The Free Agency Myth

[Guardian Hawk]

Hello all,
I've been reading a lot of fear-mongering on this site about the evils of free agency, in particular how top teams are staying at the top by continually topping up. 'Death of equalisation' and 'ruining the comp' have been bandied about, whilst others are incredulous that clubs signed off on it, missing the 'bleedingly obvious' - that weak teams will get weaker and strong teams stronger. My club has been a particular target given our recent success, diminishing our achievements because "of all we have gained through FA"

Whilst this may yet happen, the above is completely ignorant to how it has played out so far. 40 players have moved under free agency, with Dangerfield expected to be the 41st.

Of those 40, 25 have moved to clubs lower on the ladder than their previous club and only 15 have gone to teams higher (i.e. the minority).

Before you say 15 is still a lot, many of those have not moved to teams in pursuit of success or even in premiership contention. Included in those 15 are:

• Jonathon Simpkin who was delisted by his former club
• James Gwilt who was delisted by his former club
• Jeremy Laidler who was delisted by his former club
• Sam Blease who was delisted by his former club
• Tom Derickx who was delisted by his former club
• Colin Sylvia who Melbourne were happy to see go and needed a fresh start.
• Brent Moloney who went from a 16th placed team to a 13th placed team
• Quentin Lynch who was on the scrapheap and moved to a team 1 spot higher on the ladder.
• Troy Chaplin who was on the scrapheap and went to a team 12th on the ladder.

The above highlights that free agency is doing what it is supposed to - giving struggling players more opportunity, a fresh start or a better contract and making it easier to do so.

Only two elite 'big names' have moved clubs - Franklin and now Dangerfield (most stars are happy and staying put). Of those two, Franklin left the premiers at the time to be in Sydney and on a mega deal whilst Dangerfield is leaving a side on the up who won a final for a side on the way down who missed finals (to be close to home). Not exactly a case of the strong getting stronger.

Finally, in addressing the Hawthorn point (as has now been mentioned in other threads), we lost one of the greatest forwards of all time (and arguably the best KPP in the game) as well as 3 other players for a total compensation of pick 19. The other way, we got Frawley who 2 weeks go people were saying should be dropped and Simpkin who had been delisted. FA has undoubtedly hurt more than helped Hawthorn.

The final point about FA destroying equalisation is that Franklin on a 9 year, $10M dollar deal (and the three other players) netted Hawthorn a total compensation of pick 19. Frawley (on a $2 M dollar deal) netted Melbourne pick 3. Dale Thomas fetched pick 11. Sylvia fetched pick 23 - 4 spots difference for a guy not good enough for WAFL versus one of the greatest forwards of all time on the biggest contract of all time. Clearly, thus far, FA has STRONGLY favoured teams near the bottom not the top and has thus far acted as an equaliser rather than 'widening the gap'.

No need to panic yet. Top teams like mine will fall away eventually as they always have.

Edit: Update before 2016 free agency period (adding 2015 free agents):
Time to revisit this thread in the wake of mass stupidity on the main board. One more trade period has elapsed and 8 more free agents moved homes. They were:

• Scott Selwood went from the runners up to the side that finished 10th to play with his brother.
• Matthew Suckling went from the premiers to the side that finished 8th for a bigger contract.
• Matthew Leuenberger went from Brisbane to Essendon for more opportunity.
  
• Dawson Simpson went from Geelong (10th) to GWS (11th)
• 4 DFA's also changed clubs, 3 going to sides lower on the ladder and only Andrew Moore going to a side higher (Port To Richmond)

Summary: Sky is still falling due to FA.

 

[Natho]

Matty White went to Port when they weren't playing their best footy.

 

[nickrebellious]

Don't forget Goddard getting 110'd by his former club.

 

[Augustine]

Ok you're right OP.

has it altered the "premiership window"? Can top teams now perpetually top-up and simultaneously draft to remain top teams forever? No-one knows for sure. we'll find out in 5 years time.

(fingers crossed that it has because I think North has put their eggs in the perpetual top up basket and abandoned the classic rebuild model)

 

[Kwality]

Xavier Ellis: Hawks to Eagles

 

[Glorious couch life]

RUNVS anything to add?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Hawks were able to get a quality key defender at no cost, previously they would have had to given away a lot.

So whilst the effect has been exaggerated it has made it easier for a top club like Hawthorn to target players

 

[Prudster]

Hawks were able to get a quality key defender at no cost, previously they would have had to given away a lot.

So whilst the effect has been exaggerated it has made it easier for a top club like Hawthorn to target players

We also lost the biggest name in the game for pick 19 soooo....

I wonder if the picks we should have received for Franklin would have been more than what we would have paid for Frawley.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Dal Santo going to North was a big FA move.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Hawks were able to get a quality key defender at no cost, previously they would have had to given away a lot.

So whilst the effect has been exaggerated it has made it easier for a top club like Hawthorn to target players

If Hawthorn traded Franklin 'previously', do you think they would have only gotten pick 19?
If Hawthorn traded Ellis, Murphy and Young, do you think they would have gotten nothing at all?
If Hawthorn had to trade, would Franklin have left at all given his contract would not have had to be so big?
If we traded for Frawley, would Franklin, Ellis, Murphy and Young be a fair price?

As mentioned in the OP, FA has made it easier for Hawthorn to lose players rather than gain them and there is no doubt that we are at a net loss so far. Melbourne losing Frawley has actually helped as they have gained more than what they would in a trade (pick 3) (2 weeks ago people were saying he should be dropped and he was a waste of money despite nothing given up in a trade) So far, the effect is not simply 'exagerrated' it is in complete reverse (lower teams advantaged).

 

[The Punter]

People are angry, but they're mischaracterising the problem.

Hawthorn didn't make out like bandits through free agency - they lost Ellis, Young (who they ran out of town for the 2012 GF loss) and Franklin, and got Frawley.

It's the guys who've stated "trade me to Hawthorn", which includes Hale, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake & Gunston, which is the thing that irks most people. Hawthorn have built their last three flags on being a destination of choice.

The Gunston one is particularly galling for me - players who only play out their initial contract before demanding a trade should be sent back into the draft.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Have to include all the names to balance it out rather than just big names and strugglers. Certainly Waite and Betts moved to teams on the up.

The other thing FA does is force trades rather than wait for FA to take them. Yarran and Henderson trades will happen more with FA looming for them.

Agree that Hawthorn have lost more than they gained though.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

If Hawthorn traded Franklin 'previously', do you think they would have only gotten pick 19?
If Hawthorn traded Ellis, Murphy and Young, do you think they would have gotten nothing at all?
If Hawthorn had to trade, would Franklin have left at all given his contract would not have had to be so big?
If we traded for Frawley, would Franklin, Ellis, Murphy and Young be a fair price?

As mentioned in the OP, FA has made it easier for Hawthorn to lose players rather than gain them and there is no doubt that we are at a net loss so far. Melbourne losing Frawley has actually helped as they have gained more than what they would in a trade (pick 3) (2 weeks ago people were saying he should be dropped and he was a waste of money despite nothing given up in a trade) So far, the effect is not simply 'exagerrated' it is in complete reverse (lower teams advantaged).

How many elite players have gone to a bottom 4 club via FA?

 

[00Stinger]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

We also lost the biggest name in the game for pick 19 soooo....

I wonder if the picks we should have received for Franklin would have been more than what we would have paid for Frawley.

Very true, no question.

Did Franklin go to a bottom 4 club?

The introduction of FA and the expansion clubs have changed the AFL environment and made it easier for players to switch clubs

 

[mcgarnacle]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

Gary Ablett

I think the AFL's FA rules are s**t. Too restrictive.

- cut down qualification for FA to out of contract players with 6 years AFL (rather than one club) service. these are unrestricted FA's. doesn't matter how much they are getting paid at their incumbent club.

- uncontracted players between 2 (i.e., after initial contract) & 5 years AFL service are restricted FA's. can test the market but incumbent club can make offer. if incumbent club comes within certain % of (or beats) rival club offer and player leaves, then destination club gives up picks.

- contracted players after 2 years AFL service - trade.

- reduce minimum TPP to 80% of TPP limit so clubs with inferior lists and paying it market value can make their offers with premium to the sought after FA's. that's how they'll attract good players and how they will eventually improve.

established player movement should be encouraged. only way clubs can regenerate quickly. waiting via draft can take years.

 

[kazzooka]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

VINCE, GARLETT, Dal Santo, Waite, Higgins, Boyd, Beams, Christensen

 

[MarkT2]

The Gunston one is particularly galling for me - players who only play out their initial contract before demanding a trade should be sent back into the draft.

Eventually one will go to court and there will be no draft. The AFL didn't agree to free agency because they wanted it.

 

[Milux]

VINCE, GARLETT, Dal Santo, Waite, Higgins, Boyd, Beams, Christensen

Firstly. Boyd beams and christo where trades not free agency. Dal santo waite and higgins didnt go to a poor club. They went to a club playing finals. Was vince a free agent? If so he isnt a big name player.

 

[Prudster]

Very true, no question.

Did Franklin go to a bottom 4 club?

The introduction of FA and the expansion clubs have changed the AFL environment and made it easier for players to switch clubs

If it weren't for Sydney and their ridiculous offer, he probably would be at GWS. But that's not the point, the point is that Hawthorn lost the most expensive player on our list, leaving a big gaping hole in our salary cap that was always going to get us someone talented. The problem here still seems to be that Melbourne got so overcompensated that they were never going to match and force Hawthorn to trade.

It's the guys who've stated "trade me to Hawthorn", which includes Hale, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake & Gunston, which is the thing that irks most people. Hawthorn have built their last three flags on being a destination of choice.

The Gunston one is particularly galling for me - players who only play out their initial contract before demanding a trade should be sent back into the draft.

Gunston i'll agree is in a different category, i don't really like the way that went down, but it's not like it's an isolated case (Boyd, McCarthy, etc.). But Hale was playing VFL, Lake and Gibson were being played away from FB, Burgoyne was at a club with serious internal issues that had just dumped his brother. All of these trades led the to other club getting a pretty good deal, you only have to look at threads at the time about how these players are too old, or injury prone, or just spuds, and how we overpaid.

Perhaps we've had more than our fair share of luck regarding players wanting to come to us, but we've purposely targeted players who were on the outer, or unhappy with the situation they were in. This is no different to what Sydney did with Kennedy and Mumford, or what the Bulldogs did with Hall, or Collingwood with Ball, Adelaide with Jacobs, Melbourne and Geelong with Clark, Geelong with Caddy, and the list could go on all day.

The fact is that well run clubs identify players who can provide more value to them than they do to their current club. But all of these players carried some risk. Hale and Gibson are undoubtedly better players at Hawthorn. Lake was 'old and finished', had injury concerns, and attitude issues. Burgoyne's knee is still an issue, and prevents him from playing full time mid, but he has reinvented himself as one of the most versatile, clutch players in the league (although he certainly did show this to some degree at Port). It's only because all of these acquisitions have paid off better than most could have imagined that it's an issue. If Lake missed most of 2013 with injury, or if Burgoyne's knee never came good, or if Gibson stayed the slightly above average player that he was at North, then none of this would look as good for Hawthorn.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

Good point, lets bring in a rule that you cant go to a "rich" team if you're a "big name player"
That will be easy to judge

 

[The Punter]

Prudster

Thanks for the thoughtful and reasonable reply. Ryan O'Keefe was also another who pointed to Hawthorn and said "trade me there". Other clubs target players as well, but they don't get to those clubs. All credit to Hawthorn, but they don't need credit because credit is not as good as premierships.

Sydney had an unfair advantage that the AFL has overcorrected.

There's some talk now that Hale and Lake have announced their retirements that Hawthorn will swoop in for Jake Carlisle. Now, I'm not fussed if he gets to St Kilda and all the stuff I've read indicates that money is his primary concern, but it would be terrible for the competition if Carlisle ended up at Hawthorn. After 2014, a GF Hawthorn won comfortably, they added the best available defender. For that to be identically repeated would indicate that the AFL's measures designed to ensure equalisation are simply failing.

Having said that, I think Carlisle ends up at St Kilda or Carlton. But food for thought.

 

[Milux]

I wouldnt be too surprised to see one of henderson or carlilse at the hawks next season.

 

[SydneyPhilly]

People are angry, but they're mischaracterising the problem.

It's the guys who've stated "trade me to Hawthorn", which includes Hale, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake & Gunston, which is the thing that irks most people. Hawthorn have built their last three flags on being a destination of choice.

The Gunston one is particularly galling for me - players who only play out their initial contract before demanding a trade should be sent back into the draft.

This is exactly the problem. And chances are that those players will leave to get bigger contracts off of the back of playing for top contenders (Looking at Gunston in particular) once Hathorn start falling behind a little.

Your solution is better, imo.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

If it weren't for Sydney and their ridiculous offer, he probably would be at GWS. But that's not the point, the point is that Hawthorn lost the most expensive player on our list, leaving a big gaping hole in our salary cap that was always going to get us someone talented. The problem here still seems to be that Melbourne got so overcompensated that they were never going to match and force Hawthorn to trade.

That's a massive IF, I might as well say that IF Melbourne wasn't so crap we would have just won three premierships in a row.

But that's not what happened, is it.