Free Agent prospects

[Old Spice]

At the end of 2012, limited Free Agency comes in, which will allow players who have served eight years at one club, and are out of contract, to move.

More detail here.

I know it's all crystal balling, but meh, its the off season. Can you think of a player we might want to go after?

I wonder to what degree this is coming into our contract and list management thinking at the moment. Obviously too nebulous to base a whole list development / mgt strategy on, but surely must be in the forward planning mix.

If Wood and Ceglar, for example, didn't come on (absurd assertion on Ceglar of course) we might be looking to snaffle say a Hamish McIntosh (no idea of his contract situation, just using as an example) as another 28 year old ruck a la Jolly.

The latest Draft that would throw up eight-year players is 2004 - any Draft preceding that obviously is also eligible.

Here are links to the 02, 03 & 04 Drafts - anything preceding those Drafts we are unlikely to go for due to age factor. Anything worth going for?

 

[FredNerk69]

All I can say is thank god for Nick Maxwell in the 2004 draft. What a bust that draft was for us.

 

[jerry springer]

im a massive fan of Ryan crowley.Have no idea of his contract status though

 

[Old Spice]

im a massive fan of Ryan crowley.Have no idea of his contract status though

He was out of contract I think at the end of 2010, not sure if has re-signed, but probably a two year deal at most given Freo's youth.

Pies fan as well, not so sure on Crowley, but definitely should be eligible.

 

[Knightmare]

Good thread.

I'd target players born in 83,84,85,86 primarily because we have such a shortage of players in that age group and with our premiership window open for a couple of years with a bit of luck these are the types of players we need.

I'd also go on the criteria that the player much be durable and that the players productivity is either increasing or staying the same rather than on the decline. So for example Daniel Kerr would be a big NO because he doesn't fit either criteria.

Maybe Andrew Mackie could be a possibility if he goes out of favour at Geelong. In the right age group, probably not a type of player we "really need", but could still be a nice addition none the less potentially.

Brent Stanton is a quality midfielder who again is right in that age group we lack. Has currency and not sure how we would go about fitting him into the cap, but again the type I'd look at.

Andrew Carrazzo. Nothing special, but he gets the ball and is productive. Again he fits into the desired age group and represents an option.

Eddie Betts. The type of small forward we need. Personality is really the main question. But again right age group.

Jason Porplyzia and Chris Knights. Knights has had his injury difficulties so he doesn't fit the durable aspect, but certainly has the talent and is in the right age group. Porplyzia is a talented forward who in two years time might be out of favour because he can have his "off" seasons but again a talented kid who fits right into that age group.

A high level ruckman might also be very important if Jolly starts to slow down. So a Mumford would be the type we might be looking at. But availablity would be the question.

 

[Old Spice]

Personally, you'd hope the club wouldn't bring in anyone over 28 via FA as it is just a pretty low yield return. There might be exceptions, but by and large you'd want to work in the 25-28 range. Anything older represents, in general, quickly diminishing returns and a high opportunity cost.

Given a player has to have had 8 years at a club before being eligible for FA, the youngest will be 25. Really 25-28 year olds would be the focus, the possible exception being durable rucks or tall, goal-kicking forwards.

 

[mattys123]

As far as the first opportunity for fee agency goes, at the end of 2012, all eligible players (8 years or more at the one club and coming out of contract) will fall under the below rule, which is "limited free agency".

3. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.

The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.

If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.

His club has the right to match the presented offer.

If the club matches the offer, he may choose to remain with his original club, seek a trade or enter the Draft.

If the club does not or can not match the offer, the player can move to the new club of his choice.

His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula to apply where clubs lose more free agents than they gain in any single transfer period.

In regards to individual players, the first year will be the most "open" as players from 8 years up to 15 (throwing a number out there) who have been with the one club will be eligible for limited FA.

In "year one" or "FA period one" I would like to see the pies concentrate more on keeping our players, as we will also have a fair group of players who other clubs can make an offer to, and we can then match that offer, as long as it isn't ridiculous.

We have to plan ahead for the first period also, making sure we have some "wiggle room" in our salary cap, just so we can match any offer made at any of our top 10 highest played players.

So, what I'm trying to say is the better teams, like Collingwood, Geelong, StKilda, Freo, Hawthorn etc will have to prepare for "raids" on their lists, more then worrying about picking up players from other clubs.

I'd be happy if we got through "FA Period one" without losing any of our top 10 highest paid players, no matter who we can pick up under FA from another club.

It will change the "dynamic" of the AFL forever IMO, just like it has in the NFL since it's introduction (1993 I believe).

 

[vjknight]

no thoughts folks on what happens to our stocks in 2013-14 ?

i assume plenty of ours are then up for 'discussions'.

i thought it was great we were seeing real benefits across the whole league from stability of lists, no reckless player chasing etc.

are we heading back to those nasty days ?

 

[Knightmare]

Personally, you'd hope the club wouldn't bring in anyone over 28 via FA as it is just a pretty low yield return. There might be exceptions, but by and large you'd want to work in the 25-28 range. Anything older represents, in general, quickly diminishing returns and a high opportunity cost.

Given a player has to have had 8 years at a club before being eligible for FA, the youngest will be 25. Really 25-28 year olds would be the focus, the possible exception being durable rucks or tall, goal-kicking forwards.

Not wrong. Jolly is an expection given his durability but it's pretty hard to find players at 28 of his durability so players at 25/26 would obviously be optimal and it could be possible to get a solid 3-5 year return. Rather than a 1-2 year return from a 29/30 y/o given players don't seem to often last past 30 these days.

 

[Knightmare]

As far as the first opportunity for fee agency goes, at the end of 2012, all eligible players (8 years or more at the one club and coming out of contract) will fall under the below rule, which is "limited free agency".



In regards to individual players, the first year will be the most "open" as players from 8 years up to 15 (throwing a number out there) who have been with the one club will be eligible for limited FA.

In "year one" or "FA period one" I would like to see the pies concentrate more on keeping our players, as we will also have a fair group of players who other clubs can make an offer to, and we can then match that offer, as long as it isn't ridiculous.

We have to plan ahead for the first period also, making sure we have some "wiggle room" in our salary cap, just so we can match any offer made at any of our top 10 highest played players.

So, what I'm trying to say is the better teams, like Collingwood, Geelong, StKilda, Freo, Hawthorn etc will have to prepare for "raids" on their lists, more then worrying about picking up players from other clubs.

I'd be happy if we got through "FA Period one" without losing any of our top 10 highest paid players, no matter who we can pick up under FA from another club.

It will change the "dynamic" of the AFL forever IMO, just like it has in the NFL since it's introduction (1993 I believe).

Not wrong and certainly retaining players is priority no.1. But the other side to it is that there is an attraction to coming to play for Collingwood.

We are a great team with a great history. Assumed we are still a contendor there might be a couple who might want to be a part of a premiership if they think they can make it as a role player in the way Luke Ball has this year. Possibly a Brendan Fevola for example decides to jump over for a small contract and see if he can be part of a premiership to finish his career.

 

[Old Spice]

There's no doubt the club is doing all they can to shore up our best players - from the GWS and thereafter from other teams via FA.

They'd be looking at using the veteran's list, front and back-ended contracts, the Additional Services Agreement, captaincy offers and the like, but there's a limit to what you can do to retain players who might be dissafected - which puts a premium on good club culture.

I think it might have limited use, but could be handy for rucks. Then again, everyone else might think that and expect some poor club like Sydney to become a ruck manufacturing machine. If the compensation is shit, no-one will want to be the poor sap building up rucks.

 

[Old Spice]

We are a great team with a great history. Assumed we are still a contendor there might be a couple who might want to be a part of a premiership if they think they can make it as a role player in the way Luke Ball has this year. Possibly a Brendan Fevola for example decides to jump over for a small contract and see if he can be part of a premiership to finish his career.

I think so long as the list in general and TPP are in good shape, with young KF's and the like in the pipeline, that type of scenario would be costly to long-term development.

 

[mattys123]

Not wrong and certainly retaining players is priority no.1. But the other side to it is that there is an attraction to coming to play for Collingwood.

We are a great team with a great history. Assumed we are still a contendor there might be a couple who might want to be a part of a premiership if they think they can make it as a role player in the way Luke Ball has this year. Possibly a Brendan Fevola for example decides to jump over for a small contract and see if he can be part of a premiership to finish his career.

True, just change the name Fevola to Pavlich or Riewoldt and you have the right option.

I'm just saying priorty 1 should be to secure our "top 10", and then if they are secured, then we have a "crack" at players outside the club.

The ideal situation would be if we are still a top 4 contender in 2013 (very likely) that we then grab a "free agent" to fit our needs, for a 1-4 year period.

 

[Slattery_20]

If you're still up there by then, your kids who are on their 1st or 2nd deals now (Beams, SIde, Reid etc) will have started climbing into the big money.
You'll be one of the worse placed teams (bar the big carrot of team success) to target players.

 

[Old Spice]

If you're still up there by then, your kids who are on their 1st or 2nd deals now (Beams, SIde, Reid etc) will have started climbing into the big money.
You'll be one of the worse placed teams (bar the big carrot of team success) to target players.

Depends if we keep spacing out our list as we have been, but generally I agree. The issue becomes if we do actually lose a Cloke or similar, then we have the option to look around ourselves with freed up cash.

 

[Bay Pie]

The additional bonus to this (can't find the article) with FA, was the veterans list will change from 10 years service and 30 years old, to just 10 years service.

That means Swanny qualifies for the 2013 season. FA comes in at end of 2012. Swanny is contracted for 2011, then a new 3 year deal has his 2nd & 3rd years on the veterans list.

Also, if Travis happens to bail on us or goes to GWS (hypothetically speaking), we get compensation no matter what.

 

[Dawson]

Goddard?

 

[Slattery_20]

Depends if we keep spacing out our list as we have been, but generally I agree. The issue becomes if we do actually lose a Cloke or similar, then we have the option to look around ourselves with freed up cash.

Fair point I guess.

For an Essendon or Richmond; yeah you'd be chasing the big name big $ guys with half a career ahead of them.
I don't think the age issue, (assuming you're still up top) with a pretty big bunch of what will then be 21-25 yos, is going to be a big one.
Surely the value (IMHO) for Collingwood - maybe if someone like Ball or Jolly fall away or retire or whatever - will be in finding short-term replacements at virtually zero cost.

 

[Old Spice]

The additional bonus to this (can't find the article) with FA, was the veterans list will change from 10 years service and 30 years old, to just 10 years service.

That means Swanny qualifies for the 2013 season. FA comes in at end of 2012. Swanny is contracted for 2011, then a new 3 year deal has his 2nd & 3rd years on the veterans list.

Also, if Travis happens to bail on us or goes to GWS (hypothetically speaking), we get compensation no matter what.

That's pretty bloody handy right there.

 

[Knightmare]

True, just change the name Fevola to Pavlich or Riewoldt and you have the right option.

I'm just saying priorty 1 should be to secure our "top 10", and then if they are secured, then we have a "crack" at players outside the club.

The ideal situation would be if we are still a top 4 contender in 2013 (very likely) that we then grab a "free agent" to fit our needs, for a 1-4 year period.

Pavlich, Riewoldt, Goodes and J.Brown are all unfortunately have an undying loyalty to their respective teams which makes them all unrealistic targets. Why I mention Fevola is because he has a good relationship with Eddie Maguire and he is very much out of favour at Brisbane. So if that working relationship doesn't improve and assumed Fevola remains a productive player he could be amongst the options.

Though with that said at that age you'd be lucky to get 1-2 good seasons out of him.

In 09 I wasn't on the Fevola to Collingwood bandwagon and I'm not now either. But if a player as good as he is can walk into our side and not come at an expect, he is a worthwhile consideration if we think he be a productive player and help our team.

If you're still up there by then, your kids who are on their 1st or 2nd deals now (Beams, SIde, Reid etc) will have started climbing into the big money.
You'll be one of the worse placed teams (bar the big carrot of team success) to target players.

Depends if our players are willing to make it work and if they want continued success together as a group. Geelong made this sacrifice and only lost fringe players but certainly won't be easy.

The thing we might be able to do is players who want a premiership might be willing to sign with us at a relatively discounted price.

Look at what LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh did in the NBA. All took massive pay cuts just so that they could form a super team with the intention of adding a couple of rings.

No reason why Collingwood can't adopt some of those ideas the Miami Heat and Pat Riley used to obtain these stars. They really sold the idea of playing together, and I think a few high level AFL players might be willing to take a pay cut if it means they get the opporntunity to play in a premiership. So I think there are ways to make it work and I think the free agency model can really be used to advantage more than some recognise, but again that is if we can fit them into our salary cap which is the hard part.

 

[Ed D]

I think this rule will help us more than harm us because of the pulling power of the club and the facilities etc but who knows. I don't think players will be swapping clubs as much as some people expect, I think it'll work more for players wanting to leave their clubs like Ryan O'Keefe and Chris Judd (assuming they had played 8 seasons) with the go home factor.

 

[Ant85]

I think this rule will help us more than harm us because of the pulling power of the club and the facilities etc but who knows. I don't think players will be swapping clubs as much as some people expect, I think it'll work more for players wanting to leave their clubs like Ryan O'Keefe and Chris Judd (assuming they had played 8 seasons) with the go home factor.

I agree.

Contrary to what was previously mentioned, I think we would be big players in FA.

Picking up a few experienced players might prevent us from going through the usual cycle and dropping off for a few years ala BL post-2004.