The Free Agency Myth

[HR Roughnstuf]

Cant wait to see the Thread when GWS is tearing the whole competition to shreds for years.

It was nice of the AFL to introduce FA so soon after the 2 new teams. Nothing like 7-8 years of immunity to FA whilst they poach whomever they please.

 

[Furn2]

And this thread perpetrates another myth.
That good players theoretically will leave a good team for a bad team.

Top players just wont.

Like Judd and Ablett ?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Goddard went for another flag tilt as the saints were on the decline whereas Essendon *LOOKED* like they we're having a lining up a for a serious flag tilt

Really? He must have been blind. Surely if you're chasing a flag you go to a top 8 club rather than one that finished lower on the ladder than the club you're leaving?

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

Really? He must have been blind. Surely if you're chasing a flag you go to a top 8 club rather than one that finished lower on the ladder than the club you're leaving?

never said it was a smart decision, but thats why he went there - they we're "supposedly" ( ) going to go deep into september with a potential flag tilt

 

[Guardian Hawk]

never said it was a smart decision, but thats why he went there - they we're "supposedly" ( ) going to go deep into september with a potential flag tilt

Haven't players always said that though? You don't say "yeah they're mediocre but there paying me shitloads". Players always say "they've got a really good list" "hope/want to win a flag", etc when it is clearly a payday. You would have to be an idiot to go to a club that just finished 11th to win a premiership, particularly when they won less games and had a percentage 23% worse that the club you're currently at.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

Goddard.
Chapman (delisted FA wasn't he?)
Young
Dale Thomas

None of these clubs are contenders.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

the problem with 'trading up' is that unless you're going to an established powerhouse like hawthorn there are no guarantees. i bet ryder and goddard thought they were gonna have a crack at finals! we've seen just as many great players go to worse clubs because of the money offered and we've seen many players move simply because of 'homesickness'. i'd say the sample size is too small and too varied to even consider making inferences about a particular demographic being favored by free agency.

 

[Fossey]

Hello all,
I've been reading a lot of fear-mongering on this site about the evils of free agency, in particular how top teams are staying at the top by continually topping up. 'Death of equalisation' and 'ruining the comp' have been bandied about, whilst others are incredulous that clubs signed off on it, missing the 'bleedingly obvious' - that weak teams will get weaker and strong teams stronger. My club has been a particular target given our recent success, diminishing our achievements because "of all we have gained through FA"

Whilst this may yet happen, the above is completely ignorant to how it has played out so far. 40 players have moved under free agency, with Dangerfield expected to be the 41st.

Of those 40, 25 have moved to clubs lower on the ladder than their previous club and only 15 have gone to teams higher (i.e. the minority).

Before you say 15 is still a lot, many of those have not moved to teams in pursuit of success or even in premiership contention. Included in those 15 are:

• Jonathon Simpkin who was delisted by his former club
• James Gwilt who was delisted by his former club
• Jeremy Laidler who was delisted by his former club
• Sam Blease who was delisted by his former club
• Tom Derickx who was delisted by his former club
• Colin Sylvia who Melbourne were happy to see go and needed a fresh start.
• Brent Moloney who went from a 16th placed team to a 13th placed team
• Quentin Lynch who was on the scrapheap and moved to a team 1 spot higher on the ladder.
• Troy Chaplin who was on the scrapheap and went to a team 12th on the ladder.

The above highlights that free agency is doing what it is supposed to - giving struggling players more opportunity, a fresh start or a better contract and making it easier to do so.

Only two elite 'big names' have moved clubs - Franklin and now Dangerfield (most stars are happy and staying put). Of those two, Franklin left the premiers at the time to be in Sydney and on a mega deal whilst Dangerfield is leaving a side on the up who won a final for a side on the way down who missed finals (to be close to home). Not exactly a case of the strong getting stronger.

Finally, in addressing the Hawthorn point (as has now been mentioned in other threads), we lost one of the greatest forwards of all time (and arguably the best KPP in the game) as well as 3 other players for a total compensation of pick 19. The other way, we got Frawley who 2 weeks go people were saying should be dropped and Simpkin who had been delisted. FA has undoubtedly hurt more than helped Hawthorn.

The final point about FA destroying equalisation is that Franklin on a 9 year, $10M dollar deal (and the three other players) netted Hawthorn a total compensation of pick 19. Frawley (on a $2 M dollar deal) netted Melbourne pick 3. Dale Thomas fetched pick 11. Sylvia fetched pick 23 - 4 spots difference for a guy not good enough for WAFL versus one of the greatest forwards of all time on the biggest contract of all time. Clearly, thus far, FA has STRONGLY favoured teams near the bottom not the top and has thus far acted as an equaliser rather than 'widening the gap'.

No need to panic yet. Top teams like mine will fall away eventually as they always have.

Funny how supporters of big Melbourne, and other footy states clubs support Free Agency, and those from non AFL states, & less powerhouse Melbourne sides don't support it. I am by no means saying that FA is the reason for Hawks success, but it certainly won't hurt in the future. It will absolutely undoubtedly continue to advantage those powerful clubs.

 

[Daicosssssssssss]

Which big name players have moved to poor clubs?

From memory Dale Thomas.

But I could be wrong as it has been so long.

 

[Fossey]

A lot of people on here wanting it both ways. We haven't done what other clubs aren't allowed to do.

We identified players that we needed & got it done & it has worked because we have great coaches & people.

In fact, I remember at the time people saying we paid overs for Burgoyne, Hale, Gibson etc Now we have been successful people are angry & I get that but we haven't fleeced the comp or done anything that other clubs couldn't.

No one is saying that you haven't been coached well, developed new players & recruited smart. Also used rules as existing at the times well. Doesn't take away the fact that FA WILL predominately advantage powerhouse Melbourne clubs & Other AFL states teams, at expense of smaller Melbourne & non AFL state sides (Other than maybe Sydneynwith it's huge population advantage).

 

[Fossey]

Why is it only bottom 4 teams? Players don't want to play for teams like Melbourne who haven't made finals in a decade, and don't look like making finals any time soon. Players will go to clubs who are contending, as well as clubs who show they have promise and might contend in the near future. Look at players like Goddard, Dal Santo, Malceski, etc. These are elite players who went to clubs with promise. Teams like Adelaide, the Bulldogs, Saint Kilda, West Coast and others are places players want to go, while clubs like Carlton, Melbourne, and Essendon, who show no signs of making finals anytime soon, will struggle to attract elite talent.

And i see absolutely no issue with that. As long as the talent isn't only going to a few clubs, which it isn't, then clubs need to fight to prove that they are an attractive destination that players want to play for. There is no system that can account for players not wanting to play at basket case clubs. The only way these clubs might attract star players is if they massively overpay, which no club has shown they are willing to do.

A club like Melbourne are in trouble simply because they've been so mismanaged for so long. Frawley didn't play a single final, and didn't look like he was going to any time soon at Melbourne. Of course a situation like that will see you lose players. When Melbourne look like they are building towards finals, players will ask for trades there, or go there via free agency. There are mechanisms available for every club to put themselves in an attractive situation, it's just that some clubs have failed to take advantage of them due to their own terrible decisions. Why shouldn't these clubs struggle? They have been given opportunities to succeed, when they take them they will have success, when they squander them time after time, they will fail. No system based on equality of opportunity will ever change that, unless you just rotate the premiership around each year.

Ok. Some interesting points. So from what you are saying your OK with lower clubs losing elite players .. Because of decision of the past ... So they then can't rebuild at any decent rate ..... So they lose more players ... Etc, etc. Of course it suits the powerhouse Melbourne clubs, which is why you so keen to defend it.

 

[blue harvest]

Funny how supporters of big Melbourne, and other footy states clubs support Free Agency, and those from non AFL states, & less powerhouse Melbourne sides don't support it. I am by no means saying that FA is the reason for Hawks success, but it certainly won't hurt in the future. It will absolutely undoubtedly continue to advantage those powerful clubs.

So far through free agency we have gained Frawley, Simpkin, pick 19 and 63, and lost Buddy, Ellis, Young and Murphy.
How can it 'continue to be an advantage' when it has so far been a disadvantage for us?

 

[Fossey]

How many elite players have gone to a bottom 4 club via FA?

Is it that hard for you lot to get it?

Yes. It appears so.

 

[ColinWood]

Hello all,
I've been reading a lot of fear-mongering on this site about the evils of free agency, in particular how top teams are staying at the top by continually topping up. 'Death of equalisation' and 'ruining the comp' have been bandied about, whilst others are incredulous that clubs signed off on it, missing the 'bleedingly obvious' - that weak teams will get weaker and strong teams stronger. My club has been a particular target given our recent success, diminishing our achievements because "of all we have gained through FA"

Whilst this may yet happen, the above is completely ignorant to how it has played out so far. 40 players have moved under free agency, with Dangerfield expected to be the 41st.

Of those 40, 25 have moved to clubs lower on the ladder than their previous club and only 15 have gone to teams higher (i.e. the minority).

Before you say 15 is still a lot, many of those have not moved to teams in pursuit of success or even in premiership contention. Included in those 15 are:

• Jonathon Simpkin who was delisted by his former club
• James Gwilt who was delisted by his former club
• Jeremy Laidler who was delisted by his former club
• Sam Blease who was delisted by his former club
• Tom Derickx who was delisted by his former club
• Colin Sylvia who Melbourne were happy to see go and needed a fresh start.
• Brent Moloney who went from a 16th placed team to a 13th placed team
• Quentin Lynch who was on the scrapheap and moved to a team 1 spot higher on the ladder.
• Troy Chaplin who was on the scrapheap and went to a team 12th on the ladder.

The above highlights that free agency is doing what it is supposed to - giving struggling players more opportunity, a fresh start or a better contract and making it easier to do so.

Only two elite 'big names' have moved clubs - Franklin and now Dangerfield (most stars are happy and staying put). Of those two, Franklin left the premiers at the time to be in Sydney and on a mega deal whilst Dangerfield is leaving a side on the up who won a final for a side on the way down who missed finals (to be close to home). Not exactly a case of the strong getting stronger.

Finally, in addressing the Hawthorn point (as has now been mentioned in other threads), we lost one of the greatest forwards of all time (and arguably the best KPP in the game) as well as 3 other players for a total compensation of pick 19. The other way, we got Frawley who 2 weeks go people were saying should be dropped and Simpkin who had been delisted. FA has undoubtedly hurt more than helped Hawthorn.

The final point about FA destroying equalisation is that Franklin on a 9 year, $10M dollar deal (and the three other players) netted Hawthorn a total compensation of pick 19. Frawley (on a $2 M dollar deal) netted Melbourne pick 3. Dale Thomas fetched pick 11. Sylvia fetched pick 23 - 4 spots difference for a guy not good enough for WAFL versus one of the greatest forwards of all time on the biggest contract of all time. Clearly, thus far, FA has STRONGLY favoured teams near the bottom not the top and has thus far acted as an equaliser rather than 'widening the gap'.

No need to panic yet. Top teams like mine will fall away eventually as they always have.

I think this needs to be seen in the wider context of equalisation and compromised drafts (expansion teams). On that front my understanding (which could be wrong - I'd value your opinion) is Hawthorn received last priority picks /quality picks, and is better able to retain a talented list due to success being part of the 'reward'. Eg the wooden spooners pay their team effectively the same as the premiers...so less successful clubs are forced into a vicious cycle of paying overs, while Hawthorn arguably pays unders.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

For people that wanted the full list:

Free Agents 2012 -2014
Moved to team lower on the ladder:

• L.Franklin
• B.Goddard
• D.Thomas
• E.Betts
• N.Malceski
• M.Robinson
• M.White
• X.Ellis
• J.Hamling
• D.Cross
• C.Knights
• S.Byrnes
• T.Murphy
• C.Young
• T.Gillies
• D.Roberton
• N.Lower
• R.Nahas
• T.Hunt
• D.Addison
• B.Dick
• T.Membrey
• A.Riley
• L.McGuane
• T.Armstrong
• Newton

Moved to teams higher on the ladder:

• J.Simpkin
• Q.Lynch
• B.Moloney
• T.Chaplin
• J.Rivers
• D.Pearce
• S.Blease
• S.Higgins
• T.Derickx
• J.Gwilt
• J.Waite
• C.Sylvia
• N.Dal Santo
• J.Laidler
• J.Frawley

As you can see, 63% of free agents have gone to clubs lower on the ladder (basically 2/3). Of the top end talent, again more has gone to clubs lower on the ladder than the original club (75% of players worthy of Band 1 compo have gone to lower teams).

Of the 15 that went to teams higher:

• Simpkin, Derickx, Gwilt and Blease were delisted by their original club.
• Sylvia, Chaplin and Lynch were on the scrapheap.
• Moloney joined a team 13th on the ladder
• Nick Dal Santo joined a team 10th on the ladder

Therefore, only the following players MAY be argued as the strong getting stronger:

• Frawley (obvious one though Melbourne benefitted greatly)
• Waite (basically finished at Carlton anyway and deemed not worthy of compo)
• Higgins (struggling at Bulldogs)
• Rivers (ok role player at best)
• Pearce (ok role player at best)

Still think it indicates SO FAR that FA is not causing the strong to get stronger and stay on top forever as many keep saying (and this does not include Dangerfield going to a lower team and the very high compo picks that bottom teams have enjoyed).

 

[Prudster]

Ok. Some interesting points. So from what you are saying your OK with lower clubs losing elite players .. Because of decision of the past ... So they then can't rebuild at any decent rate ..... So they lose more players ... Etc, etc. Of course it suits the powerhouse Melbourne clubs, which is why you so keen to defend it.

I am okay with the idea that an equal system will see poorly managed clubs lose players, because most players don't want to play for a basket case. That benchmark should not be hard to reach. I mean, we're not talking clubs who are down on their luck, or struggling on field, we're talking about clubs that are completely mismanaged. Look at Melbourne. For all 8 years of Frawley's career, they didn't once make finals, they didn't once finish above the bottom 5. Just think about that for a moment. How pathetically run does a club have to be to managed to be bottom 5 for 8 consecutive years? It's not so much that they deserve to suffer for that, it's just inevitable that such a poorly run club will struggle under any equalisation system.

I am okay with the idea that a club like that will struggle. Whether it's by free agency, or trade, or any other mechanisms, players will want out. If a club wants that to change, they need to sort themselves out to the point that they show even a little bit of promise of making finals, or of being an attractive place for a player to be. If a club continually cannot manage that, they need serious help off field, because no amount of draft picks, free agents, or anything on field is going to fix that.

It has nothing to do with the size or location of the club. Carlton are poorly run, and they are suffering for it. Richmond were poorly run for a long time, and they've seemingly sorted themselves out. Hawthorn made a long series of bad decisions, and we struggled for quite a period. Essendon made a few massive errors in judgement and it's going to cost them. That is the point, mismanaged clubs will struggle, and well managed clubs will prosper. I am perfectly okay with that fact.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I think this needs to be seen in the wider context of equalisation and compromised drafts (expansion teams). On that front my understanding (which could be wrong - I'd value your opinion) is Hawthorn received last priority picks /quality picks, and is better able to retain a talented list due to success being part of the 'reward'. Eg the wooden spooners pay their team effectively the same as the premiers...so less successful clubs are forced into a vicious cycle of paying overs, while Hawthorn arguably pays unders.

Some good thoughts. Priority picks were awarded right up until 2012 (some minor changes were made in 2006 but even in 2007 Carlton got Kreuzer as a priority pick and Richmond got Rance).
In terms of player retention, clubs are obliged to pay 92.5% of the cap, meaning poorly performing clubs can pay less (but only to an extent). All clubs have players that stay for 'unders' and players that leave to maximize their contract. Hawthorn and Geelong both lost the best players in the comp to the biggest contracts ever seen despite being successful. If asked, players at most clubs will accept a bit less in their contract if it means attracting talent that will improve the team.

 

[00Stinger]

From memory Dale Thomas.

But I could be wrong as it has been so long.

Yeah that's a good one.

Either way my point is it is a rarity

 

[00Stinger]

Goddard.
Chapman (delisted FA wasn't he?)
Young
Dale Thomas

None of these clubs are contenders.

Young & Chapman were both given the chop by their clubs, so they were hardly required players.
Goddard left St Kilda for Essendon were above them at that stage.

Dale Thomas is a good example, but he would the exception, not the rule

 

[Furn2]

You also have to consider that free agents are at least 26 years old.

Clarke said when talking about Lake the other night when he started at Hawthorn they weren't looking at anyone over 21 never mind over 30.

Frawley for example only got offers from 3 top 4 teams.

So how manny fresh agents have actually been offered big money deals by bottom four clubs ? Melbourne have reportedly chase Danger but he wants to live near Geelong.

Most bottom sides want to go youth until they get to mid table, the chase experienced players.

so to say an elite fa has never gone to a bottom isn't evidence that it won't ever happen especially when bottom clubs aren't chasing them.

 

[DangerSloane]

Like Judd and Ablett ?

Neither Judd nor Ablett left through free agency.
Try again.

 

[Jables]

Young & Chapman were both given the chop by their clubs, so they were hardly required players.
Goddard left St Kilda for Essendon were above them at that stage.

Dale Thomas is a good example, but he would the exception, not the rule

We weren't going to delist Young, he wanted to leave for a better contract. He was in our Grand Final team and had a decent year, though a poor GF. Probably a good thing he went to Collingwood though, let us fast track Hill and Smith into the team.

 

[HairyO]

Neither Judd nor Ablett left through free agency.
Try again.

Good that you mention this, because we keep getting accused of abusing the free agency system. We have lost more than we have gained.

Most of our players were trades which were mutually agreed. I dont think we have recruited anyone who has said they will sit out a year if they dont get traded - like say Wingard did when he told GWS not to Draft him.

 

[DangerSloane]

Good that you mention this, because we keep getting accused of abusing the free agency system. We have lost more than we have gained.

Most of our players were trades which were mutually agreed. I dont think we have recruited anyone who has said they will sit out a year if they dont get traded - like say Wingard did when he told GWS not to Draft him.

To be fair gunston held us over a barrel in a pretty campaignery type manner.
We got pick 21 for him which was unders for sure.

You guys have been ruthless at the trade table, but its nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Long Live HFC]

To be fair gunston held us over a barrel in a pretty campaignery type manner.
We got pick 21 for him which was unders for sure.

You guys have been ruthless at the trade table, but its nothing to be ashamed of.

I think most hawks fans would agree we paid unders for gunston. but we really haven't been 'ruthless' otherwise. we realise that trading fairly is more likely to bring results and get deals done.