Future 2nd for a future 3rd merry-go-round

[Apex36]

Sydney did the same through this deal for points to secure Blakey...

So other clubs went about procuring an extra second rounder while we gave ours away for a rookie and a 3rd. Hmmm...

 

[DWil6]

So other clubs went about procuring an extra second rounder while we gave ours away for a rookie and a 3rd. Hmmm...

Just so you know, we understand you're not a huge fan of what the powers that be at Collingwood have done with the whole, trade in a Sydney rookie and their third for our second pick thing. 66 posts from you in this thread confirm that. I'm pretty confident that if they could have got him for less they may have but this is the way the negotiation played out. I'm not super excited about it either but lets wait and see how it pans out for the club.

 

[Apex36]

Just so you know, we understand you're not a huge fan of what the powers that be at Collingwood have done with the whole, trade in a Sydney rookie and their third for our second pick thing. 66 posts from you in this thread confirm that. I'm pretty confident that if they could have got him for less they may have but this is the way the negotiation played out. I'm not super excited about it either but lets wait and see how it pans out for the club.

Just so you know, this is an open discussion board and I’ll keep posting as I bloody well see fit. The ignore button is right there if you don’t want to read my posts, or alternatively don’t look in this thread. It’s not like I’m spamming this stuff everywhere, I’m making an effort to keep it in the relevant thread.

 

[doppleganger]

Sydney did the same through this deal for points to secure Blakey...

Yep it is a pure play in relation to draft points, that can move in either direction depending on how each club performs in 2018.

Sydney backing themselves to again be strong, hence they looking for a better pay-off instead of just getting the 3rd round pick.

Collingwood doing the same, but obviously going for the opposite outcome that we are on the improve and Swans slide.

Both clubs happy to roll the dice that the situation will give them a better draft point return.

And I think Collingwood would rather match bids on our prospects than draft them, which is why we favour two 3rds instead of just one second round option.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

So you are suggesting removing the 'restricted' category of free agency, and once a player reaches a certain tenure with a club that they can move as they wish once a contract expires.

I am sure the players will have no problem with that, but the issue lies with the impact it has on the clubs.

The AFL has to try and strike a balance between enabling players more freedom to move, but it is also imperative to try and create equality between clubs so you don't create feeder clubs that consistently have their marquee players just walk out on them.

The current 'restricted' category just adds an additional check, so when instances like Dangerfield wanting out...that instead of just copping what pick 12 for him, that Adelaide was able to actually get closer to market value for Danger by negotiating a trade....something that Dangerfield himself was keen on ensuring that Adelaide received adequate compensation.

If player and club have a falling out, most will be traded away anyway...see Beams, Cloke etc, irrespective of their contract as both sides see that they are better off without each other.

I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting an alternative version of restricted free agency that is universally fairer.

Clubs can still match bids and it's on the player to either sign a contract or chance the draft, but the player can no longer be traded. This is different to unrestricted free agency, where players have the option of going where they want outside of the draft system.

Plenty of players will stay at their clubs under such a system, to avoid the uncertainty of the draft. It would simply prevent clubs from being deliberately obstructionist.

 

[Good Degoe]

Just so you know, this is an open discussion board and I’ll keep posting as I bloody well see fit.

That's right you young whippersnappers

 

[DWil6]

Just so you know, this is an open discussion board and I’ll keep posting as I bloody well see fit. The ignore button is right there if you don’t want to read my posts, or alternatively don’t look in this thread. It’s not like I’m spamming this stuff everywhere, I’m making an effort to keep it in the relevant thread.

Ok fair enough. Keep up the good fight. I’m sure your repetition will drive your point in to those who disagree.

 

[doppleganger]

I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting an alternative version of restricted free agency that is universally fairer.

Clubs can still match bids and it's on the player to either sign a contract or chance the draft, but the player can no longer be traded. This is different to unrestricted free agency, where players have the option of going where they want outside of the draft system.

Plenty of players will stay at their clubs under such a system, to avoid the uncertainty of the draft. It would simply prevent clubs from being deliberately obstructionist.

IMO, your system would actually make it harder for players to move and give the players less freedom.

Y would you encourage the uncertainty of the draft over clubs actually trading??

You think your system helps Dangerfield move where he wants to go?

Adelaide match Geelong's offer, so then Danger has the choice of draft (potentially end up in QLD) or stay at Adelaide, a place he doesn't want to be anymore...how does he have freedom to get to Geelong?

 

[Scodog10]

So other clubs went about procuring an extra second rounder while we gave ours away for a rookie and a 3rd. Hmmm...

Yeah pretty much. We just don’t do it as well as other clubs when it comes to this area of things and you only need to look at 2016.

Instead of fighting tooth and nail to get two selections before a bid came for Brown we settled for enough points to cover the line.

How does this look?

McLarty, Brown, Kirby, Daicos and Keeffe

V

Cox/ Bolton, McLarty, Brown, Kirby and Daicos

All we needed to do was stand even remotely resolute on the Witts deal which gets us back into the mid 20’s and not be incredibly stupid by promoting Keeffe. That is all and we get a crack at a 10 year mid or another dangerous small forward. We need to get more ruthless at the negotiation table ala Fremantle on Weller!

It’s this sort of s**t that cost Hine his job as list manager and I suppose the bonus for us and Guy is that being poor will be an improvement...

 

[Apex36]

Ok fair enough. Keep up the good fight. I’m sure your repetition will drive your point in to those who disagree.

Just as the repetition from those of the opposing opinion will convince me that they’re right?

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

IMO, your system would actually make it harder for players to move and give the players less freedom.

Y would you encourage the uncertainty of the draft over clubs actually trading??

You think your system helps Dangerfield move where he wants to go?

Adelaide match Geelong's offer, so then Danger has the choice of draft (potentially end up in QLD) or stay at Adelaide, a place he doesn't want to be anymore...how does he have freedom to get to Geelong?

In that scenario, one of two things happen.

1. Geelong put in a FA offer and Adelaide don't match, accept the compensation.

2. Geelong don't put in an FA offer and go straight to the trade table, avoiding the intervening step.

Negotiations through the agent well prior to the FA offer period will dictate which scenario plays out. Dangerfield is too valuable a player for them not to - there is no way he'd end up in the draft.

 

[El cane]

Sydney did the same through this deal for points to secure Blakey...

We need a new negotiator. Hine doesn't get it. Gubby didn't get it but only when he came to the pies. It's like a curse. Hopefully Ned doesn't get the curse and turns this nonsense around.