Fixing the compensation system

[thebluelagoon]

There are a lot of media battlers currently out there saying that the compensation/free agent/draft systems is crap and rewards the strong teams and screws the weak (especially the weak northern clubs)

It is all true... but there are not many good solutions being peddled around. So here is your forum to fix the systems.


My first thought was to award pick 1 each year to carlton irrespective of ladder position, but often pick one turns out average so....

how about the team that gets a free agent has to come up with the draft points equal to the compensation pick awarded to the team that looses the player! why should a top team get to stock up their team with mature talent at the expense of every other team in the league being bumped down the draft order...

 

[Beast__Mode]

No compensation for free agent departures, simple.

Reduce the floor salary cap spend so clubs lower on the ladder can create more room to lure FAs with higher $ than top clubs.

I like the idea of non finals teams having first crack at mature age state league players. Eg a mini draft of 10 players before the main draft, where remaining state league players go back into the pool.

Players can be moved mid contract at club’s discretion.

No priority draft picks.

Basically - make the system cleaner, more simple and remove all these shitty compromises the AFL have built in to the system out of fear of offending anyone. Get real about player movement and make the clubs work hard to attract and retain the best talent, instead of building a never ending welfare system.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

The bit I object to is a free agent like Lynch goes to Richmond or Collingwood, and then Richmond or Collingwood also keeps its first pick in the draft.

My solution is the receiving club compensates the losing club with its pick in the round based on where the AFL deems the player.

For example, Gaff goes from West Coast to Melbourne. AFL says Gaff is a first round pick. Melbourne is required to give West Coast its first round pick.

If Melbourne doesn’t have a first round pick at that stage due to trades last year (Lever), then AFL requires Melbourne to either:
* obtain a sufficient first round pick in trading
* hand over its first round pick from next year, or
* go to the bottom of the draft for all its picks in the draft (AFL gives a first round pick to West Coast anyway).

A variation of this is better explained with Lynch. Let’s say he goes to Richmond. AFL awards Gold Coast pick 3. Richmond simply loses its first pick in the draft (based on AFL deeming Lynch a first rounder).


In my opinion, doing away with compensation picks hurts the bottom clubs.

 

[therubbernub]

If a top 8 side receives a free agent, it must give picks the equivalent in points to the compensation pick.
Lets say richmond receive lynch . The GCS compo would currently be #3, richmond now have to find the picks that give them the equivalent points which would be 2234.
Now assuming the tigers have won the premiership and have picks 18,36 and 72. These picks have respectively 985, 502 and 19. A total of 1506 and therefore a deficit of 728 which is pick 26. In order for lynch to go to the tigers they not only have to give their 3 picks, 18,36 and 72, but also they need to find 26 or better.
GCS are happy because they get 4 picks from the tigers. Tigers are happy because they get Lynch, AFL are happy because the FA system s working to help even the competition out.

Should Lynch decide to go to a club outside the 8, and that club has not played finals for the past 3 years, then the afl steps in and provides the picks on the behalf of the receiving club

 

[BluStreak]

While I agree that the side getting the FA should pony up. Isn't that suggestion simply trading.
In which case, do away with the current method and simply say that players who are FA can nominate the club they want to go to and allow the clubs to do the best trade otherwise the player stays.
Players not eligible for FA do not get to nominate their destination club and if they wish out then they go to the club that give the best offer.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Only things that need to happen are:
1. Allow clubs to go as low as they want in the salary cap but must spend 95% over a 4 year period
2. Whatever bullshit formula they have at AFL house for giving compensation should be given by the club getting the player and not an additional pick in the system
3. Bottom 8 go into a mini draft for mature state leaguers that have been nominated for drafts previously. 1 pick each

Fixed!!

 

[Gethelred]

There are a lot of media battlers currently out there saying that the compensation/free agent/draft systems is crap and rewards the strong teams and screws the weak (especially the weak northern clubs)

It is all true... but there are not many good solutions being peddled around. So here is your forum to fix the systems.


My first thought was to award pick 1 each year to carlton irrespective of ladder position, but often pick one turns out average so....

how about the team that gets a free agent has to come up with the draft points equal to the compensation pick awarded to the team that looses the player! why should a top team get to stock up their team with mature talent at the expense of every other team in the league being bumped down the draft order...

... is it?

I'm going to be a bit of a devil's advocate here, in that I don't think we have enough of a sample size to make that claim. What we do have is a glut of media exclamation and condemnation of everything, because people don't buy papers based off good stories.

So here's my counter. Prove your hypothesis first, so that the solution doesn't cause more problems than it fixes.

 

[Faz 2000]

Others have said it, but for certain the first thing that needs to be corrected is that the team that signs an RFA needs to deliver the compo picks, not the AFL. This makes it a "forced trade" effectively, which achieves the goal of allowing players to determine their destination, compensates the team losing the player and doesn't allow the receiving team to get away without paying the bill.

It makes top teams think twice about poaching expensive FAs because it will clean out their draft picks - as it SHOULD. The key problem now is top clubs can have their cake and eat it too.

Compo should be determined by an openly communicated formula based on salary and years. Ie. Max compo (say equivalent of two firsts, or 4000 points or similar) would be the answer for Buddy or GAJ. By basing it on the contract, this allows the market to decide on price and compo, which will get it right more often than not.

 

[Gethelred]

Others have said it, but for certain the first thing that needs to be corrected is that the team that signs an RFA needs to deliver the compo picks, not the AFL. This makes it a "forced trade" effectively, which achieves the goal of allowing players to determine their destination, compensates the team losing the player and doesn't allow the receiving team to get away without paying the bill.

It makes top teams think twice about poaching expensive FAs because it will clean out their draft picks - as it SHOULD. The key problem now is top clubs can have their cake and eat it too.

Compo should be determined by an openly communicated formula based on salary and years. Ie. Max compo (say equivalent of two firsts, or 4000 points or similar) would be the answer for Buddy or GAJ. By basing it on the contract, this allows the market to decide on price and compo, which will get it right more often than not.

This would - as I've said before - result in player movement becoming more limited than it already is, as a club would be unwilling - understatement - to cripple their list for the sake of a single player.

Hypothetical: let's say you wanted to trade for pick 1, because your first pick is in the late teens (let's use the Lynch trade, where Richmond are the club seeking his services). How are you going to get pick 1 of us? Who are you trading that we'd accept, and who would consent to be traded to us in exchange for the pick?

Would they trade Rance? Nup. Cotchin? Nup. Riewoldt? Nup. Martin? Nup. Prestia? Nup. Caddy? Nup.

It just wouldn't happen. You would be removing the entire FA system by doing that; if you want to scrap FA, that's a different argument. Your mooted changes would disincentivise FA as a means of player movement, and it'd be akin to walking a player to the PSD. Wouldn't happen.

 

[Faz 2000]

Disagree. It forces teams to make a sober judgement on whether they really want the player they're targeting. If everyone in the AFL world acted like adults and were more transparent, there'd be plenty of player moves.

So if Tom Mitchell gets jack of the Swans not giving him the game time and role he wants, he sounds out the market. He says "I reckon I'm a gun, I just need the chance". Several suitors go "we reckon you are too, we'll pay you". One offers $3M over 5 years. The Hawks go "he's EXACTLY what we need, we'll go $4M over 5 years". Titch agrees to those terms. The Swans get the opportunity to match. They go "we want you Titch, and we don't want you to go, but can't match that contract, so off you go". The calc happens, the Hawks have to come up with the points in picks to send to the Swans for Titch.

Titch gets where he wants.
Hawks get their guy.
Swans get compensated for losing a valuable asset.
Draft is not compromised.

This is how free agency works elsewhere in the world. It's not crippling the list for a player, nobody is forcing the Hawks to make this offer. If they determine the price is too high, then so be it, don't make the offer, you don't get the player. But if they DO determine it's worth it, why shouldn't they pay? The Hawks shouldn't be able to poach a Brownlow medalist-calibre player off a rivals' list and not foot any kind of bill for it! That's not what FA is for, that's the exact PROBLEM with it now.

Hypothetical: let's say you wanted to trade for pick 1, because your first pick is in the late teens (let's use the Lynch trade, where Richmond are the club seeking his services). How are you going to get pick 1 of us? Who are you trading that we'd accept, and who would consent to be traded to us in exchange for the pick?

Would they trade Rance? Nup. Cotchin? Nup. Riewoldt? Nup. Martin? Nup. Prestia? Nup. Caddy? Nup.

What has this got to do with Free Agency? You've totally lost me.

 

[jooce8891]

No compensation for free agent departures, simple.

Reduce the floor salary cap spend so clubs lower on the ladder can create more room to lure FAs with higher $ than top clubs.

I like the idea of non finals teams having first crack at mature age state league players. Eg a mini draft of 10 players before the main draft, where remaining state league players go back into the pool.

Players can be moved mid contract at club’s discretion.

No priority draft picks.

Basically - make the system cleaner, more simple and remove all these shitty compromises the AFL have built in to the system out of fear of offending anyone. Get real about player movement and make the clubs work hard to attract and retain the best talent, instead of building a never ending welfare system.

how would we react if we lost cripps in 2 years to freo or wce, and got nothing for it i dont think removing compensation for FAs leaving

 

[Faz 2000]

While I agree that the side getting the FA should pony up. Isn't that suggestion simply trading.

Sort of. It's like a "forced" trade. The team losing the player might not want to accept the offer as a straight trade - the classic "we'd want overs for him". The argument for Free Agency is this limits the players ability to move and makes them the property of the club. By going to this model where the receiving team has to pay the bill, it means everyone gets a say in it - but ultimately the player can still get to where he wants to go if the receiving club wants him more and are willing to pay.

No club will lose an RFA without having the option to match the contract - that's what the "Restricted" bit means.
Players are still free to negotiate with specific clubs they choose. Ie. Have the Free Agency power and rights.
Clubs targeting FAs can go as high as they like in their offer to pry someone lose - but have to pay the price, too, which ultimately is what is fair. The higher they bid (offer on a contract), the more it costs them.

Look at the Lynch example (well articulated earlier in the thread, too). The Suns DO NOT want to trade Lynch. They want him at the club, happy, leading them somewhere. The Tiges reckon he's gettable. They make a big offer and outbid/convince Lynch that he should want to be a Tiger more than anything else. There's no way he's moving for 2 years at $500k - it's going to be a big bloody offer. Likely 5-6 years at over $1M. The Tigers are the reigning premiers and favourite for this year, and they're looking at adding the top free agent as well. Good luck to them if they can pull it off, but it can and *should* pretty much cost them all this year's and next year's draft picks to do so.

That's the self-policing, equalizing bit of this.
Tigers get Lynch.
GC get a Christmas-load of draft picks.
Tigers dominate for a few years, but will get dragged back to the pack quickly with no picks in the draft.
In turn Tigers may then be encouraged to move other players to get back into the draft, or release other players to Free Agent suitors in order to get back into the draft.
The system self-corrects.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I think blending a few of the suggestions here could work.

Player eligible for free agency.
Player nominates club, contract is established.
AFL determines compensation value for player based on Beautiful Mind algorithms and a roulette wheel.
Club losing player gets a compensation pick commensurate with value determined by AFL.
Club gaining player must "sacrifice" picks worth same/greater points value as compensation pick (picks of their choice).
Points unable to be covered are taken off the club's first round pick the following year.

So if we apply this to Lynch.

Lynch wants out.
Nominates Richmond, contract is hefty.
AFL says he's worth compo immediately after GC first pick (3).
Gold Coast get Pick 3, other picks shuffle back a spot.
Richmond need to sacrifice 2234 points worth of picks from this draft (they can find these during trade period, but must "pay" them before draft).

Richmond have Picks 18, 36 and 72 = 1506 points
They can:
A) cash in all of those, and knock 728 points off their 2019 first rounder.
B) trade out players to create more picks, and therefore more points.

Apply the same formula to Adelaide.
They have picks 7, 12, 19, 37 and 69 = 4392 points
They can:
A) cash in picks 12, 19 and 69 (leaving them with 7 and 37 to take to the draft)
B) trade picks and players to create a more favourable point scenario.

Flip it round and apply it to Gaff.
Nominates whoever, contract is substantial.
AFL says he's worth compo immediately after WC first pick (17).
WC get Pick 17, other picks shuffle back a spot.
Whoever gets him needs to cough up 1025 points worth of picks.
- Late First rounder and change, or multiple seconds for a high placed club
- Early Second rounder and change for a lower placed club. They keep their first.

Its a little convoluted, but what you're basically doing is
- giving lower placed clubs better compo than higher placed clubs
- making it more expensive for a club to secure a free agent from a lower placed club, and easier to secure one from a higher placed club
- encouraging higher placed clubs to trade out players for picks if they want a free agent - creating more opportunity for rebuilding clubs to sign these players

If Gaff or Dusty wants to leave their successful clubs to move home or chase a pay check, they cost suitors less. If Lynch wants to leave lowly GC to chase a flag, a top placed club is going to pay through the nose for him.

It doesn't destroy player movement, it just makes it much easier for lower placed clubs to secure quality players, and harder for the top echelon to do so without offloading some players of their own.

 

[Faz 2000]

I think blending a few of the suggestions here could work.
SNIP

Makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is definitely moving it in the right direction.

I must say I prefer the idea of the draft not being tampered with - but the approach you have outlined here does challenge that thinking, in that it skews the compo in favour of the lower teams, which I think is a good thing.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is definitely moving it in the right direction.

I must say I prefer the idea of the draft not being tampered with - but the approach you have outlined here does challenge that thinking, in that it skews the compo in favour of the lower teams, which I think is a good thing.

It tampers with the draft in the opposite direction actually

Gold Coast get 3, everyone else moves back a spot. But then Richmond cough up all their picks, and trade out a couple of players - all of a sudden everyone's second rounders move up 1 spot, third rounders move up 2 etc. etc. In a way it's an extension of the Academy/Father Son bidding system.

 

[Beast__Mode]

If a top 8 side receives a free agent, it must give picks the equivalent in points to the compensation pick.
Lets say richmond receive lynch . The GCS compo would currently be #3, richmond now have to find the picks that give them the equivalent points which would be 2234.
Now assuming the tigers have won the premiership and have picks 18,36 and 72. These picks have respectively 985, 502 and 19. A total of 1506 and therefore a deficit of 728 which is pick 26. In order for lynch to go to the tigers they not only have to give their 3 picks, 18,36 and 72, but also they need to find 26 or better.
GCS are happy because they get 4 picks from the tigers. Tigers are happy because they get Lynch, AFL are happy because the FA system s working to help even the competition out.

Should Lynch decide to go to a club outside the 8, and that club has not played finals for the past 3 years, then the afl steps in and provides the picks on the behalf of the receiving club

Soo... trading then. Just call it what it is.

Clubs are doing that anyway now, and players who aren’t FA eligible are nominating clubs and forcing their way to their desired location anyway. your proposal sounds like a more complicated trading system resulting in an even more compromised draft.

I don’t understand why people in Australia are so addicted to welfare.

 

[Beast__Mode]

how would we react if we lost cripps in 2 years to freo or wce, and got nothing for it i dont think removing compensation for FAs leaving

We’d be upset but also have $1m to go and get someone else. And we’d pay the price for being such a poorly run club that Cripps wanted to leave.

Shouldnt there be a consequence for poor performance.

 

[Faz 2000]

We’d be upset but also have $1m to go and get someone else. And we’d pay the price for being such a poorly run club that Cripps wanted to leave.

Shouldnt there be a consequence for poor performance.

There is, you lose a ton of games. We're already suffering that.

Soo... trading then. Just call it what it is.

Feel free not to understand it, but no, it's not that. Trading is two clubs exchanging assets by mutual agreement. This is a player choosing to move to another club with the source club's (possibly begrudging) acceptance. It provides a framework for brokering a move that otherwise would not occur.

 

[Blue__Balls]

We’d be upset but also have $1m to go and get someone else. And we’d pay the price for being such a poorly run club that Cripps wanted to leave.

Shouldnt there be a consequence for poor performance.

How do you break that cycle though?

Cripps leaves. We get $1m in the cap to chase whoever.
Nobody important wants to come because we're ordinary and just lost our best mid.
Next year Curnow goes "I'm out, Crippa's seen the light and so have I" and Geelong cough up a few first rounders.
We draft some kids, who will take a few years to come on.
In that time, without Cripps and Curnow, Dow and Weitering get poached by clubs chasing flags.
Etc. Etc.

I get your point, that if you **** it up you deserve what you get. But there isn't an instant panacea that can take you from cellar-dweller to contender. And if key players get impatient with the wait, it could easily result in a cycle of players leaving. Gold Coast are a good example - if they get nothing for Lynch, they just replace him with Luko at Pick 2. But Luko will take time to have any real impact, and while they're waiting for that, May leaves. Replace him with Pick 1 in 2019. The year after that, Miller and Wright leave. They never improve, and for every good young player they bring in, a good senior player goes out.

 

[Gethelred]

Disagree. It forces teams to make a sober judgement on whether they really want the player they're targeting. If everyone in the AFL world acted like adults and were more transparent, there'd be plenty of player moves.

So if Tom Mitchell gets jack of the Swans not giving him the game time and role he wants, he sounds out the market. He says "I reckon I'm a gun, I just need the chance". Several suitors go "we reckon you are too, we'll pay you". One offers $3M over 5 years. The Hawks go "he's EXACTLY what we need, we'll go $4M over 5 years". Titch agrees to those terms. The Swans get the opportunity to match. They go "we want you Titch, and we don't want you to go, but can't match that contract, so off you go". The calc happens, the Hawks have to come up with the points in picks to send to the Swans for Titch.

Titch gets where he wants.
Hawks get their guy.
Swans get compensated for losing a valuable asset.
Draft is not compromised.

Mitchell was traded, for pick 14; ergo, clearly both sides got what they wanted, for a price each was willing to pay. We're clearly on the same page here, and there is nothing wrong with the system of trading players (except perhaps that players get too much of a say in rejecting a potential trade and/or attempt to leave clubs within their contract durations, but that's another argument.)

Now, were this a RFA trade, in which Hawthorn have to find the appropriate leverage to trade him in (who's providing Mitchell's points value, by the way? The AFL?) the situation changes, drastically, depending on his supposed value. Say, he's worth pick 5. How on EARTH do Hawthorn obtain pick 5 without sacrificing key members of their squad for that selection, or trade out of the draft for two years and crippling their futures for the sake of a single player?

In this case, it's merely an assessment of the opportunity cost of trading them in. Under current circumstances, the only cost getting Mitchell in via FA is the money it takes to lure him over and ward off other clubs. If the club getting the player has to pay his value in picks to the former club, those picks and/or the players traded to them also form part of the cost, and that's the crux of my argument.

Why would you pay for Mitchell's exorbitant wage, as well as a chance at selecting at either pick 5 - if you traded for that pick, anyway, and if you did that's competent players no longer on your list - or your first round picks over the next two years, when you could just pick the kids up and they're better inside 5 years?

This is how free agency works elsewhere in the world. It's not crippling the list for a player, nobody is forcing the Hawks to make this offer. If they determine the price is too high, then so be it, don't make the offer, you don't get the player. But if they DO determine it's worth it, why shouldn't they pay? The Hawks shouldn't be able to poach a Brownlow medalist-calibre player off a rivals' list and not foot any kind of bill for it! That's not what FA is for, that's the exact PROBLEM with it now.

What has this got to do with Free Agency? You've totally lost me.

Because the compensation system is entirely a free agency creation.

I come back to what I said before. If you make a club find the compensation as designated by the AFL in exchange for a free agent, you are going to see less free agents leaving their clubs. You'll still get a few, but they'll be niche 22 players from good clubs who can't get a game; players for whom the cost is worth it to individual clubs, but the superstar trades of the kind that could improve anyone's list just won't happen.

Whether this is a good/bad outcome is entirely down to your opinion, but the AFL and the PA will not countenance a reality in which a) the AFL is not in the media all year round (and FA, the draft and player trading goes some of the way to accomplishing that) and b) player's abilities to control their future or maximise their earnings are limited in any way whatsoever.

 

[Beast__Mode]

There is, you lose a ton of games. We're already suffering that.



Feel free not to understand it, but no, it's not that. Trading is two clubs exchanging assets by mutual agreement. This is a player choosing to move to another club with the source club's (possibly begrudging) acceptance. It provides a framework for brokering a move that otherwise would not occur.

It’s an exchange between two clubs in practice if not in name. So... trading. Dress it up however you like, but it walking and sounding a lot like a duck.

Were the Eagles begrudging in their acceptance of trading Judd to us? Would GWS be berudging in trading Sheil this year if they don’t win the flag? Seems like we have a mechanism to handle that, it’s called trading.

And the suggestion hopelessly compromises an already compromised draft. Huge no from me.

 

[Faz 2000]

Now, were this a RFA trade, in which Hawthorn have to find the appropriate leverage to trade him in (who's providing Mitchell's points value, by the way? The AFL?)

Right, the method of determine the value is definitely a problem to be solved. I think the AFL's current method is totally unacceptable. As starting points for how to determine a player's "value", I would submit it's a combination of contract length and average salary per year. No reason a openly available matrix couldn't be put together to define this.

Say, he's worth pick 5. How on EARTH do Hawthorn obtain pick 5 without sacrificing key members of their squad for that selection, or trade out of the draft for two years and crippling their futures for the sake of a single player?

In my view, that's the exact reason to introduce this "club pays" concept. If a strong team like the Hawks can add an asset valued at pick 5, SHOULDN'T they have to pay for it? SHOULDN'T they have to pause to consider whether it's the right move? SHOULDN'T they have to sacrifice something longer term for the here and now? I think they absolutely should. They can still go ahead, but it's their choice.

In this case, it's merely an assessment of the opportunity cost of trading them in. Under current circumstances, the only cost getting Mitchell in via FA is the money it takes to lure him over and ward off other clubs. If the club getting the player has to pay his value in picks to the former club, those picks and/or the players traded to them also form part of the cost, and that's the crux of my argument.

No, it's the crux of my argument! That to me is *fair*. Isn't that what we're aiming to solve here, the inherant UNFAIRNESS of the current FA system? Where (in this scenario) the Hawks can buy Tom Mitchell without giving up any picks? The rich get richer, the strong get stronger, etc.

I come back to what I said before. If you make a club find the compensation as designated by the AFL in exchange for a free agent, you are going to see less free agents leaving their clubs. You'll still get a few, but they'll be niche 22 players from good clubs who can't get a game; players for whom the cost is worth it to individual clubs, but the superstar trades of the kind that could improve anyone's list just won't happen.

Whether this is a good/bad outcome is entirely down to your opinion, but the AFL and the PA will not countenance a reality in which a) the AFL is not in the media all year round (and FA, the draft and player trading goes some of the way to accomplishing that) and b) player's abilities to control their future or maximise their earnings are limited in any way whatsoever.

I don't disagree with you here, but also don't think there's a problem with this outcome. What is the end state goal we're going for here? The PLAYERS might want an unrestricted open market free-for-all, but the AFL does not. There is and always will be tension between those two. So your point B is true from the AFLPA point of view, but not the league. If you get THERE, you end up with English Premier League, the draft is meaningless, etc. It's a totally different competition.

I think the AFL introduced Free Agency because the players wanted it. They also wanted to stimulate some player movement. They got it totally wrong by paying the bill for the players moving, which has in-turn made Free Agency a weapon for strong clubs and a problem for weak clubs. The suggestions in this thread I think are solid ways to take us from where we are today to a better system tomorrow whereby player movement is no more restricted, but strong clubs cannot just do whatever they want without paying the price which I think is a much better outcome for the league.

 

[Beast__Mode]

How do you break that cycle though?

Cripps leaves. We get $1m in the cap to chase whoever.
Nobody important wants to come because we're ordinary and just lost our best mid.
Next year Curnow goes "I'm out, Crippa's seen the light and so have I" and Geelong cough up a few first rounders.
We draft some kids, who will take a few years to come on.
In that time, without Cripps and Curnow, Dow and Weitering get poached by clubs chasing flags.
Etc. Etc.

I get your point, that if you **** it up you deserve what you get. But there isn't an instant panacea that can take you from cellar-dweller to contender. And if key players get impatient with the wait, it could easily result in a cycle of players leaving. Gold Coast are a good example - if they get nothing for Lynch, they just replace him with Luko at Pick 2. But Luko will take time to have any real impact, and while they're waiting for that, May leaves. Replace him with Pick 1 in 2019. The year after that, Miller and Wright leave. They never improve, and for every good young player they bring in, a good senior player goes out.

How did Hawthorn get better in the early 00s?

In a draft/salary cap system clubs get better by drafting well, coaching well, developing well, overpaying early on for the right players to help the kids you’ve drafted and over time being a club that good players want to be at. No short cuts, but hardly rocket science either.

Gold Coast is a terrible example to use - since day one they have been a basket case for myriad AFL created reasons. if I’m any club other than GWS I would be furious at continually having my access to young talent compromised, and ultimately my ability to compete for premierships hampered, because there is a constant welfare drip feed heading up there.

 

[Beast__Mode]

Right, the method of determine the value is definitely a problem to be solved. I think the AFL's current method is totally unacceptable. As starting points for how to determine a player's "value", I would submit it's a combination of contract length and average salary per year. No reason a openly available matrix couldn't be put together to define this.



In my view, that's the exact reason to introduce this "club pays" concept. If a strong team like the Hawks can add an asset valued at pick 5, SHOULDN'T they have to pay for it? SHOULDN'T they have to pause to consider whether it's the right move? SHOULDN'T they have to sacrifice something longer term for the here and now? I think they absolutely should. They can still go ahead, but it's their choice.



No, it's the crux of my argument! That to me is *fair*. Isn't that what we're aiming to solve here, the inherant UNFAIRNESS of the current FA system? Where (in this scenario) the Hawks can buy Tom Mitchell without giving up any picks? The rich get richer, the strong get stronger, etc.



I don't disagree with you here, but also don't think there's a problem with this outcome. What is the end state goal we're going for here? The PLAYERS might want an unrestricted open market free-for-all, but the AFL does not. There is and always will be tension between those two. So your point B is true from the AFLPA point of view, but not the league. If you get THERE, you end up with English Premier League, the draft is meaningless, etc. It's a totally different competition.

I think the AFL introduced Free Agency because the players wanted it. They also wanted to stimulate some player movement. They got it totally wrong by paying the bill for the players moving, which has in-turn made Free Agency a weapon for strong clubs and a problem for weak clubs. The suggestions in this thread I think are solid ways to take us from where we are today to a better system tomorrow whereby player movement is no more restricted, but strong clubs cannot just do whatever they want without paying the price which I think is a much better outcome for the league.

Fair? Define that please. In my mind fairness = reward for excellence. This is a sporting competition we are talking about, after all.

If Hawthorn have managed themselves well enough that they can afford to add talent and $ to an already talented list within the rules of the salary cap, it’s unfair to deny or compromise their opportunity to do so.

 

[Blue__Balls]

How did Hawthorn get better in the early 00s?

In a draft/salary cap system clubs get better by drafting well, coaching well, developing well, overpaying early on for the right players to help the kids you’ve drafted and over time being a club that good players want to be at. No short cuts, but hardly rocket science either.

Gold Coast is a terrible example to use - since day one they have been a basket case for myriad AFL created reasons. if I’m any club other than GWS I would be furious at continually having my access to young talent compromised, and ultimately my ability to compete for premierships hampered, because there is a constant welfare drip feed heading up there.

Comparing it to Hawthorn in the 00's is inaccurate regardless - they weren't competing with free agency at the time. If a player left, they got value for them, whereas you seem to be arguing for a system where a player can leave a club after 7-8 years and that club gets nothing in return.

You're applying the "reap what you sow" approach to poor clubs, but are against a "pay for what you get" approach for free agents, which seems at odds to me.

Discussing my earlier idea further, I've realised it borrows a little from the academy and father son model, which I think makes sense in a way.

Value the free agent that is leaving.
Give the player's club a compo pick accordingly.
Force the recruiting club to match points (with flexibility to do so with any picks from the same year). These picks could be "lost" or moved to the back of the draft, whichever is more appropriate.

GC get Pick 3 for Lynch.
Richmond need to give up 2234 points worth of picks.
Picks 19 and 37 leave them 803 points short.
They could trade out a player for Pick 23.
They could trade out two players for picks 41 and 42.
They could trade out a player for Pick 11 and keep their Pick 37.
They could trade out three players for Picks 30, 31 and 35, and keep their Pick 19.

What Richmond choose to do doesn't impact GC, they still get the compo pick awarded by the AFL.
But other clubs potentially benefit from Richmond offloading some fringe players, or a reliable best 22 one.
All other clubs benefit slightly from Richmond sacrificing draft picks.
When you tie it in to the existing draft system, it naturally allows lower clubs more valuable assets to secure free agents, while the higher ranked clubs get less.