A Never-Trade Hypothesis

[ATsince1973]

Just putting this out there...

What would happen if we had a “We don’t trade out players policy”?

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

2. There are just 3 ways out of our club
- delisted
- into the draft
- free agency

3. Because we’re building a culture where club matters, guernsey matters, player-bonds matter, fans’ attachment to players matter.

4. Respecting family ties, we will pay for interstate visits by family & friends to a very generous extent (& get AFL approval to keep that out of salary cap ... it’s hardly COLA).

5. But no mummy’s boys here.

No doubt we’d lose on some deals. You’ll name all that for me. But might it not be worth the wins in other areas?

Jake “I want to be a 15 year Crow” Lever would need to weigh a draft-gamble (getting home via 3 years at Gold Coast) versus sticking with us through to FA.


Thoughts?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Thetrader15]

Just putting this out there...

What would happen if we had a “We don’t trade out players policy”?

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

2. There are just 3 ways out of our club
- delisted
- into the draft
- free agency

3. Because we’re building a culture where club matters, guernsey matters, player-bonds matter, fans’ attachment to players matter.

4. Respecting family ties, we will pay for interstate visits by family & friends to a very generous extent (& get AFL approval to keep that out of salary cap ... it’s hardly COLA).

5. But no mummy’s boys here.

No doubt we’d lose on some deals. You’ll name all that for me. But might it not be worth the wins in other areas?

Jake “I want to be a 15 year Crow” Lever would need to weigh a draft-gamble (getting home via 3 years at Gold Coast) versus sticking with us through to FA.


Thoughts?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I like your out of the box thinking here.

 

[BTs Nana]

Nice in theory but:

1) clubs will be less likely to deal with us

2) players will be less likely to deal with us.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I think the general consensus is that teams won't fork out big cash for a player who doesn't want to be there regardless of whether or not they can pick them up in the ND.

Just imagine how much worse it would be if you lose a gun player for nothing and he still ends up at his nominated club. History has proven time and time again that players have all the power these days.

 

[Godallblighty]

Just putting this out there...

What would happen if we had a “We don’t trade out players policy”?

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

2. There are just 3 ways out of our club
- delisted
- into the draft
- free agency

3. Because we’re building a culture where club matters, guernsey matters, player-bonds matter, fans’ attachment to players matter.

4. Respecting family ties, we will pay for interstate visits by family & friends to a very generous extent (& get AFL approval to keep that out of salary cap ... it’s hardly COLA).

5. But no mummy’s boys here.

No doubt we’d lose on some deals. You’ll name all that for me. But might it not be worth the wins in other areas?

Jake “I want to be a 15 year Crow” Lever would need to weigh a draft-gamble (getting home via 3 years at Gold Coast) versus sticking with us through to FA.


Thoughts?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I like it. We get shafted by the players who want out anyway. And it's a powerful, maverick statement of culture. Would take a crazy-like-a-fox leader to insist on it.

AFC would never do it.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Where do we sign

 

[Interloperer]

The club would repeatedly finish 18th

 

[Bill50]

i've often found that, and you can find a lot of examples in public policy, the side effects of a solution are often much worse than the problem itself (take introducing cane toads for an example)

If you accept that the the Crows have a retention problem and maybe they do. They might also acknowledge (internally) there is sweet f all they can do about it and some huge knee-jerk reaction is just going to make things much worse. Which I suspect the plan in the op would. Sometimes all you can do is take a long term view and small steps like trying to improve the environment to make the players want to stay.

In saying all that i like people who try to solve a problem rather than bitch about it.

 

[StonesThrow]

Nice in theory but:

1) clubs will be less likely to deal with us

2) players will be less likely to deal with us.

(good) players are already less likely to deal with us.

 

[Thetrader15]

The club would repeatedly finish 18th

Awesome - Pick 1!!!

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

People just need to accept it as fact that players will always want to leave this club. It’s not a culture thing. It’s not a club thing. It’s just the way it is.

People are leaving south Australia more than they are leaving QLD, NSW, VIC and even WA. Around 5 x more in fact. But most people can’t just pack up and leave. They have financial commitments, families etc.

Football players can move to a preferred location while getting a pay rise at the same time. They are young men, it is easier for them to do than say your average factory worker or retail assistant.

I’ve accepted it as the norm now. Each season there will be a player or more who wants to leave for family, or lifestyle, or media opportunities, or money. If no one does, it’s a strange year.

No different to how if you want certain careers you must go study interstate because Adelaide Uniiversities don’t offer the courses, or once you complete the course the job opportunities are not in SA.

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

Maybe SA teams need their own “COLA”?

A “PRA” - Player Retention Allowance?

We have had around 40 players rotate through our best 22 since 2010. But have had 6 want to leave confirmed so far.

That’s something like 15%. Massive. Maybe we need an AFL allowance to financially compensate interstate players.

 

[pirate bob]

Maybe SA teams need their own “COLA”?

A “PRA” - Player Retention Allowance?

We have had around 40 players rotate through our best 22 since 2010. But have had 6 want to leave confirmed so far.

That’s something like 15%. Massive. Maybe we need an AFL allowance to financially compensate interstate players.

Personally I think the WA and SA clubs need access to local talent along the same lines as the NSW and QLD clubs have first access to there academy players.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Just putting this out there...

What would happen if we had a “We don’t trade out players policy”?

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

2. There are just 3 ways out of our club
- delisted
- into the draft
- free agency

3. Because we’re building a culture where club matters, guernsey matters, player-bonds matter, fans’ attachment to players matter.

4. Respecting family ties, we will pay for interstate visits by family & friends to a very generous extent (& get AFL approval to keep that out of salary cap ... it’s hardly COLA).

5. But no mummy’s boys here.

No doubt we’d lose on some deals. You’ll name all that for me. But might it not be worth the wins in other areas?

Jake “I want to be a 15 year Crow” Lever would need to weigh a draft-gamble (getting home via 3 years at Gold Coast) versus sticking with us through to FA.


Thoughts?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

No Andrew McLeod or Darren Jarman then...

 

[Jarman3]

Personally I think the WA and SA clubs need access to local talent along the same lines as the NSW and QLD clubs have first access to there academy players.

That's the key, I reckon. We need some kind of priority access to local talent.

With 10 clubs in Victoria, Vic players are always going to be able to threaten non-Vic clubs with the PSD, since odds are there will always be a Vic club in the bottom 2 or 3. Clubs in other states with only 2 teams are much less likely to be able to threaten that. What if an out of contract SA player wanted to come back home for family and friends and $900k a year this year? The lowest ranked club we've got is Port at pick 12. And that's leaving aside the fact that they've actually traded that pick out this year, so the first SA pick is the Crows at 16. But even if Port had kept that pick, a gun player who wants to come home to the Crows can't take the PSD option and end up at Port at pick 12, because he's not going to make it that deep into the draft. Meanwhile, a Vic player like Lever can nominate Melbourne, safe in the knowledge that he's a pretty good chance of making it to the Kangaroos at pick 4 (or even Carlton at pick 3, although I suspect they don't have the cap space with all the other players they're bringing in).

If not academies, then SOMETHING needs to be done to fix the imbalance in the trade system that is currently weight way too far in favour of the player's wishes. We can't have this situation where 3 year players are demanding to go wherever the hell they want. Free agency made it easier for 8+ year players to move clubs. Perhaps something needs to be done to make it harder for players to move clubs before that. Maybe prior to free agency, players can nominate their desired contract, but don't get to pick a club. Their existing club then has the ability to trade them to whichever club that is willing to pay the contract will give them the best deal by way of trade. Right now, the players have somehow managed to get themselves all the bits of professional US sports that benefit the players while also blocking any of the balancing factors that benefit the clubs.

 

[PrideOf]

So we'll turn into the Hotel California then?

K.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

No Andrew McLeod or Darren Jarman then...

????

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

 

[Slippery Pete]

????

1. We will trade players in (for picks) but not out.

We traded out Sean Wellman as part of the Jarman deal, and Chris Groom for McLeod.