JeffDunne wrote:BAM! (shhhh) wrote:. . . and the NFL with it's loose contracts are fundamentally outside the AFL experience - as is the North American trading system whereby there's less time where one can't trade then where one can... but the NHL would seem to indicate that a hard cap will stifle trades regardless, so it probably sits the closest.
Not sure what you mean by loose contracts, I presume this is in relation to cutting players and taking a cap hit?
Many in the NFL are actually starting to complain about the diminishing number of trades/free agents available.
You got my drift. length of an NFL contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. Out clauses are IMO a great idea, and a lot of aspects of the NFL system are very forward thinking - a league that can make that much money, and yet have a competitive team in Green Bay is onto someting.
The other big thing I'm a fan of in the NFL system is their more mature draftees - which would be just about impossible for any other sport to get past the courts, but means the top draftees are much less likely to bust.
The one aspect of the NFL that we could definately use in the AFL is the ability to add true "free agents" to your list - those being players that didn't make it onto an AFL list through the drafts. Provided those players are subject to some sort of waiver wire I can't see why we don't allow it.
I agree with this. I think we'd need to be careful how it was facilitated in order to prevent it being the thing that opened the door entirely, but I could really see it being beneficial to clubs and players to allow teams to sign uncontracted and VFL players mid season to cover long injury lists... provided there is a waiver wire to rpevent abuse, they could be added to the rookie list for the duration of a single season - so when injured players return, they can't be played, and at the end of a season it must be decided to elevate or discard.
It would mean that a team like say the Bulldogs isn't completely wiped ot by a few injuries, and provide opportunities for the Clinton Jones of the world.
Personally I don't have a problem with players changing clubs under free agency. I think the club loyalty aspect is overblown and our system limits players in their ability to realise their true market value within the structure of the cap. I also think players salaries should be made public for the same reason and so clubs are held accountable for some of their stupid decision making (currently the players suffer that by having to play for less than their worth or risk going to the worst performed club).
Not directing this at any individuals, but those I've spoken to about this issue outside this forum, IMO vastly underestimate the impact it has on player movement.
It's not the Riewoldts, Judds etc. who would move, they make a boatload regardless... it's the 2nd tier guys like a Leigh Montagna who come off a career year, and then are faced with a decision between a team that's patiently developed them, and a BIG payday. Behind those there are the journeymen players - think Jason Blake, you'd always have one or 2, but every 2 years or so the name and visual changes.
It would also put individual teams at a huge disadvantage - currently when recruiting mature players, the preseason draft may disadvantage players, however, the trade system giving them a veto is AFAIK absolutely unique. This means the teams have a hole in recruiting, and absolutely no way to get around it other than money, and no out to deal with dissapointing contracts.
I know people will start throwing in the "yank BS" comments but IMO those that fear free agency are those that don't understand if structured properly it would improve the evenness of the comp rather than detract from it..
I don't think it's yank BS, I think it's inevitable. It's not like they've always had it, it was something that players in each league had to fight for and go to court for. I think it's inevitable here too.
I also think that it can be done to everyone's benefit, but one of the key aspects that is overlooked is that it's not structured properly in any of the US leagues at this point - in all of them, there remain gripes between owners and players which mean that further civil action is almost an accepted part of their sports futures.
50 years from now, the AFL will have free agency, and people will robabl wonder what all the fuss was about. However, the landscape of that AFL will likely be incredibly different, and I wouldn't doubt that a few of the fans who will end up being turned off by what it becomes will be fans who advocated things like free agency which created the change.
