Brisbane Trades and Draft discussion Thread

[Mailman the 2nd]

But Ringo no clubs are going to offer Patful the kind of money that will get Brisbane close to a 1st round pick.

Whether or not people think the player is good or not is completely irrelevant. It's based on how much a club values a player in terms of what they are willing to contract.

You can say that Frawley isn't worth pick 3, but the fact clubs are willing to pay him up to $600,000 a year on an extended contract says otherwise.

Well if history says that picks 10-20 vs picks 1-10 doesn't make any difference then why would my proposal severly hamper the lower clubs? Clubs are compensated for being rubbish via the draft. They shouldn't be compensated better through FA as well

Because FA compensation was only introduced as an extension of the draft in the first place. Otherwise the top clubs will just continuously dominate.

AFL has a much more vested interest in poorly performing clubs improving than the same teams remaining constantly dominate.

[Ringo]

Which is the reason why the AFL rules regarding FA are crap. Also do not agree with Father/son and academy rules as well to show it is just not Lions Bias.

I think there should be simple rules as I said.

Any Father/Son picks are nominated as x rounds and Academy Picks nominated for x rounds as well.

Compensation Picks at end of Round 1. It is not fair for lower clubs to get a compo pick immediately after their first round pick,

[dirkdiggler]

But Ringo no clubs are going to offer Patful the kind of money that will get Brisbane close to a 1st round pick.

Whether or not people think the player is good or not is completely irrelevant. It's based on how much a club values a player in terms of what they are willing to contract.

You can say that Frawley isn't worth pick 3, but the fact clubs are willing to pay him up to $600,000 a year on an extended contract says otherwise.

Well if history says that picks 10-20 vs picks 1-10 doesn't make any difference then why would my proposal severly hamper the lower clubs? Clubs are compensated for being rubbish via the draft. They shouldn't be compensated better through FA as well

Because FA compensation was only introduced as an extension of the draft in the first place. Otherwise the top clubs will just continuously dominate.

AFL has a much more vested interest in poorly performing clubs improving than the same teams remaining constantly dominate.

I understand why it happens, but it just doesn't work in my book. I'd happily except Melbourne getting the first pick at the end of round one....but not with the premium picks. But like I said..IF it has to be that way then ok, but they can't then trade that pick, they have to use their recruiting skill and pick the right player from the draft. The reality is they will possibly be armed with picks 2 and 3 and will almost certainly trade them for a ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley

[Big Mac]

Free agency impacts all clubs equally...so the compensation should be broadly the same

The compensation shouldn't be the same as not every player is the same. Compensation should be dictated by the player's value, which the AFL has decided is easier to gauge monetarily. In response to Ringo, a player's Best and Fairest rankings are by no means a fair way to judge ability. Frawley has been forced to play through injury multiple times, because contrary to the beliefs of some on here, the MFC does not have an abundance of capable players. Frawley has also been played out of position this year in order to utilise his pace and marking ability off half forward. This ability of his only adds to his value, not detracts as you seem to think it does because he did not finish "in Top 5 in Melbourne's B & F" this year in this new position. You also disregard his experience and leadership abilities. You can not objectively (this means forget about the personal interests of the BFC), whether in reference to his likely 500k+ 4+ year contract, or the reasons listed above, state that Frawley's worth is closer to pick 21 than pick 3.

Furthermore, free agency does not impact all clubs equally. The primary reason for players leaving their respective clubs is to experience success. As such, it is incredibly more likely for a player to leave a weak club and go to a strong club, rather than vice versa. This leaves the top clubs in a perpetual state of success, and the weaker clubs in a perpetual state of development, or a 'rebuild' as one might call it.

Dirk also refers to the fact that compensation is awarded as either a first-round pick, second-round pick etc, to be taken after the respective club's appointed draft pick in that round. As such, stronger clubs awarded compensation will receive a lower pick than a weaker club would for the exact same player. When viewed purely deontologically, I agree that it may seem unfair as someone of Franklin's calibre is clearly not worth an end of first-round pick. However, compensation is awarded in this manner as the loss of good players affects strong teams much less than it would a poor team. Strong teams have adequate cover, and do not rely on their better players very heavily. Weaker teams have much less depth, and are heavily reliant on their better players as they simply do not have many of them, hence their 'weak' state. This is evident when viewing Hawthorn's list. At the end of last year they lost a player widely regarded as their best, and only received an end of first-round pick for him. However, because of the pure strength of their list, his absence did not affect the team and they managed to win the premiership convincingly.

You also infer in your latest post that Melbourne have the potential to essentially receive Dangerfield as compensation for Frawley (See above: ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley). Although, Melbourne wouldn't be, in your supposed deal, they would actually have a net loss of Frawley and Pick 2 for a net gain of Dangerfield. However, this is only another in a string of contrived assertions born of a need to sate an apparent, and largely unfounded hate for the Melbourne Football Club.

[Ricochet]

But Ringo no clubs are going to offer Patful the kind of money that will get Brisbane close to a 1st round pick.

Whether or not people think the player is good or not is completely irrelevant. It's based on how much a club values a player in terms of what they are willing to contract.

You can say that Frawley isn't worth pick 3, but the fact clubs are willing to pay him up to $600,000 a year on an extended contract says otherwise.

Well if history says that picks 10-20 vs picks 1-10 doesn't make any difference then why would my proposal severly hamper the lower clubs? Clubs are compensated for being rubbish via the draft. They shouldn't be compensated better through FA as well

Because FA compensation was only introduced as an extension of the draft in the first place. Otherwise the top clubs will just continuously dominate.

AFL has a much more vested interest in poorly performing clubs improving than the same teams remaining constantly dominate.

I understand why it happens, but it just doesn't work in my book. I'd happily except Melbourne getting the first pick at the end of round one....but not with the premium picks. But like I said..IF it has to be that way then ok, but they can't then trade that pick, they have to use their recruiting skill and pick the right player from the draft. The reality is they will possibly be armed with picks 2 and 3 and will almost certainly trade them for a ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley

2 and 3 = Danger but doesn't = the compo they're received though man. They're earnt pick 2 by being the 2nd worst team in the comp.

How can we expect weaker teams to improve and move towards equalisation if you're only giving them 2nd round picks for losing their best players.

Hawks got a later pick because they were the best team in the comp. Melb are nearly the worst. Based on ability I don't agree that Frawley = Pick 3 either but others are willing to pay a price that is worth pick 3.

[Ringo]

Have not a hate for MFC Big Mac just that I do not the Formula for free agency is correct. maybe as a compromise that teams in the bottom 8 get their compensation pick after Pick 8 in the draft then draft flows. That way bottom teams still get fair compensation.

Bear in mind that Melbourne getting Pick 3 for Frawley is still pure speculation. My objection to it is not a hate for MFC but pushing clubs that have early picks one down the ladder.

[Mailman the 2nd]

But every club is getting pushed down except for 1 (St. Kilda) so its not like it isn't equal.

As for Frawley, imo its pretty much guaranteed they'll get pick 3, considering Dale Thomas got a similar contract that gave Collingwod pick 11.

[Noz]

Guys what you are all forgetting is the way the Free Agency is decided.

- How many years a player has left in the AFL
- The amount of money he will be on
- How many years that contract is for

Frawley is set to sign a 6 year deal worth 600k a season, That speaks for itself in saying clubs rate Frawley a lot higher then originally thought, If a club offered Frawley a 4 year deal worth 400k for example the compensation might be end of 2nd round.

[Ringo]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-01/dees-target-defenders

Melbourne showing interest in Sauce Problem solvered we will take Frawleys compensation pick for Sauce.

[dirkdiggler]

Free agency impacts all clubs equally...so the compensation should be broadly the same

The compensation shouldn't be the same as not every player is the same. Compensation should be dictated by the player's value, which the AFL has decided is easier to gauge monetarily. In response to Ringo, a player's Best and Fairest rankings are by no means a fair way to judge ability. Frawley has been forced to play through injury multiple times, because contrary to the beliefs of some on here, the MFC does not have an abundance of capable players. Frawley has also been played out of position this year in order to utilise his pace and marking ability off half forward. This ability of his only adds to his value, not detracts as you seem to think it does because he did not finish "in Top 5 in Melbourne's B & F" this year in this new position. You also disregard his experience and leadership abilities. You can not objectively (this means forget about the personal interests of the BFC), whether in reference to his likely 500k+ 4+ year contract, or the reasons listed above, state that Frawley's worth is closer to pick 21 than pick 3.

Furthermore, free agency does not impact all clubs equally. The primary reason for players leaving their respective clubs is to experience success. As such, it is incredibly more likely for a player to leave a weak club and go to a strong club, rather than vice versa. This leaves the top clubs in a perpetual state of success, and the weaker clubs in a perpetual state of development, or a 'rebuild' as one might call it.

Dirk also refers to the fact that compensation is awarded as either a first-round pick, second-round pick etc, to be taken after the respective club's appointed draft pick in that round. As such, stronger clubs awarded compensation will receive a lower pick than a weaker club would for the exact same player. When viewed purely deontologically, I agree that it may seem unfair as someone of Franklin's calibre is clearly not worth an end of first-round pick. However, compensation is awarded in this manner as the loss of good players affects strong teams much less than it would a poor team. Strong teams have adequate cover, and do not rely on their better players very heavily. Weaker teams have much less depth, and are heavily reliant on their better players as they simply do not have many of them, hence their 'weak' state. This is evident when viewing Hawthorn's list. At the end of last year they lost a player widely regarded as their best, and only received an end of first-round pick for him. However, because of the pure strength of their list, his absence did not affect the team and they managed to win the premiership convincingly.

You also infer in your latest post that Melbourne have the potential to essentially receive Dangerfield as compensation for Frawley (See above: ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley). Although, Melbourne wouldn't be, in your supposed deal, they would actually have a net loss of Frawley and Pick 2 for a net gain of Dangerfield. However, this is only another in a string of contrived assertions born of a need to sate an apparent, and largely unfounded hate for the Melbourne Football Club.

it's not a contrived assertion nor an unfounded hate for any football club, it's just my opinion...the same opinion held by the Lions CEO and Mick Malthouse. I understand that they would lose Frawley and pick 2....but that would gain Dangerfield, and frankly that means they have benefitted from losing Frawley. For me that doesn't feel like compensation, it feels like Melbourne being more than happy to see Frawley go. As I have said before Brisbane are also struggling, why should Melbourne get 2 picks before they even get one. I'd even be happier if they gave Melbourne pick 9...so at least all clubs finishing outside the finals get their picks as a priority.

[dirkdiggler]

But Ringo no clubs are going to offer Patful the kind of money that will get Brisbane close to a 1st round pick.

Whether or not people think the player is good or not is completely irrelevant. It's based on how much a club values a player in terms of what they are willing to contract.

You can say that Frawley isn't worth pick 3, but the fact clubs are willing to pay him up to $600,000 a year on an extended contract says otherwise.

Well if history says that picks 10-20 vs picks 1-10 doesn't make any difference then why would my proposal severly hamper the lower clubs? Clubs are compensated for being rubbish via the draft. They shouldn't be compensated better through FA as well

Because FA compensation was only introduced as an extension of the draft in the first place. Otherwise the top clubs will just continuously dominate.

AFL has a much more vested interest in poorly performing clubs improving than the same teams remaining constantly dominate.

I understand why it happens, but it just doesn't work in my book. I'd happily except Melbourne getting the first pick at the end of round one....but not with the premium picks. But like I said..IF it has to be that way then ok, but they can't then trade that pick, they have to use their recruiting skill and pick the right player from the draft. The reality is they will possibly be armed with picks 2 and 3 and will almost certainly trade them for a ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley

2 and 3 = Danger but doesn't = the compo they're received though man. They're earnt pick 2 by being the 2nd worst team in the comp.

How can we expect weaker teams to improve and move towards equalisation if you're only giving them 2nd round picks for losing their best players.

Hawks got a later pick because they were the best team in the comp. Melb are nearly the worst. Based on ability I don't agree that Frawley = Pick 3 either but others are willing to pay a price that is worth pick 3.
[/quote

but paying a price driven by a FA market. FA market is always going to be inflated.

[JBs-Hawks]

Free agency impacts all clubs equally...so the compensation should be broadly the same

The compensation shouldn't be the same as not every player is the same. Compensation should be dictated by the player's value, which the AFL has decided is easier to gauge monetarily. In response to Ringo, a player's Best and Fairest rankings are by no means a fair way to judge ability. Frawley has been forced to play through injury multiple times, because contrary to the beliefs of some on here, the MFC does not have an abundance of capable players. Frawley has also been played out of position this year in order to utilise his pace and marking ability off half forward. This ability of his only adds to his value, not detracts as you seem to think it does because he did not finish "in Top 5 in Melbourne's B & F" this year in this new position. You also disregard his experience and leadership abilities. You can not objectively (this means forget about the personal interests of the BFC), whether in reference to his likely 500k+ 4+ year contract, or the reasons listed above, state that Frawley's worth is closer to pick 21 than pick 3.

Furthermore, free agency does not impact all clubs equally. The primary reason for players leaving their respective clubs is to experience success. As such, it is incredibly more likely for a player to leave a weak club and go to a strong club, rather than vice versa. This leaves the top clubs in a perpetual state of success, and the weaker clubs in a perpetual state of development, or a 'rebuild' as one might call it.

Dirk also refers to the fact that compensation is awarded as either a first-round pick, second-round pick etc, to be taken after the respective club's appointed draft pick in that round. As such, stronger clubs awarded compensation will receive a lower pick than a weaker club would for the exact same player. When viewed purely deontologically, I agree that it may seem unfair as someone of Franklin's calibre is clearly not worth an end of first-round pick. However, compensation is awarded in this manner as the loss of good players affects strong teams much less than it would a poor team. Strong teams have adequate cover, and do not rely on their better players very heavily. Weaker teams have much less depth, and are heavily reliant on their better players as they simply do not have many of them, hence their 'weak' state. This is evident when viewing Hawthorn's list. At the end of last year they lost a player widely regarded as their best, and only received an end of first-round pick for him. However, because of the pure strength of their list, his absence did not affect the team and they managed to win the premiership convincingly.

You also infer in your latest post that Melbourne have the potential to essentially receive Dangerfield as compensation for Frawley (See above: ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley). Although, Melbourne wouldn't be, in your supposed deal, they would actually have a net loss of Frawley and Pick 2 for a net gain of Dangerfield. However, this is only another in a string of contrived assertions born of a need to sate an apparent, and largely unfounded hate for the Melbourne Football Club.

it's not a contrived assertion nor an unfounded hate for any football club, it's just my opinion...the same opinion held by the Lions CEO and Mick Malthouse. I understand that they would lose Frawley and pick 2....but that would gain Dangerfield, and frankly that means they have benefitted from losing Frawley. For me that doesn't feel like compensation, it feels like Melbourne being more than happy to see Frawley go. As I have said before Brisbane are also struggling, why should Melbourne get 2 picks before they even get one. I'd even be happier if they gave Melbourne pick 9...so at least all clubs finishing outside the finals get their picks as a priority.

Your argument is flawed and biased.
Im sure the crows would accept Frawley  + pick 2 for Danger just as fast as they would 2 + 3.

[Vinny]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-01/dees-target-defenders

Melbourne showing interest in Sauce Problem solvered we will take Frawleys compensation pick for Sauce.

Haha kidding right?

[dirkdiggler]

Free agency impacts all clubs equally...so the compensation should be broadly the same

The compensation shouldn't be the same as not every player is the same. Compensation should be dictated by the player's value, which the AFL has decided is easier to gauge monetarily. In response to Ringo, a player's Best and Fairest rankings are by no means a fair way to judge ability. Frawley has been forced to play through injury multiple times, because contrary to the beliefs of some on here, the MFC does not have an abundance of capable players. Frawley has also been played out of position this year in order to utilise his pace and marking ability off half forward. This ability of his only adds to his value, not detracts as you seem to think it does because he did not finish "in Top 5 in Melbourne's B & F" this year in this new position. You also disregard his experience and leadership abilities. You can not objectively (this means forget about the personal interests of the BFC), whether in reference to his likely 500k+ 4+ year contract, or the reasons listed above, state that Frawley's worth is closer to pick 21 than pick 3.

Furthermore, free agency does not impact all clubs equally. The primary reason for players leaving their respective clubs is to experience success. As such, it is incredibly more likely for a player to leave a weak club and go to a strong club, rather than vice versa. This leaves the top clubs in a perpetual state of success, and the weaker clubs in a perpetual state of development, or a 'rebuild' as one might call it.

Dirk also refers to the fact that compensation is awarded as either a first-round pick, second-round pick etc, to be taken after the respective club's appointed draft pick in that round. As such, stronger clubs awarded compensation will receive a lower pick than a weaker club would for the exact same player. When viewed purely deontologically, I agree that it may seem unfair as someone of Franklin's calibre is clearly not worth an end of first-round pick. However, compensation is awarded in this manner as the loss of good players affects strong teams much less than it would a poor team. Strong teams have adequate cover, and do not rely on their better players very heavily. Weaker teams have much less depth, and are heavily reliant on their better players as they simply do not have many of them, hence their 'weak' state. This is evident when viewing Hawthorn's list. At the end of last year they lost a player widely regarded as their best, and only received an end of first-round pick for him. However, because of the pure strength of their list, his absence did not affect the team and they managed to win the premiership convincingly.

You also infer in your latest post that Melbourne have the potential to essentially receive Dangerfield as compensation for Frawley (See above: ready made supertstar (Dangerfield) which is MASSIVE compensation from Frawley). Although, Melbourne wouldn't be, in your supposed deal, they would actually have a net loss of Frawley and Pick 2 for a net gain of Dangerfield. However, this is only another in a string of contrived assertions born of a need to sate an apparent, and largely unfounded hate for the Melbourne Football Club.

it's not a contrived assertion nor an unfounded hate for any football club, it's just my opinion...the same opinion held by the Lions CEO and Mick Malthouse. I understand that they would lose Frawley and pick 2....but that would gain Dangerfield, and frankly that means they have benefitted from losing Frawley. For me that doesn't feel like compensation, it feels like Melbourne being more than happy to see Frawley go. As I have said before Brisbane are also struggling, why should Melbourne get 2 picks before they even get one. I'd even be happier if they gave Melbourne pick 9...so at least all clubs finishing outside the finals get their picks as a priority.

Your argument is flawed and biased.
Im sure the crows would accept Frawley  + pick 2 for Danger just as fast as they would 2 + 3.

for a start my argument is not biased. I have no bias at all with footy..I come from a soccer background where the sport is fundametnally ruined by money...I love AFL for that fact that it attempts to be as fair as it can to all clubs.
Frawley plus pick 2 relies on the fact that Frawley wants that trade. Picks 2 and 3 give Adelaide the pick of the draft OR the ability to retrade those picks...it's a far more attractive proposition IMO..especially with consectutive picks which is always a good thing. In isolation..I wouldn't disagree that someone would use pick 3 to get Frawley, they might and I am not disputing that. But your giving Melbourne pick 3 as compo BECAUSE they have pick 2. That is flawed logic. You can't base Frawley's worth in the game based on where Melbourne finish in the ladder. If you want fairness then you apply a numeric rating on all players based on criteria that all clubs agree on. That rating applies to a draft position, and that is the comp pick they get. That is fair.
I just don't see how the current process is fair. Melbourne could have finished below Brisbane on percentage..i.e. they are equally as crap. Yet because they lose Frawley, they receive 2 picks before Brisbane. Nonsense IMO

[Ricochet]

Need to look at it as more an equalisation process though mate, not about being fair for all clubs
Would be the same if Brissie lost Rocky, they would need more than a 2nd round pick