At his best, yes. But the last two years he's been injured, came back and been injured again. Despite the big numbers this year, he is not back to his best just yet.
Free Agency Tom Rockliff [signed with Port Adelaide]
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
At his best, yes. But the last two years he's been injured, came back and been injured again. Despite the big numbers this year, he is not back to his best just yet.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #53
Generous. I guess it depends how you define "elite".
Doesn't sound like he should command 800k per year.
Beams was younger and arguably better.
Geez, I hope these rumours about St Kilda being interested in him are just that.
If he was a FA it wouldn't bother me, but the fact that he is contracted means Brisbane wont let him go for anything less than overs. That would be fine if we were a top 8 side ready to push for top 4 but we are still a long way off that.
He'll be 30 by the time we are seriously challenging and his body seems to be struggling already.
If he was a FA it wouldn't bother me, but the fact that he is contracted means Brisbane wont let him go for anything less than overs. That would be fine if we were a top 8 side ready to push for top 4 but we are still a long way off that.
He'll be 30 by the time we are seriously challenging and his body seems to be struggling already.
What? Top 5 pick, fringe player and a pick in the 20's? You are kidding yourself, Beams was younger and is a better player than Rockliff. Doubt you will get any more than a mid to late first rounder.
I said similar value, not exact. IMO, Rocky is every bit the player Beams is. We won't be getting a mid to late first rounder for the simple fact we wouldn't accept it.
He'd cost a bit, mostly due to the fact that he is contracted and if he was to leave as a FA next year he'd probably get Brisbane another top 3 pick.
Brisbane will be asking for a high first rounder IMO. Which is why I hope the Saints are as interested as some are suggesting.
Who's going to give up a top 10 pick for Rockliff? And more importantly, who is going to pay him the $750k contract to get band 1 compensation? Absolutely nobody.
Beams actually hurts sides with his disposals, Rocky can rack up the least damaging 30 disposals you will ever see.
Is $750 the trigger point for band 1? Surely Frawley isn't on that much?
They changed it because of the Frawley deal I thought. You have to be in the top 10% of players aged 25 or over to get band 1 compensation now.
- Aug 28, 2010
- 1,542
- 2,993
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
On his day Rockliff can be an elite midfielder - he's a tackling machine and can rack up possession numbers into the high 30s. He's a good player but I think because of the side he plays in we've yet to really see his effectiveness. Brisbane's misfortune has also made his value hard to judge.
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Only played 72.6% gametime this year, too. Stretch his numbers out to 85% gametime, and they're pretty great - 32.28 disposals (would be #2 in the league), 23.82 effective disposals (would be #2 in the league), 6.25 clearances, 8.07 tackles per game (would be #4 in the league)
Marc_Remillard
Maderator
- Jan 4, 2015
- 6,783
- 7,711
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Everyone? Try again.
So you don't think a young AA key defender who is being paid top wages at his new club isn't worth a first round pick?
Come on mate your doing it wrong. Your not meant to show stats that argue against everyones perception that he is over rated.
Honetly any club would be happy to get him. Albeit a trade this year or free agent next.
Im hoping he captains the lions for the next 6 years. Great ball winner. Will come into his own if the senior players around him can get there s**t together.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #66
If Frawley was worth pick 3 as compensation, what was Franklin worth? Pick 19? How does that work?
The argument that Frawley was worth shitloads more because he came from a less successful club doesn't make intuitive sense. A player's worth isn't contingent on where their club finished that year. And that kind of wild fluctuation in compensation is one of the worst things about free agency - a 'bug in the system', if you like. The compensation doesn't need to be perfect but should be roughly uniform in a way that doesn't produce those kind of aberrations. Hopefully that's how free agency will work in the long run and we won't have any more cases of pick 3 as compensation for a player like Frawley.
- Aug 16, 2010
- 10,062
- 6,947
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Totally agree that's the problem with free agency it's on where the team finishes not on out put of they're career and money a team like Hawthorn should have got a top 10 pick for buddy #### they should have gotten 2 like Geelong did for Ablett
Marc_Remillard
Maderator
- Jan 4, 2015
- 6,783
- 7,711
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Do you think Frawley was worth a first round draft pick?
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,413
- 81,212
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #69
I'm on an iPad which doesn't lend itself to stat analysis, but if you take out his weeks 2 and 7 (both of which he got injured in very early on) he's on par to have another year as a top 20 midfielder, despite it being a relatively down year for him.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #70
What do you mean by 'worth a first-rounder'? In compensation determined by the AFL? Or in a hypothetical trade with another team?
Also, not all first-round picks are of equal worth. Pick 3 is not equal to pick 15.
Forget about free agency. Pretend there's no such thing. If Frawley had simply been uncontracted and requested a trade, there's very little chance Melbourne could have got pick 3 in exchange. A mid to late first-rounder, sure. But not pick 3.
If you think pick 3 was sensible compensation for Frawley, what was sensible compensation for Franklin?
If you have a system that clearly over-compensates Melbourne for Frawley but even more clearly under-compensates Hawthorn for Franklin, that's too aberrant and counter-intuitive to be workable over the longer term. It's inadequate to suggest that Hawthorn deserved a patently inadequate deal while Melbourne deserved overs purely because Hawthorn were stronger at the time. The method to determine compensation needs to be consistent, regardless of ladder position. If that means everyone gets a s**t sandwich, so be it. You can't have one team cashing in and another getting shafted just because they fared better in that particular season.
The AFL was fortunate the team getting shafted had been so successful and the team getting over-compensated so dire that nobody really protested. A lot of people probably felt Hawthorn could absorb that loss while Melbourne needed the leg-up. But that flawed approach could easily have affected teams in different circumstances. What if it had been the Bulldogs losing Bontempelli while within reach of a breakthrough flag and getting pick 16-17 in compensation? And a team like Geelong or Hawthorn or Sydney losing a valuable but not superstar player in a year when they finally bottomed out - and they get pick 3 for their troubles? That would expose the inequity and capriciousness of the compensation system in a way that would be far less palatable than when it was Hawthorn getting shafted and Melbourne getting some extra sugar. I doubt anyone would be defending it under those circumstances.
Last edited:
Right or wrong, that's kind of besides the point. The point is the rules were set, and everyone knew if he was paid enough that Melbourne would get a first round pick with their current ladder position. That this happened doesn't suddenly make it a priority pick.
You can (possibly correctly) say there is an issue with the rules. But when those rules are known before hand it isn't a priority pick gift.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #72
Really? Right or wrong is beside the point?
I'd suggest the formula used to determine free agency compensation was less than transparent.
I also don't really accept the rationale that just because everyone was aware of a flawed rule, it is somehow shielded from criticism.
Those compensation outcomes were a debacle.
Sure. It was still bullshit.
See above.
But the issue he raised wasn't that the system was wrong, or not transparent. The issue he raised that you replied to was that getting pick #3 was really a priority pick and not true compensation. Nothing you've written despite replying to his comment contradicts that point. It just makes the argument the system has issues, not that it wasn't applied as it was set out prior to the draft.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #74
The post I responded to merely asserted that it was all well and good that Melbourne got pick 3 as compensation for Frawley.
I disagree. And I reckon the system that produced that outcome was indefensible.
I didn't say anything about a priority pick.
Last edited:
I'd disagree. The main difference between Rockliff and Beams is Beams ability to kick clutch goals up forward. At his best, Rocky sets up most of our plays with his quick smart decision making. He just needs to be able to get on the scoreboard more. Because right now, his spending all of his time in the guts. His had a couple of injury interrupted years now and whilst he is racking up the ball, he in understandably not at his best. Still one of the few blokes we have going in hard and winning the ball.
Stats are certainly not everything but he is averaging 37.5 disposals, 14.7 contested possessions, 7.5 clearances, 9 tackles at 73.8% disposal efficiency. But his impact has been noticeably lower.
Similar threads
