Thomas > Franklin, Sylvia > Dal Santo

[halfback dasher]

Including Hawthorn

Thought he played for us ............ ???

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Thought he played for us ............ ???

You passed on him with your first pick

 

[halfback dasher]

You passed on him with your first pick

WHAT ? ......we made a error taking Ruff first ?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

WHAT ? ......we made a error taking Ruff first ?

But for the incompetence of Richmond, it would have been!

 

[Tulip]

It's obscene that you can just airdrop a pick into the first round of the draft, at absolutely no loss to the team who has taken the player.

 

[Masked Magician]

I hate people that say it needs to be scrapped, dont you get it, shit clubs like the saints will lose the likes of dal santos to better clubs and getting nothing from it, and be even worse off,

 

[5 GB USB]

Lance Franklin is a top 5 player in the comp, hawks deserve a top 5 pick.

Daisy Thomas is a good player BUT he hasn't played for 2 years, a pick in the low 20s is fair.

Colin Sylvia is a dud of the highest order, Melbourne should receive nothing.

NDS, is a very good player but his old, pick in the high teens, low 20s would be right.

Done, I should be running this shit system.

 

[the distributer]

It's stupid that the finishing position of the club determines so much what the player is worth. Melbourne doesn't have anyone near the worth of Lance Franklin but if we lost someone worth about as much as Thomas (or maybe even a tad less) we'd have gotten pick 3.

The system is fine, it's designed to even up the competion, it makes perfect sense to use ladder positions IMO.

 

[the distributer]

But what can I say about pick 11 for Daisy?

silver magic ships you carry, uppers jumpers coke, SWEET MARY JANE!!!

 

[master bate]

Lance Franklin is a top 5 player in the comp, hawks deserve a top 5 pick.

Daisy Thomas is a good player BUT he hasn't played for 2 years, a pick in the low 20s is fair.

Colin Sylvia is a dud of the highest order, Melbourne should receive nothing.

NDS, is a very good player but his old, pick in the high teens, low 20s would be right.

Done, I should be running this shit system.

Colin Sylvia as a goal kicking half forward who can do stints in the midfield and is 27 nearly 28 not nearly 30 ie NDS would've been better value to North. You've got the bigger name but Freo have the smarter signing.

 

[RandB]

The system is so idiotic that in lieu of any further information I can only assume it was designed by Adrian Anderson.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The system is fine, it's designed to even up the competion, it makes perfect sense to use ladder positions IMO.

But it doesn't make sense to refer to both daisy and buddy's contract as band 1 - the contracts are worlds apart.

 

[master bate]

But it doesn't make sense to refer to both daisy and buddy's contract as band 1 - the contracts are worlds apart.

My best explanation for that is once you get over 3 or 4+ multiple years at 600k you obviously reach band 1. The AFL probably didn't factor in anyone giving up greater than 5 years at more than 1 million dollars a season. As we are all fully aware it's probably only 2 teams who could've afforded it. But my theory on the compensation is that Buddy then becomes near on uncompensatable at that contract. So what should happen is the band 1 compensation is the start of the compensation and the Hawks can sign a free agent up to a value of 500k for multiple years and the difference in contracts will still have them comfortably as band 1. Creating a top 5 or 10 draft pick is not how free agency compensation should work.

Hawks should've been told to go out and get a decent free agent and it wouldn't affect their compensation. If they didn't want one then bad luck.

 

[the distributer]

But it doesn't make sense to refer to both daisy and buddy's contract as band 1 - the contracts are worlds apart.

Both player were deemed eligible for band 1, if you guys won the spoon you would have pick 2 and this thread wouldn't exist.

We would have got pick 15 if Cloke walked out last year.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Both player were deemed eligible for band 1, if you guys won the spoon you would have pick 2 and this thread wouldn't exist.

We would have got pick 15 if Cloke walked out last year.

I'm saying that the players shouldn't have both had the same classification.

I don't agree with tying it to ladder position but at least it makes sense. Classifying buddy's contract and daisy's as the same band does not make sense.

 

[rgauci]

Lance Franklin is a top 5 player in the comp, hawks deserve a top 5 pick.

Daisy Thomas is a good player BUT he hasn't played for 2 years, a pick in the low 20s is fair.

Colin Sylvia is a dud of the highest order, Melbourne should receive nothing.

NDS, is a very good player but his old, pick in the high teens, low 20s would be right.

Done, I should be running this shit system.

Looking forward to our match next season. Sylvia will outperform NDS in 2014.

 

[Furn2]

Comp should be only at the end of rounds so when teams a removed down the draft it's at least the same for all teams.

 

[5 GB USB]

Looking forward to our match next season. Sylvia will outperform NDS in 2014.

Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
Bahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha



Sylvia couldn't out perform Cale Morton

 

[MC_Forward50]

I still believe unrestricted free-agent compensation should come from the team acquiring the player.

Eg. For North to get dal santo we would have to give St Kilda a 2nd rounder (as per banding system) so effectively we trade for him.

Off Topic, I also like the idea of allowing the trading of future draft picks for a nominated period (say 3 years). this could allow more strategy in list management.
Eg. we could use our 2014 2nd rounder for Dal Santo if we believe next year we will finish higher than this year, thus lower value 2nd rounder.
Trading of first round picks for future seasons would be an interesting gamble. Consider if last year Port Adelaide traded their 2013 first rounder, it would suck for whoever acquired that pick as the value would be lower than what would have been expected this time last year (no offence Port).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But what can I say about pick 11 for Daisy?

silver magic ships you carry, uppers jumpers coke, SWEET MARY JANE!!!

If only I could like this post a million times over. Saw the great man (and met him and shook his hand) live at free inhouse lunchtime gig at Basement Discs...audience of about 50 people. Was gold. I have the autographed CD at home.

 

[KAYNE]

I still believe unrestricted free-agent compensation should come from the team acquiring the player.

Eg. For North to get dal santo we would have to give St Kilda a 2nd rounder (as per banding system) so effectively we trade for him.

Off Topic, I also like the idea of allowing the trading of future draft picks for a nominated period (say 3 years). this could allow more strategy in list management.
Eg. we could use our 2014 2nd rounder for Dal Santo if we believe next year we will finish higher than this year, thus lower value 2nd rounder.
Trading of first round picks for future seasons would be an interesting gamble. Consider if last year Port Adelaide traded their 2013 first rounder, it would suck for whoever acquired that pick as the value would be lower than what would have been expected this time last year (no offence Port).

Kind of defeats the purpose of Free Agency though. Restricted Free agents shouldn't receive compensation as they get to match the offer. Hawthorn just weren't silly enough to match the offer. (Also maybe the whole COLA thing but that's been done to death).

If there is going to be compensation they need to have some kind of structure to it. Which they do in the different bands. The issue I have with all this is people only have a big problem when they lose a player and don't get what they would if he was traded. The rules came out years ago about this yet it's only when Buddy goes there is an issue.

 

[bluespooner]

Kind of defeats the purpose of Free Agency though. Restricted Free agents shouldn't receive compensation as they get to match the offer. Hawthorn just weren't silly enough to match the offer. (Also maybe the whole COLA thing but that's been done to death).

If there is going to be compensation they need to have some kind of structure to it. Which they do in the different bands. The issue I have with all this is people only have a big problem when they lose a player and don't get what they would if he was traded. The rules came out years ago about this yet it's only when Buddy goes there is an issue.

The rules came in years ago but the AFL had to step in to protect melbourne's interests by providing them with a disproportional compensation for Scully, with no less than two first round draft picks for that stellar performer.

Still melbourne supporters on here will tell you they got short-changed. No doubt, they've been stiffed by justing getting pick 23 for Sylvia this year (once again the AFL engineering the rules to support melbourne) a player that some on your own board were describing as a cancer this year.

Just another example of how the AFL gets more corrupt and contrived every year, so as to advantage the AFL's special interests every year.

 

[Hot Pocket]

The Dees have done well out of losing Sylvia and Scully, I completely agree.

Got screwed on Rivers/Moloney though (partially our own fault for taking Gillies though). Swings and roundabouts I guess.

Its kind of reasonable though - essentially, if you're already shit and lose a player, your pick is going to better than a good team that lost a similar player - and you'd expect that a shitty team like Melbourne losing a good player is going to be impacted more than a good team losing a good player.

 

[KAYNE]

The rules came in years ago but the AFL had to step in to protect melbourne's interests by providing them with a disproportional compensation for Scully, with no less than two first round draft picks for that stellar performer.

Still melbourne supporters on here will tell you they got short-changed. No doubt, they've been stiffed by justing getting pick 23 for Sylvia this year (once again the AFL engineering the rules to support melbourne) a player that some on your own board were describing as a cancer this year.

Just another example of how the AFL gets more corrupt and contrived every year, so as to advantage the AFL's special interests every year.

Different circumstances though. That was when GWS came in not regular free agency. And Melbourne spoke up before those rules were announced to protect clubs from losing first and second year players.

The AFL did not step in with Scully, the picks were allocated due to the size of his contract. Blame GWS for offering him a stupid amount of money.

Again with Sylvia the contract comes into play. I don't think many supporters will say we were short changed in either scenario though. And they shouldn't.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Yeah contract size really needs to start being published with the way the AFL is now.

Keeping it secret produces way too many WTF moments.