Opinion "Why free agency has become an unmitigated disaster as a player movement mechanism"

[Art Vandelay_]

Dangerfield and Cameron moved to us when they were RFA, but not technically via FA. Whether they would have moved otherwise, I don't know.

Their FA status is irrelevant. If FA didn't exist they are out of contract players keen on a move. That likely leads to a trade just as it transpired.

Ergo, rightfully calling out Ralph for a false suggestion We've benefited from FA. Our FA haul is rather mid range from an 18 club comparison pov.

 

[eastfreo75]

Love to know how. Was responding to Ralph asserting We've benefited from Free Agency... And Dangerfield was a traded player.

Tell why Dangerfield went for unders in the trade unless he was a free agent?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Tell why Dangerfield went for unders in the trade unless he was a free agent?

That's a bit of nonsensical question I hope you're aware?

If memory serves we didn't even FA bid for him having received word that they'd match given we had more to offer.

At that point the relevant factor is not his FA status but rather his contract status, in this case expiring.

So the value of his trade was dictated by the inability for Adelaide to be able to keep him not free agency.

 

[iameviljez]

Tell why Dangerfield went for unders in the trade unless he was a free agent?

At the time, believe it or not, it wasn't seen as massive 'unders', especially considering that Dangerfield was out of contract.

There are a couple of factors to this:

• Dangerfield was very good at Adelaide, but after he moved, he became the best player in the AFL, making the deal look a lot worse in retrospect.
• The 'makeweight' player, Dean Gore, went backwards upon moving back to Adelaide, and the draft picks didn't produce any stars.

IMO, the Judd deal - which was, IMO, won by West Coast - made clubs reticent to give up too much for players who were out-of-contract anyway. The Dangerfield deal - and the Lachie Neale trade as well (p6, p19 and p55 for Neale and p30) - pushed it back in the other direction, as the players became mega-stars after moving clubs.

 

[eastfreo75]

That's a bit of nonsensical question I hope you're aware?

If memory serves we didn't even FA bid for him having received word that they'd match given we had more to offer.

At that point the relevant factor is not his FA status but rather his contract status, in this case expiring.

So the value of his trade was dictated by the inability for Adelaide to be able to keep him not free agency.

If I was white, you say black.

Adelaide compo was less what they got from trading him. Fact

Pick 15 plus streak knives is a good deal for generational player?

 

[eastfreo75]

At the time, believe it or not, it wasn't seen as massive 'unders', especially considering that Dangerfield was out of contract.

There are a couple of factors to this:

• Dangerfield was very good at Adelaide, but after he moved, he became the best player in the AFL, making the deal look a lot worse in retrospect.
• The 'makeweight' player, Dean Gore, went backwards upon moving back to Adelaide, and the draft picks didn't produce any stars.

IMO, the Judd deal - which was, IMO, won by West Coast - made clubs reticent to give up too much for players who were out-of-contract anyway. The Dangerfield deal - and the Lachie Neale trade as well (p6, p19 and p55 for Neale and p30) - pushed it back in the other direction.

26.8 and one game in this last at Geelong.

Only 3 seasons he did way better at Geelong was his first 3 years.

 

[iameviljez]

26.8 and one game in this last at Geelong.

In English, please?

Only 3 seasons he did way better at Geelong was his first 3 years.

Yes, exactly - he went from being a top-10 player in his final season at Adelaide, to being the best player in the comp in 2016, a close-run second-best in 2017, and top five till probably the pandemic.

Most superstars "only" stay absolute superstars of the comp till they hit roughly age 30. That's pretty normal.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If I was white, you say black.

Adelaide compo was less what they got from trading him. Fact

Pick 15 plus streak knives is a good deal for generational player?

It may have been unders. I'm not arguing that.
Understanding what I am disagreeing with would be a start. Which is on page 1.

Ralph's assertion we're one of the key beneficiaries of FA that's skewing the league. By and large false.

Let's change one detail of that trade. His draft year. He goes to Adelaide 1 year later [in affect happened anyway, as his first year Adelaide let him finish school in Geelong].

That would mean he's OOC in 2015 at Adelaide and seeking to go home but not FA eligible. Are you really asserting a lack of FA status in this hypothetical would have resulted in getting a better deal? The clubs and what they had to trade with would be the exact same, as would Adelaide's inability to keep an OOC player.

Contract status dictated the unders trade valuation. Not free agency.

 

[iameviljez]

If I was white, you say black.

Adelaide compo was less what they got from trading him. Fact

Pick 15 plus streak knives is a good deal for generational player?

It was p9, p28 and Dean Gore for Danger and p50.

p9 slid back to p11 with bids.

Adelaide's compo would have been p13 before bids.

 

[iameviljez]

What they should do is ensure that if a player moves as an FA and the deal has been front ended he has tp pay money back to his club.

If the player is a free agent, then his entire deal - both the bags-o-money years and the lean years - has been paid out to the player in full. By definition, the whole contract has been paid and played.

 

[Elixuh]

Do you wear a tin foil hat when you write this nonsense?

 

[go_the_dockers]

At the time, believe it or not, it wasn't seen as massive 'unders', especially considering that Dangerfield was out of contract.

There are a couple of factors to this:

• Dangerfield was very good at Adelaide, but after he moved, he became the best player in the AFL, making the deal look a lot worse in retrospect.
• The 'makeweight' player, Dean Gore, went backwards upon moving back to Adelaide, and the draft picks didn't produce any stars.

IMO, the Judd deal - which was, IMO, won by West Coast - made clubs reticent to give up too much for players who were out-of-contract anyway. The Dangerfield deal - and the Lachie Neale trade as well (p6, p19 and p55 for Neale and p30) - pushed it back in the other direction, as the players became mega-stars after moving clubs.

He was an absolute star at Adelaide. It was seen as massive unders at the time, but there were no future picks at the time and Geelong only had one first round pick.

For **** sake, he was a 3 time all Australian when he played for Adelaide.

 

[stallon]

I was under the impression that the WAFC don't want to give up control of it...

They could help fund while not directly controlling it

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

The only advantage the bottom sides have in clawing back, is using the PSD to extract uncontracted players for free yet because of some BS unwritten gentlemen's agreement they all seem to ignore this opportunity.

 

[iameviljez]

He was an absolute star at Adelaide. It was seen as massive unders at the time, but there were no future picks at the time and Geelong only had one first round pick.

For **** sake, he was a 3 time all Australian when he played for Adelaide.

He was a star, but not the mega-star that he became the year afterwards. I'm pretty sure that he was the shortest-priced Brownlow favourite in a very, very long time in 2016. It was kindof like he made the leap from being a Caleb Serong or Zak Butters level player, to being a Bontempelli.

 

[go_the_dockers]

He was a star, but not the mega-star that he became the year afterwards. I'm pretty sure that he was the shortest-priced Brownlow favourite in a very, very long time in 2016. It was kindof like he made the leap from being a Caleb Serong or Zak Butters level player, to being a Bontempelli.

I think Vic media watched him and realised how good he was.

Before he was doing the same but for Adelaide.

 

[iameviljez]

I think Vic media watched him and realised how good he was.

Before he was doing the same but for Adelaide.

Disagree - the guy did "only" win one B+F in Adelaide. He was showing serious breakout signs of going to the next level though - that Fyfe vs Dangerfield game was epic.

Even statistically, the guy went from 617 touches, 21 goals and 22 Brownlow votes in his last year at Adelaide, to 762 touches, 24 goals and 35 votes in 2016, and 718 touches, 45 goals and 33 votes in 2017. He was elite at Adelaide, but especially in those first two seasons at Geelong, he was insane.

 

[thejester]

Extraordinary how stupid that article is. The takeaway is that clubs are burdened and players have too much power, and then the examples given are all the stars who are under contract to bin fire clubs and so cannot just walk away?

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Gettable mentioned possible sign-on bonus mechanism for FA going to bottom clubs.

 

[iameviljez]

Extraordinary how stupid that article is. The takeaway is that clubs are burdened and players have too much power, and then the examples given are all the stars who are under contract to bin fire clubs and so cannot just walk away?

Free Agency compo works quite ok if your club is a total bin fire - that's how you get great picks for Ben McKay, James Frawley, Tom Lynch etc.

But seriously - for all the bleating about how players have all the power, the important point is that clubs do not have to keep saying yes to the player.

 

[bluespooner]

Cats / Pies / Hawks and Lions wont like this idea!

Top teams will always benefit from FA and it has been this way for every sporting code all over the world when FA has been brought in. It creates a divide that can never be closed when players always want to leave middle of the road and bottom clubs to go to successful ones.

Bottom and struggling teams will just continue to stay at the bottom and struggle. It is not rocket science and the Salary Cap is BS and just look at the Cats as it is to easy to manipulate it and get around things.

Despite your signature there isn't much common sense in your argument.

Carlton posters are claiming Curnow is worth 2 first round picks plus a quality player. Hawthorn lost a superior player in Franklin and was compensated with pick 19. The clubs that have benefited are those that preferred the compensation picks to the player i.e Melbourne with Frawley and Essendon with Daniher are two that come to mind.

 

[Chism]

Despite your signature there isn't much common sense in your argument.

Carlton posters are claiming Curnow is worth 2 first round picks plus a quality player. Hawthorn lost a superior player in Franklin and was compensated with pick 19. The clubs that have benefited are those that preferred the compensation picks to the player i.e Melbourne with Frawley and Essendon with Daniher are two that come to mind.

Pick 19 means since day dot you get the pick after your own determined by the previous years ladder possy and the Hawks won the flag.

Many will argue TDK we are losing for unders as well with what the AFL are gunna give us in return. The rules are the rules and they suck and if we won the flag this year and lost TDK for the last pick under band 1 compo rules i would take it just to see the flag win.

Hawks are spoilt with the flags they win and full credit to em.

Curnow is not a FA either so comparing him to the AFLs compensation bands is useless. He is contracted till 2029 so if we dont like the trade we make him stay under the contract he signed.

 

[VDS66]

Despite your signature there isn't much common sense in your argument.

Carlton posters are claiming Curnow is worth 2 first round picks plus a quality player. Hawthorn lost a superior player in Franklin and was compensated with pick 19. The clubs that have benefited are those that preferred the compensation picks to the player i.e Melbourne with Frawley and Essendon with Daniher are two that come to mind.

One was a free agent and the other is contracted.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Agree. I'd also add that you give clubs the power to trade players without consent if they have signed a long term deal. In this scenario, if Tracca wants out then Melb trade him to the club that gives a better return.

You then watch how players opt for 2 or 3 year deals.

Yeah I agree 100 %. The reality is i dont think aflpa will ever agree to no consent trades and the aflpa dont have the balls to force it. But what they could do as I suggested is trade the loading of contracts and agents rules. Give agents higher flat fees every year (this would need to a sliding scale so a guy on a rookie deal pays lower agent fees than a top earner) but ban agent commissions being a % of contract and ban them being renegotiated partway through. This would mean players and clubs dont have the same incentive to push a move partway through a front loaded 5 year deal. While I think merrett has different motivations half these other guys asking for moves is because they are halfway through a front loaded deal and the cap has gone up and they or the agent want more cash but dont want to say it publically (so they make up reasons for trades).

 

[Pure_Ownage]

If the player is a free agent, then his entire deal - both the bags-o-money years and the lean years - has been paid out to the player in full. By definition, the whole contract has been paid and played.

Im talking about in contract guys that aren't FA. See lobb curnow etc etc