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

[iameviljez]

Free agency compo system has to change too.

Hawks shouldn't get compo for Worpel since they picked up Battle as a free agent last year and he is on their list. Not sure why they can't apply the rules over a 5 year period or simply if a free agent remains on a list.

Cap the maximum free agents team can get without paying for them to 2 or 3 and if they want more, dock them a draft pick at the contract level and then make it disappear from the draft for everyone else's benefit. I have no problem with some compo to stop teams getting raided but they current system has been designed by a learning impaired, narcissistic goldfish who can't admit he's wrong and make a change.

Completely agree.

Alternatively, IMO, you could work with a system where Geelong has to give Hawthorn a deal as close to the equivalent of x number of draft points as possible (i.e. might be a swap of our R1 for their R2). Clubs have to pay something when acquiring a FA.

 

[iameviljez]

Its not one game though. On average it takes 15 wins to get top 4.

Theres just too many examples of players from Basketcase clubs heading to top 4 teams as free agents. Allen and Draper this year, Joe Daniher in years gone by etc etc.

Yes, but in order to make top 4 you have to win either a QF or a SF.

 

[HBFlanker]

Yes, but in order to make top 4 you have to win either a QF or a SF.

Thats correct, and if you come that far you aren't throwing away a chance at a flag.

 

[iameviljez]

Thats correct, and if you come that far you aren't throwing away a chance at a flag.

I agree it's extremely unlikely, but creating (yet another) perverse incentive to lose is a bad idea IMO.

Nobody thought that people would tank for the number 1 draft pick till Melbourne did it.

 

[Obeanie1]

Its already been said in this thread - but the Victorian clubs are not a monolith.

Do you really think Collingwood and the Bulldogs have the same financial resources at their disposal. West Coast is operating closer to Collingwood than the Bulldogs are.

Financial resources that the AFL doesn't allow rich clubs to utilise to gain advantage over lessor clubs.

Salary cap

Soft cap

So unless a club does a dodgy deal on the side how do rich clubs use their wealth,?

 

[Scotland]

Love that trading players without consent is now on the mainstream agenda. The AFLPA like any union are finding out what happens when you take the piss. The AFL pay the players, the AFLPA are just a representative body. It is a necessary one, but the game would survive without it. But at the end of the day the players are employed by the league via the clubs.

When you sign a contract in the NBA the absolute maximum length is 5 years and the absolute maximum dollar amount is 35% of the salary cap. That % is irrelevant to the AFL where there are squads of 40-45 players. You lock in your money but the understanding is that contract belongs to the team. And those contracts mean something. You don't get to sign for $50m with New Orleans then decide a year later you want to play for the Lakers. You also don't get to sign for $10m then after a good season demand a trade because someone else will pay $20m. You play out the contract you sign.

If you are a Ben Simmons that is highly paid and not producing, you are out the door in a cap dump. You still get paid so don't cry about it. On the flip side the closer you get to your contract expiring, the more trade leverage you have. As good as you are if you are out of contract at the end of the season no one is paying a king's ransom to trade for you if you don't show intention is re-signing.

This stuff really isn't that complicated.

• max contract length of 3-5 years
• max contract amount of say 10%
• max contract for first round draftees of say 5% (exceptions for Daicos, Wingard, Cameron types that win accolades by year 2)
• max contract for first round draftees seeking moves limited to lower than what original club can offer
• no back/front ending of contracts
• all contracts are tradeable, but not immediately (i.e. 3 year deal can be traded after 1, 4 years after 2, 5 years after 3)

 

[Lore]

Love that trading players without consent is now on the mainstream agenda. The AFLPA like any union are finding out what happens when you take the piss. The AFL pay the players, the AFLPA are just a representative body. It is a necessary one, but the game would survive without it. But at the end of the day the players are employed by the league via the clubs.

When you sign a contract in the NBA the absolute maximum length is 5 years and the absolute maximum dollar amount is 35% of the salary cap. That % is irrelevant to the AFL where there are squads of 40-45 players. You lock in your money but the understanding is that contract belongs to the team. And those contracts mean something. You don't get to sign for $50m with New Orleans then decide a year later you want to play for the Lakers. You also don't get to sign for $10m then after a good season demand a trade because someone else will pay $20m. You play out the contract you sign.

If you are a Ben Simmons that is highly paid and not producing, you are out the door in a cap dump. You still get paid so don't cry about it. On the flip side the closer you get to your contract expiring, the more trade leverage you have. As good as you are if you are out of contract at the end of the season no one is paying a king's ransom to trade for you if you don't show intention is re-signing.

This stuff really isn't that complicated.

• max contract length of 3-5 years
• max contract amount of say 10%
• max contract for first round draftees of say 5% (exceptions for Daicos, Wingard, Cameron types that win accolades by year 2)
• max contract for first round draftees seeking moves limited to lower than what original club can offer
• no back/front ending of contracts
• all contracts are tradeable, but not immediately (i.e. 3 year deal can be traded after 1, 4 years after 2, 5 years after 3)

Looks like they might be able to do no consent trading if the player is contracted directly to the league instead of to individual clubs as well (at the moment the contract is co-branded for the AFL and the club, with the club paying the salary with money provided to them by the AFL)

How arrival of mass player movement era 'completely backfired' on the AFL

Three captains from the AFL's four worst-performing clubs are searching for the exit door. It is the symptom of a player movement era that has left the gap between the AFL's strongest and weakest larger than ever.

www.abc.net.au

 

[iameviljez]

Looks like they might be able to do no consent trading if the player is contracted directly to the league instead of to individual clubs as well (at the moment the contract is co-branded for the AFL and the club, with the club paying the salary with money provided to them by the AFL)

How arrival of mass player movement era 'completely backfired' on the AFL

Three captains from the AFL's four worst-performing clubs are searching for the exit door. It is the symptom of a player movement era that has left the gap between the AFL's strongest and weakest larger than ever.

www.abc.net.au

I cannot see it happening, and to be frank I don't want to, either.

I think it only really works in North America because, frankly, they have a culture of treating their employees like shit. It won't fly in a place like Australia.

We accept early-career military and early-career doctors being thrown all over the country/state, but that's about it, where there is a direct and urgent higher national wellbeing need. I don't think playing footy qualifies.

 

[Lore]

I cannot see it happening, and to be frank I don't want to, either.

I think it only really works in North America because, frankly, they have a culture of treating their employees like shit. It won't fly in a place like Australia.

They could put parameters on it, like if you earn over X amount they can move you or something. I almost want to say within the same state or neighbouring states, but that would create an imbalance so doesn’t really work for us in Australia.

Possibly could do it with some sort of lead time too, like can trade them anywhere with 12 months notice (so player knows they’re moving at the end of the following year and can plan accordingly for their families).

 

[iameviljez]

They could put parameters on it, like if you earn over X amount they can move you or something. I almost want to say within the same state or neighbouring states, but that would create an imbalance so doesn’t really work for us in Australia.

Possibly could do it with some sort of lead time too, like can trade them anywhere with 12 months notice (so player knows they’re moving at the end of the following year and can plan accordingly for their families).

IMO there are easier ways to fix the problem that non-consent trading is trying to address.

NGL, my view on this is coloured somewhat by my experiences of living interstate during Mum's cancer that she contracted when I was 31yo (she died when I was 35), and being married to someone with a niche career that is not easily transferrable interstate. There is a much, much bigger price to pay with being moved interstate without consent at age 30 than there is at age 18.

 

[Lore]

IMO there are easier ways to fix the problem that non-consent trading is trying to address.

NGL, my view on this is coloured somewhat by my experiences of living interstate during Mum's cancer that she contracted when I was 31yo (she died when I was 35), and being married to someone with a niche career that is not easily transferrable interstate. There is a much, much bigger price to pay with being moved interstate without consent at age 30 than there is at age 18.

Yeah I think there would need to be compassionate reasons for doing particular things in particular ways. That’s also one of the reasons why I suggested putting some lead time on it if the player doesn’t consent so there’s time to prepare for it.

On the other hand you’re pursuing a nationalised career in the AFL. If you can’t move interstate perhaps it’s the wrong career choice at that stage in life.

I’m sure there was a player at west coast a year or two ago who retired so his wife could pursue her sports career? I forget the name but he was like 29 or something at the time

 

[iameviljez]

I’m sure there was a player at west coast a year or two ago who retired so his wife could pursue her sports career? I forget the name but he was like 29 or something at the time

Exactly - and I don't think that's a choice that players should have to make if they don't have to, not at that age.

On the other hand you’re pursuing a nationalised career in the AFL. If you can’t move interstate perhaps it’s the wrong career choice at that stage in life.

Yeah, but you can't exactly put off an AFL career till you're an empty-nester
It's not so much the cost to the player that I'm thinking of, it's the cost to everyone else in the player's orbit who cops the hit but without all of the benefits.

 

[Lore]

Exactly - and I don't think that's a choice that players should have to make if they don't have to, not at that age.


Yeah, but you can't exactly put off an AFL career till you're an empty-nester
It's not so much the cost to the player that I'm thinking of, it's the cost to everyone else in the player's orbit who cops the hit but without all of the benefits.

I’m sure plenty of WA and SA based players choose to play state league footy because they don’t want the risk of being drafted interstate, even if you can be traded home after a couple of years (assuming West Coast or Freo even want you).

 

[iameviljez]

I’m sure plenty of WA and SA based players choose to play state league footy because they don’t want the risk of being drafted interstate, even if you can be traded home after a couple of years (assuming West Coast or Freo even want you).

Not at 18 - I think we'd know about it if a promising young junior in SA or WA decided not to pursue an AFL career.

However, there are plenty who shift and then absolutely struggle.

 

[thistimeforsure]

Love that trading players without consent is now on the mainstream agenda. The AFLPA like any union are finding out what happens when you take the piss. The AFL pay the players, the AFLPA are just a representative body. It is a necessary one, but the game would survive without it. But at the end of the day the players are employed by the league via the clubs.

When you sign a contract in the NBA the absolute maximum length is 5 years and the absolute maximum dollar amount is 35% of the salary cap. That % is irrelevant to the AFL where there are squads of 40-45 players. You lock in your money but the understanding is that contract belongs to the team. And those contracts mean something. You don't get to sign for $50m with New Orleans then decide a year later you want to play for the Lakers. You also don't get to sign for $10m then after a good season demand a trade because someone else will pay $20m. You play out the contract you sign.

If you are a Ben Simmons that is highly paid and not producing, you are out the door in a cap dump. You still get paid so don't cry about it. On the flip side the closer you get to your contract expiring, the more trade leverage you have. As good as you are if you are out of contract at the end of the season no one is paying a king's ransom to trade for you if you don't show intention is re-signing.

This stuff really isn't that complicated.

• max contract length of 3-5 years
• max contract amount of say 10%
• max contract for first round draftees of say 5% (exceptions for Daicos, Wingard, Cameron types that win accolades by year 2)
• max contract for first round draftees seeking moves limited to lower than what original club can offer
• no back/front ending of contracts
• all contracts are tradeable, but not immediately (i.e. 3 year deal can be traded after 1, 4 years after 2, 5 years after 3)

Not a NBA watcher but did they make all those rules in one hit

 

[Lore]

all contracts are tradeable, but not immediately (i.e. 3 year deal can be traded after 1, 4 years after 2, 5 years after 3)

Actually this bit is kind of interesting.

Perhaps short term contracts are with the clubs directly and need consent for trading but longer term contracts are with the league and can be traded without consent.

So if you want the contract with more job security then you trade off the right to play at that one club for the whole period.

 

[iameviljez]

Actually this bit is kind of interesting.

Perhaps short term contracts are with the clubs directly and need consent for trading but longer term contracts are with the league and can be traded without consent.

So if you want the contract with more job security then you trade off the right to play at that one club for the whole period.

There is one easy solution that kind of gets overlooked here - hold the player to the contract. All this bleating that the media goes on about with "contracts meaning nothing" - well, they mean something if you decide they do. Trades under contract need the consent of all three parties involved.

 

[Scotland]

Not a NBA watcher but did they make all those rules in one hit

Most have been in place for ages. They tweak things from year to year like Bird rights (i.e. being able to re-sign your own free agents because you drafted them/traded for them) and things like the max and supermax contract provisions evolved over time.

One of the biggest things they have is a soft salary cap. If you want to sign a $20m free agent, you have to have $20m cap space. IF you want to trade for a $20m player, you need to have $20m cap space or send $20m back the other way. This is one of the biggest issues the AFL has. Just looking at last year ANB, Darling, Baker, Bolton, Barrass, Smith etc. would all be average to above average paid players and all were traded for picks only. With Richmond if you assume they were paying Baker/Bolton/Graham/Rioli a combined $2m then that's $2m they have to spend on someone this year and their 6 first round picks are at most going to cost them about $1-1.2m.

Interesting the last CBA they negotiated has made it harder to teams over the cap to add players to their roster, and with the cap tweaks we've seen this off season that it's not a good time to be an RFA.

 

[Scotland]

Actually this bit is kind of interesting.

Perhaps short term contracts are with the clubs directly and need consent for trading but longer term contracts are with the league and can be traded without consent.

So if you want the contract with more job security then you trade off the right to play at that one club for the whole period.

Security is financial. Angus Brayshaw still got paid. Petracca and Oliver are still getting paid. If they don't perform Melbourne are stuck with them unless they seek a move elsewhere.

Specifically for the NBA if you sign a new deal you either can't be traded until the next season or the trade deadline (season starts in Oct, deadline in Feb). If you are a free agent you can also negotiate a sign-and-trade which under current AFL rules doesn't mean anything as salary caps are imaginary.

What we're seeing in the AFL is that established players seem to have maximum trade value as pre-agents. Because we are conditioned to out of contract players being traded rather than just leaving like they do in most other sports. And until recently if players re-signed for 4, 5, 6 years you weren't expecting to hear from them mid contract that they want out.

Hawthorn no having to match the salary of the incoming player and Essendon not being able to negotiate with whoever they want really cooks the dynamics of a potential Merrett trade. It's the same for everyone but rarely to teams walk away from trades thinking they got a massive haul for a player because genuine bidding wars are so rare. Most trade 'wins' are judged in hindsight, e.g. Judd to Carlton.

The other alternative which is rarer but exists in the NFL is non guaranteed contracts. We'll pay you $1m a year for 6 years, but if after year3 or 4 you can't get a kick we get to release you and then you can go sign a new contract elsewhere. AFLPA would never agree to this.

 

[Lore]

Security is financial. Angus Brayshaw still got paid. Petracca and Oliver are still getting paid. If they don't perform Melbourne are stuck with them unless they seek a move elsewhere.

Specifically for the NBA if you sign a new deal you either can't be traded until the next season or the trade deadline (season starts in Oct, deadline in Feb). If you are a free agent you can also negotiate a sign-and-trade which under current AFL rules doesn't mean anything as salary caps are imaginary.

What we're seeing in the AFL is that established players seem to have maximum trade value as pre-agents. Because we are conditioned to out of contract players being traded rather than just leaving like they do in most other sports. And until recently if players re-signed for 4, 5, 6 years you weren't expecting to hear from them mid contract that they want out.

Hawthorn no having to match the salary of the incoming player and Essendon not being able to negotiate with whoever they want really cooks the dynamics of a potential Merrett trade. It's the same for everyone but rarely to teams walk away from trades thinking they got a massive haul for a player because genuine bidding wars are so rare. Most trade 'wins' are judged in hindsight, e.g. Judd to Carlton.

The other alternative which is rarer but exists in the NFL is non guaranteed contracts. We'll pay you $1m a year for 6 years, but if after year3 or 4 you can't get a kick we get to release you and then you can go sign a new contract elsewhere. AFLPA would never agree to this.

NBA is a tricky comparison because the value of a single player in a team of 5 is significant. One player doesn’t usually make that much impact in AFL, unless they’re very highly paid and usually on a pretty long contract.

 

[Scotland]

NBA is a tricky comparison because the value of a single player in a team of 5 is significant. One player doesn’t usually make that much impact in AFL, unless they’re very highly paid and usually on a pretty long contract.

True. Sydney won the GF in 2012 against the Hawks with Buddy, then lost the 2014 GF with Buddy against the Hawks. Gold Coast with Ablett were only competitive for a brief period in 2013/14. Those are the closest examples I can think of involving the best player in the game at the time.

I am still a believer in max contract provisions (not 35% of the cap, that doesn't work in an 18 a side game). I also think that RFA should be earlier and genuinely restricted.

 

[Lore]

True. Sydney won the GF in 2012 against the Hawks with Buddy, then lost the 2014 GF with Buddy against the Hawks. Gold Coast with Ablett were only competitive for a brief period in 2013/14. Those are the closest examples I can think of involving the best player in the game at the time.

I am still a believer in max contract provisions (not 35% of the cap, that doesn't work in an 18 a side game). I also think that RFA should be earlier and genuinely restricted.

100 games for RFA, make the salary cap count

I could go with like 15% on one player as a cap. Or maybe a version of the tiers that the AFLW has (but a bit more nuanced with bands rather than specific salaries at each tier).

 

[Scotland]

100 games for RFA, make the salary cap count

I could go with like 15% on one player as a cap. Or maybe a version of the tiers that the AFLW has (but a bit more nuanced with bands rather than specific salaries at each tier).

That's about $2.7m currently. Good of you can get it!

The NBA also have team and player options. So you can sign for 2+1 or 3+1 etc. Rookie contracts for first round picks are a standard 2 year guaranteed 2 year team option. LeBron James famously signs shorter deals to put pressure on his teams to do what he wants. Other players on 4 and 5 year deals will sign extensions as soon as they are eligible.

Feel dirty saying nice things about Geelong but both Danger and Jeremy Cameron played 8 years at their clubs and didn't sign beyond RFA. They easily could've locked in long term deals and then asked to be traded but IMO Adelaide and GWS are better off for them not committing long term and then doing a backflip. Harley Reid is effectively signed up for 5 years with a 2 year extension and I think that's fine. If we're as bad as we are now in another 3 years I'll be looking for a new club too. Managing the cap over a period of 2-4 years at a time is not easy in the AFL system.

 

[Lore]

That's about $2.7m currently. Good of you can get it!

The NBA also have team and player options. So you can sign for 2+1 or 3+1 etc. Rookie contracts for first round picks are a standard 2 year guaranteed 2 year team option. LeBron James famously signs shorter deals to put pressure on his teams to do what he wants. Other players on 4 and 5 year deals will sign extensions as soon as they are eligible.

Feel dirty saying nice things about Geelong but both Danger and Jeremy Cameron played 8 years at their clubs and didn't sign beyond RFA. They easily could've locked in long term deals and then asked to be traded but IMO Adelaide and GWS are better off for them not committing long term and then doing a backflip. Harley Reid is effectively signed up for 5 years with a 2 year extension and I think that's fine. If we're as bad as we are now in another 3 years I'll be looking for a new club too. Managing the cap over a period of 2-4 years at a time is not easy in the AFL system.

In a year 2.7 is probably not too crazy in the current day (front loaded). If you have default contract smoothing over the contract term then the max would need to be lower. And you’d probably have to smooth it out if you wanted to trade them half way through their contracts without “you pay out this much and I pay that much” shenanigans.

 

[Scotland]

In a year 2.7 is probably not too crazy in the current day (front loaded). If you have default contract smoothing over the contract term then the max would need to be lower. And you’d probably have to smooth it out if you wanted to trade them half way through their contracts without “you pay out this much and I pay that much” shenanigans.

Need to get rid of front/back ending contracts though. Every club does it but if one of the 4 teams playing this week paying 100% of the cap can sign a band 1 free agent then it kinda defeats the purpose of the cap. It doesn't exist to prevent players from going where they want, it exists so that players (like TDK for example) have to balance money vs prospects of success. You can look up NBA payrolls and know which teams can afford big free agents and which cannot easily.

Theoretically something this could happen this year:

Merrett -> Hawks for picks
Allen -> Lions for compo pick
Curnow -> Suns for picks
Wilkie -> Dogs for picks
Petracca -> Crows for picks
Simpkin -> Cats for picks

Good for those clubs if it happens, but is it really good for the league?