago.

Sam Docherty (2011 #12 pick) = pick 33

• Docherty goes 12 in his draft two seasons ago and Brisbane receive a late second rounder for him.

Billy Longer (2011 #8 pick) and pick 48 = pick 25 and 41

• A ruckman that went top 10 just two seasons ago and you receive pick 25 for him with a slight upgrade in your third rounder? Pretty rough.

Brisbane traded three guys that went top 12 in their respective drafts just 2-3 seasons prior to their trade and received second rounders for every one of them. How can you possibly rebuild effectively in that situation?

This is basically my concern.
There will always be players wanting to play for the bigger clubs based on the simple drawcard of it. The smaller clubs however will have to work extra hard just to keep there existing players whilst finding it harder to attract new ones.

 

[Matchu]

Point taken.

It is however a hell of a lot easier to convince a Steele Sidebottom to stay at Collingwood than for a Elliott Yeo to stay in Brisbane.

It'll be a bit like if we lose Eric Mackenzie in the next 2 years (not exactly sure of the years but its in the ballpark). We spend a good 5 years developing him. Has a couple of very good years and now as we start to see the peak of his powers, he bolts for a ridiculously un-matchable deal.

I hear you but the AFL needs to find a way to encourage players to stay longer at the club they were drafted to rather than just requesting a trade as soon as their draftee contract expires. This is why I suggested a 3 + 1 draftee contract with restricted free agency being available after six years at the club. Signing a two year extension after completing your 4 year draftee contract is far less daunting than the current six year extension that is required.

This is basically my concern.
There will always be players wanting to play for the bigger clubs based on the simple drawcard of it. The smaller clubs however will have to work extra hard just to keep there existing players whilst finding it harder to attract new ones.

That is no doubt a concern also. The salary cap helps the smaller teams in this regard. Will it be harder for a team like the St Kilda to appeal to the biggest free agents? Unfortunately yes. BUT we can already see how heavily the Saints have committed to the rebuild and I'm sure a lot of that has to do with them knowing they don't have a good chance to acquire a big free agent.

It wouldn't surprise me if a team like the Swans continue to replenish their list through free agency while a team like the Bulldogs use the draft as their route to opening the premiership window. Two different methods of list management but at the end of the day everyone is chasing the same goal.

 

[I am Jack]

I find it hard to take serious any debate where compo is questioned.

Under a fair and equal system, yes.. By all means, take compo away - it makes a lot of sense.
But.. The current AFL system is not fair and equal, it is absolutely ridiculous to even question compo.

The game is now a business and it is going to be hard to purify. Equalization is a pipe dream.

 

[Sanders]

That you don't want a lose a favourite player is no reason to penalise players in the real world.

Should be FA much earlier.

 

[Sanders]

I find it hard to take serious any debate where compo is questioned.

Under a fair and equal system, yes.. By all means, take compo away - it makes a lot of sense.
But.. The current AFL system is not fair and equal, it is absolutely ridiculous to even question compo.

The game is now a business and it is going to be hard to purify. Equalization is a pipe dream.

Incoherent

 

[dlanod]

That you don't want a lose a favourite player is no reason to penalise players in the real world.

Should be FA much earlier.

Should either be FA with compo immediately or longer rookie contracts IMO. Either way makes it more likely a club will get something fair for younger walkouts, as opposed to now where they get 40 cents or less on the dollar.

 

[Sanders]

Should either be FA with compo immediately or longer rookie contracts IMO. Either way makes it more likely a club will get something fair for younger walkouts, as opposed to now where they get 40 cents or less on the dollar.

Players are not assets to be bought & sold.

If they have served their contract that's it.

 

[dlanod]

Players are not assets to be bought & sold.

If they have served their contract that's it.

Correct. So you're in favour of longer contracts to give them more time to serve.

 

[Sanders]

Correct. So you're in favour of longer contracts to give them more time to serve.

Pretty obvious I said nothing at all about contract length

 

[dlanod]

Pretty obvious I said nothing at all about contract length

It was pretty obvious you said nothing about anything that was in the post you quoted, so I extrapolated.

 

[Sanders]

It was pretty obvious you said nothing about anything that was in the post you quoted, so I extrapolated.

Read it again

 

[Asgardian]

Players are not assets to be bought & sold.

Actually they are, many times players, mid contract, have been traded for his home club to advance themselves, either up the draft order or for a player they need.

If they have served their contract that's it.

Again, they are still an asset, ala Bernie Vince, his contract had expired, but the crows were still able to utilize his worth to progress up the draft order.

By definition, that makes any player an asset.

Have a look the the thread on this board re the draft value per team, it's a valid question & thread topic.

This opinion is viewing players as a piece of meat, regrettable, but it is still valid.

The emotion & romanticism between a club, its players & its supporters is a different matter. One to be taken advantage of when it's to your best interests.

Terribly clinical, but that too is part & parcel of life in the AFL.

 

[Freomaniac]

That system would never work with the draft. The amount of players that would walk out after their two year draftee contract would be staggering and virtually make the concept of rebuilding impossible for smaller teams. The players do deserve rights when it comes to their career, it's just deciding what is fair for both parties. Currently the AFL sees eight years minimum at one club as fair but the AFLPA wants it reduced.

It's a simple enough concept, you do your time at the club you are drafted to and you are given rights as you start to enter your prime and earn the most you will for your career. Lets just say for arguments sake that it is changed to seven years minimum before a player becomes a restricted free agent. This would see the '07 draft class (Kreuzer, Cotchin, Dangerfield, Rioli) become eligible for free agency at the end of 2014. Under my proposed six years it would see the '08 draft class (Watts, Naitanui, Hurley, Rich) become eligible for free agency at the end of 2014.

I agree with most of your 1st post. The only thing I dont agree on is the contract length. I agree Buddy franklins 9 year contract should not be allowed.

You said the maximum contract length should be allowed should be 6. I say 5 years is long enough. Tom Scullys with Gws proved to be a smart move. It was 6 million over the 6 years but he is getting paid 2 million in the 1st year and $800,000 with the last 5. I was just thinking if a player was offered a 5 year contract worth 3 million. You could give the player $600,000 a year for 5 years or pay the guy $1,000,000 in the 1st year and $500,000 a year for the next 4.

Still I they should change the Free agency rules. make it If you serve 5 or 6 years, you can leave. Also scrap the compo picks. This should motivate teams not to tank. 3-4 years of good picks and development should guide any team up the ladder.

 

[Matchu]

I agree with most of your 1st post. The only thing I dont agree on is the contract length. I agree Buddy franklins 9 year contract should not be allowed.

You said the maximum contract length should be allowed should be 6. I say 5 years is long enough. Tom Scullys with Gws proved to be a smart move. It was 6 million over the 6 years but he is getting paid 2 million in the 1st year and $800,000 with the last 5. I was just thinking if a player was offered a 5 year contract worth 3 million. You could give the player $600,000 a year for 5 years or pay the guy $1,000,000 in the 1st year and $500,000 a year for the next 4.

Still I they should change the Free agency rules. make it If you serve 5 or 6 years, you can leave. Also scrap the compo picks. This should motivate teams not to tank. 3-4 years of good picks and development should guide any team up the ladder.

It's all about salary cap management. Front and back loading contracts is not a new concept but there has to be some sort of limitation otherwise clubs are just going to continue to exploit loopholes. Signing a long contract isn't a loophole but it's same sort of idea.

Compo picks definitely have to go and I'm sure they'll be slowly fazed out over time.

 

[kickballfoot]

I'd like clubs to be able to trade future draft picks. The following year only.

That way Brisbane may have been able to get 2 second round picks(2013 & 2014) for Polec instead of one.

Would create more trade activity too, as teams nearing the premiership window would sacrifice picks in order to add obtain missing piece.

 

[kickballfoot]

I'd like clubs to be able to trade future draft picks. The following year only.

That way Brisbane may have been able to get 2 second round picks(2013 & 2014) for Polec instead of one.

Would create more trade activity too, as teams nearing the premiership window would sacrifice picks in order to add obtain missing piece.

Imagine Carlton bundling picks to try and get a Patton, Boyd etc.
would also give more leverage for teams with homesick players, an extra years draft to obtain picks from.

 

[Matchu]

I'd like clubs to be able to trade future draft picks.

Paul Roos is a massive fan of that idea and I think we will see it in some form in the future but the AFL is hesitant to explore that option right now. I think getting free agency right is more important than trading future draft picks so we probably need to prioritise a little here. Having said that, the AFL is becoming more and more like the NBA every year so I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL seriously looks at it soon.