Strategy Should we match the Swans offer? Vote now!!!

[spudmaster]

Yeh.... losing Buddy is the same as losing Young and Murphy.

Never said it was mate. I'm talking about the feeling of getting shafted regarding compensation.

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Has anyone matched an offer before for a restricted free agent? I know its a new system but realistically I can't see it happening anytime soon.

What club would keep a player that has said they want to go and gotten to the point of another club putting in an offer for them.

Also the compensation is completely unfair.

We get pick 20 for Buddy and collingwood get pick 12 for Daisy? Or a late 20s pick for Betts? It's ridiculous.

Either make it fair and enable grounds for extraordinary offers to be given higher compensation or get rid of the compensation all together.

Most clubs have been happy with the compo that they will recieve. Buddy is the first really big player. Thomas would have been if he played much this year, but because of injury I think it has weakened his position.

 

[Lionel Inacoma]

I have a question about how this all works:

Suppose we match the Swan's offer, but he says, "F' you - I'm moving to Sydney & I'll take my chances in the pre-season draft". As I understand it, he then has to put a price on his own head (which presumably includes length of contract).

So, he demands is $10m over 9 years. Every club passes him over, until the Swans get their turn. They take him on exactly the same deal they already offered.

Are we then in an even worse position? We would have got at least a compensation pick (however inadequate) by letting him go now, but we would get absolutely nothing in the above scenario. Is this correct?

 

[cryptor]

I have a question about how this all works:

Suppose we match the Swan's offer, but he says, "F' you - I'm moving to Sydney & I'll take my chances in the pre-season draft". As I understand it, he then has to put a price on his own head (which presumably includes length of contract).

So, he demands is $10m over 9 years. Every club passes him over, until the Swans get their turn. They take him on exactly the same deal they already offered.

Are we then in an even worse position? We would have got at least a compensation pick (however inadequate) by letting him go now, but we would get absolutely nothing in the above scenario. Is this correct?

This is true but we only have to convince* one club with a pick before Sydney to release a statement claiming they plan to take Buddy on such a deal (maybe they'll cite the financial and marketing benefits outweighing the risk, etc) to plant the seeds of doubt which might make such a move not worth his own risk.

*perhaps with a favourable trade at some point.

 

[Lionel Inacoma]

This is true but we only have to convince* one club with a pick before Sydney to release a statement claiming they plan to take Buddy on such a deal (maybe they'll cite the financial and marketing benefits outweighing the risk, etc) to plant the seeds of doubt which might make such a move not worth his own risk.

*perhaps with a favourable trade at some point.

Care to nominate which club that might be? I can't see any non-Sydney club being credible making such a statement.

Still, I guess the only thing we'd be gambling is ~pick 20.

 

[seysearles]

I have a question about how this all works:

Suppose we match the Swan's offer, but he says, "F' you - I'm moving to Sydney & I'll take my chances in the pre-season draft". As I understand it, he then has to put a price on his own head (which presumably includes length of contract).

So, he demands is $10m over 9 years. Every club passes him over, until the Swans get their turn. They take him on exactly the same deal they already offered.

Are we then in an even worse position? We would have got at least a compensation pick (however inadequate) by letting him go now, but we would get absolutely nothing in the above scenario. Is this correct?

We could also do a deal with GWS where we burden some of his salary in return for something we want (pick.1 or some decent players).

 

[Messenger]

I think there is zero chance he would play for hawthorn if we match the deal.

The chance may well be small, but once we match we lose control. Sydney decides if they'll trade, a Buddy decides if he'll come back. We're committed.

 

[cryptor]

Care to nominate which club that might be? I can't see any non-Sydney club being credible making such a statement.

Still, I guess the only thing we'd be gambling is ~pick 20.

Given the nature of the contract pretty much every club could fit it in their cap by back loading it (with varying degrees of financial struggle 7-9 years from now).
I could see GWS, Melbourne, Bulldogs, Gold Coast and Brisbane doing it.
- GWS have a lot of money and could get any concession necessary from the AFL.
- Melbourne just make bad financial decisions.
- Bulldogs need a key forward and some marketability. Would be worth the risk if they can find a bit of money now to avoid a severe sting at the end of the decade.
- Gold Coast could also get any concessions they want from the AFL and back loading the contract may work when Ablett retires.
- Brisbane need a tall forward with Brown retiring soon. They're also losing a lot of young players at the moment so it's important that they make their club seem like a desirable place to play by having someone like Buddy there.

They don't actually need to take him as the idea is just to make jumping into the PSD a really risky move for Buddy. They'd just have to seem convincing. You could almost make an excuse for any team in the comp.

 

[Adebisi]

The chance may well be small, but once we match we lose control. Sydney decides if they'll trade, a Buddy decides if he'll come back. We're committed.

I still think its zero chance. Meaning if we matched, he either goes to the psd, or we do a deal with other clubs of some kind.

In saying all that, I can't see hawthorn matching it.

 

[Messenger]

I still think its zero chance. Meaning if we matched, he either goes to the psd, or we do a deal with other clubs of some kind.

In saying all that, I can't see hawthorn matching it.

The other issue of course is what we would get in any trade. The Swans first round pick is about 5 slots ahead of the compo pick. And lets not the forget the filler crap the Swans would try and foist on us.

 

[spudmaster]

For all the 'it's only pick 20, take the risk' remarks, what if that pick is what is being relied upon to package up with savage in order to get Longer over the line, for example?

 

[SodaPop]

The other issue of course is what we would get in any trade. The Swans first round pick is about 5 slots ahead of the compo pick. And lets not the forget the filler crap the Swans would try and foist on us.

Yeah buts it's also denying the swans a first round pick.
Last year, they lost nothing when they got Tippet in the PSD. He should've gone in the main draft where the swans would've had to use their first pick. Instead the AFL gave them another leg up.

That's why the Hawks will get 1/3 of 1/5 of SFA for Buddy.

 

[Hauker]

Do the AFLhave the option of offering an additional pick at their discretion to teams where compensation is deemed inadequate. I recall reading somewhere and that it could be considered for us , meaning a possible second pick so we could get pick 20 & 21? I have not heard many people mention it on here, is this possible? Given the size & length of contract, surely this must be considered. If it is a possibility we need to start making some noise about it.

 

[ACTion Hawks]

Yes, if we are certain the Swans will then buckle and trade.

No, if it means we are stuck with the deal for the next 9 years

 

[Adebisi]

The other issue of course is what we would get in any trade. The Swans first round pick is about 5 slots ahead of the compo pick. And lets not the forget the filler crap the Swans would try and foist on us.

Unless there is something more elaborate that could be pulled off then yeah about 5 spots higher in the draft. Which could be of super importance if we have our eyes on a few specific players.

But overall, if we took a risk like that to jump 5 spots in the draft, it won't happen.

Only chance of matching is if steps 2,3,4 and 5 are already locked in.

 

[Joey Seaside]

Terry Wallace also picked us for the grand final.

So Yes.

Demetriou (surprised as I was) also picked Hawks for the grand final.

 

[Joey Seaside]

This whole conversation keeps going round and round in circles.

Possibilities:

1) We don't match the offer and Buddy goes to the Swats. We get compo pick 20 or whatever. The problem with doing this is we're seen as weak, and clubs do this to us again in the future. Also, the compo pick being offered is crap when you think of Buddy's value, not just as a player but overall. (Now that the Swats have tabled the offer, the AFL has to give an indication what the compo will be - likely 18, according to afl.com.au, which is one after our first round pick.) Hawthorn is currently indicating that it is unlikely they'll match the offer. I think they're just saying this - I think there is still a chance they will. (Maybe 30% chance??)
2) We match the offer. Buddy accepts, sells his Bondi apartment which has been waiting for him these last few months due the efforts of Pickering, comes back to Waverley with egg on his face and plays at Box Hill for the next nine years. It puts huge pressures on our salary cap for years to come. Unlikely.
3) We match the offer and Buddy seeks a trade to the Swats. We do some proper negotiating with the Swats. Come home Josh, or whatever.
4) We match the offer. No trade happens and Buddy enters the draft. We don't get a compensation pick as a result of this. The Swans, however, risk losing Buddy to another team.

If 4) occurs,
Buddy enters the draft with a price on his head (at least that of the Swats') offer. Clubs may then choose to pick him up according to their allocated draft picks and with consideration to their salary caps. Who picks him up then? The team that is highest in the draft that is willing to match the price on his head. The only team that looks capable of this, apart from the Swats, is GWS. But there may be a wild-card team out there that has room in their salary cap.

Considerations:
- Buddy specifically wants to go to the Swats. By entering the draft, he runs the risk of ending up at a different club altogether. He might end up at Melbourne, the team he barracked for as a kid - that would make him happy. But the teams most likely are GWS and the Swats.
- Does GWS want him? Probably not now. But the AFL may step in and attempt to make this happen with ambassadorial inducements. The AFL wants Buddy at GWS, not at Sydney. Hawthorn may also seek ways to make this happen via talks with the AFL and GWS.
- What happens if no team in the draft picks him and he ends up at Sydney? That's the risk Hawthorn runs. As a result of matching the offer, Buddy goes to the Swats anyway, and we also lose the compensation pick.

I'm not an expert on this, and I may have made some mistakes above, or left out some details. Please feel free to correct and revise this wonderful explanation.

 

[Messenger]

Yeah buts it's also denying the swans a first round pick.
Last year, they lost nothing when they got Tippet in the PSD. He should've gone in the main draft where the swans would've had to use their first pick. Instead the AFL gave them another leg up.

That's why the Hawks will get 1/3 of 1/5 of SFA for Buddy.

Sure, but if you're negotiating with an unwilling partner to deny them something rather than win something for yourself as the primary aim, I'd question whether that is the best use of our time during the trade/FA period.

The Swans can make that process take as long as they like given we hold all the risk (aka the stupid contract ever signed).

Philiosophically I'm in favour of free agency and against the idea of compensation. Neil Balme has got it right on this issue.

 

[Messenger]

Joey Seaside, which free agency is in its infancy I'll be very surprised if clubs match offers to restricted free agents purely on the basis that they will not want a player to stay that doesn't want to be there. I don't think there is any risk that we will be seen to be "weak" for not matching a nine year deal. I don't think anyone will think any less of Collingwood or Carlton either.

In more mature FA markets like the NBA restricted free agency is about testing the market. Teams often let players go this far and then match offers to better calibrate the contract price.

 

[heh]

The other thing is, if we match it does it hold up our other trades?
We could end up shooting ourselves in the foot

 

[Cyrilyouchampion]

Am I the only one who thinks this 9 year deal is bogus? What's to say buddy wont retire at 31 under their own agreement?? Also heard talk of him staying on in some capacity after retiring. Smells very dodged to me.

Apparently Tony Locket was payed handsomely for a year after he retired as an afl ambassador in Sydney. He also apparently did sweet FA!

Yeah, after he retires, they're going to keep him on as their media liaison officer

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

On the one hand I really want us to match it if there is a chance we can get a better deal. It would also be making a stand, showing that we are not simply going to roll over.

On the other hand we could take the high moral ground and just let Buddy go - just because we are being screwed over by Buddy/Swans/AFL or whoever doesn't mean we should stoop to the same level - and hopefully the karma bus will do its work.

Also, what's that saying about the best revenge is to live well? In this context it means winning the 2014 premiership which I sure everyone at Hawthorn thinks we can do without Buddy so maybe we should just get on with it and not waste any more energy on the whole sorry debacle.

 

[seysearles]

The other thing is, if we match it does it hold up our other trades?
We could end up shooting ourselves in the foot

What is holding us up is the AFL approving or disapproving the deal and officially letting us know what compensation pick(s) we will be receiving for Buddy.

 

[eldorado]

If that's true than Buddy will go to GWS with pick 1 in the PSD and we'll get nothing. I just can't see any scenario where Franklin will leave us in a trade.

To me, getting nothing for Buddy to GWS is a fair bit better than strengthening a direct flag competitor (and pack of flogs) for pick 20.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Do the AFLhave the option of offering an additional pick at their discretion to teams where compensation is deemed inadequate. I recall reading somewhere and that it could be considered for us , meaning a possible second pick so we could get pick 20 & 21? I have not heard many people mention it on here, is this possible? Given the size & length of contract, surely this must be considered. If it is a possibility we need to start making some noise about it.

Terry Wallace has been humming this tune about the discretionary extra pick. Would be nice, and if ever a case warranted it this is it.