Atkins out - will explore free agency

[Vader]

This is the least objective of all the possible positions on this point - only kicking teams 'in the balls' who deserve it by the personal estimation of a fraction of their supporter base?

I provided rational explanations as to why you'd definitely consider it for Carlton & Essendon, which are not a "personal estimation". Carlton used it last year - that's not a personal estimation. Essendon are impossible to deal with, because Dodo is an idiot. OK, that's a personal estimation, but I defy you to find anyone (other than an Essendon supporter) who disagrees.

Even if it was true, not only is pick 40-ish more than enough if we want to trade, why are GWS immune from being kicked in the balls ala Essendon & Carlton (and as suggested, Port? Do we also add Richmond because of 2017? Sydney because of TippettGate and COLA? Keep going, I'm sure the whole league has done something)?

GWS & Richmond have done nothing wrong, and have always been fair to trade with. On-field success is not a reason for taking the nuclear option. Bastardry at the trade table is. Doing it to Port would be extremely petty, given that they haven't done anything to provoke it.

Sydney, I'll give you - I'd definitely consider doing it to them, as revenge for their behaviour with Pond Scum.

I can't think of a club who has poached or tried to poach more out of contract players from other sides in the last 10 years than GWS. Before you say 'everyone agreed to those concessions' yes they did - and everyone agreed to the PSD also. Not one club went to the AFL and said 'get rid of the PSD, we don't want to lose any more players'.

The only reason the PSD still exists is because the AFLPA refuse to let it die. It's got nothing to do with the clubs.

GWS may have traded for more players from other clubs than anyone else, but they have always paid a fair price when trading for those players.

Suggesting Carlton need a 'reminder to pull their heads in' is supporter fantasy. With all the public animosity between Carlton and us over Gibbs, we've still done more trades with them than any other club in the last few seasons. It's a myth.

Carlton actively used the PSD to extract Martin from GC, and are currently threatening to do the same to Saad (Essendon). Yes, the Gibbs thing is petty - but they still deserve a kick in the balls for being the only club in recent history to use the PSD to avoid paying a fair price for a player.

 

[Vader]

Pick #29 still gets you one of the best 30-35 ish players in the draft. Even if you don't want it this year, trade it into next year for the points.

Without the PSD, we give GWS a pick in the 20s.
With the PSD, we give GWS a pick in the 30s.

The pick which is currently #29 will be well inside the 30s by the time all of the FA compensation picks have been announced.

 

[Vhaluus]

I understand, though I'm saying I don't agree the option is that nuclear/antagonistic to preclude using it instead of burning pick 29 on an out of contract player who's played a handful of okay-ish games in their career so far.

If you don't rate him then you should be advocating walking away.

Again I will repeat, the trade doesn't have enough value to start lobbing nukes over.

 

[baldandbroke]

So when does the ball-kicking counter start?

If it's ok to kick someone in the balls as a retaliation for an earlier ball-kicking ... how do you know when it's all even and the foot swinging can stop?

Or could it be that maybe this is not a real thing - and all team try to get what they can when the leverage presents itself ...

 

[ABAB]

Who was thinking 2? And why? 2 or 3 wouldn't have made a great deal of difference

When the media reported it was $500K and we thought WTF, that would be the lower end of band 2.

 

[ltdamn]

I provided rational explanations as to why you'd definitely consider it for Carlton & Essendon, which are not a "personal estimation". Carlton used it last year - that's not a personal estimation. Essendon are impossible to deal with, because Dodo is an idiot. OK, that's a personal estimation, but I defy you to find anyone (other than an Essendon supporter) who disagrees.

GWS & Richmond have done nothing wrong, and have always been fair to trade with. On-field success is not a reason for taking the nuclear option. Bastardry at the trade table is. Doing it to Port would be extremely petty, given that they haven't done anything to provoke it.

Sydney, I'll give you - I'd definitely consider doing it to them, as revenge for their behaviour with Pond Scum.

The only reason the PSD still exists is because the AFLPA refuse to let it die. It's got nothing to do with the clubs.

GWS may have traded for more players from other clubs than anyone else, but they have always paid a fair price when trading for those players.

Carlton actively used the PSD to extract Martin from GC, and are currently threatening to do the same to Saad (Essendon). Yes, the Gibbs thing is petty - but they still deserve a kick in the balls for being the only club in recent history to use the PSD to avoid paying a fair price for a player.

So none of it boils down to personal opinion of the clubs, except for all of it? Very objective.

I doubt there is a whiteboard up at AFC headquarters with love hearts or poo emojis next to all the clubs based on how much Reid & co like them and they don't let people talk to the mean ones, or else they have to find a different table at lunch, and everyone wears pink on Wednesdays.

If poaching 2nd year players is considered taboo, then thoughts on North poaching Lachie Jones off the WB rookie list as a DFA through an obscure rule - even though he was offered a new contract? I thought poaching players off the rookie list was even worse form.....

https://www.afl.com.au/news/523051/roos-to-use-little-known-rule-to-poach-bulldogs-defende

I can't see how this is less nuclear than taking Hately in the PSD. Or do all the clubs just add North to the shun list now? No, of course they wont. These are all highly paid professionals who don't chuck temper tantrums and refuse to do their jobs or deal with other clubs because someone else signed a player from their list. They get on with it, and act professionally, and not like 13 year old schoolgirls. Carlton have had two seperate list managers in consecutive years threaten the PSD to get the player they want.

There is no such thing as a 'nuclear' threat in player trades that would stop one club from dealing with another. It's pure supporter fiction, theatre that we create in our minds because we have no real input or say in any of this outside of this board or social media.

 

[ltdamn]

If you don't rate him then you should be advocating walking away.

Again I will repeat, the trade doesn't have enough value to start lobbing nukes over.

I never said anything about walking away, that's a straw-man argument, and a weak one at that.

I said, it's not a nuclear threat. I said, I would keep pick 29 or whatever it turns into, and trade it into next year if we don't need it.

If we actually gave GWS pick 29 for Hately, I would be hoping it's because we have so many picks beforehand that we literally have not got any list space left by that point, and/or it also had something else coming back with it as well as Jackson.

 

[Sanders]

So when does the ball-kicking counter start?

If it's ok to kick someone in the balls as a retaliation for an earlier ball-kicking ... how do you know when it's all even and the foot swinging can stop?

Or could it be that maybe this is not a real thing - and all team try to get what they can when the leverage presents itself ...

exactly

it’s schoolboy stuff to think using the psd is anything more than an Avenue available to lower ranked clubs

 

[1970crow]

Fair result given Atkins quality as a player. $400k is only slightly above the average wage for an AFL player (~$380k).

The free agency compensation formula allegedly needs you to earn a contract between the top 50 and 30 percent for band 4. That's where this contract seems to be

That ignores the points for age. AFL squeeze approximately 400 players into 100 rankings. So when Rat gets his 10 age points, he ends up ranked ahead of about 40 players with lesser contracts.

 

[1970crow]

Indeed, but we have some clueless posters who were believing of the most favourable reported salary in the media...

People were thinking that length had an impact as well. So when it was 5 x $500k, they got a little excited.

 

[1990crow]

People were thinking that length had an impact as well. So when it was 5 x $500k, they got a little excited.

The contract ended up being less than reported didnt it? The previous figure had me anticipating close to band 3.
But band 4 seems fair result.

 

[1970crow]

The contract ended up being less than reported didnt it? The previous figure had me anticipating close to band 3.
But band 4 seems fair result.

I think so, ended up $400k, not $500k. The years are irrelevant, which is where many go wrong.