Player Watch Jordan Dawson - Our New Captain!

[GROTTO]

True. They still lock conversations rather than give you any right of reply.

But mods are like politicians. 5% do it wanting to give back and 95% are in it for the power trip

Power trip, definitely

A Pure Power trip for me is when you are not even allowed to open certain threads. I mean FFS.

I love when some Crows fans are so eager beavers and start game day threads, post game, the good the bad and the Crows threads etc etc. To me thats passion and its different for different posters their approach and style which I like.

Other boards its only the mods that can do that.

One campaigner on our board even started a game day thread two days before the game. ................... me

 

[Sanders]

I really meant for players that aren't 'free agents', but pretty sure everywhere else free agent and out of contract are synonyms.

Again, in the most part you’re right.

MLB being the exception where there is service time and arbitration, until you become a free agent after 6 years service on a major league roster (your time in the minor leagues doesn’t set the timer going).

however, MLB famously has an antitrust exemption (granted by congress) which insulates them from restraint of trade laws.

there is little doubt without that exemption MLB rules would be sunk

 

[Golumless]

Free agency picks are also in the NFL, but they're trash picks.

I really meant for players that aren't 'free agents', but pretty sure everywhere else free agent and out of contract are synonyms.

On Pixel 5 using BigFooty.com mobile app

NHL has a similar system to the AFL where a club receives compensation if a player is a restricted free agent, though the draft picks they receive comes from the club signing the player. So an example from last offseason is by signing Jesperi Kotkaniemi to a 6.1m/1y contract in free agency, Carolina gave a 1st and 3rd round pick to Montreal. That said, NHL is rather strict on who is a restricted free agent, and who isn't.

Not always with the NFL, as restricted free agents are a thing, and they're under a very similar system to NHL. UFAs are garbage picks, but it's also worth noting you can also get those picks for losing coaches/executives. The other thing that probably needs to be factored in when talking about the US system is the rental market, where teams tend to trade players in the last year of their contract to a contender if they're a non-contender for players they're likely to lose anyway to free agency.

It's not that uncommon for there to be some form of compensation system for teams losing out of contract players, though how easy it is to access it depends on the league.

 

[Vhaluus]

NHL has a similar system to the AFL where a club receives compensation if a player is a restricted free agent, though the draft picks they receive comes from the club signing the player. So an example from last offseason is by signing Jesperi Kotkaniemi to a 6.1m/1y contract in free agency, Carolina gave a 1st and 3rd round pick to Montreal. That said, NHL is rather strict on who is a restricted free agent, and who isn't.

Not always with the NFL, as restricted free agents are a thing, and they're under a very similar system to NHL. UFAs are garbage picks, but it's also worth noting you can also get those picks for losing coaches/executives. The other thing that probably needs to be factored in when talking about the US system is the rental market, where teams tend to trade players in the last year of their contract to a contender if they're a non-contender for players they're likely to lose anyway to free agency.

It's not that uncommon for there to be some form of compensation system for teams losing out of contract players, though how easy it is to access it depends on the league.

That's really how it should be. Free agency shouldn't be a free hit for the recieving club.

Force the recieving club to compensate with their ACTUAL picks next draft (I say next draft because that stops the excuse of 'oh woops we already traded them last year'). Use a points formula like is used for father/son picks.

Mind you I also think father/son and academy should force use of a clubs actual picks t stop all the pick trading for points abuse. And for example if you traded away your first rounder this year (and didn't aquire one better) and a player is bid on in the first round you should just be ineligible to match.

 

[Vader]

Yes I’d forgotten about the ND. It’s a bit like putting yourself on Linked In and hoping the right law firm or whatever takes you on. You get to nominate your salary too.

I doubt we’ll ever see it again though. Why would you?

Honestly, there's no justification for the PSD now, and hasn't been since they changed the dates. It used to be a pressure cooker valve, but now the ND serves the same purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we were able to use it - but I don't actually see any case for its ongoing existence.

 

[Sanders]

Honestly, there's no justification for the PSD now, and hasn't been since they changed the dates. It used to be a pressure cooker valve, but now the ND serves the same purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we were able to use it - but I don't actually see any case for its ongoing existence.

you couldn’t be more wrong, no matter how many times you copy n paste the same rubbish

the ND requires the buying club to use significant draft capital in a way the PSD doesn’t

 

[Bay62]

I saw that, was writing a reply with all our player trades 2018-present and there was none you could say was difficult at all. (Maybe the Gibbs trade, but that was because of Carlton, not us)
But I CBF having a b**** fight on the sydney board with an ignorant Port troll so I just let it slide.

I actually did that! It upset a few Sydney supporters so I told them to stop whining, it’s not the first time a club has lost a decent player for less than they’re worth.

In response the Port guy said “You have to wonder why so many player want to leave your club” - which of course had nothing to do with his earlier point, so I said “Oh it must be because we’re so hard to deal with!” He totally missed the sarcasm and said “Well I guess we shouldn’t argue about it on a Sydney board” so we left it

Meanwhile I got banned from the thread, had my posts deleted and got a one point infraction

 

[George Kramer]

you couldn’t be more wrong, no matter how many times you copy n paste the same rubbish

the ND requires the buying club to use significant draft capital in a way the PSD doesn’t

Yep, imagine us picking Hately instead of Thilthorpe and Pedlar

 

[Caputo]

Honestly, there's no justification for the PSD now, and hasn't been since they changed the dates. It used to be a pressure cooker valve, but now the ND serves the same purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we were able to use it - but I don't actually see any case for its ongoing existence.

I disagree as the alternative maybe more chaos. With no PSD then clubs negotiating for 'out of contract ' players do not do deal no PSD and OOC player becomes delisted as clubs can't keep non contracted players and the OOF can sign to club of choice.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Honestly, there's no justification for the PSD now, and hasn't been since they changed the dates. It used to be a pressure cooker valve, but now the ND serves the same purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we were able to use it - but I don't actually see any case for its ongoing existence.

I've been saying this for a few years now ...we all know why it was introduced, but since then we have had DFA's introduced and now the Mid-Season Draft that serves the same purpose

Eradicating the PSD allows clubs to get fairer compensation for players "Off Contract" wishing to be traded .....they don't have the threat of the PSD hanging over the Clubs

Players wishing to leave their Club after a Contract is completed, have 3 choices; a) go into the ND Draft pool b) get traded c) wait till the mid-season draft

The Clubs will still have the threat of a mid season draft hanging over them ......the buying club will not want to wait that long to get their player, thus pushing the negotiations more in favor of the selling club

 

[rabidcrow]

I've been saying this for a few years now ...we all know why it was introduced, but since then we have had DFA's introduced and now the Mid-Season Draft that serves the same purpose

Eradicating the PSD allows clubs to get fairer compensation for players "Off Contract" wishing to be traded .....they don't have the threat of the PSD hanging over the Clubs

Players wishing to leave their Club after a Contract is completed, have 3 choices; a) go into the ND Draft pool b) get traded c) wait till the mid-season draft

The Clubs will still have the threat of a mid season draft hanging over them ......the buying club will not want to wait that long to get their player, thus pushing the negotiations more in favor of the selling club

The way it’s currently set up wouldn’t the player just become a DFA and walk to the club of his choice? Probably the better scenario than risking the PSD but would further weaken the selling clubs position

To your suggestion though:
You can’t make a player wait until the mid season draft - using Dawson as an example.
Teams don’t agree on value - the Swans were being absolute Tossers thinking pick 4 could be in play. I didn’t see one of their supporters even suggesting that before all the public grandstanding started, let alone the AFL scribes
So we offer Melbourne pick and Swans say no trade. What happens then?
Dawson goes into National draft or sits out to mid season draft?
Everyone in the AFL didn’t think pick 4 but then Port have (had) pick 16 so they get him?
Out of contract players should be able to move where they want - all you proposal is doing is flipping the power from the buying club to the selling club when in fact the power should sit with the player

If a club is being totally unreasonable (we offer only pick 33 even though we have other assets) then perhaps the AFL needs to arbitrate


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[1970crow]

The way it’s currently set up wouldn’t the player just become a DFA and walk to the club of his choice? Probably the better scenario than risking the PSD but would further weaken the selling clubs position

To your suggestion though:
You can’t make a player wait until the mid season draft - using Dawson as an example.
Teams don’t agree on value - the Swans were being absolute Tossers thinking pick 4 could be in play. I didn’t see one of their supporters even suggesting that before all the public grandstanding started, let alone the AFL scribes
So we offer Melbourne pick and Swans say no trade. What happens then?
Dawson goes into National draft or sits out to mid season draft?
Everyone in the AFL didn’t think pick 4 but then Port have (had) pick 16 so they get him?
Out of contract players should be able to move where they want - all you proposal is doing is flipping the power from the buying club to the selling club when in fact the power should sit with the player

If a club is being totally unreasonable (we offer only pick 33 even though we have other assets) then perhaps the AFL needs to arbitrate


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

If not for the PSD then selling clubs weild too much power. Reality is that it rarely gets used and huge discounts are about as rare, but it ensures that selling clubs negotiate in good faith. This is something that Sydney wasn't doing and why they've pegged the PSD as the problem when it's actually the solution to their poor behaviour.

 

[Crow till I die]

Totally out of left field, but i wonder with each draft pick being given a points value, with clubs finding they lose players due to salary cap pressure, could the AFL look at attributing a monetary value to each draft pick so you could then choose to spend draft picks on salary cap in lieu of drafting players. Great for teams at the top in a window trying to retain players.

Then take for example collingwood were in a world of cap pain past year but if their draft picks that year hypothetically had a monetary value attached worth say an extra $500k they could have forgone their picks for extra cap space and paid and retained their players instead of having to jettison players and still needing to go to the draft to fill list spots.

I am sure there are negatives here but i was thinking there might be some real benefit there too?

 

[Vader]

I disagree as the alternative maybe more chaos. With no PSD then clubs negotiating for 'out of contract ' players do not do deal no PSD and OOC player becomes delisted as clubs can't keep non contracted players and the OOF can sign to club of choice.

Players who delist themselves can't just sign with their club of choice as a DFA. Without the PSD, they would have to nominate for the ND, and take their chances as to which club drafts them. They do, however, have the ability to set terms for $$$ and contract length.

On SM-T510 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rabidcrow]

Players who delist themselves can't just sign with their club of choice as a DFA. Without the PSD, they would have to nominate for the ND, and take their chances as to which club drafts them. They do, however, have the ability to set terms for $$$ and contract length.

On SM-T510 using BigFooty.com mobile app

The players make the game and should have the power. Clubs behave (as expected) too much in their own self interest to give them more power. Dawson case in point

Majority of trades where player nominates where they want to go get down around market value. Dawson being the recent exception because the Swans acted in a ridiculous manner.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Players who delist themselves can't just sign with their club of choice as a DFA. Without the PSD, they would have to nominate for the ND, and take their chances as to which club drafts them. They do, however, have the ability to set terms for $$$ and contract length.

On SM-T510 using BigFooty.com mobile app

rabidcrow ...think this answers your DFA question

Also re making a player wait till the Mid-Season Draft .....that in fact is the carrot to ensure clubs negotiate a suitable trade

Alternatives:
1. Enter the ND
2. Fair Trade between 2 clubs .....with the option of an Arbitrator to assist

ATM the PSD Draft is being used solely as a threat to clubs in negotiations, rather than it's original and now outdated purpose

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The players make the game and should have the power. Clubs behave (as expected) too much in their own self interest to give them more power. Dawson case in point

Majority of trades where player nominates where they want to go get down around market value. Dawson being the recent exception because the Swans acted in a ridiculous manner.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Disagree .....it's the Clubs that make the game ....players are simply transient participants who do put on the show

However for every player there is a replacement ......the Clubs are the constant, and it's them that have developed the players

Players seem to think they've done it all themselves, without any assistance

 

[UcantCme]

If not for the PSD then selling clubs weild too much power. Reality is that it rarely gets used and huge discounts are about as rare, but it ensures that selling clubs negotiate in good faith. This is something that Sydney wasn't doing and why they've pegged the PSD as the problem when it's actually the solution to their poor behaviour.

The PSD remaims purely because it is a control mechanism to manage the legal risk that is restraint of trade.

The AFL, AFLPA and Player Manager inform clubs theough different levels of engagement that if a player is forced into the PSD that he should get to his club of destination.

With that said clubs are encourage to negotiate a fair trade and only use the PSD in the rare exception a deal can't be done.

The PSD is less about equalisation, is all about the control of risk

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Soggy2112]

I’d do it as this:

When a player enters the draft they sign their initial contract, length can be determined by whatever the AFL decides, but I’d say something like 4 years for 1st round picks, 3 for 2nd round, 2 for everyone else and 1 for rookie draft players.

Every contract comes with a 2 year team option, meaning the club has the right to extend the contract by two years if they choose. Alternatively they could negotiate a longer contract extension if they wish.

Essentially then players at the conclusion of their first contract will either:
A) re-sign on likely a 4-5 year deal.
B) accept the two year extension.
C) ask for a trade, which clubs can then facilitate, however it will be from the position of the player being contracted, thus giving clubs back the power.

In this scenario all uncontracted players are UFAs. This works because IMO it gives players greater power as they get to free agency quicker, while also gives the club more power. If a player wants to leave they essentially have the option of keeping them for two years (if they want to leave after that then bad luck), or they can trade the player with the leverage of them being contracted.

 

[1970crow]

The PSD remaims purely because it is a control mechanism to manage the legal risk that is restraint of trade.

The AFL, AFLPA and Player Manager inform clubs theough different levels of engagement that if a player is forced into the PSD that he should get to his club of destination.

With that said clubs are encourage to negotiate a fair trade and only use the PSD in the rare exception a deal can't be done.

The PSD is less about equalisation, is all about the control of risk

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Exactly what I said. It's existence forces clubs to act appropriately thereby making player movement easier, hence reducing the likelihood of RoT action.

 

[Vader]

The PSD remaims purely because it is a control mechanism to manage the legal risk that is restraint of trade.

... except that it's not - because the legal risk is already managed through the ND, rendering the PSD superfluous.

 

[Brenton Davy]

Your username is triggering my PTSD already, might need to change that

Drugs Are Bad Dawson just doesn’t have the same impact…

 

[Golumless]

rabidcrow ...think this answers your DFA question

Also re making a player wait till the Mid-Season Draft .....that in fact is the carrot to ensure clubs negotiate a suitable trade

Alternatives:
1. Enter the ND
2. Fair Trade between 2 clubs .....with the option of an Arbitrator to assist

ATM the PSD Draft is being used solely as a threat to clubs in negotiations, rather than it's original and now outdated purpose

The threat of PSD is and always has been the main purpose of PSD. It is to force the selling club to eventually sell the player, and not allowing them to anchor on a ridiculous price. Why do you think the league hasn't got rid of it in the last 20-30 years?

Keeping them out until the midseason draft or ND are frankly horrible ideas. The power needs to be in the hands of the player here, not clubs. Sitting one out for 6-9 months because clubs have decided to be spiteful (and you can bet your bottom dollar it will happen, seeing not all list managers are created equal), or having them risk another club drafting them are really just a lawsuit waiting to happen for the AFL.

 

[Vader]

The threat of PSD is and always has been the main purpose of PSD. It is to force the selling club to eventually sell the player, and not allowing them to anchor on a ridiculous price. Why do you think the league hasn't got rid of it in the last 20-30 years?

Keeping them out until the midseason draft or ND are frankly horrible ideas. The power needs to be in the hands of the player here, not clubs. Sitting one out for 6-9 months because clubs have decided to be spiteful (and you can bet your bottom dollar it will happen, seeing not all list managers are created equal), or having them risk another club drafting them are really just a lawsuit waiting to happen for the AFL.

You do realise that the ND is before the PSD? They don't have to sit out any time at all.

They have the ability to nominate for the ND in the same year that they delist themselves. They don't need to wait for another 12 months before getting back onto an AFL list - which, I agree, would be completely unconscionable.

 

[Crow-eater]