Mid-season trading - some misgivings

[Sanctorum]

In today's Age, Jake Niall presents some persuasive hypotheticals against the proposal for the AFL to introduce mid-seaon trading:

"Problems mid-year trading will face

After 13 games last season, Carlton sat in the bottom four. They struggled to move the ball and Harry McKay couldn’t kick straight. The faithful were apoplectic, and wanted heads on plates, in the customary Carlton manner.

The transformation of the Blues from that embarrassing nadir to a team that made a preliminary final was astounding, as was the slightly less surprising recovery of GWS under Adam Kingsley. The Giants had four wins and eight losses at round 12 and, at the end, were within a point of a grand final berth.

Consider what those clubs might have done if a) they’d lost another game during that nadir and b) if there had been an established midseason trading system available.

For argument’s sake, let’s imagine that the Blues were one win the worse (3-8 and a draw) and that while the club hierarchy had backed coach Michael Voss to continue in 2024, they were willing to explore some aggressive trading to fasttrack their move into contention.

Melbourne, who were in the top four and very much in contention, would be in pole position to win the premiership if they had a highcalibre key forward in his prime. So, the Blues make the radical call to trade McKay to the Dees, in return for two first-rounders (at that point, Melbourne had Fremantle’s first ), plus Jacob van Rooyen or another younger Demon.

Yes, this is an AFL version of magical realism, but it’s a way to illustrate the obvious pitfalls and dangers inherent in the ‘‘ inevitable’’ march to mid-season trading.

Carlton, in effect, would have an incentive to fold the tent and give up a key player, if they’d gain a premium from a rival that saw itself as one chess piece short of the flag . They’d have ended the season with three first-rounders , and two picks inside six, plus a player who suited their needs. They could even trade those picks for a gun in October.

Melbourne’s rivals, especially Collingwood and the Lions, would have faced a Demon attack featuring McKay and Kysaiah Pickett at his feet. In this fantasy, the Blues would also stump up most of McKay’s wage for 2023 – as the AFL allows in October trades (see Brodie Grundy, Adam Treloar); in effect, the Blues would be buying a better draft hand and handing the Demons pole position for the 2023 premiership.

The clubs are pondering the question of a mid-season trading system, which is considered a serious chance for 2025, but is all but ruled out for this year. The players have agreed, subject to details.

A view has taken hold, in some quarters, that mid-season trading will be exciting, that more player movement is an inherent good and that, as with the NBA, NFL and European soccer, such mechanisms will enhance the competition.

The AFL has asked clubs for feedback; there is measured support for mid-season trading from several clubs, although one has already suggested that mid-year trades should be restricted to lowly paid or minimum-wage players, that it should be about player opportunity, rather than handing leverage to top teams and players.

This column, which has often backed rule changes – such as the six-six-six and man-on-mark changes – is concerned about the unintended consequences of midseason trading. Here are a few blatant wrinkles in a liberal system that emulates overseas sports:

Assuming there’s little restriction on who you can trade, clubs down the ladder, such as Carlton last year, have greater incentive to give up and effectively tank. This flies in the face of the equalisation that has made the AFL more appealing.

The teams higher on the ladder would enhance their position if they can a) acquire a key player that redresses immediate need and b) can get the vendor to pay a portion of that season’s contract.

Integrity. The fixture will always be compromised, but is it right to cop, say, Richmond with Tom Lynch in round six – and then your top-four rival gets the Tigers without him in round 18, since he’s playing for Sydney by then?

Players and their agents could ruthlessly exploit a mid-year trade threat: ‘‘ I want to go to Geelong and get there now [Cats are thereabouts]. Or sign me on a $6 million deal now.’’ Predatory clubs will get in the ear of players to push for an immediate trade.

Geographic disadvantage. Victorian clubs can gain players from nine teams in the same state. Is a gun player, with kids, willing to uproot his life and move to Queensland or Adelaide?

Players already favour top-six sides when weighing up trades. If mid-year trades aren’t heavily restricted, this trend will be exacerbated.

Many within the media will favour mid-season trading, since it will create more content for fans who devour every skerrick of information. It will be a boon to the player movement media industrial complex and will continue the code’s embrace of American sporting culture and practices.

But league CEO Andrew Dillon and the commission must remember that Australian rules football has an entirely different culture – it grew out of communities, not professional sport per se – and that fans also need to have a group of one-club players and a stable relationship with their best and more beloved players.

[skeptic]

I would hate this.

Will really suck the fun of the competition as the contenders will recruit stars at the pointy end and it will stuff the rebuild for the rest

[shrodes]

I've yet to really read a good argument FOR this, while I've read a whole lot of good arguments against it. Anyone want to try their best?

[shanegrambeau]

It will screw up my selection competition if I run it again.

and Terry Rules, where are you? (Champion of '23 Season)

A local potter made you a sake bottle.

They have never made any design like it before. I requested red, white and black stripes.

It came back pink, grey, and navy, as is the way their local soils interact with the dyes they use.

Well, apart from the selection competition, it would add an element of fun and surprise.

But I wonder if it would be better to create a list of players before the season starts, from which players could be 'harvested'.

Players such as DMac for instance, returning from injury, off the lists, a bit underdone before Round One.

They can play in the seconds in the meantime.

[Brunswicksainter]

I've yet to really read a good argument FOR this, while I've read a whole lot of good arguments against it. Anyone want to try their best?

Things for mid season trade period: improved engagement, interest, more money for the AFL to grow the game, enhanced interest and crowds for teams that are poor performers in early part of the year etc…
Endless list of pros and absolutely no cons.

[Big Max]

... not that I'm necessarily in favor of mid-season trading .. but ..

It's a thing in major league baseball in the USA, and it's not necessarily a bad thing ..

Typically a 'contender will be keen to trade in players who will assist in the run home and the playoffs, and will be prepared to trade out unproven rookies.

This can work well for both teams, the contender bolsters their roster and the non-contender generally get's 'overs' by way of potential young players. This really speeds up the re-build process.

Take last year for example, we may have got some decent prospects for Billings, Coffield or Gresham, all of whom we lost regardless.

[shrodes]

I've yet to really read a good argument FOR this, while I've read a whole lot of good arguments against it. Anyone want to try their best?

Things for mid season trade period: improved engagement, interest, more money for the AFL to grow the game, enhanced interest and crowds for teams that are poor performers in early part of the year etc…
Endless list of pros and absolutely no cons.

I have to suspect you're being a bit facetious but always hard to tell on the internet
A bunch of cons are addressed in the original article.

Improved engagement / interest - marketing wishy washy nonsense that is almost impossible to quantify. If you hear someone spouting off improved engagement at work, there's a good chance they're paid more than you to make up nonsense that has no basis in reality.

More money for the AFL - unclear how or where that money is coming from... advertising? Is the current trade period a big money maker for the AFL? I would suspect probably not, they have their trade week sponsor but in terms of overall revenue would be pretty low on the pile I think.

Enhanced interest and crowds for teams that are poor performers in early part of the year - article covers this. Far more likely that teams that are poor performing sell off players to better performing clubs that think they're in with a shot, and in turn the poor clubs just get worse for the rest of the year. Allows for tanking within the rules of the game. No one of note wants to come to lowly clubs as it is (we are a perfect example of this), and mid season trading won't change that. And the players that do switch clubs have to come into a new system and coaching and try and contribute immediately which seems quite unlikely unless you're an absolute superstar.

[The_Dud]

A few years ago I would have been totally against it, but after getting into the NFL a bit more since then, I don't think it will be a problem, and I'm probably for it.

I think it would mostly end up being fringe players moving between clubs, I doubt many superstars would be traded like in the article's example. And if so, it would only be fast tracking an inevitable move IMO.

If you're a savvy club it will help you either contend better or rebuild faster.

[B.M]

Totally against it

[D.B.Cooper]

Sounds like a great idea to me!

Imagine if we were struggling mid season and got the opportunity to trade a mid range plodder like Russell Greene for a couple of guns like Tony King and Mark Scott!

[loris]

Sounds like a great idea to me!

Imagine if we were struggling mid season and got the opportunity to trade a mid range plodder like Russell Greene for a couple of guns like Tony King and Mark Scott!

[saynta]

Sounds like a great idea to me!

Imagine if we were struggling mid season and got the opportunity to trade a mid range plodder like Russell Greene for a couple of guns like Tony King and Mark Scott!

Nearly as shocking as trading a double brownlow medalist for an over the hill tiger or trading the best full forward of all times for a packets of chips and a used franga.

[bobmurray]

Sounds like a great idea to me!

Imagine if we were struggling mid season and got the opportunity to trade a mid range plodder like Russell Greene for a couple of guns like Tony King and Mark Scott!

[B.M]

Yep

That was a great move

He played another 200 games - won 3 premierships - won a league MVP

The guys we got in were bog average

[CQ SAINT]

I dunno, we could have traded Ratten and Richo out. Can you trade coaches for players. It's stands to reason that the Billings trade would have been 6 months cheaper too, had we waited.

How about offering an up and coming CHB in great form in the VFL, a chance to play with the big boys?

This thread reminds me of the Skyhooks song, I'm living in the 70's.

[Brunswicksainter]

I've yet to really read a good argument FOR this, while I've read a whole lot of good arguments against it. Anyone want to try their best?

Things for mid season trade period: improved engagement, interest, more money for the AFL to grow the game, enhanced interest and crowds for teams that are poor performers in early part of the year etc…
Endless list of pros and absolutely no cons.

I have to suspect you're being a bit facetious but always hard to tell on the internet
A bunch of cons are addressed in the original article.

Improved engagement / interest - marketing wishy washy nonsense that is almost impossible to quantify. If you hear someone spouting off improved engagement at work, there's a good chance they're paid more than you to make up nonsense that has no basis in reality.

More money for the AFL - unclear how or where that money is coming from... advertising? Is the current trade period a big money maker for the AFL? I would suspect probably not, they have their trade week sponsor but in terms of overall revenue would be pretty low on the pile I think.

Enhanced interest and crowds for teams that are poor performers in early part of the year - article covers this. Far more likely that teams that are poor performing sell off players to better performing clubs that think they're in with a shot, and in turn the poor clubs just get worse for the rest of the year. Allows for tanking within the rules of the game. No one of note wants to come to lowly clubs as it is (we are a perfect example of this), and mid season trading won't change that. And the players that do switch clubs have to come into a new system and coaching and try and contribute immediately which seems quite unlikely unless you're an absolute superstar.

Pretty sure the metric is like 600% uptick on average in hits on the AFL website and across social media channels during trade period. Cannot remember the exact amount although the trade period is far and away the best time of year in terms of online engagement, views, clicks ect… I think there would be a tangible revenue impact, not just a couple of additional trade radio sponsors lol.
On third point couldn’t disagree more cannot at all see how anything your saying lines up with reality.