Offseason Trades

[Grazz]

I think we should match the offer purely to go to the trade table for him. At the moment the best first rounder we can get is pick 12 so our combo pick would be pick 13. I'd rather go to the trade table and get this years (pick 9) and next years first rounder, and maybe switch our 2nd pick for their 2nd pick this year. Seems fair

Wouldn't say 'fair', but it's probably our only option at this point. Fact of the matter is, that whatever we get back for him will be about 10% of what he's actually worth.

That's the thing with free agency, it's nice for the bottom clubs who can end up with a top 5 pick if their player gets sniped but what about a club like Adelaide who is really building something and then loses their best player  :-\

they system is dodgy it should depend on the quality of the player leaving not where you are on the ladder.

crazy that kreuzer can basically get pick 2 (more then he is worth) and danger like pick 13 (far far less then he is worth)

It's nowhere near perfect, but who needs the higher pick more?

But then you're rewarding a poorly run club, rather than Adelaide who has remained competent over the last few years and drafted/developed some really nice players. Only for some of that to be almost undone by losing one of the best players in the comp for a showerty compo pick.

Agree, who gives a flower who needs the pick more. It's Dangerfield and we should be compensated fairly for lossing a player of his quality. The whole things seriously flowered up. >:(

[Ricochet]

I think we should match the offer purely to go to the trade table for him. At the moment the best first rounder we can get is pick 12 so our combo pick would be pick 13. I'd rather go to the trade table and get this years (pick 9) and next years first rounder, and maybe switch our 2nd pick for their 2nd pick this year. Seems fair

Wouldn't say 'fair', but it's probably our only option at this point. Fact of the matter is, that whatever we get back for him will be about 10% of what he's actually worth.

That's the thing with free agency, it's nice for the bottom clubs who can end up with a top 5 pick if their player gets sniped but what about a club like Adelaide who is really building something and then loses their best player  :-\

they system is dodgy it should depend on the quality of the player leaving not where you are on the ladder.

crazy that kreuzer can basically get pick 2 (more then he is worth) and danger like pick 13 (far far less then he is worth)

It's nowhere near perfect, but who needs the higher pick more?

But then you're rewarding a poorly run club, rather than Adelaide who has remained competent over the last few years and drafted/developed some really nice players. Only for some of that to be almost undone by losing one of the best players in the comp for a showerty compo pick.

Agree, who gives a flower who needs the pick more. It's Dangerfield and we should be compensated fairly for lossing a player of his quality. The whole things seriously flowered up. >:(

So say someone Suckling goes to Carlton as a FA and they offer him bucketloads of cash. And Hawks get a middle first round pick, does that help with equalisation? Or what determines what the compo would be?

I'm not trying to stirr the pot. I'm genuinely interested in trying to thrash out a fairer way for FA to work

[Jay]

I think we should match the offer purely to go to the trade table for him. At the moment the best first rounder we can get is pick 12 so our combo pick would be pick 13. I'd rather go to the trade table and get this years (pick 9) and next years first rounder, and maybe switch our 2nd pick for their 2nd pick this year. Seems fair

Wouldn't say 'fair', but it's probably our only option at this point. Fact of the matter is, that whatever we get back for him will be about 10% of what he's actually worth.

That's the thing with free agency, it's nice for the bottom clubs who can end up with a top 5 pick if their player gets sniped but what about a club like Adelaide who is really building something and then loses their best player  :-\

they system is dodgy it should depend on the quality of the player leaving not where you are on the ladder.

crazy that kreuzer can basically get pick 2 (more then he is worth) and danger like pick 13 (far far less then he is worth)

It's nowhere near perfect, but who needs the higher pick more?

But then you're rewarding a poorly run club, rather than Adelaide who has remained competent over the last few years and drafted/developed some really nice players. Only for some of that to be almost undone by losing one of the best players in the comp for a showerty compo pick.

Agree, who gives a flower who needs the pick more. It's Dangerfield and we should be compensated fairly for lossing a player of his quality. The whole things seriously flowered up. >:(

So say someone Suckling goes to Carlton as a FA and they offer him bucketloads of cash. And Hawks get a middle first round pick, does that help with equalisation? Or what determines what the compo would be?

I'm not trying to stirr the pot. I'm genuinely interested in trying to thrash out a fairer way for FA to work

I believe the AFL have a 'formula' they use to work out compensation. The formula presumably entails benefiting Vic clubs as much as possible, whilst screwing interstate teams in the process :P

[Ricochet]

I think we should match the offer purely to go to the trade table for him. At the moment the best first rounder we can get is pick 12 so our combo pick would be pick 13. I'd rather go to the trade table and get this years (pick 9) and next years first rounder, and maybe switch our 2nd pick for their 2nd pick this year. Seems fair

Wouldn't say 'fair', but it's probably our only option at this point. Fact of the matter is, that whatever we get back for him will be about 10% of what he's actually worth.

That's the thing with free agency, it's nice for the bottom clubs who can end up with a top 5 pick if their player gets sniped but what about a club like Adelaide who is really building something and then loses their best player  :-\

they system is dodgy it should depend on the quality of the player leaving not where you are on the ladder.

crazy that kreuzer can basically get pick 2 (more then he is worth) and danger like pick 13 (far far less then he is worth)

It's nowhere near perfect, but who needs the higher pick more?

But then you're rewarding a poorly run club, rather than Adelaide who has remained competent over the last few years and drafted/developed some really nice players. Only for some of that to be almost undone by losing one of the best players in the comp for a showerty compo pick.

Agree, who gives a flower who needs the pick more. It's Dangerfield and we should be compensated fairly for lossing a player of his quality. The whole things seriously flowered up. >:(

So say someone Suckling goes to Carlton as a FA and they offer him bucketloads of cash. And Hawks get a middle first round pick, does that help with equalisation? Or what determines what the compo would be?

I'm not trying to stirr the pot. I'm genuinely interested in trying to thrash out a fairer way for FA to work

I believe the AFL have a 'formula' they use to work out compensation. The formula presumably entails benefiting Vic clubs as much as possible, whilst screwing interstate teams in the process :P

hahahaha has Tbag been in your ear.

Yeh its supposedly based on salary and length of contract. Danger would definitely be a first rounder

[Jay]

I think we should match the offer purely to go to the trade table for him. At the moment the best first rounder we can get is pick 12 so our combo pick would be pick 13. I'd rather go to the trade table and get this years (pick 9) and next years first rounder, and maybe switch our 2nd pick for their 2nd pick this year. Seems fair

Wouldn't say 'fair', but it's probably our only option at this point. Fact of the matter is, that whatever we get back for him will be about 10% of what he's actually worth.

That's the thing with free agency, it's nice for the bottom clubs who can end up with a top 5 pick if their player gets sniped but what about a club like Adelaide who is really building something and then loses their best player  :-\

they system is dodgy it should depend on the quality of the player leaving not where you are on the ladder.

crazy that kreuzer can basically get pick 2 (more then he is worth) and danger like pick 13 (far far less then he is worth)

It's nowhere near perfect, but who needs the higher pick more?

But then you're rewarding a poorly run club, rather than Adelaide who has remained competent over the last few years and drafted/developed some really nice players. Only for some of that to be almost undone by losing one of the best players in the comp for a showerty compo pick.

Agree, who gives a flower who needs the pick more. It's Dangerfield and we should be compensated fairly for lossing a player of his quality. The whole things seriously flowered up. >:(

So say someone Suckling goes to Carlton as a FA and they offer him bucketloads of cash. And Hawks get a middle first round pick, does that help with equalisation? Or what determines what the compo would be?

I'm not trying to stirr the pot. I'm genuinely interested in trying to thrash out a fairer way for FA to work

I believe the AFL have a 'formula' they use to work out compensation. The formula presumably entails benefiting Vic clubs as much as possible, whilst screwing interstate teams in the process :P

hahahaha has Tbag been in your ear.

Yeh its supposedly based on salary and length of contract. Danger would definitely be a first rounder

Honestly, if it was all about giving a club fair compensation for the player they're losing, we should probably get picks 1, 2 and 3 for him. But what we're looking at is probably something like pick 13 :-\ hence, it makes sense to head to the trade table with the Cats. Will surely be able to pry something better than a mid first round pick away from 'em.

[Grazz]

Don't think equalization should have anything to do with it tbh Ricco when it comes to free agency compensation. In saying that I don't have the answer either as to how it should be sorted but the quality of the player a club is loosing should be paramount as to what compensation they receive, won't happen but it should be a major determining factor.

[Dave085]

At the end of the day successful clubs are more likely to retain top end players as well as attract them.
Clubs who are struggling are going to find it harder to retain top end players as well as attract them. They also generally have less depth in the squad so replacing the player is more difficult.

I don't really have a problem with the struggling clubs getting a higher draft pick. And think about it, Carltons ruck is stuffed if they lose Kreuzer (come to think about it most clubs would be if they lost their 1st ruck). So I think in some respects it is fair that they get a top pick.

And look at Brisbane. No one wants to stay there. Obviously there is a culture problem there that will hopefully be recognised and corrected ASAP! But clubs who are getting smashed are losing talent and draft picks aren't going to cut it (long term maybe it will, but short term it is going to damage the club).

Imagine if your club had top players wanting out. Draft picks are good, no doubting that, but older players with established spots in the team, leadership etc is irreplaceable. Carlton lost a key small forward in Betts and now look at losing Kreuzer (if he can pass a medical!).

[lachie_001]

At the end of the day successful clubs are more likely to retain top end players as well as attract them.
Clubs who are struggling are going to find it harder to retain top end players as well as attract them. They also generally have less depth in the squad so replacing the player is more difficult.

I don't really have a problem with the struggling clubs getting a higher draft pick. And think about it, Carltons ruck is stuffed if they lose Kreuzer (come to think about it most clubs would be if they lost their 1st ruck). So I think in some respects it is fair that they get a top pick.

And look at Brisbane. No one wants to stay there. Obviously there is a culture problem there that will hopefully be recognised and corrected ASAP! But clubs who are getting smashed are losing talent and draft picks aren't going to cut it (long term maybe it will, but short term it is going to damage the club).

Imagine if your club had top players wanting out. Draft picks are good, no doubting that, but older players with established spots in the team, leadership etc is irreplaceable. Carlton lost a key small forward in Betts and now look at losing Kreuzer (if he can pass a medical!).

I agree with you that it kind of balances out for the lower ranked clubs at the bottom. Where I think that it is compromised is where the middle-tier clubs lose players to other middle-tier and higher ranked clubs. If Dangerfield leaves there isn't depth to replace his caliber and the draft pick is too low. I think it's more the rich get richer, the poor get well compensated and the Middle-tier get screwed.

[Grazz]

Im all for helping the lower ranked clubs but how far do you go with it. Theres enough assistance for them already without attaching equalisation to free agency. Clubs regardless of position on the ladder need to be rewarded equally for loosing a gun.
The middle tier clubs get hit to hard here and almost certainly lose lose out of any deal as the talent we are talking about is so hard to replace and often can't. Top tier teams win bottom tier teams win. Middle tier teams lose and still battling hard to make it to the top tier, their getting results from hard work like other clubs, if equalisation worked it wouldn't cost one tier more than another like it does. Can't change nothing this year, needs to be looked at though at some point soon I hope for everyone's sake.

[TomK]

Should be going hard for Redden now Danger is gone.

[Big Mac]

Im all for helping the lower ranked clubs but how far do you go with it. Theres enough assistance for them already without attaching equalisation to free agency. Clubs regardless of position on the ladder need to be rewarded equally for loosing a gun.
The middle tier clubs get hit to hard here and almost certainly lose lose out of any deal as the talent we are talking about is so hard to replace and often can't. Top tier teams win bottom tier teams win. Middle tier teams lose and still battling hard to make it to the top tier, their getting results from hard work like other clubs, if equalisation worked it wouldn't cost one tier more than another like it does. Can't change nothing this year, needs to be looked at though at some point soon I hope for everyone's sake.

Just curious, what would you change Grazz? I have ideas but none of them seem any better than just scrapping free agency altogether

Don't mean to point out the obvious but if the top clubs lose gun players and then receive full value for them as you say (e.g. Pick 1 or more for someone like Buddy), then that's only going to prolong their time at the top

[Rusty00]

Im all for helping the lower ranked clubs but how far do you go with it. Theres enough assistance for them already without attaching equalisation to free agency. Clubs regardless of position on the ladder need to be rewarded equally for loosing a gun.
The middle tier clubs get hit to hard here and almost certainly lose lose out of any deal as the talent we are talking about is so hard to replace and often can't. Top tier teams win bottom tier teams win. Middle tier teams lose and still battling hard to make it to the top tier, their getting results from hard work like other clubs, if equalisation worked it wouldn't cost one tier more than another like it does. Can't change nothing this year, needs to be looked at though at some point soon I hope for everyone's sake.

Just curious, what would you change Grazz? I have ideas but none of them seem any better than just scrapping free agency altogether

Don't mean to point out the obvious but if the top clubs lose gun players and then receive full value for them as you say (e.g. Pick 1 or more for someone like Buddy), then that's only going to prolong their time at the top

Don't think there is a real answer. Free Agency is something that helps the players, not the teams. Some teams are always going to be a more attractive option for players than others and any sort of compensation is going to favour some teams more than others.

[nrich102]

And look at Brisbane. No one wants to stay there. Obviously there is a culture problem there that will hopefully be recognised and corrected ASAP! But clubs who are getting smashed are losing talent and draft picks aren't going to cut it (long term maybe it will, but short term it is going to damage the club).

This is just stupid. Have you actually been listening to that retard Damian Barrett?

It looks like 2 or 3 players are going to leave. The 2nd ruckman who's good enough to be first ruck at a few clubs and is a free agent, Aish, who probably is just after the big bucks and Redden, who I don't why is leaving.

Sure, we had some problems in the past, the go home 5 and what not, but I don't think we have a problem, and if we do it's no where near as big as what Damo and the other one eyed journos from the footy states.

[Grazz]

Im all for helping the lower ranked clubs but how far do you go with it. Theres enough assistance for them already without attaching equalisation to free agency. Clubs regardless of position on the ladder need to be rewarded equally for loosing a gun.
The middle tier clubs get hit to hard here and almost certainly lose lose out of any deal as the talent we are talking about is so hard to replace and often can't. Top tier teams win bottom tier teams win. Middle tier teams lose and still battling hard to make it to the top tier, their getting results from hard work like other clubs, if equalisation worked it wouldn't cost one tier more than another like it does. Can't change nothing this year, needs to be looked at though at some point soon I hope for everyone's sake.

Just curious, what would you change Grazz? I have ideas but none of them seem any better than just scrapping free agency altogether

Don't mean to point out the obvious but if the top clubs lose gun players and then receive full value for them as you say (e.g. Pick 1 or more for someone like Buddy), then that's only going to prolong their time at the top

I whinge and moan about it mate but Yeh I don't have an answer, maybe a player rating system of some kind that ranks a player in relation to the draft and what he's worth as compo. I don't know.

[meow meow]

Said it last year, I'll say it again this year. Free agency shouldn't exist, but if they insist on having it clubs shouldn't get anything in return for losing free agents, especially with the 95/105 salary cap rule in place. The salary cap space opened up to lure other Free Agents is compensation itself.

Crows lose Danger this year. 1mil extra in the cap. Get a FA like Eddie this year, get another FA like Eddie next year with the leftover 500K.

2 Eddie's for Danger. Fair enough. Don't need an extra first round pick on top of that.

Imagine if Redden was a FA. Melbourne could go get him for nothing, since they have the salary cap space from Frawley leaving. All square. Oh, they get Angus Brayshaw out of it too.