Free Agency Tom Rockliff [signed with Port Adelaide]

[adammania9]

Would have thought the Saints would be planning their rush up the ladder 2017/2018? If the Saints are building on Jack Steven as their midfield centerpiece, well Rockliff is only a month older.

The Saints future is in the hands of guys that will be 25-29 at the time of their peak. They aren't in a place to be giving up top picks for guys whom theoretically at St Kilda's peak with their current list, will probably be 30+. Rocky won't be a Saint for that pick, especially after they used a pick 5 on Carlisle last year. There are some spectacular midfielders this year and next, Saints would benefit much more by keeping their age bracket low instead of high, or else they'll end up exactly how they did in 2013 and 2014. Said draftee should theoretically be 23 or so at the lists peak, perfect for St Kilda.

 

[joop]

The Saints future is in the hands of guys that will be 25-29 at the time of their peak. They aren't in a place to be giving up top picks for guys whom theoretically at St Kilda's peak with their current list, will probably be 30+. Rocky won't be a Saint for that pick, especially after they used a pick 5 on Carlisle last year. There are some spectacular midfielders this year and next, Saints would benefit much more by keeping their age bracket low instead of high, or else they'll end up exactly how they did in 2013 and 2014. Said draftee should theoretically be 23 or so at the lists peak, perfect for St Kilda.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Because the whole point of the system is to give fair compensation to a club for when a player leaves under Free Agency. Your current position on the ladder should hold no weight into the compensation you get. Teams can push players out, or push players to leave their club because they finished in a crap position and want to reap the benefits of a player FA. The commission should not use a random formula of $ to formulate what round a pick should come from too. It's standard for opposition clubs to overpay players to get them out of their current club. It should be the commission who decide each players worth. Frawley should net you guys a much later pick than you got for him. You walked away from that transaction like bandits. Simple as that.

We are offtopic now though. XD

Only because of where we finished on the ladder. The AFL deliberately set it up like that to give the lower teams an advantage.

 

[adammania9]

?

 

[joop]

?

Just sick of people writing the Carlisle trade wrong.

 

[adammania9]

Just sick of people writing the Carlisle trade wrong.

I'm not wrong. You did give up 5 for Carlisle, writing the Gresham part of it and the almost irrelevant pick swaps was neither necessary nor a sufficient usage of my time.

 

[boncer34]

I'm not wrong. You did give up 5 for Carlisle, writing the Gresham part of it and the almost irrelevant pick swaps was neither necessary nor a sufficient usage of my time.

Considering Saints fans spent most of the trade period screaming WE AREN'T GIVING UP PICK 5! and then WE AREN'T GIVING UP ANYTHING BUT PICK 5 to then YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP BOTH YOUR 2ND ROUNDERS you can understand their reluctance to accept that both parties got a win/win and Baines didn't bend us over like they hoped.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

Care to answer the question?

I think a first round pick for a quality player like Frawley is completely reasonable. Where we finished that year is irrelevant because of the AFL's FA compensation rules. I responded to someone stating that the Frawley FA compensation was a PP in disguise, which is absolute crap. That's what this argument is about.

I'll ask you again. Do you think that a first round pick is fair compensation for losing a player like Frawley?

Twisting the facts to suit your arguement.

As stated not all first rounders are equal, if Hogan was to leave and decided Hawthorn as his preferred destination, is Hawthorns position irrelevant, as long as you get 2 x first rounders for him ? There is a huge difference once you start talking about top 3 pick comparing it to first rounders in general.

Under the AFL's rules what else could have happened?

Isn't there a board that checks off on the compensation, and can suggest alternative compensation if an abnormality is given out. Free Agency isn't designed for teams to let players go to get over compensated, it's meant to be partial compensation. There's no two ways, Melbourne got over compensated, it was a flaw in the system which seems the AFL has tightened up on.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Twisting the facts to suit your arguement.

As stated not all first rounders are equal, if Hogan was to leave and decided Hawthorn as his preferred destination, is Hawthorns position irrelevant, as long as you get 2 x first rounders for him ? There is a huge difference once you start talking about top 3 pick comparing it to first rounders in general.



Isn't there a board that checks off on the compensation, and can suggest alternative compensation if an abnormality is given out. Free Agency isn't designed for teams to let players go to get over compensated, it's meant to be partial compensation. There's no two ways, Melbourne got over compensated, it was a flaw in the system which seems the AFL has tightened up on.

Wow, now you're stretching the hypotheticals.

What happens when he decides to stay?

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

Wow, now you're stretching the hypotheticals.

What happens when he decides to stay?

Yep purely hypothetically, just pointing out that first rounders ain't the same, and the perception of a fair deal/compensation doesn't blanket first rounders together.

So with the AFL hands not tied to the system, do you think the board should have suggested an alternative compensation, or you think pick 3 would still be partial compensation for Frawley ?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Yep purely hypothetically, just pointing out that first rounders ain't the same, and the perception of a fair deal/compensation doesn't blanket first rounders together.

So with the AFL hands not tied to the system, do you think the board should have suggested an alternative compensation, or you think pick 3 would still be partial compensation for Frawley ?

The compensation was a first round pick directly after the club's pick. Why should the board suggest an alternative compensation when the compensation was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is to favour the weaker teams who lose one of their stars?

Let's use another example, let's say Brisbane loses one of their best players via FA, who it is is irrelevant, pick one of your top 5. Let's say Brisbane finishes second last in that year. The player gets a massive contract which means Brisbane qualify for a first round pick under the current rules. Do you think it would be fair for the AFL to step in and decide to change the rules because it meant Brisbane getting a top 3 pick?

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

The compensation was a first round pick directly after the club's pick. Why should the board suggest an alternative compensation when the compensation was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is to favour the weaker teams who lose one of their stars?

Let's use another example, let's say Brisbane loses one of their best players via FA, who it is is irrelevant, pick one of your top 5. Let's say Brisbane finishes second last in that year. The player gets a massive contract which means Brisbane qualify for a first round pick under the current rules. Do you think it would be fair for the AFL to step in and decide to change the rules because it meant Brisbane getting a top 3 pick?

The formula generated the compensation, and because an abnormally occurred, there should have been an alternative suggestion, every non Melbourne supporter would agree Pick 3 >> Frawley.

What's your thoughts on compensation, is it only meant to be partial or full ?

I would be under no illusion, if Brisbane got a top 3 pick for one of our players via Free Agency (especially of Frawleys caliber) we would have been over compensated, because of a flaw in the system.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

The formula generated the compensation, and because an abnormally occurred, there should have been an alternative suggestion, every non Melbourne supporter would agree Pick 3 >> Frawley.

What's your thoughts on compensation, is it only meant to be partial or full ?

I would be under no illusion, if Brisbane got a top 3 pick for one of our players via Free Agency (especially of Frawleys caliber) we would have been over compensated, because of a flaw in the system.

It's not a flaw in the system, it's designed that way to favour the weaker teams.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's not a flaw in the system, it's designed that way to favour the weaker teams.

But the AFL has said FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation.

So if a team is over-compensated for losing a player like Frawley, that is a straightforward reversal of the broader principle.

If you accept that teams are not meant to be fully compensated, let alone over-compensated, then it's impossible to defend pick 3 for Frawley.

Also, this notion of 'the weaker teams' needs to be examined more thoroughly. You're quite fond of blanket statements but not all weaker teams are equally in need of a leg-up. There are teams who've been down for many years, and there are teams who have had one bad season. If the system makes no distinction and just automatically over-compensates them because of their ladder position in one particular year, then that's also problematic.

If Freo in 2016 got an extra top 5 pick as compensation for a player comparable to Frawley, would that be defensible on the grounds that 'it's designed to favour the weaker teams'?

If Kreuzer had left Carlton as a FA last year, would you have supported them getting pick 2 as compensation?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

But the AFL has said FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation.

So if a team is over-compensated for losing a player like Frawley, that is a straightforward reversal of the broader principle.

If you accept that teams are not meant to be fully compensated, let alone over-compensated, then it's impossible to defend pick 3 for Frawley.

Also, this notion of 'the weaker teams' needs to be examined more thoroughly. You're quite fond of blanket statements but not all weaker teams are equally in need of a leg-up. There are teams who've been down for many years, and there are teams who have had one bad season. If the system makes no distinction and just automatically over-compensates them because of their ladder position in one particular year, then that's also problematic.

If Freo in 2016 got an extra top 5 pick as compensation for a player comparable to Frawley, would that be defensible on the grounds that 'it's designed to favour the weaker teams'?

If Kreuzer had left Carlton as a FA last year, would you have supported them getting pick 2 as compensation?

If Kreuzer was being paid high enough to warrant a first round draft pick then yes, of course.

Under the current rules it's fair, I'm not against the AFL removing FA compensation either but I think the current system works quite well. A team at the bottom of the ladder is not going to be able to instantly go out and replace one of their top 5 players with the extra salary cap they have. Top players generally move to a club that they think are in premiership mode.

Melbourne was not over compensated for losing Frawley, under the current rules it was a fair and reasonable decision, a first round pick. where a club finishes on the ladder is irrelevant in terms of the compensation. Everyone just had a melt down because of where we finished.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If Kreuzer was being paid high enough to warrant a first round draft pick then yes, of course.

Again, bear in mind that FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation, let alone over-compensation. Do you acknowledge this?

It's stated AFL policy so there's no getting away from it.

With that in mind, you can't have Carlton getting pick 2 for Kreuzer – or Melbourne getting pick 3 for Frawley. That's over-compensation, and therefore a reversal of what the AFL has said about FA compensation.

Under the current rules it's fair

See above. It flies in the face of what the AFL has said about FA compensation.

A team at the bottom of the ladder is not going to be able to instantly go out and replace one of their top 5 players with the extra salary cap they have.

Why not?

Fremantle are near the bottom. What's to stop them recruiting another gun?

Top players generally move to a club that they think are in premiership mode.

Franklin, Dangerfield and Goddard all moved to clubs that finished lower on the ladder that year than their original clubs.

Melbourne was not over compensated for losing Frawley, under the current rules it was a fair and reasonable decision, a first round pick.

Of course they were over-compensated. It was over and above what they would have commanded in a trade. That's the definition of over-compensation. Or do you think Melbourne could have got pick 3 via a trade for Frawley?

The fact that it was in accordance with the rules doesn't mean it wasn't over-compensation. It means the system delivered an indefensible outcome, one totally at odds with the AFL's broader comments about FA compensation not being designed to be full compensation.

And you should really stop saying 'a first round pick' as though all first-rounders are equal. There's a gulf between pick 3 and pick 13. Everyone knows this so I'm not sure why you insist on glossing over it.

where a club finishes on the ladder is irrelevant in terms of the compensation.

Well, that makes no sense.

It should be irrelevant. But it wasn't.

Melbourne's ladder position determined the level of compensation. So I don't see how it was irrelevant.

Melbourne wouldn't have got pick 3 had they not finished so low. So the compensation was absolutely tied to ladder position, and that was the problem. That's why it resulted in over-compensation.

 

[blueiris]

Why has the Rockliff trade thread turned into the Melbourne/Frawley compo thread?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Why has the Rockliff trade thread turned into the Melbourne/Frawley compo thread?

Could do a Melbourne where they got pick 3 for Frawley, call it compensation when everyone knows it was a disguised priority pick. That would mean we will have to be bad again next year, which i think we are pretty good at doing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why has the Rockliff trade thread turned into the Melbourne/Frawley compo thread?

It's jazz.

 

[vozzon]

I assumed the AFL agreed to the Frawley compensation because melbourne asked for a priority pick (or where thinking about it) so the AFL gave them that pick so they were happy.

Either way I'd be happy trading frawley for Brayshaw, as there midfield is set for the next 10 years.

 

[Ants]

They've "gutted the game"?

What an absurd overstatement.

Many people disliked automatic priority picks because it was perceived as incentivising tanking. It's one thing for a club that has been s**t for ages to get an extra pick but you had teams like Collingwood getting a priority pick two years after playing in a grand final. You're telling me the AFL "gutted the game" by abandoning this?

Where is the evidence for this?

The biggest free agency moves to date have been Franklin leaving Hawthorn and Dangerfield leaving Adelaide. Both went to clubs that finished lower on the ladder that season than the clubs they left. Same goes for Brendon Goddard.

How many instances are there of clubs near the bottom losing "their best players" to the teams near the top?

Again, there's a difference between a side being near the bottom for several years and a side being near the bottom after one bad year.

You can't have Fremantle in 2016 getting disproportionate compensation just because they had one bad season.

You're just ignoring a gaping flaw in the system.

And this flaw in the system is why priority picks are now handed out at the AFL's discretion – and pretty sparingly at that. That's better than having exaggerated handouts triggered automatically.

Of course I support equalisation. The draft and the salary cap are both vital.

I just think the automatic priority picks and the skewed compensation system have produced certain outcomes that are impossible to defend.

If Geelong, Hawthorn or Sydney win the premiership this year (and all are currently in the top 4), then for the last decade only four teams will have won the grand final. Do you know how far back you have to go to have a decade with so few clubs winning a premiership? And there is no period with less teams winning a premiership than 4. In 2006 with Freo making a preliminary final EVERY SINGLE TEAM had made a preliminary final in the decade. Unless there is a minor miracle, FIVE clubs won't have made one in the decade since (ignoring GWS/GCS).

So yes, I think they gutted the game. After a period of unequalled equalisation with the power of priority picks allowing clubs to jump back up the ladder, we now appearing to be heading for a decade with terribly unequal results. And I think that is terrible. Thinking the salary cap and reverse draft is enough to ensure equalisation is like thinking a bandaid on a gunshot wound will stop the bleeding.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If Geelong, Hawthorn or Sydney win the premiership this year (and all are currently in the top 4), then for the last decade only four teams will have won the grand final. Do you know how far back you have to go to have a decade with so few clubs winning a premiership?

So what? Some teams have just gotten better at running their s**t. Good luck to them. There's no system that cancels that out. Nor should there be. Equalisation doesn't mean it's 'Everyone Gets A Trophy' day.

We have the draft. We have the salary cap. That's plenty. We don't need to add to that an ad hoc, arbitrary mechanism that slings extra draft picks at some clubs as FA compensation; not when the AFL has emphasised that FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation. That can't be stated policy, only for the AFL to turn around and then over-compensate some clubs. That's indefensible. Those two things cannot both be status quo.

So yes, I think they gutted the game.

Well, that's an absurd overstatement.

You are focusing on equal outcomes. But there's no way to guarantee that, nor is it desirable. Rather, we should facilitate equal opportunity and equal capacity to compete. We should ensure there is no monopoly based on whose president has the deepest pockets. And then it's a bare-knuckle fight to see who can do it the best.

We already have a robust system of equalisation ie. draft, salary cap. But you seem to want to push that even further to artificially create equal outcomes. Like equalisation isn't working unless everyone just takes it in turns to win a flag. Why is that desirable? If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, despite losing a guy like Franklin to FA, why should we implement a system to counter that? They deserve that success and we shouldn't be trying to militate against it further.

After a period of unequalled equalisation with the power of priority picks allowing clubs to jump back up the ladder, we now appearing to be heading for a decade with terribly unequal results. And I think that is terrible. Thinking the salary cap and reverse draft is enough to ensure equalisation is like thinking a bandaid on a gunshot wound will stop the bleeding.

See above. You are fixating on equal outcomes. But there's no system to ensure that and nor should there be.

You can't just prop up under-performing teams with a never-ending supply of early draft picks.

The s**t teams get first crack at the draft every year and then it's up to them, as it is every team, to get their houses in order. The AFL shouldn't just be intervening indefinitely with never-ending handouts until everyone gets a lick of the ice cream.

 

[Ants]

So what? Some teams have just gotten better at running their s**t. Good luck to them. There's no system that cancels that out. Nor should there be. Equalisation doesn't mean it's 'Everyone Gets A Trophy' day.

We have the draft. We have the salary cap. That's plenty. We don't need to add to that an ad hoc, arbitrary mechanism that slings extra draft picks at some clubs as FA compensation; not when the AFL has emphasised that FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation. That can't be stated policy, only for the AFL to turn around and then over-compensate some clubs. That's indefensible. Those two things cannot both be status quo.

Well, that's an absurd overstatement.

You are focusing on equal outcomes. But there's no way to guarantee that, nor is it desirable. Rather, we should facilitate equal opportunity and equal capacity to compete. We should ensure there is no monopoly based on whose president has the deepest pockets. And then it's a bare-knuckle fight to see who can do it the best.

We already have a robust system of equalisation ie. draft, salary cap. But you seem to want to push that even further to artificially create equal outcomes. Like equalisation isn't working unless everyone just takes it in turns to win a flag. Why is that desirable? If Hawthorn are good enough to win three flags in a row, despite losing a guy like Franklin to FA, why should we implement a system to counter that? They deserve that success and we shouldn't be trying to militate against it further.

See above. You are fixating on equal outcomes. But there's no system to ensure that and nor should there be.

You can't just prop up under-performing teams with a never-ending supply of early draft picks.

The s**t teams get first crack at the draft every year and then it's up to them, as it is every team, to get their houses in order. The AFL shouldn't just be intervening indefinitely with never-ending handouts until everyone gets a lick of the ice cream.

But it isn't a robust system. I don't want everyone handed out a trophy every 18 years. I don't expect it to be a perfect split - in the 10 years to 2006 there were still only 7 premiers. Teams will win multiple ones back to back. Clubs will go close and injury, stuff ups, inaccurate kicking or bad luck will cost them (e.g. St Kilda, Adelaide in the 00's, Melbourne in the late 90s). A good equal system won't be perfectly equal. But it also won't be a contender for most unequal decade in the entire history of the AFL.

I want teams near the bottom to get the assistance required to actually have a decent shot. The salary cap is laughable as an equalising mechanism - everyone knows players in the top part of the ladder take pay cuts, and have been for years, for success. Its failed. And the draft is laughable. We play 22 players on the pitch. The difference between finishing last and first is a single pick, #1. As good as #1 may be (assuming they're not a dud or perennially injured), that is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap between the first and best teams in a 22 man team. No one player has that much impact.

So I've presented evidence that removing the priority pick in 2006 had a disastrous effect. I've given clear reasons above why the salary cap and a straight draft won't do enough. So where is your evidence or reasons to show why they are sufficient?

Beyond - you don't like them.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But it isn't a robust system.

The draft and salary cap are sufficient. How would we expand on those?

I don't want everyone handed out a trophy every 18 years. I don't expect it to be a perfect split - in the 10 years to 2006 there were still only 7 premiers. Teams will win multiple ones back to back. Clubs will go close and injury, stuff ups, inaccurate kicking or bad luck will cost them (e.g. St Kilda, Adelaide in the 00's, Melbourne in the late 90s). A good equal system won't be perfectly equal. But it also won't be a contender for most unequal decade in the entire history of the AFL.

So your solution is to arbitrarily hand out extra picks under the guise of FA compensation?

Again, do you accept that this flies in the face of the AFL's stated policy that FA compensation is not meant to be full compensation?

Surely, if that is the AFL's position, it is a glaring inconsistency for some teams to be over-compensated.

I don't see how that's defensible.

I want teams near the bottom to get the assistance required to actually have a decent shot.

They have that. Whether they're good enough to get there is another matter.

The salary cap is laughable as an equalising mechanism - everyone knows players in the top part of the ladder take pay cuts, and have been for years, for success.

Good luck to those clubs for being able to keep a list together.

Did Franklin take a pay cut to join Sydney?

Its failed. And the draft is laughable. We play 22 players on the pitch. The difference between finishing last and first is a single pick, #1. As good as #1 may be (assuming they're not a dud or perennially injured), that is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap between the first and best teams in a 22 man team. No one player has that much impact.

If the draft is such a joke, then what good would it do to give s**t teams extra picks?

So I've presented evidence that removing the priority pick in 2006 had a disastrous effect. I've given clear reasons above why the salary cap and a straight draft won't do enough.

You've just said the draft is a joke and achieves very little in terms of equalisation. I disagree completely but how can you write off the draft as an equalisation mechanism, only to turn around and say the draft should be used more as an equalisation mechanism?

Either it works or it doesn't.

So where is your evidence or reasons to show why they are sufficient?

My argument is that we shouldn't go any further. Certainly, just handing out extra draft picks arbitrarily isn't the answer.

If a club is really s**t for a prolonged period, the AFL has the discretion to give them another draft pick. I have no problem with that. But it shouldn't be automatically triggered or assigned in an ad hoc manner under the guise of FA compensation.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you'd propose. There is a system for player movement that all clubs are subject to. You can't exempt some clubs and, as an example, somehow force Jesse Hogan to stay at Melbourne. You can't engineer a system to ensure Melbourne or Carlton or whoever draft well. We've got a draft and a salary cap and it's up to individual clubs to be competitive within those parameters. The onus is not on the AFL to engineer equal outcomes. The onus is on the clubs to get better.

 

[The_Reaper]

But it isn't a robust system. I don't want everyone handed out a trophy every 18 years. I don't expect it to be a perfect split - in the 10 years to 2006 there were still only 7 premiers. Teams will win multiple ones back to back. Clubs will go close and injury, stuff ups, inaccurate kicking or bad luck will cost them (e.g. St Kilda, Adelaide in the 00's, Melbourne in the late 90s). A good equal system won't be perfectly equal. But it also won't be a contender for most unequal decade in the entire history of the AFL.

I want teams near the bottom to get the assistance required to actually have a decent shot. The salary cap is laughable as an equalising mechanism - everyone knows players in the top part of the ladder take pay cuts, and have been for years, for success. Its failed. And the draft is laughable. We play 22 players on the pitch. The difference between finishing last and first is a single pick, #1. As good as #1 may be (assuming they're not a dud or perennially injured), that is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap between the first and best teams in a 22 man team. No one player has that much impact.

So I've presented evidence that removing the priority pick in 2006 had a disastrous effect. I've given clear reasons above why the salary cap and a straight draft won't do enough. So where is your evidence or reasons to show why they are sufficient?

Beyond - you don't like them.

Talking post 2006 and you have to really take into account free agency and the introduction of Gold Coast/GWS taking out a lot of the best young talent.

Those are massive factors and make it so you can't just go pre 2006 we had priority and post 2006 we had priority.