Traded Tom Mitchell [traded to Hawthorn with pick 57 for pick 14 & 52]

[JayJ20]

Great pick up.

No one criticised Hawthorn for picking up Mitchell. It was a bargain to be honest.

The trade for JOM though...

 

[JG22]

Would have went top 5 I reckon. Probably 4 after McGrath McCluggage Tarranto

Perhaps, I meant in his draft year were he went at 20odd due to father son.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I don't get this post. Franklin was a FA, Mitchell out of contract. FA compo is explicitly NOT meant to be fair value (something I disagree with). Sydney could have simply refused to trade and you would have had to cough up more. The two are not the same. What special rules are you referring to? Pick #19 was the maximum you could get under the rules.

Despite what was said above, even with the coaches washing their hands of Mitchell, I still don't understand why they didn't play harder ball at the trade table.

And I was very grateful for your role in the Carlisle trade. And Sydneys.

What's not to get?

Your initial post bemoaned the ease with which we apparently fleeced the Swans in the Mitchell trade, where you argued he was worth alot more....Buddy went back the other way & all we got was pick 19....We never stood in their way & they returned the compliment.....What's not to get about quid pro quo?

And that's not even mentioning the bargain basement price they secured both Kennedy & McGlynn off us for. Picks 43 & 58 if I recall.

And by the by....No team in it's right mind is matching a 9 year $10 million deal, for a 26 year old without putting itself into dire straits....Exactly how many Flags has it landed the Swans?

 

[WWSD]

10 year gun midfielder.
Would have been picked in the 10 if he was in the open.

Agree. We got him for unders.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Agree. We got him for unders.

Swans still way out in front, based upon our recent trade history with each other:....Buddy & Joey are easily their 2 best players.

Bout time a little slack came back our way.

 

[dlanod]

There was rules in place by the AFL for extroidinary compensation for Superstar megadeals. Seems 10 million over 9 years didn't met that requirement. Pick 19 was a disgrace compensation for arguably the best player to play the game.

I've seen claims to that extent but I've never actually seen any indication of the existence of this "rule" re: megadeals.

There were changes to the GC and GWS uncontracted player rules after their initial announcement regarding "megadeals". This was the introduction of the two first round pick compensation that Geelong and Melbourne got.

The actual rules for AFL's free agency have remained unchanged. The closest is references to "materially anomalous results":

"In applying the formula, an expert committee reviews the formula outcomes. The committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes to GM – Football Operations where the formula produces a materially anomalous result."

Obviously Buddy's deal wasn't considered a "materially anomalous result" as it aligns with what would've been expected if a large enough deal was on the table for anyone. Instead this is more likely to refer to attempts to get through loopholes in the formula, not just fall subject to how it was designed.

 

[Procrastinator35]

"In applying the formula, an expert committee reviews the formula outcomes. The committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes to GM – Football Operations where the formula produces a materially anomalous result."

Obviously Buddy's deal wasn't considered a "materially anomalous result" as it aligns with what would've been expected if a large enough deal was on the table for anyone. Instead this is more likely to refer to attempts to get through loopholes in the formula, not just fall subject to how it was designed.

And therein lies the rub....When every man & his dog knew full well that it was.....Bar VLAD & Fitzy so it seems.

 

[dlanod]

And therein lies the rub....When every man & his dog knew full well that it was.....Bar VLAD & Fitzy so it seems.

On the contrary, that means in the context of the system. They set up the system to handle a case like Buddy's in exactly that fashion so no, it wasn't a materially anomalous result. After all they'd already seen the Gablett and Scully examples as what clubs will do with access to players without needing to trade.

 

[Procrastinator35]

On the contrary, that means in the context of the system. They set up the system to handle a case like Buddy's in exactly that fashion so no, it wasn't a materially anomalous result. After all they'd already seen the Gablett and Scully examples as what clubs will do with access to players without needing to trade.

No....It was a materially anomalous result......Period.

 

[Ants]

There was rules in place by the AFL for extroidinary compensation for Superstar megadeals. Seems 10 million over 9 years didn't met that requirement. Pick 19 was a disgrace compensation for arguably the best player to play the game.

Do you want to provide a link to these rules? Because I don't believe I can ever recall them existing with respect to Free Agency. You seem to be under a misapprehension - FA compo is MEANT to be under-valued. It is also designed to reward low ranked teams who lose players over teams at the top of the tree. It was originally seen as an equalisation tool, although it almost certainly hasn't achieved that (probably the reverse). You may be hurt over only getting pick #19, but that is what the system is designed for.

What's not to get?

Your initial post bemoaned the ease with which we apparently fleeced the Swans in the Mitchell trade, where you argued he was worth alot more....Buddy went back the other way & all we got was pick 19....We never stood in their way & they returned the compliment.....What's not to get about quid pro quo?

And that's not even mentioning the bargain basement price they secured both Kennedy & McGlynn off us for. Picks 43 & 58 if I recall.

And by the by....No team in it's right mind is matching a 9 year $10 million deal, for a 26 year old without putting itself into dire straits....Exactly how many Flags has it landed the Swans?

You say yourself you weren't matching the Buddy deal. He was FA - you want to trade him, do what Adelaide did and match and force a trade. You didn't, he left under Free Agency, its totally different compensation to normal trades.

Sydney was absolutely in their rights to fall on their sword, or reward you for the previous deals, or however else it is to be spun. But the simple reality is that they didn't have to. You couldn't pick up Mitchell through the draft or PSD. Or FA. You had to trade for him. Unlike Kennedy or McGlynn, this wasn't an unproven target. There were plenty of clubs happy to take Mitchell (presumably, if this is wrong it would explain a lot about the price). Everyone would consider Mitchell (both pre and post trade) for that pick a steal. It only went through because Sydney signed off on it.

They effectively hurt their club by behaving as they did, and for most of us that is extremely perplexing. The FA rules and Sydney's offer gave Hawthorn no choice with Buddy. Sydney did have a choice. Which is why the two are not analogous.

 

[Membling]

He nominated a club. Uncontracted player.

We took unders. Simple really

 

[Upgrayedd]

He nominated a club. Uncontracted player.

We took unders. Simple really

pretty much, what can you do. Clubs nowdays if they want any good will in the general community wont make absurd stands of huge overs. Better to be professional, quick, and next time something rolls your way the clubs know your not going to dig your heels in.

All we need to do is to take your once in a generation forward at his prime and we'll be even.,

 

[Membling]

pretty much, what can you do. Clubs nowdays if they want any good will in the general community wont make absurd stands of huge overs. Better to be professional, quick, and next time something rolls your way the clubs know your not going to dig your heels in.

All we need to do is to take your once in a generation forward at his prime and we'll be even.,

If he is a RFA and we decide not to match, fair game.

Part and parcel of the game nowadays

 

[Procrastinator35]

pretty much, what can you do. Clubs nowdays if they want any good will in the general community wont make absurd stands of huge overs. Better to be professional, quick, and next time something rolls your way the clubs know your not going to dig your heels in.,

Don't tell Dodoro that though....He thinks he's got one over on the entire comp....LOL.

 

[HairyO]

On the contrary, that means in the context of the system. They set up the system to handle a case like Buddy's in exactly that fashion so no, it wasn't a materially anomalous result. After all they'd already seen the Gablett and Scully examples as what clubs will do with access to players without needing to trade.

Frawley Pick 3, Buddy Pick 19.

Not materially anomalous.

Right-o then.

Can you give an example of what you think materially anomalous would actually be?

 

[dlanod]

Frawley Pick 3, Buddy Pick 19.

Not materially anomalous.

Right-o then.

Can you give an example of what you think materially anomalous would actually be?

You Hawks guys seem to be pretty adept at either missing the point or deliberately interpreting the phrasing so as best to let you feel outraged despite the evidence as to how it's actually meant.

To make you warm and fuzzy I already gave an example in the previous post - "attempts to get through loopholes in the formula, not [those that] just fall subject to how it was designed."

 

[HairyO]

You Hawks guys seem to be pretty adept at either missing the point or deliberately interpreting the phrasing so as best to let you feel outraged despite the evidence as to how it's actually meant.

To make you warm and fuzzy I already gave an example in the previous post - "attempts to get through loopholes in the formula, not [those that] just fall subject to how it was designed."

So you can point to the specific Free Agency reference to compensation being in part decided on how well or how bad the team is going?

 

[dlanod]

So you can point to the specific Free Agency reference to compensation being in part decided on how well or how bad the team is going?

Why do I need to?

 

[HairyO]

Why do I need to?

Because its the only way to justify Buddy actually being worth pick 19 and Hawthorn not getting shafted.

There is a specific rule which says that when the standard formula doesnt work that the AFL can change the compensation. There is no rule which says compensation should be based on how well teams are doing.

The Buddy deal cant be worth pick 19 if the Frawley deal is worth pick 3. It should have been pick 1 or at worst behind any priority 1st round picks.

 

[dlanod]

Because its the only way to justify Buddy actually being worth pick 19 and Hawthorn not getting shafted.

There is a specific rule which says that when the standard formula doesnt work that the AFL can change the compensation. There is no rule which says compensation should be based on how well teams are doing.

There is exactly that rule - the part where Bands 1, 3 and 5 come immediately after the receiving club's pick in the respective round. The AFL literally and consciously put that into the design of the system.

I know you guys are still upset over Buddy leaving and only getting pick 19 but you should be complaining about the overall design of the system and/or the limitations of the band system, not over the AFL not waving a magic wand and giving you what you think you deserve.

Hawthorn received exactly what the AFL intended when writing up that system. Ergo, it isn't a materially anomalous result in the context of that system.

 

[HairyO]

There is exactly that rule - the part where Bands 1, 3 and 5 come immediately after the receiving club's pick in the respective round. The AFL literally and consciously put that into the design of the system.

So what do you think the definition of materially anomalous is?

What do you think the AFL's definition may be?

Can you think of any examples which may trigger this clause? Ablett was a couple of middle of 1st round picks wasnt it? Special rule though, rather than this standard rule.

But the AFL has never been a fan of standardising rules. Doesnt allow them any fiddle room.

 

[dlanod]

So what do you think the definition of materially anomalous is?

Explained that already.

What do you think the AFL's definition may be?

Explained that already.

Can you think of any examples which may trigger this clause?

An older player generating a high pick because of a ridiculous one year offer would be an example. But the whole point of having a formula is that there shouldn't be examples.

Ablett was a couple of middle of 1st round picks wasnt it? Special rule though, rather than this standard rule.

One mid-first round and one that came after Geelong's first round pick. Same as Scully. Both were recruited under the GC/GWS uncontracted player rules which had different compensation bands.

 

[HairyO]

Explained that already.



Explained that already.



An older player generating a high pick because of a ridiculous one year offer would be an example. But the whole point of having a formula is that there shouldn't be examples.



One mid-first round and one that came after Geelong's first round pick. Same as Scully. Both were recruited under the GC/GWS uncontracted player rules which had different compensation bands.

So what you're saying is that the only time the AFL would step in is if someone tried to game the system. Freo come 3rd, Fyfe leaves via FA for a $10m over 5 years deal and Freo gets Pick 17?

And that is the system working well?

BTW: Are one year contracts allowed for Free Agency? I thought it was 2 years minimum? Trading players have no restrictions?

 

[dlanod]

So what you're saying is that the only time the AFL would step in is if someone tried to game the system. Freo come 3rd, Fyfe leaves via FA for a $10m over 5 years deal and Freo gets Pick 17?

Yep.

And that is the system working well?

That's a matter of opinion. As I said, "you should be complaining about the overall design of the system and/or the limitations of the band system, not over the AFL not waving a magic wand and giving you what you think you deserve".

BTW: Are one year contracts allowed for Free Agency? I thought it was 2 years minimum? Trading players have no restrictions?

Pretty sure there's no restriction. However if you're trying to recruit someone to your team it'd be very unusual to not offer them at least a two or three year deal. One year contracts are more for delisted and fringe players.

 

[Ants]

.....
And that is the system working well?
....

Its working as they planned. They always stated they wanted FA Compo to be below fair value, and that teams that are worse should benefit more than teams at the top of the ladder.

If you think that system sucks, well, I agree. I would increase compensation levels. But there are plenty on BigFooty who would go the other way, and remove compensation entirely. So its not black and white.