What do you think about a Mid Season Trade Period.

[Free Agent]

How “no-brainer“ mid-season trade period could save West Coast years on a rebuild

“I think the AFL have to look at this mid-season trade period and have to look at it immediately.“

www.sen.com.au

I had a good read of this idea. At first I was like yeah get stuffed. Wouldn't trade some of the players mentioned but the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to it.

So it's a mid season trade period where teams are able to use draft picks as leverage. So if this were to happen we could potentially offload a few players for some picks and use them later on in the year and have a monster draft.

Only thing is how does it work if we let go of players for draft picks. That would mean we won't have as many players to use for the remainder of the season while a top side could have 50 players on there list.

What do you think.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Could have benefits for players not getting a game at their current team, eg if a team like Carlton desperately needs key defenders and someone like Freo has so many they’re leaving quality guys in the WAFL, then a trade would benefit all parties.

The issue I have with it is if it’s used for the strong teams to get better by picking the eyes out of the teams at the bottom of the ladder. For example, King’s suggestion in that article you posted - NicNat to Geelong, Gov to the Bulldogs etc. All it’ll mean is that the bad teams (us) are even further behind the good teams and there’ll be more unwatchable games in the back half of the season.

I don’t know how you design a mid season trade system that allows the first type of trades and blocks the second.

 

[navi_]

A great idea to maximise the amount of players to play AFL footy who should otherwise be doing so.

But the consequences are a bit too polarising, both short and long term.. kind of the opposite of every single equalisation policy we have.

 

[WCE_phil]

TBH and I haven't read the article but I think it would work along the lines of free agency whereby top teams fill holes in their efforts to maximise the chance of a premiership.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

There's no way the AFL will be able set something like this up without completely stuffing it up.

I can imagine all the best GWS and Gold Coast players walking out mid season for a shot at the premiership instead of at the end of the year where it's much more of a gamble predicting which team will be your best chance.

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

It would have to be players only, no picks, 24 hour trade period, where clubs can trade contracted players (eg not uncontacted at the end of the year) 3+ years in the system and players have no say. It would be actually interesting, instead of players nominating clubs who are aren't free agents and are contracted, and would get rid of player agents hold on trades.wes coast could trade McGovern, nic Nat for younger players like an English, dogs need a key back, they could trade out English for those two

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Putting restrictions on trading like players only, three-plus years experience only, multi-year contracts only, would do the opposite of make it interesting. It’d basically prevent any trades from happening.

 

[jaxxon]

Could have benefits for players not getting a game at their current team, eg if a team like Carlton desperately needs key defenders and someone like Freo has so many they’re leaving quality guys in the WAFL, then a trade would benefit all parties.

The issue I have with it is if it’s used for the strong teams to get better by picking the eyes out of the teams at the bottom of the ladder. For example, King’s suggestion in that article you posted - NicNat to Geelong, Gov to the Bulldogs etc. All it’ll mean is that the bad teams (us) are even further behind the good teams and there’ll be more unwatchable games in the back half of the season.

I don’t know how you design a mid season trade system that allows the first type of trades and blocks the second.

I thought this too, but as King said somewhere, clubs will pay more midyear if they are a chance at the flag than they would in the off season. It would end up accelerating rebuilds for the lower clubs as a result.

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

Putting restrictions on trading like players only, three-plus years experience only, multi-year contracts only, would do the opposite of make it interesting. It’d basically prevent any trades from happening.

You can't have young guys leave clubs that have been there only 1 or 2 years, especially if they're from interstate, why have a draft, I'm happy for guys end of a contract, to get traded but a lot would get done if it was clubs call, rather than player decides

 

[element]

Immediate flow on effects would be clubs bottoming out will get worse by trading away players, whilst clubs performing well (i.e. window open) will become better by trading in key players.
More blowouts, more of a disparity between the top 4 and bottom 4, and more ammo for people to call tanking.
Is it better for the clubs that take advantage? Probably.
Is it better for the fans to see the poor teams play even poorer (if they trade out their best players) and the top teams to stomp them? Maybe not.

Rules that would need to be in place:

• Trading a maximum of 1 player in your top 10 (based on salary or b&f, however you want to measure it)
• Maximum of 2, maybe 3, players out.
• Maximum of 1, maybe 2, players in.
• No trades on players drafted within the last 2 years.
• Maybe only trade draft picks for the following year?

I'm sure there are more holes in this idea that the Titanic (or one giant iceberg sized hole), but with the above you'd ensure top teams trade for only their most pressing need and bottom teams do not sell the farm and go 0-12 in the second half of the year.
Maybe.

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

Immediate flow on effects would be clubs bottoming out will get worse by trading away players, whilst clubs performing well (i.e. window open) will become better by trading in key players.
More blowouts, more of a disparity between the top 4 and bottom 4, and more ammo for people to call tanking.
Is it better for the clubs that take advantage? Probably.
Is it better for the fans to see the poor teams play even poorer (if they trade out their best players) and the top teams to stomp them? Maybe not.

Rules that would need to be in place:

• Trading a maximum of 1 player in your top 10 (based on salary or b&f, however you want to measure it)
• Maximum of 2, maybe 3, players out.
• Maximum of 1, maybe 2, players in.
• No trades on players drafted within the last 2 years.
• Maybe only trade draft picks for the following year?

I'm sure there are more holes in this idea that the Titanic (or one giant iceberg sized hole), but with the above you'd ensure top teams trade for only their most pressing need and bottom teams do not sell the farm and go 0-12 in the second half of the year.
Maybe.

They have to fit the player in their salary, it's not that easy

 

[element]

They have to fit the player in their salary, it's not that easy

Good point. Certainly then you wouldn't get a case of Melbourne just outright paying for Cripps and Yeo in one go.

But something like the Dogs trading for Gov in exchange for a 1st + a future 2nd, with West Coast paying half his salary. WC would take that offer in a heartbeat given there's very few players commanding a top end salary for the foreseeable future. Or they could offer an early 2nd for Barrass and cop the much lower cost.
Clubs clearly in a window might consider giving up extra picks just to have bottom clubs pay salaries of the traded players and it could still work out for both parties.

But yes, it's an interesting idea that needs to be thoroughly hashed out beforehand and rules put in place to negate any unintended effects.

 

[Igavemyloveachicken]

Not a fan of the concept especially if the player traded in only has the security of the remainder of that year.
I'd be more inclined to support the concept if the player was offered an 18 month contract (the remainder of the year he was traded plus the following year).
Big ask to get a player to up-root his whole life, family connection, study, interstate relocation for only a 6 month period.
Not every trend from other sports need to be incorporated into AFL.
Whilst slightly different the NRL model of having players sign for other clubs mid year before concluding the year at their current club leaves a bit of a sour taste in the mouth of supporters from what I understand.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

I wouldn't mind it, but then I'd think the better/mid range players playing for bottom ten teams deliberately tanking their performance to somehow force their way to a contending team then all of a sudden they start playing like world beaters again

 

[eagles rule]

No not interested to see this happen..


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app