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

[Freomaniac]

No your point is still stupid.

10 teams is fine when the state produces the bulk of the talent.

10 teams dilutes the Vic pool.

Less teams means even if you get rid of 2 teams the other 8 get collectively stronger.

On the other hand , WAFL and SANFL produced lots of decent young talent in the 1980s, 1990s and even deep into the 2000s.

Now there is bugger all talent produced in those 2 states in the last few years.

 

[Bostonian]

On the other hand , WAFL and SANFL produced lots of decent young talent in the 1980s, 1990s and even deep into the 2000s.

Now there is bugger all talent produced in those 2 states in the last few years.

The AFL don't care about the heartlands of football. They take it all for granted.

They are obsessed with their money pit start up kits.

 

[WilloTree]

I wonder what Dean Gore is up to these days.

Apart from sitting at sportsman's quiz nights and dreading the inevitable question coming up about him.

 

[iameviljez]

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

Well then the club can just choose not to trade them IMO.

If the club decides to front end a contract, that’s their risk to take.

 

[iameviljez]

The AFL don't care about the heartlands of football. They take it all for granted.

They are obsessed with their money pit start up kits.

I’m pretty sure the WAFL and SANFL have tried to run it independently of the AFL though?

 

[Bostonian]

I’m pretty sure the WAFL and SANFL have tried to run it independently of the AFL though?

AFL is still involved through NGA.

If the AFL cared enough it wouldn't have allowed it to slip to the point where once fertile recruiting states have dropped off the pace.

 

[HBFlanker]

These are the changes that need to be made immediately:

1. Top 4 finishing teams are excluded from bringing in free agents in the subsequent free agency period
2. Father son rule abolished as of 2030
3. Academies reconfigured between all clubs in terms of regions and only 3 academy players per club allowed on primary list at any given time
4. All players on a second or subsequent contract are eligible to be traded without consent
5. All drafted players are ineligible to be traded until end of two year contract (Scrap 3 year contracts for top 20)

This clears the draft right up and actually allows rebuilds.

 

[iameviljez]

These are the changes that need to be made immediately:

1. Top 4 finishing teams are excluded from bringing in free agents in the subsequent free agency period
2. Father son rule abolished as of 2030
3. Academies reconfigured between all clubs in terms of regions and only 3 academy players per club allowed on primary list at any given time
4. All players on a second or subsequent contract are eligible to be traded without consent
5. All drafted players are ineligible to be traded until end of two year contract (Scrap 3 year contracts for top 20)

This clears the draft right up and actually allows rebuilds.

These are the changes that need to be made immediately:

1. Top 4 finishing teams are excluded from bringing in free agents in the subsequent free agency period

Hell no, we already incentivise tanking as much as we can.

2. Father son rule abolished as of 2030

Hard disagree, father-son is one of the best parts of the game.

3. Academies reconfigured between all clubs in terms of regions and only 3 academy players per club allowed on primary list at any given time

Again, I disagree - this is a return to the old zoning system that delivered us the highly uncompetitive 70s and 80s.

4. All players on a second or subsequent contract are eligible to be traded without consent

Absolutely no way José, we are not the USA. The knock on effect for players’ families is just way too much.

5. All drafted players are ineligible to be traded until end of two year contract (Scrap 3 year contracts for top 20)

Yeah, that’s fair.

This clears the draft right up and actually allows rebuilds.

 

[HBFlanker]

Hell no, we already incentivise tanking as much as we can.

Hard disagree, father-son is one of the best parts of the game.

Again, I disagree - this is a return to the old zoning system that delivered us the highly uncompetitive 70s and 80s.

Absolutely no way José, we are not the USA. The knock on effect for players’ families is just way too much.

Yeah, that’s fair.

How does removing top 4 finishing teams from free agency, promote tanking?

Father son is so archaic its actually a joke. Theres a reason that the AFL are the only code in the world that do this. Its because its ridiculous.

What is the knock on affect for players families when they are earning an average of 450k per year? I think they will be okay.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Again, I disagree - this is a return to the old zoning system that delivered us the highly uncompetitive 70s and 80s.

Compared to these days that are highly uncompetitive.

I can't imagine those days would have been any worse.

 

[HBFlanker]

Compared to these days that are highly uncompetitive.

I can't imagine those days would have been any worse.

Clubs already have zones, so i don't understand this posters point.

There was huge conjecture 10 years ago with the Riverina zone being exclusive to GWS, and that was removed.

 

[iameviljez]

Compared to these days that are highly uncompetitive.

I can't imagine those days would have been any worse.

I disagree. Fast forward 10 years and any of the 18 teams could be winning the flag.
The current worst team of the AFL won a flag just seven years ago.

 

[iameviljez]

How does removing top 4 finishing teams from free agency, promote tanking?

Because getting Zak Butters is probably more valuable to a club than winning some semi-final.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I disagree. Fast forward 10 years and any of the 18 teams could be winning the flag.
The current worst team of the AFL won a flag just seven years ago.

As long as they are victorian, or have an academy then they are a good chance.

The fact it takes you 5 plus years to rebuild is the issue, but why would a Geelong supporter want to change a system that advantages them.

 

[HBFlanker]

Because getting Zak Butters is probably more valuable to a club than winning some semi-final.

So you genuinely think a club would tank a final to potentially pick up a player?

 

[iameviljez]

How does removing top 4 finishing teams from free agency, promote tanking?

Father son is so archaic its actually a joke. Theres a reason that the AFL are the only code in the world that do this. Its because its ridiculous.

What is the knock on affect for players families when they are earning an average of 450k per year? I think they will be okay.

The knock on effect is having to leave behind family, friendship, your own career, support network etc.

Money isn't everything, and even if it were, $450k/year isn't ****-you money.

 

[iameviljez]

As long as they are victorian, or have an academy then they are a good chance.

Oh ok so anyone except the four Western teams

 

[iameviljez]

So you genuinely think a club would tank a final to potentially pick up a player?

A semi final where you were nothing better than an outside chance of winning a flag? Maybe, if it were a genuine Lance Franklin/GAJ style footballer.

And it's incredibly silly that just winning one game would lock you out of trading into a footballer entirely.

 

[captain bloodsport]

Make salaries public.

 

[iameviljez]

Overall, I agree that the Academy, FA compo and F/S stuff has diluted the draft too much - but the obvious solution is to make the clubs who are acquiring players pay more for what they get. The points allocation per pick is too small, and the discount is ridiculous.

The idea that we can pick up Worpel as an FA for nothing, but then all clubs with picks directly after Hawthorn's compo get disadvantaged, is a bit silly for mine. We should have to pay Hawthorn some kind of draft pick value equivalent to a certain set of points, at the very least.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Top 8 sides should be excluded from first 2 rounds of the draft, this would allow sides at the bottom and in the middle no man's land to fast-track development, give them assets that are worth trading for and would likely remove most of the incentive to tank.

ie -
18 - Pick 1 & 21
17- Pick 2 & 20
16- pick 4 & 19
15- Pick 5 & 18
14- Pick 6 & 17
13- Pick 7 & 16
12- Pick 8 & 15
11- Pick 9 & 14
10- Pick 10 & 13
9- Pick 11 & 12
8 - Pick 22
7 - Pick 23

 

[iameviljez]

The fact it takes you 5 plus years to rebuild is the issue, but why would a Geelong supporter want to change a system that advantages them.

Oh, look, I think that the current FA system encourages already-good clubs to just keep surfing the wave, and it needs to be changed. But I disagree with the proposed changes; in particular, I think we need to be made to pay for free agents.

 

[Purple Suit]

Overall, I agree that the Academy, FA compo and F/S stuff has diluted the draft too much - but the obvious solution is to make the clubs who are acquiring players pay more for what they get. The points allocation per pick is too small, and the discount is ridiculous.

The idea that we can pick up Worpel as an FA for nothing, but then all clubs with picks directly after Hawthorn's compo get disadvantaged, is a bit silly for mine. We should have to pay Hawthorn some kind of draft pick value equivalent to a certain set of points, at the very least.

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.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Top 8 sides should be excluded from first 2 rounds of the draft, this would allow sides at the bottom and in the middle no man's land to fast-track development, give them assets that are worth trading for and would likely remove most of the incentive to tank.

ie -
18 - Pick 1 & 21
17- Pick 2 & 20
16- pick 4 & 19
15- Pick 5 & 18
14- Pick 6 & 17
13- Pick 7 & 16
12- Pick 8 & 15
11- Pick 9 & 14
10- Pick 10 & 13
9- Pick 11 & 12
8 - Pick 22
7 - Pick 23

18 - Pick 1 and 12
17 - Pick 2 and 14
16 - Pick 3 and 16
15 - Pick 4 and 18
..
10 - Pick 10 and 28
9 - Pick 11 and 30
8 - Pick 13 and 32
1 - 27 and ..


This way there is not a big drop off between 8 and 9, but it would make rebuilds quicker.

 

[HBFlanker]

A semi final where you were nothing better than an outside chance of winning a flag? Maybe, if it were a genuine Lance Franklin/GAJ style footballer.

And it's incredibly silly that just winning one game would lock you out of trading into a footballer entirely.

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.