Time for the AFL to set a max contract length (amongst other things)

[ScoobySnacks]

Someone on the Geelong board made what I thought was a really sensible suggestion - that Free Agency compo needs to come from the receiving club, as determined by the AFL. For example, instead of Melbourne simply receiving pick 3 for Frawley, Hawthorn could instead be made to hand over its first three picks or whatever was determined to be fair (BEFORE the trade was done).

Isn't that just the way the trade system works? Player X nominates club, clubs come to mutually agreed decision, trade is made

 

[DerpWerls]

On the Buddy trade it's possible Sydney were only able to pay Franklin that much money within the cap over that long a contract period. They couldn't exactly use a quarter of the cap on 1 player for the next 6 years.

Happy to take the hit in the last 2 or 3 years?

 

[BF Tiger]

The AFL have a lot more to fix before they get to contract lengths.

 

[Spook]

I would prefer we wait before reacting

I am not convinced we have a problem yet

I agree. These threads make me think back to a great saying.

An old bull and a young bull walked over the top of a hill
Down in the valley below was a herd of cows
The young bull says "hey let's run down there and fu<£ one of those cows"
The old bull says "No young fella, let's walk down there and fu<£ all of those cows"

No need for knee jerk reactions.

 

[iameviljez]

Isn't that just the way the trade system works? Player X nominates club, clubs come to mutually agreed decision, trade is made

Except that the club giving up the player would have no say in whether they lose the player or not, and the compensation would be determined by the AFL (as it is now).

 

[MarkT2]

I'm not all that sympathetic to the clubs. Suppressing information on player salaries is just a way to shortchange players and rip them off the next time a new CBA needs to be reached.

If the statistical data is widely available, it should be made far more simple for player managers and list managers to come to an agreement on what a player is worth. There's still going to be a salary cap at the end of the day that will keep it all under control. Players will run to clubs with more cap space ie. that are not yet contending, but this is another method of equalising the competition, something which the 2014 trade period has achieved in spades.

Look, I hear you and respect your reasoned position but we are 180 degredes apart on every aspect even to the point of encoraging more player movement from successful club to equalise. I have a fundamental issue with punnishing success. The lower placed clubs already get a draft advantage to aid list management.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

You would hope that after this initial few years of free agency, teams will adjust their approach and the salary will lead to wiser financial decisions.

But - I don't really see that happening.

This current environment very much has an air of the mid 90's-mid 00's NBA, which was rife with incredibly poor financial decisions. You had players just picked in the draft holding their club ransom for massive 8-10 year contracts, and clubs paying way overs for B grade free agents with long term contracts, or trading away future picks, and crippling their clubs future in the prospects. The issue is, for someone in the role of making those decisions - long term isn't high on the agenda.

A couple of things the NBA has brought in over that time that could easily be introduced:

Set contracts for rookies, based on where they were picked. If we want the draft to mean something - set a longer-term contract for all first rounders: 3-4 years. A number one draft pick, or a high rated prospect (eg. Wingard) - should not have the leverage to say they will leave after their 2nd year. Teams with top picks must be able to take the prospect they rate the highest... any place for players/clubs to manilupate the system makes it a farce. Keeping them at the club for 3-4 years gives your more return for them, and also increases the liklihood that a team could actually turn its fortunes around and climb up the ladder again (thus keeping everyone happy).

Have Max Contracts - both in terms of value and length... and allow the 'home' team to offer a higher max for a free agent than the team trying to get them. Players still have freedom to move - but you give a bit more power to the team that has invested all that time and money into their training and development.
---

Are these things required right now? Probably not yet. It would be worth seeing how things play out and if teams do adjust... but I would expect in a couple of years there will be pretty loud calls wanting the system to change, and that could easily be preempted by just doing some research into what works around the world.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

Except that the club giving up the player would have no say in whether they lose the player or not, and the compensation would be determined by the AFL (as it is now).

This reams bottom 8 clubs even harder, as they are only able to receive what the opposition club has at their disposal. Under your method, the best the Dees could have possibly got for Frawley is pick 18. I don't think they would have gone through with that trade, even if it included more late round picks.

The only way it works is that the club receiving the FA loses their draft pick in the corresponding round. So in the case of Frawley, the Dees still get their first round compo pick at 3, but the Hawks lose pick 18 to to make up for the compensation pick.

Either way, it still has many flaws when you consider the potential circumstances that could occur.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Limiting contract length is a restraint of trade IMO. Clubs/players have the right to contract any period they like as far as I'm concerned.

What I think clubs need to do now is look at penalties built into contracts that take affect if the player decides to break the contract before it's concluded. Obviously it would be a financial penalty the player has to pay to get released from the contract to the club being shafted.

Or alternatively, if a player wants to break his contract and be traded, the club who takes him has to pay out the remainder of the contract to the original club as a transfer fee. Which partially pays back the original club for all the work and resources they've used to get that player to their current level.

Or, if a players contract has expired and they don't qualify for FA yet, the club they go to should pay a transfer fee set at a percentage of their previous contract to the club they're coming from.

 

[iameviljez]

This reams bottom 8 clubs even harder, as they are only able to receive what the opposition club has at their disposal. Under your method, the best the Dees could have possibly got for Frawley is pick 18. I don't think they would have gone through with that trade, even if it included more late round picks.

The only way it works is that the club receiving the FA loses their draft pick in the corresponding round. So in the case of Frawley, the Dees still get their first round compo pick at 3, but the Hawks lose pick 18 to to make up for the compensation pick.

Either way, it still has many flaws when you consider the potential circumstances that could occur.

Yes, I do see your point - potentially first-round picks across future years could be packaged if possible?

I don't want to see clubs having their picks shunted back in the draft, or have the top clubs be able to just grab whoever they want at no cost.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I just think it would be nice for the AFL to actually run the competition as a sporting contest rather than a dash for cash.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Nope. If clubs want to do it, let them. Their risk and frankly, as a Hawks man, I am happy these other muppet clubs and doing that stuff.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

brisbane signed a.lynch to 10 years, was lumpy early but worked out OK for them

essendon signed misiti to 5 years, he was shot about 2 years in

i'm a big fan of clubs being left to make good or bad calls themselves, and wear the costs of them. i really like the balls of the bulldogs, playing it safe doesn't win flags

Hawthorn and Geelong play it safe and we've won 6 of the past 8 or 9 flags.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

If you're dumb enough to offer it, then cop the fall out if it goes bad.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

If you're dumb enough to offer it, then cop the fall out if it goes bad.

The issue becomes though, will it be the same front office that has to deal with the fallout?

I don't know what the turnover of board members/CEOs/List managers etc. is at AFL clubs - (I am not sure if we at Collingwood have more longeivity than most, for better or worse). I am just basing this on the NBA experience, and wondering if it is relevant to the AFL.

You often had front offices that made these decisions, whether it be bad long-term contracts, or trading away future draft picks, who were able to ride on some of the short term benifits of those decisions - whether it was winning a few more games, getting more media attention, or marketing to your fanbase about your direction - but then when you really saw the detrimental effects a few years down the track, it was a completely different front office having to pick up the pieces.

If you take out club loyalty, and consider that most people in those roles are purely doing a job and would change from club-to-club if the opportunity arose... would the people making these decisions in 2014 really care about potential bad outcomes in 2017-2020? (If it works out well - they will be praised and reap the rewards - if it works out badly, they would be long gone, and probably have moved onto another job/club)

 

[Scotland]

I don't see the need for it.

The natural deterrent to long term contracts is injury/loss of form and the salary cap.

It is reasonable to expect that Tom Boyd won't retire in the next 7 years. There's always a chance he will suffer a freak injury and be unable to play again, but no one wishes that.

It is reasonable to expect that Buddy Franklin will retire in the next 9 years. Not many players in the modern era play until they are 36.

If Boyd does a Clark or Franklin retires early it will be interesting to see how the AFL responds.

 

[Lensen]

Hawthorn and Geelong play it safe and we've won 6 of the past 8 or 9 flags.

ehhh, these days they do cos they're at the top. in hawthorn's case i'd consider:

• The Croad trade, which obviously netted Hodge & Mitchell
• Taking Roughead over the consensus Tambling pick at #2
• Recruitment of overweight Stewart Dew

as pretty risky decisions that put them on the path towards the flag - none of them are in the Boyd category, sure, but especially the Croad trade was incredibly risky at the time

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Somehow difficult. On the one hand clubs should carry the full risk of an utopic contract on the other hand and careen ending injury can happen anytime so even a regular 4 year contract for a 23 year old can be a problem. Jayden Pitt's heart irregularity came out of nowhere somehow while Dustin Fletcher is still playing on. Difficult to draw a line there...

Draw the line at 5. If clubs write a longer contract then that they are welcome to do it, but they have to carry it in their salary cap regardless of the contract being terminated in the meantime.

In fact draw the line at the term of the contract. Clubs have to carry the risk of early retirement. Simple. Give every club a slightly bigger salary cap and a lower "minimum" salary cap and let them take the long term risk.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

ehhh, these days they do cos they're at the top. in hawthorn's case i'd consider:

• The Croad trade, which obviously netted Hodge & Mitchell

This. Was a monumental risk, which luckily paid off

 

[Kwality]

ehhh, these days they do cos they're at the top. in hawthorn's case i'd consider:

• The Croad trade, which obviously netted Hodge & Mitchell
• Taking Roughead over the consensus Tambling pick at #2
• Recruitment of overweight Stewart Dew

as pretty risky decisions that put them on the path towards the flag - none of them are in the Boyd category, sure, but especially the Croad trade was incredibly risky at the time

What was incredibly risky about the Croad deal - I'd describe it as a text book example of the value of the #1 pick & it netting a proven quality player & a young talent keen to go home.

 

[Lensen]

What was incredibly risky about the Croad deal - I'd describe it as a text book example of the value of the #1 pick & it netting a proven quality player & a young talent keen to go home.

The draft was nowhere near as highly valued as it is now - there were genuine protests amongst hawthorn members for letting go a quality player who loved the club!

 

[EssendonNick]

I think the Buddy deal was smart by Sydney. They had to offer a long contract to get him across and it stopped GWS getting him.
I think the AFL should be worried more about the amount of money flushed down the drain on coaches contracts. Clubs need to stop giving coaches extensions then sacking them 6 months later.

 

[mcgarnacle]

can't believe the AFL don't have clauses in place which ensure drafted players fulfil their first 2 year minimum AFL contract.

Boyd leaving after a year undermines the purpose of the draft.

But I suppose the GWS and GC draft concession years undermined the draft too so it really doesn't matter.

The League have so many loopholes in their systems. yet the clubs/players cop all the s**t from fans.

they administer the League. how about being competent at it?

 

[iameviljez]

What was incredibly risky about the Croad deal - I'd describe it as a text book example of the value of the #1 pick & it netting a proven quality player & a young talent keen to go home.

Imagine if it netted Des Headland or Josh Fraser. Was a ballsy, ballsy move.

 

[Magma]

i think we should stop protecting clubs from themselves

if clubs want to offer big money contracts to 9 gamers or players who likely won't see out the contract at their best then go ahead, it's their call. if it doesn't come off then too bad on them.

the afl can't continue to just protect and coddle clubs that make bad decisions.