Bumped

[ace]

The bump has returned.
As had been feared the stupidity of the AFL free agency compensation arrangements have delivered Melbourne pick No 3 in the National draft in return for losing James Frawley.
If Frawley had been a Hawthorn player, Hawthorn would have received pick No 19 as compensation.

The structure of the compensation system encourages lowly teams to let go players of the dubious calibre of Frawley without resistance.

It also means our draft picks have been bumped.
We now have picks Nos 1, 22, 41, 60, 78, 96, 114.
However at the moment after clearing 6 spaces on the senior list and promoting 3 rookies we have only activated picks 1, 22, 41.
Milera being removed from the list is probably a formality so that would activate pick 60.

If only he qualified as a free agent, he would be valuable.

[dragit]

We'll have more room when we trade out Armo, Steven & Billings.

[plugger66]

The other option is no compensation.

[Bunk_Moreland]

The other option is no compensation.

Only two options?

Why not other options like no compo in the top 8, best can be pick 9 so the bottom eight teams aren't over compensated or unfairly penalised.

Or no compo for top fur teams etc.

Can be more than just compo or not

[Bunk_Moreland]

pick 3 for Dees

[The_Merchant]

Should have been end of first round. But players values always get over-inflated when they are up for trade. Problem is there are limited brackets for players to fit into. Franklin and Goddard are obviously band 1 compo, someone like Frawley should be band 2 (IMHO). Don't have a problem with band 1 being pick 3, just don't think he should be band 1.

[plugger66]

The other option is no compensation.

Only two options?

Why not other options like no compo in the top 8, best can be pick 9 so the bottom eight teams aren't over compensated or unfairly penalised.

Or no compo for top fur teams etc.

Can be more than just compo or not

Because its FA and the players will get less movement if there are restrictions on their movement. Surely a bottom side deserves excellent compo if they lose a player who is going to command 4 years and 700K a year.

[skeptic]

I guess the issue is, is how much a club willing to pay a player an accurate assessment of their worth?

Whilst i see the flaws, i'm hard pressed on a better way

[Bernard Shakey]

For free agency to be free, there should be no compensation.

It is a joke as it is now!

[saintspremiers]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

[plugger66]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

[saintspremiers]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

Why can't the AFL use their brains and if so determine, say, a mid first round pick?

They have some weird arse formula just like the MRP that at times is too rigid for it's own good.

No one can argue Buddy was worth pick 19 as fair compo, Premier or no premier. It's farcical.

Think laterally plugs if you can....or just stay compliant.

[plugger66]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

Why can't the AFL use their brains and if so determine, say, a mid first round pick?

They have some weird arse formula just like the MRP that at times is too rigid for it's own good.

Think laterally plugs if you can....or just stay compliant.

Like someone said today on radio it would take pick 3 to get an AA FB. Every club knows the rules so why does it matter. I could really imagine your whinging next year if they changed it and Jack decided to go. You would be the first to start a thread. It seems Hawthorn think this guy is a very good player because they seem to make some pretty good choices.

[saintspremiers]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

Why can't the AFL use their brains and if so determine, say, a mid first round pick?

They have some weird arse formula just like the MRP that at times is too rigid for it's own good.

Think laterally plugs if you can....or just stay compliant.

Like someone said today on radio it would take pick 3 to get an AA FB. Every club knows the rules so why does it matter. I could really imagine your whinging next year if they changed it and Jack decided to go. You would be the first to start a thread. It seems Hawthorn think this guy is a very good player because they seem to make some pretty good choices.

Hawthorn don't have to give up a pick for him, just a juicy contract.

[plugger66]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

Why can't the AFL use their brains and if so determine, say, a mid first round pick?

They have some weird arse formula just like the MRP that at times is too rigid for it's own good.

Think laterally plugs if you can....or just stay compliant.

Like someone said today on radio it would take pick 3 to get an AA FB. Every club knows the rules so why does it matter. I could really imagine your whinging next year if they changed it and Jack decided to go. You would be the first to start a thread. It seems Hawthorn think this guy is a very good player because they seem to make some pretty good choices.

Hawthorn don't have to give up a pick for him, just a juicy contract.

I think I know that but they don't have a habit lately of wasting money. The other option is no compensation which is how a lot of FA works but then I can imagine a thread started by you when we lost BJ and Dal.

[Ghost Like]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

I've said before, FREE in Free Agency is meant for the player. He's free to move on from the club that drafted him. FREE should not apply to the club he goes to, nor should free mean the club he leaves receives nothing after grooming an obviously excellent AFL standard player. Hawthorn should have given their first round pick IMO.

I believe this FA is a smoke & mirror initiative by the AFL to give the AFLPA something to make themselves feel good. Let's face it, players have always got to where they wanted. We got Gehrig & Hamill, Carlton got Judd, Hawthorn got Croad back, Collingwood got Ball, Sydney got Tippett, there were no restrictions that could stop those transfers.

If FA was to be truly free, then there would not be a salary cap, after all that is what restricts all the gun players from arriving at one club. Thank god for the salary cap!

This crap about the AFL being worried about restraint of trade??? Why then is there a draft? Why are young players having their trade restricted? I think another con by the AFL >>> these guys kick, mark, handball, run after a footy better than anyone else in the country, they are paid what the market allows, if their initial club cannot afford them & that is all that is important, another club will find the money. The players are really just employees of the AFL. If you imagine the AFL being a major construction or mining company and the players the tradies / miners, they don't always get to their favoured work sites but depending on their skills, their contract and need by another site (if they can afford them in their budget), they get to move.

Sadly, the way things are within the AFL (especially during a time of heavily compromised drafts) with this flawed version of FA, the teams on the bottom will only get the chance to groom players for a 5 to 8 year period, at best the club climbs to mid table, then that players leaves for a better placed premiership aspirant. Timing is everything and unfortunately for St Kilda, Melbourne and the Bulldogs, theirs could not be worse.

[plugger66]

Frawley isn't worth pick 3.
It's a crap system.

Whinge. How would you do it SP? Apart from complaining. Doesn't make much difference to us and it may help us in future.

I've said before, FREE in Free Agency is meant for the player. He's free to move on from the club that drafted him. FREE should not apply to the club he goes to, nor should free mean the club he leaves receives nothing after grooming an obviously excellent AFL standard player. Hawthorn should have given their first round pick IMO.

I believe this FA is a smoke & mirror initiative by the AFL to give the AFLPA something to make themselves feel good. Let's face it, players have always got to where they wanted. We got Gehrig & Hamill, Carlton got Judd, Hawthorn got Croad back, Collingwood got Ball, Sydney got Tippett, there were no restrictions that could stop those transfers.

If FA was to be truly free, then there would not be a salary cap, after all that is what restricts all the gun players from arriving at one club. Thank god for the salary cap!

This crap about the AFL being worried about restraint of trade??? Why then is there a draft? Why are young players having their trade restricted? I think another con by the AFL >>> these guys kick, mark, handball, run after a footy better than anyone else in the country, they are paid what the market allows, if their initial club cannot afford them & that is all that is important, another club will find the money. The players are really just employees of the AFL. If you imagine the AFL being a major construction or mining company and the players the tradies / miners, they don't always get to their favoured work sites but depending on their skills, their contract and need by another site (if they can afford them in their budget), they get to move.

Sadly, the way things are within the AFL (especially during a time of heavily compromised drafts) with this flawed version of FA, the teams on the bottom will only get the chance to groom players for a 5 to 8 year period, at best the club climbs to mid table, then that players leaves for a better placed premiership aspirant. Timing is everything and unfortunately for St Kilda, Melbourne and the Bulldogs, theirs could not be worse.

If the clubs paid for players then there would be bugger all movement. The AFLPA want as much movement as they can get and of course it was brought in to stop the AFLPA to go to court about ROT. The draft was brought in with the players Ok but that could only last so long in todays market of going to court about everything. And people thinking FA will not allow clubs to come good is crap. PA seem to have improved fairly well since FA came in. If the club is on the rise bugger all players will leave. Its the clubs going that will lose players and IMO that helps you rise quicker because you go down the ladder quicker. Remember you may get one or maybe 2 FA in a side at the most a year but you could get 6-8 drafted players. Bottom clubs will improve just as quickly with FA and may in actual fact improve quicker. To say FA will or wont work is far to early but I don't see it as something to be scared of as a bottom club.

[70s sainter]

It kind of makes sense that teams on the bottom receive higher compensation than the higher teams. ie hawthorn with franklin - pick 19
Players who want to leave to play finals straight away leave their old club with a decent pick at least. Imagine the scenario if melb received bugger all for frawley and the next player and so on. They would be even more of a basket case.
On the other hand if teams like hawthorn received true compensation for players leaving - franklin would have been pick 1. Plus free agents walking in the door , they become invincible and will never drop down.

[Ghost Like]

Players have always been able to move if they really wanted it. I think clubs should pay for the benefit, if a club want someone bad enough they should pay, especially for a guaranteed AFL player. I think you agree there are no guarantees in draft picks, obviously the higher the pick, the better the odds but no guarantee (Melb). I do agree that well run clubs with a clear direction have the best chance of rising, such as PA, that is where a salary cap saved them. I still don't buy the RoT threat - A) I don't buy the argument or claim (they are still able to ply their trade) B) Court action would ruin the very competition the AFLPA members play in C) Surely a draft & a salary cap is the ultimate in RoT if the argument in (A) is correct.

We obviously disagree on this P66, I hope you're right. I do hope bottom clubs get to rise in this cycle, unfortunately this screwed version of FA makes that rise a lot slower IMO.

[BackFromUSA]

The AFL should stop handing out compensation picks IMHO.

Instead the club benefiting should be forced to give up draft pick/s for free agents as compensation to teams losing the player in a pre-set system as follows:

Teams ranked 1 - 6 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 3rd round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 2nd round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 1st and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 1st and 3rd round pick
1 million + (av) --->1st and 2nd round pick

Teams ranked 7 - 12 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 4th round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 3rd round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 2nd and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 1st and 4th round pick
1 million + (av) ---> 1st round pick

Teams ranked 13-18 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 5th round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 4th round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 3rd and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 2nd and 4th round pick
1 million + (av) ---> 2nd round pick

Easy.

Simple.

Everyone knows the cost and compensation when they are deciding whether to recruit or make a counter offer for a player.

In the Frawley deal (if the $700k average is correct) ... Hawthorn would have had to give Melbourne pick 18 and pick 54. About his real worth.

If Frawley had selected us instead at say $750k it would have cost us pick 37 and 55, but we would have kept picks 1 and 19 to draft good kids.

I have not tested this model completely BUT it would penalise the TOP TEAMS as they would think twice before bidding big $s for a free agent with only 3 to 5 years of good footy left (in most cases) because they will have to sacrifice their future by losing valuable early and later draft picks.

As another example, Hawthorn got pick 19 for Buddy, but under this would have received approx 16 and 34 ... but perhaps the Swans would not have bid for Buddy knowing they would lose their early draft picks. And GWS would have ... an outcome that Hawthorn was OK with as it was not strengthening a flag contender and they would have got pick 19, which is ironicly what they actually received from the AFL.

It would also mean that the father / son and academy bidding rules would need to be adapted to dictate that if the draft pick that should have been used to recruit the f/s or ap has been used on a free agent, then the player is OPEN for bidding by other teams. Top teams with f/s and academy players would be further discouraged from recruiting high priced free agents that cost them their high draft picks needed to take quality f/s and ap talent.

As a consequence, more free agents will go to teams ranked 7-12 or 13-18.

It is still FREE AGENCY as the player is free to go to any club as long as they are prepared to not only pay the contract price BUT also the draft pick sacrifice.

[plugger66]

The AFL should stop handing out compensation picks IMHO.

Instead the club benefiting should be forced to give up draft pick/s for free agents as compensation to teams losing the player in a pre-set system as follows:

Teams ranked 1 - 6 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 3rd round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 2nd round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 1st and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 1st and 3rd round pick
1 million + (av) --->1st and 2nd round pick

Teams ranked 7 - 12 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 4th round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 3rd round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 2nd and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 1st and 4th round pick
1 million + (av) ---> 1st round pick

Teams ranked 13-18 receiving a free agent

Less thank 250k p/a (av) ---> 5th round pick
251k to 500k p/a (av) ---> 4th round pick
501k to 750k p/a (av) ---> 3rd and 4th round pick
751k to 1 million (av) ---> 2nd and 4th round pick
1 million + (av) ---> 2nd round pick

Easy.

Simple.

Everyone knows the cost and compensation when they are deciding whether to recruit or make a counter offer for a player.

In the Frawley deal (if the $700k average is correct) ... Hawthorn would have had to give Melbourne pick 18 and pick 54. About his real worth.

If Frawley had selected us instead at say $750k it would have cost us pick 37 and 55, but we would have kept picks 1 and 19 to draft good kids.

I have not tested this model completely BUT it would penalise the TOP TEAMS as they would think twice before bidding big $s for a free agent with only 3 to 5 years of good footy left (in most cases) because they will have to sacrifice their future by losing valuable early and later draft picks.

As another example, Hawthorn got pick 19 for Buddy, but under this would have received approx 16 and 34 ... but perhaps the Swans would not have bid for Buddy knowing they would lose their early draft picks. And GWS would have ... an outcome that Hawthorn was OK with as it was not strengthening a flag contender and they would have got pick 19, which is ironicly what they actually received from the AFL.

It would also mean that the father / son and academy bidding rules would need to be adapted to dictate that if the draft pick that should have been used to recruit the f/s or ap has been used on a free agent, then the player is OPEN for bidding by other teams. Top teams with f/s and academy players would be further discouraged from recruiting high priced free agents that cost them their high draft picks needed to take quality f/s and ap talent.

As a consequence, more free agents will go to teams ranked 7-12 or 13-18.

It is still FREE AGENCY as the player is free to go to any club as long as they are prepared to not only pay the contract price BUT also the draft pick sacrifice.

That isn't going to happen. Players wanted FA and the AFL had little choice. The idea of FA in most sports is its free for everyone. If clubs are giving up picks then there will be less movement. Its basically the same as it was 3 years ago and there was bugger all movement of players. have a look back at how trading numbers were dropping off. You can have all the models you like but clubs getting players will never lose picks. Fefeats the purpose. One day though there maybe no compensation. That is the only thing I see changing.

I actually see no problem with FA. As I keep saying if you lose players whilst going down the ladder you get to the bottom quicker and also get good picks and if you are on the rise you will have SC space and players will want to come to you. I actually think most players who have left through FA have gone to clubs on the rise. Our time will come and we will get FA when we want them. People say players wont come to bottom sides but why would we have wanted a 27 year old last season. It would be a complete waste. We want a 27 year old when we are at most 2 years off making finals, not 5 or 6 like we were last year.

[#gosaintas]

Yeah I like the system. Lower placed clubs do better than higher placed clubs when they lose a player. Where is the problem in that?

[BackFromUSA]

Plugger66

Disagree. Don't care what other sports do. We are in a different country, with a different legal system and a different ownership structure. Reality is that each AFL footballer is an AFL employee under an AFL code with a standard AFL player contract. Very different to other competitions.

In this competition the philosophy of equalisation is crucial to the long term success of the competition. It means all teams will have their turn.

The current free agency is counter that objective as band 1 and Band 2 free agents will be extremely desirable to top 6 clubs who are in the CURRENT premiership window and they will always be able to offer less money to a player with the promise of a real shot at a premiership within 3 years. With everyone having an equal salary cap, this is a real competitive advantage to current top 6 teams.

What does this mean? It means that clubs in current contention will pick up 1 (or possibly 2 or 3) band 1 or band 2 free agents each year to keep topping up their lists and there will be more and more free agents available as time goes by because managers are going to ensure their players can exercise that right after their current contracts expire, which means that the pool of band 1 and band 2 players will increase and they will mostly (if not all except those with "return to home State" objectives) go to top 6 clubs and have a shot a premiership - even if that means LESS money than they can get elsewhere because it is every AFL players dream to win a flag.

By logical conclusion, the lower clubs may get draft picks and get some great young players BUT at age 25/26 they can go via free agency and if the club has not risen up the ladder with the young players as a group because the same 6 clubs are "topping up" with quality free agents or even band 3 role players each year (at no penalty to those top 6 clubs) then the players at the lower clubs will be waiting their turn to exit (see Frawley and Higgins this year) to get to a top 6 club.

The only way to stop this cycle will be to put a disincentive to top 6 clubs from raping the lower clubs of free agents. Make them sacrifice their long term future by having to compensate with their early draft picks. This will make them think twice AND if they do decide to take that path it will better assist the lower clubs because not only will the lower clubs get a low draft pick but they may get a bonus draft pick as well, but most importantly the top 6 clubs will struggle to regenerate LONG TERM without quality youth coming in.

Free Agency should mean that the player is FREE to move clubs to a club that wants that player BUT that club has to want that player and satisfy the financial requirements of the player AND pay a level of compensation to the club losing the player - whether it be financial like in some competitions OR their draft pick.

Let's start with this set of questions.

So far ...

How many Band 1 or Band 2 free agents have gone to teams placed 13 to 18?

How many Band 1 or Band 2 free agents have gone to teams placed 7 to 12?

How many Band 1 or Band 2 free agents have gone to teams placed 1 to 6?

It really starts to paint a picture of the future direction of Free Agency UNLESS the benefiting team has to give up something in return to receive a FREE AGENT.

[dragit]

I've got no problem with the system per say, just think we need transparency on a defined set of criteria.

If there is a genuine formula, then it would be easy to define. Right now everyone thinks that the AFL have engineered a certain result to make up for the PP that Melbourne asked for.

If Frawley got a huge contract, then I have no problems with pick 3 being rewarded… a bottom 4 club losing a top 3 player needs decent compensation.

[ace]

BUMPED AGAIN

Nick Malceski has left Sydney for the Gold Coast as a free agent.

Sydney has been awarded a mid 2nd round compensation pick.

That means our provisional picks for the third and subsequent rounds slip another place.

But according to Draft guru Essendon has lost their 2nd round pick hence no change from the original post
We presently have picks Nos 1, 22, 41, 60, 78, 96, 114

As only 6 players have been removed from the senior list and 3 rookies have been upgraded only picks 1, 22, 41 are presently activated.

Compensation picks so far are
Melbourne 3 James Frawley
Gold Coast 15 prior year linked to Geelong (Gary Ablett)
GWS 21 prior year end of round 1 Brisbane Lions (Jared Brennan)
Western Bulldogs 27 Shaun Higgins
Sydney 39 Nick Malcesci
Gold Coast 49 prior year linked to Collingwood (Josh Fraser)