I don't see the issue with the Compensation pick

[Kramer1]

False. The market does not set the value. If it did the compo for both Frawley and Kreuzer would be late first rounders. Collingwood wouldnt be offering up pick 2 for a trade for Kreuzer and they couldn't give a toss if the whole comp gets disadvantaged by a compo pick pushing down other teams picks.

Absolutely the market sets the value of the player. Once again, if Kreuzer is a hack there is no discussion regards band one compensation.

 

[oak79]

The compensation for losing a player should be you now have a heap of money to sign another free agent. There shouldnt be any compensation pick at all - that just penalises everyone else.

If 2 teams both lose players, but sign up other big names - why should they both then get compensation picks as well?

 

[PieLebo87]

The compo picks are too high, basically. Have them start at Pick10 and the system is instantly improved with less incentive for clubs to rush their FAs out the door. Other than that, an objective assessment based on contract size and ladder position is fine and logical.

I can't agree with this theory.

Nathan Jones leaves Melbourne as a FA after you guys finish 2nd last. Melbourne should be getting pick 3 with their pick 2. Simple.

There's no way it's fair for a hypothetical team that's not winning, to then get pick 10-11 or whatever for a star player.

FA is about evening the comp up, Hawthorn getting 19 or whatever for Buddy and Melbourne getting 3 for Frawley is about evening it up between the top and bottom clubs. Buddy is worth more than 19 and Frawley isn't worth 3.

How don't people it this way?

 

[PieLebo87]

The compensation for losing a player should be you now have a heap of money to sign another free agent. There shouldnt be any compensation pick at all - that just penalises everyone else.

If 2 teams both lose players, but sign up other big names - why should they both then get compensation picks as well?

When you're down the bottom, the big marquee players are less likely to want to sign with you. So all that money means nothing. The AFL then compensates you with a pick which you can use to unearth a talent and utilise the extra cap space on developing your own.

Re your question.. No, if they sign another big name, it alters the compo pick they were initially going to receive. (Someone please confirm)

 

[UpForGrabs]

So let's say club A doesn't lose anyone to FA because its list management is under control.

Let's say clubs B, C and D all lose marquee players because their club's list management isn't ideal.

Clubs B, C and D all get compo picks in the first round, while club A - who did nothing wrong in terms of list management - is pushed down the draft order three spots.

Yes, I don't see an issue with the compensation pick either.

 

[El Topo]

When you're down the bottom, the big marquee players are less likely to want to sign with you. So all that money means nothing. The AFL then compensates you with a pick which you can use to unearth a talent and utilise the extra cap space on developing your own.

Re your question.. No, if they sign another big name, it alters the compo pick they were initially going to receive. (Someone please confirm)

Correct. The only team to lose a compo pick so far was Carlton losing Betts but signing Thomas. Not sure how it's calculated though, whether it's just based on the 'band' of the players.

 

[Jobe Watson]

I think people are forgetting that the compo pick is based on the contract offered by the destination club.

Just because your opinion of said player is he is no good or blah blah blah. In the Kreuzer example "if" Collingwood think he is worth the said $600k p/y over 4 years and if that equates to Carlton receiving pick 2 then Kreuzer "must" be better than a lot of posters here think.

But then again opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one and feels big and brave behind a keyboard to voice it....

So you like that the AFL are dishing out high draft picks as compensation based on a player manager's ability to negotiate a sizeable contract? Teams HAVE to overpay opposition players to entice them to switch clubs in the first place... contracts are not the best measure of a free agent's ability.

Just because 1 club are stupid enough to pay big bucks for Kreuzer doesn't mean every other club would be, nor should every other club suffer for it.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I can't agree with this theory.

Nathan Jones leaves Melbourne as a FA after you guys finish 2nd last. Melbourne should be getting pick 3 with their pick 2. Simple.

There's no way it's fair for a hypothetical team that's not winning, to then get pick 10-11 or whatever for a star player.

FA is about evening the comp up, Hawthorn getting 19 or whatever for Buddy and Melbourne getting 3 for Frawley is about evening it up between the top and bottom clubs. Buddy is worth more than 19 and Frawley isn't worth 3.

How don't people it this way?

Because I don't think Nathan Jones is worth pick 3. With all due respect to him, If you have a top 3 pick and you are going to pick a midfielder, you should be expecting to get an 18 year old that is going to be at least as good as he is. And Jones is on a different planet to the likes of Leuenberger and Kreuzer. If Melbourne finished second last and was to lose Jones, an end of first round pick (so, about 19), plus a pick after its second round pick (meaning the Dees would have two more picks around the 21-25 range). That might be slight unders for a player like Jones, but so what? You shouldn't get even compensation for the player that you have failed to re-sign and you certainly shouldn't be getting overs for him.

 

[bradydaw91]

Absolutely the market sets the value of the player. Once again, if Kreuzer is a hack there is no discussion regards band one compensation.

I don't think you really understand the argument we are making. Whenever there is a straight trade, that's the best example of the market setting the value. As the 2 parties involved have to weigh up the cost and the reward of a transaction. No team in their right mind would give up pick 2 for Kreuzer and if Carlton get that through compo. That is an artificial, market distortion and Carlton are actually far better off for losing the player.

 

[quotemokc]

Compo pick should never be a first rounder.