Fixing the compensation system

[Blue__Balls]

I dont think you’ve answered the question. Nth Melbourne are lower than West Coast on the ladder. If they sign Gaff as a FA - in addition to the hefty salary, should they have the give up draft picks? If you answer ‘yes’ to that question, how exactly does your system help Nth Melbourne climb the ladder? They get Gaff but give up one or two first round picks?

One step forward, one step back, maybe two steps back if the stronger club directly receives the draft capital. That’s exactly the type of treadmill you seek to avoid, presumably. And if a player wants to forgo $ to win, good on them. Plenty won’t, particularly as the stigma attached to changing clubs dissipates.

What happens when the 9th placed team signs a FA from the 8th placed team? Or 16 v 15?

RFA is a different story as discussed above. That’s just glorified trading.

I see where you're coming from now.

In my example, the compo cost is still tied to the club's draft position.

A free agent leaving a higher ranked club costs less than one leaving a lower ranked club. So North aren't giving up first round picks, they're giving up a second and change.

Good players cost more.
Free agents from lower clubs cost more.
Not impossible to get them, but the cost is more easily met by lower placed clubs.

Perfect? Doubt it. But that's the line I'm working at the moment.

The alternative would be to say free agency exists from 7 years, with no compo, but until then players can be traded anywhere. So the club has the power for half your career, then you've got it after that. Protects draft investments and allows clubs to capitolise if they know a player will be looking to leave once FA age is reached.

 

[JustaBattler]

1. The contractual system in AFL is flawed - you cant sugar coat crap.
If I'm a Club I own a player' services and also take responsibility for the player not able to deliver services via the contract. I should be able to on sell the contract to another Club - Clubs cant do this now - without approval of the player - therefore Clubs are unable to seek the best market price for a contract they presumably own - this is uncommercial rank BS.
2. The FA period should be reduced or eliminated - it is unfair for players to be locked into contracts which no longer reflect their true market worth or don't reflect their change of circumstance beyond a maximum designated period - say 2/3 years. Same can be said in reverse - dealt with above in point 1.
3. No tampering of list management strategies by Clubs and market for players by AFL - none. Therefore no PP and no 'compensation for FA moves - none.
4. Clubs should be able to use as much or little of their salary cap limits for a period in line with minimum player contract terms and FA term definitions.

The market will clear over time the less regulation and intervention is applied.

 

[Beast__Mode]

I see where you're coming from now.

In my example, the compo cost is still tied to the club's draft position.

A free agent leaving a higher ranked club costs less than one leaving a lower ranked club. So North aren't giving up first round picks, they're giving up a second and change.

Good players cost more.
Free agents from lower clubs cost more.
Not impossible to get them, but the cost is more easily met by lower placed clubs.

Perfect? Doubt it. But that's the line I'm working at the moment.

The alternative would be to say free agency exists from 7 years, with no compo, but until then players can be traded anywhere. So the club has the power for half your career, then you've got it after that. Protects draft investments and allows clubs to capitolise if they know a player will be looking to leave once FA age is reached.

I like your second option a lot more. It’s much cleaner.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Nothing needs to change. We need to have our turn before anything changes, else I’ll be p1$$ed again.

 

[Beast__Mode]

1. The contractual system in AFL is flawed - you cant sugar coat crap.
If I'm a Club I own a player' services and also take responsibility for the player not able to deliver services via the contract. I should be able to on sell the contract to another Club - Clubs cant do this now - without approval of the player - therefore Clubs are unable to seek the best market price for a contract they presumably own - this is uncommercial rank BS.
2. The FA period should be reduced or eliminated - it is unfair for players to be locked into contracts which no longer reflect their true market worth or don't reflect their change of circumstance beyond a maximum designated period - say 2/3 years. Same can be said in reverse - dealt with above in point 1.
3. No tampering of list management strategies by Clubs and market for players by AFL - none. Therefore no PP and no 'compensation for FA moves - none.
4. Clubs should be able to use as much or little of their salary cap limits for a period in line with minimum player contract terms and FA term definitions.

The market will clear over time the less regulation and intervention is applied.

I like a lot of what you say but eliminating or significantly reducing the tenure required to qualify as FA (eg less than six years) is not practical, or dare I say fair, to clubs when the drafting age is so low. The first 2-3 years are essentially a write off in terms of physical preparation, even more so for tall kids. Clubs reasonably should have a longer period of control to come ensate for the development they provide.

 

[Murphkreuzmitch]

Simple solution to free agency

Top 4 - can’t contract any free agents

Then a sliding scale of how much a team can sign a free agent for. So 5th can’t contract a player for as much as 18th. Making it more attractive for lesser teams to gain better players.

That’s it, no compo if you loose a free agent as it’s too ambiguous about value etc.

 

[JustaBattler]

I like a lot of what you say but eliminating or significantly reducing the tenure required to qualify as FA (eg less than six years) is not practical, or dare I say fair, to clubs when the drafting age is so low. The first 2-3 years are essentially a write off in terms of physical preparation, even more so for tall kids. Clubs reasonably should have a longer period of control to come ensate for the development they provide.

I really dont like tgeenagers playing AFL until their bodies are AFL ready - which for most means as you say 2-3 years of development. Better lists find rookie picks and later picks and are able to develop them in VFL etc for a few years - Carlton wants their first year players to be superstars - look at the way Weitering has been vilified on this forum for not being a developed superstar - the kid is barely out of teenage years....hopefully Carlton gets there over the next few years - and can do what Hawthorn/Geelong and Sydney have been doing for a decade.

 

[therubbernub]

See, where you're seeing fairness, I'm seeing decreasing player movement options.

My argument is simple. The AFL, the fans and the PA do not want less player movement. It's interesting, it provides a sideshow that draws the eye and gives fans at the bottom end of the ladder cause to watch and pay attention, dreaming of a day when their side isn't shit, and it provides more capacity for players to obtain more money and to choose the course their life takes once they've made it.

Because of that, any policy change that would inhibit player movement in any way would be impeded by all contenders.

Does a change to the policy in the way suggested - ie, changing the FA formula to a system where a team must stump up enough points to trade for the player, either in picks or players - affect the likelihood of players/clubs exploring FA? Of course it does, as sides don't want to dismantle their structures to obtain a superstar, unless they've lopsided their list management to be able to make that decision. You'd still see FA, but they'd be at the margins.

Therefore, this kind of a change in policy will not be accepted by all groups, and would not be instituted.

At the moment, it is open slather for any senior player to move, and if that is the objective- sure, lets keep everything simple.....and unfair.
As it stands, roughly 1/3 of the clubs benefit substantially from star players choosing to move unhindered, with the AFL (really the 18 clubs) sharing the load in terms of compensation picks. In other words 2/3 of the clubs are not getting their share of FA movements in, but are paying the full share of picks. The argument of course is that there are swings and round abouts, and that eventually every club enjoys the benefits of FA with stars moving to their club. But i dont see it happening quickly. Maybe taking a 50-100 year view, sure , most clubs will have their time in the sun and therefore be destination clubs during that time. But taking a 20 year view, i dont feel that this will happen. Moreover the damage done to memberships and followers of a club spending decades in the cellar cannot be underestimated. Potentially the effects can last for decades, as younger supporters follow the popular clubs, and ignore the unfashionable. It is then passed on to their kids.

My suggestion was a two tiered one, whereby it is only if the receiving club is a top 8 club, that the points system apply. it would not apply if a FA wanted to transfer to a club finishing 9th. In other words, only the club with the greatest ability to pay for the compensation themselves, pays. The lesser performing clubs benefit from the AFl paying the compensation for them. This would have a leveling effect.

 

[thylacine60]

this thread broke my skull

 

[Funk]

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.

Stupid example as this was pre FA.

Which is the actual topic of the thread!!

 

[Beast__Mode]

Stupid example as this was pre FA.

Which is the actual topic of the thread!!

I was talking more broadly than FA in that example.

 

[Gethelred]

At the moment, it is open slather for any senior player to move, and if that is the objective- sure, lets keep everything simple.....and unfair.
As it stands, roughly 1/3 of the clubs benefit substantially from star players choosing to move unhindered, with the AFL (really the 18 clubs) sharing the load in terms of compensation picks. In other words 2/3 of the clubs are not getting their share of FA movements in, but are paying the full share of picks. The argument of course is that there are swings and round abouts, and that eventually every club enjoys the benefits of FA with stars moving to their club. But i dont see it happening quickly. Maybe taking a 50-100 year view, sure , most clubs will have their time in the sun and therefore be destination clubs during that time. But taking a 20 year view, i dont feel that this will happen. Moreover the damage done to memberships and followers of a club spending decades in the cellar cannot be underestimated. Potentially the effects can last for decades, as younger supporters follow the popular clubs, and ignore the unfashionable. It is then passed on to their kids.

My suggestion was a two tiered one, whereby it is only if the receiving club is a top 8 club, that the points system apply. it would not apply if a FA wanted to transfer to a club finishing 9th. In other words, only the club with the greatest ability to pay for the compensation themselves, pays. The lesser performing clubs benefit from the AFl paying the compensation for them. This would have a leveling effect.

I'm not sure the bolded has been successfully proven. We don't have more than what 5-6 years since FA came in, and we're already forming conclusions shorn of actual data proving stuff like this either way. There is simply not enough data available to make that conclusion yet, not by a long shot.

And, if a simple solution is the one to be desired, simply lower the salary cap floor for teams the closer they are to the bottom of the ladder; therefore, teams cannot afford to pay their players unders to sustain their ladder position.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

...
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?
...
Because the compensation system is entirely a free agency creation.
...

The Mitchell example is perhaps atypical. Sydney is a stronger club and at the time Hawthorn had dipped down the ladder.

The issue as I see it is that over time free agents have tended to go from weaker clubs to stronger clubs, and this runs counter to the equalisation which the draft and salary cap are about.

Penalising a club for receiving a free agent would hopefully support equalisation (in essence it’s a forced, matched offer outcome):

* Lynch leaves Gold Coast for say Richmond. Sure Richmond has to fit Lynch in its salary cap and this might squeeze out a player or two or its Riewoldt taking a pay cut, etc.

* Richmond would also have to give up higher draft picks for lower picks (still has to select 3 players in the draft).

It may not work for North if it were to get Gaff, nor for GWS who have a number of free agents on its list starting from next year.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

B_B, why is Gaff considering Nth Melbourne (supposedly)? They’re in no man’s land ladder wise, don’t have a huge array of young talent, aren’t a high profile club. But $1.2m is pretty persuasive. That’s the leverage they have and they are using it - good on them. Should they have to - on top of the hefty chunk of their cap now potentially spoken for- have to give up multiple draft assets to a stronger team?

North would lose its first draft pick, nothing else.

If Lynch went to Richmond, Richmond would have to give up multiple picks, or trade a player or 2, to get the required pick to provide the compensation.

 

[Beast__Mode]

North would lose its first draft pick, nothing else.

If Lynch went to Richmond, Richmond would have to give up multiple picks, or trade a player or 2, to get the required pick to provide the compensation.

So basically under your proposal lower ranked clubs would never even attempt to land premium FAs. The worst of both worlds.

 

[Blue and Blue]

It will never work. It can never be fair.
You cant have a free market and protectionism running at the same time.
The AFL is an Oligarchy on the one hand and seeks to apply pseudo socialist agendas on the other. The result is an unbalanced unfair chaos.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

So basically under your proposal lower ranked clubs would never even attempt to land premium FAs. The worst of both worlds.

Not what I was saying.

North gets Gaff, loses its first round pick only, has second round and later picks.

If Richmond got Lynch, it would probably lose its first 2-3 Picks, and start picking at the draft at the end of Round 3, or in Round 4.

 

[Beast__Mode]

Not what I was saying.

North gets Gaff, loses its first round pick only, has second round and later picks.

If Richmond got Lynch, it would probably lose its first 2-3 Picks, and start picking at the draft at the end of Round 3, or in Round 4.

It’s exactly what you are saying. A lower ranked, non finals team signs a premium FA from a finals team, using their greater available cap space as leverage - ie exactly the way FA is supposed to work.

Under your proposal, Not only do they have to pay overs in salary cap space, they have to give up a first Rd pick, presumably to the finals bound team. How on earth does that equalise the competition? One step forward, two steps back.

It will never happen. And if Richmond can win a flag, restructure their current deals to fit Lynch in, keep everyone happy and take themselves to the next level, we should both congratulate them on being awesome and fight like hell to be better than them.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Time for a *Bump* for this thread methinks.

Media speculation is that GC and Carlton are to get Special Assistance in the form of ‘access to’ 1-2 State League players who we can keep or trade for draft picks, and no priority picks (or none at the pointy end) while say Richmond can get Tom Lynch for no loss of draft picks.

Not a good look for the AFL at the moment with Cats reportedly targeting Stevens (Saints), Pies May (GC) and * Martin (GC).

My compensation fix is the club that gains the FA should compensate the losing club with a pick in the same round as the AFL determines for the player. If the gaining club does not have a pick in the same round, then it can trade to get one, and if unable to, then it gives up its corresponding pick in next year’s draft.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Time for a *Bump* for this thread methinks.

Media speculation is that GC and Carlton are to get Special Assistance in the form of ‘access to’ 1-2 State League players who we can keep or trade for draft picks, and no priority picks (or none at the pointy end) while say Richmond can get Tom Lynch for no loss of draft picks.

Not a good look for the AFL at the moment with Cats reportedly targeting Stevens (Saints), Pies May (GC) and * Martin (GC).

My compensation fix is the club that gains the FA should compensate the losing club with a pick in the same round as the AFL determines for the player. If the gaining club does not have a pick in the same round, then it can trade to get one, and if unable to, then it gives up its corresponding pick in next year’s draft.

Don't think that works either.

It penalises the club getting the free agent by forcing them to "pay" with a pick, but also the club losing them. Reckon GC would be happy with Pick 16 instead of Pick 3 for Lynch?

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Don't think that works either.

It penalises the club getting the free agent by forcing them to "pay" with a pick, but also the club losing them. Reckon GC would be happy with Pick 16 instead of Pick 3 for Lynch?

What if GC gets Pick 3 and Richmond also loses Pick 16?

 

[Blue__Balls]

What if GC gets Pick 3 and Richmond also loses Pick 16?

Maybe. Still think it's a bit clunky and imbalanced. A player valued at Pick 1 costs a club the same as a player valued at Pick 18? A player valued at Pick 18 costs Pick 18, but if he's valued at Pick 19 could be secured for Pick 36?

Whatever the system, the hard part is determining a player's value, but I'm sure an algorithm could be worked out that took into account factors like a player's age, games played, salary, contract length, B&F placements, Brownlow votes, whatever other statistical measures are deemed appropriate.

I still prefer a draft points approach, rather than "same round". We use it for father/son and academy players, why not free agents? Determine a player's worth, the club losing the player is awarded that pick as compensation, and the club getting the player has to "give up" equivalent points in picks. Those picks don't go to the club losing the player, they get a shiny new compo pick out of thin air.

So if Richmond want Lynch, and the valuation of him is Pick 4, GC get Pick 4 and everyone else shuffles down a bit, while Richmond have to give up 2034 points worth of picks. They can pull those points from anywhere in this draft (not future drafts), and can trade out players to generate appropriate picks. This has the flow on effect of moving everyone else's later picks up a spot or two, somewhat balancing out the effect of adding an extra pick for the club losing their player.

Lower placed clubs have an easier time finding the points to secure a free agent. Higher placed clubs are encouraged to trade out players to generate picks, which in turn helps the lower placed clubs bolster their mature-age depth.

 

[dlb99]

The northern states academies are a rort, like COLA was a rort. They would be the first thing I would eliminate.

 

[BluesRule]

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.

Hawks cleared out all picks to get JOM and their latest Brownlow winner. It will happen if the quality is there

 

[BluesRule]

What if GC gets Pick 3 and Richmond also loses Pick 16?

Great idea. Still give compo and club gaining player loses their next pick.

ie. Lynch to Richmond #3 to GCS and Richmond lose #16 (win/win but at least the next round of the draft is clear).

If STK got Gaff, then STK lose a second round pick and WCE get a pick after their first (#19?)

Still a big incentive for team getting a FA (at a discount) and lower teams better positioned.