Free Agency Tom Rockliff [signed with Port Adelaide]

Apr 8, 2012
11,609
18,334
Melbourne
AFL Club
Fremantle
I'd disagree. The main difference between Rockliff and Beams is Beams ability to kick clutch goals up forward. At his best, Rocky sets up most of our plays with his quick smart decision making. He just needs to be able to get on the scoreboard more. Because right now, his spending all of his time in the guts. His had a couple of injury interrupted years now and whilst he is racking up the ball, he in understandably not at his best. Still one of the few blokes we have going in hard and winning the ball.

Stats are certainly not everything but he is averaging 37.5 disposals, 14.7 contested possessions, 7.5 clearances, 9 tackles at 73.8% disposal efficiency. But his impact has been noticeably lower.
Where did you get 37.5 disposals a game from?
 
Mar 18, 2013
14,611
31,079
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
University
Rocky and Beams aren't comparable, on one hand you have an individual game-changer, and elite star of the comp who when is fit, is just really, really good; and then there's Rockliff, whom is an accumulator but his individual impact on games is far less than that of Beams. Not to mention that Beams was younger then than Rocky is now, and didn't have the threat of free agency the next year for teams to get him on the cheap.
 

Marc_Remillard

Maderator
Jan 4, 2015
6,783
7,711
AFL Club
Melbourne
What do you mean by 'worth a first-rounder'? In compensation determined by the AFL? Or in a hypothetical trade with another team?

Also, not all first-round picks are of equal worth. Pick 3 is not equal to pick 15.

Forget about free agency. Pretend there's no such thing. If Frawley had simply been uncontracted and requested a trade, there's very little chance Melbourne could have got pick 3 in exchange. A mid to late first-rounder, sure. But not pick 3.

If you think pick 3 was sensible compensation for Frawley, what was sensible compensation for Franklin?

If you have a system that clearly over-compensates Melbourne for Frawley but even more clearly under-compensates Hawthorn for Franklin, that's too aberrant and counter-intuitive to be workable over the longer term. It's inadequate to suggest that Hawthorn deserved a patently inadequate deal while Melbourne deserved overs purely because Hawthorn were stronger at the time. The method to determine compensation needs to be consistent, regardless of ladder position. If that means everyone gets a s**t sandwich, so be it. You can't have one team cashing in and another getting shafted just because they fared better in that particular season.

The AFL was fortunate the team getting shafted had been so successful and the team getting over-compensated so dire that nobody really protested. A lot of people probably felt Hawthorn could absorb that loss while Melbourne needed the leg-up. But that flawed approach could easily have affected teams in different circumstances. What if it had been the Bulldogs losing Bontempelli while within reach of a breakthrough flag and getting pick 16-17 in compensation? And a team like Geelong or Hawthorn or Sydney losing a valuable but not superstar player in a year when they finally bottomed out - and they get pick 3 for their troubles? That would expose the inequity and capriciousness of the compensation system in a way that would be far less palatable than when it was Hawthorn getting shafted and Melbourne getting some extra sugar. I doubt anyone would be defending it under those circumstances.

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?
 

Marc_Remillard

Maderator
Jan 4, 2015
6,783
7,711
AFL Club
Melbourne
But the issue he raised wasn't that the system was wrong, or not transparent. The issue he raised that you replied to was that getting pick #3 was really a priority pick and not true compensation. Nothing you've written despite replying to his comment contradicts that point. It just makes the argument the system has issues, not that it wasn't applied as it was set out prior to the draft.

It's funny isn't it, he completely ignored the point I was trying to make. He does have a history of doing this.
 

yyou

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 18, 2014
5,756
7,169
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
NY Mets, NO Pelicans, Toronto Leafs
Beams actually hurts sides with his disposals, Rocky can rack up the least damaging 30 disposals you will ever see.
Cough
Cotchin
Cough
Sorry to derail, but arguing against that statement.
My 2 cents worth.
He's an absolute gun & Brisbane's best IMO.
Hopefully he stays with the Lions
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Care to answer the question?
I did. At length. What are you talking about?

I think a first round pick for a quality player like Frawley is completely reasonable.
Again, not all first-round picks are of equal value.

Pick 13 or thereabouts? Sure. But not pick 3.

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.
Well, I never said anything about a priority pick. I don't really care to have an argument about what you call it.

It was free agency compensation. But it was still unreasonable. I don't need to call it something else to make that point.

My issue is whether that compensation for Frawley was fair and equitable. You seem to think it was. I disagree. It was massive overs and the system that delivered it is therefore not credible.

I'll ask you again. Do you think that a first round pick is fair compensation for losing a player like Frawley?
Not pick 3, no.

Why do you insist on using 'first-rounder' as a blanket term, as though there's not a massive difference between an early first-rounder and a late first-rounder?

That seems like a deliberate oversight.

It's funny isn't it, he completely ignored the point I was trying to make. He does have a history of doing this.
Your post that I responded to suggested the compensation for Frawley was perfectly reasonable. It wasn't. It was clearly overs. How is it 'ignoring the point' to suggest this?

Try again kid, where did I mention pick 3?
What compensation did Melbourne receive for losing Frawley?

It was pick 3, wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2015
6,742
7,404
Where the magic happens
AFL Club
Essendon
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?

First round sure. But giving melb pick 3 felt like a PP. Especially when you applied and got denied.

All first rounders aren't equal. It was a handout to give Melbourne pick 3.
 
Jun 22, 2015
6,742
7,404
Where the magic happens
AFL Club
Essendon

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
 

Ants

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2005
4,535
2,124
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
First round sure. But giving melb pick 3 felt like a PP. Especially when you applied and got denied.

All first rounders aren't equal. It was a handout to give Melbourne pick 3.
So by that reasoning if Hooker had chosen to leave Essendon using his RFA status, and Freo gave him a huge contract, if we'd have got pick #1 or #2 as a compo pick following the rules, it actually would have been a priority pick?

Right?
 

Ants

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2005
4,535
2,124
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
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
Actually, that is blatantly untrue. The AFL has always stated that the compensation system has two purposes - to be generally less than fair compensation, and to act as another form of equalisation by benefiting teams at the bottom more. It has never been meant to be fair. Where on earth did you get that idea?
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Actually, that is blatantly untrue. The AFL has always stated that the compensation system has two purposes - to be generally less than fair compensation, and to act as another form of equalisation by benefiting teams at the bottom more. It has never been meant to be fair. Where on earth did you get that idea?
But that's the problem, isn't it?

I agree that FA compensation was meant to be unders as a rule. But in Melbourne's case, the compensation for Frawley was clear overs, so that's a complete reversal of that stated principle.

On the second point, I think we've seen that any mechanism that delivers bonus top 5 picks to clubs as 'a form of equalisation' is problematic. And that's why the rules around priority picks were changed so that they would be handed out at the AFL's discretion and not automatically triggered. In this case, Melbourne had been so bad for so long that people probably didn't mind too much that they snagged an extra early pick. But what if that situation occurred with a team like Fremantle in 2016? Or in the years ahead when Hawthorn or Geelong or Sydney finally drop off? That's the problem with the mechanism: it might not always involve a team like Melbourne that had been down for several years. Next time, it could be a team coming off a period of sustained success that finally has a bad year, and then loads up with an extra top 5 pick for their troubles.

Melbourne got pick 3 for Frawley, while Hawthorn got pick 19 for Franklin. In my view, those outcomes are simply too divergent to be credible. Sure, Melbourne had been awful for so long and Hawthorn so strong that people were prepared to wear it, but that might not be the case next time. That's why, in my view, everyone should get a s**t sandwich when it comes to FA compensation. You can't have some clubs getting a s**t sandwich and others getting a golden ticket, determined wholly and solely by their ladder position that particular year. Because that snapshot of their ladder position might not tell the full story of the state of their list, their recent success and their prospects for the future.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2007
31,920
33,106
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Rocky is looking for something around the $800k mark, after a Brisbane over of $650k-$700k.

So would I if I was playing for the Lions. Not a lot of top end talent taking up the salary cap and if I was going to spend the prime of my career at a club rebuilding then I'd want to be well paid.

If he went to a club that was in with a chance to win a flag he will need to take a pay cut. He's not Dangerfield is he?

His recent injury history doesn't support $800k p.a. no matter where he plays.
 

Rion

Club Legend
Apr 27, 2014
2,097
2,901
AFL Club
Fremantle
People overrate draft picks. If the Saints got him for a top 5 pick I think everyone would be happy (assuming Rocky wants to leave).
 

Rion

Club Legend
Apr 27, 2014
2,097
2,901
AFL Club
Fremantle
I don't think our fans would be. We are a long way off pushing for a flag, now is not the time to be giving away top 5 picks for 27 year olds.

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.
 
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.
Jack Steven is our only quality payer between the age of 25-29. You can't build a team around that. We need to keep going to the draft as planned or bring in under 25's.
 

Ants

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2005
4,535
2,124
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
But that's the problem, isn't it?

I agree that FA compensation was meant to be unders as a rule. But in Melbourne's case, the compensation for Frawley was clear overs, so that's a complete reversal of that stated principle.

On the second point, I think we've seen that any mechanism that delivers bonus top 5 picks to clubs as 'a form of equalisation' is problematic. And that's why the rules around priority picks were changed so that they would be handed out at the AFL's discretion and not automatically triggered. In this case, Melbourne had been so bad for so long that people probably didn't mind too much that they snagged an extra early pick. But what if that situation occurred with a team like Fremantle in 2016? Or in the years ahead when Hawthorn or Geelong or Sydney finally drop off? That's the problem with the mechanism: it might not always involve a team like Melbourne that had been down for several years. Next time, it could be a team coming off a period of sustained success that finally has a bad year, and then loads up with an extra top 5 pick for their troubles.

Melbourne got pick 3 for Frawley, while Hawthorn got pick 19 for Franklin. In my view, those outcomes are simply too divergent to be credible. Sure, Melbourne had been awful for so long and Hawthorn so strong that people were prepared to wear it, but that might not be the case next time. That's why, in my view, everyone should get a s**t sandwich when it comes to FA compensation. You can't have some clubs getting a s**t sandwich and others getting a golden ticket, determined wholly and solely by their ladder position that particular year. Because that snapshot of their ladder position might not tell the full story of the state of their list, their recent success and their prospects for the future.
Nope.

I'm a huge fan of equalisation, and believe the AFL has gutted the game with removal of things like automatic first round priority picks. If you're going to have FA, then there must be FAR more compensation to teams near the bottom losing their best players, because we know that contrary to what everyone said before it started, FA is actually far more effective at getting players to top teams than it is stripping key players away from them. So the compensation has to be skewed towards the bottom sides. That you get the odd Collingwood picking up a Pendlebury because of one bad year two years after playing off in a Grand Final is unfortunate, but shouldn't have seen the system thrown out in my view. At most it should have been tweaked.

But it sounds like you don't really believe in equalisation, so we're probably coming from worlds apart and won't find common ground.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm a huge fan of equalisation, and believe the AFL has gutted the game with removal of things like automatic first round priority picks.
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?

If you're going to have FA, then there must be FAR more compensation to teams near the bottom losing their best players, because we know that contrary to what everyone said before it started, FA is actually far more effective at getting players to top teams than it is stripping key players away from them.
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?

So the compensation has to be skewed towards the bottom sides.
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.

That you get the odd Collingwood picking up a Pendlebury because of one bad year two years after playing off in a Grand Final is unfortunate, but shouldn't have seen the system thrown out in my view. At most it should have been tweaked.
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.

But it sounds like you don't really believe in equalisation, so we're probably coming from worlds apart and won't find common ground.
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.
 
Last edited:
Back