Brisbane Trades and Draft discussion Thread

[dirkdiggler]

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

Understand that point for sure...but equalisation is about being fair to all clubs. The current scenario benefits Melbourne to the detriment of Brisbane who are also struggling.

[Ziplock]

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

If the loss of good players had equal impacts on all clubs, then the argument that FA  compo shouldn't be position based would be completely valid, but it doesn't work that way. Look at hawthorn winning back to back premierships despite the loss of the game's best key forward- losing a player of that calibre that would devastate a weaker club (see GC post ablett injury), hence the higher pick.

Rocky mightn't be the best example, but say Brisbane lost redden to FA... They'd be howling for back to back first rounders. And at this point in time we can ignore malthouse- he's panicking chronically because he knows his head's on the chopping block.

Do clubs in some circumstances end up better off in the long run due to FA? In some cases, yes, depending on age structure etc. However in the short term? Normally not. An established kpp  like frawley who's so pivotal to his team's structure can't really be replaced by a pick to immediate effect. Yeah, they can bundle a couple of picks together for a player, but I doubt most young guns like danger would want to go to a team like Melbourne, and the dees wouldnt trade picks 2/3 for a player that didn't want to live there/ might walk next year.

Sorry if I'm incoherent, I'm on the train on my pphone

Basically, I think ideally FA would take into account a player's worth and the impact of their loss on a team on a case to case basis... But that would open the issue to subjectivity, which we know doesn't link well with the afl #mrp, so they have an algorithm intended to review these objectively case by case.

[Ricochet]

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

If the loss of good players had equal impacts on all clubs, then the argument that FA  compo shouldn't be position based would be completely valid, but it doesn't work that way. Look at hawthorn winning back to back premierships despite the loss of the game's best key forward- losing a player of that calibre that would devastate a weaker club (see GC post ablett injury), hence the higher pick.

Rocky mightn't be the best example, but say Brisbane lost redden to FA... They'd be howling for back to back first rounders. And at this point in time we can ignore malthouse- he's panicking chronically because he knows his head's on the chopping block.

Do clubs in some circumstances end up better off in the long run due to FA? In some cases, yes, depending on age structure etc. However in the short term? Normally not. An established kpp  like frawley who's so pivotal to his team's structure can't really be replaced by a pick to immediate effect. Yeah, they can bundle a couple of picks together for a player, but I doubt most young guns like danger would want to go to a team like Melbourne, and the dees wouldnt trade picks 2/3 for a player that didn't want to live there/ might walk next year.

Sorry if I'm incoherent, I'm on the train on my pphone

Basically, I think ideally FA would take into account a player's worth and the impact of their loss on a team on a case to case basis... But that would open the issue to subjectivity, which we know doesn't link well with the afl #mrp, so they have an algorithm intended to review these objectively case by case.

I actually think we're on the same page mate.

Like people will complain about Buddy situation and Hawks only getting that late pick. Then comparing it to the Frawley situation. But Buddy at Melbourne is worth a hell of a lot more to the club that Buddy at the Hawks. Strong teams can cover good players leaving, Struggling teams cannot as much.

[Big Mac]

Need to look at it as more an equalisation process though mate, not about being equal for all clubs

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.

This is the only feasible way to award compensation. Your idea to "apply a numeric rating on all players based on criteria that all clubs agree on" works great in the magical world where everyone loves each other and wants the best for each other. But we don't, every club is only interested in what's best for them. There is no way you would get all 18 clubs to agree on an outcome.

I just don't see how the current process is fair. Melbourne could have finished belowBrisbane on percentage..i.e. they are equally as crap. Yet because they lose Frawley, they receive 2 picks before Brisbane. Nonsense IMO

Synonyms for below: Under, Beneath, Lower, Inferior, Secondary

Melbourne finished below Brisbane because Melbourne are a weaker team. They have been judged to have had a worse year than Brisbane. Even if they were separated by a single percentage point, Melbourne would still be 'below' Brisbane, they would not be 'equal'.
In the event that Frawley leaves then they would be receiving two picks before Brisbane because of their ladder position and their inherent 'weaker' state, not because they lost Frawley.

Understand that point for sure...but equalisation is about being fair to all clubs. The current scenario benefits Melbourne to the detriment of Brisbane who are also struggling.

If James Frawley played for Brisbane and wanted to leave, they would have the exact same opportunity to receive compensation for him.

[dirkdiggler]

Need to look at it as more an equalisation process though mate, not about being equal for all clubs

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.

This is the only feasible way to award compensation. Your idea to "apply a numeric rating on all players based on criteria that all clubs agree on" works great in the magical world where everyone loves each other and wants the best for each other. But we don't, every club is only interested in what's best for them. There is no way you would get all 18 clubs to agree on an outcome.

I just don't see how the current process is fair. Melbourne could have finished belowBrisbane on percentage..i.e. they are equally as crap. Yet because they lose Frawley, they receive 2 picks before Brisbane. Nonsense IMO

Synonyms for below: Under, Beneath, Lower, Inferior, Secondary

Melbourne finished below Brisbane because Melbourne are a weaker team. They have been judged to have had a worse year than Brisbane. Even if they were separated by a single percentage point, Melbourne would still be 'below' Brisbane, they would not be 'equal'.
In the event that Frawley leaves then they would be receiving two picks before Brisbane because of their ladder position and their inherent 'weaker' state, not because they lost Frawley.

Understand that point for sure...but equalisation is about being fair to all clubs. The current scenario benefits Melbourne to the detriment of Brisbane who are also struggling.

If James Frawley played for Brisbane and wanted to leave, they would have the exact same opportunity to receive compensation for him.

yeah I am not sure I like you tone buddy...getting all smart ass about dictionary definitions is not my bag.

[Big Mac]

yeah I am not sure I like you tone buddy...getting all smart ass about dictionary definitions is not my bag.

Good to know you resort to name-calling when unable to formulate a real argument. I won't waste my time again.

[dirkdiggler]

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

If the loss of good players had equal impacts on all clubs, then the argument that FA  compo shouldn't be position based would be completely valid, but it doesn't work that way. Look at hawthorn winning back to back premierships despite the loss of the game's best key forward- losing a player of that calibre that would devastate a weaker club (see GC post ablett injury), hence the higher pick.

Rocky mightn't be the best example, but say Brisbane lost redden to FA... They'd be howling for back to back first rounders. And at this point in time we can ignore malthouse- he's panicking chronically because he knows his head's on the chopping block.

Do clubs in some circumstances end up better off in the long run due to FA? In some cases, yes, depending on age structure etc. However in the short term? Normally not. An established kpp  like frawley who's so pivotal to his team's structure can't really be replaced by a pick to immediate effect. Yeah, they can bundle a couple of picks together for a player, but I doubt most young guns like danger would want to go to a team like Melbourne, and the dees wouldnt trade picks 2/3 for a player that didn't want to live there/ might walk next year.

Sorry if I'm incoherent, I'm on the train on my pphone

Basically, I think ideally FA would take into account a player's worth and the impact of their loss on a team on a case to case basis... But that would open the issue to subjectivity, which we know doesn't link well with the afl #mrp, so they have an algorithm intended to review these objectively case by case.

I actually think we're on the same page mate.

Like people will complain about Buddy situation and Hawks only getting that late pick. Then comparing it to the Frawley situation. But Buddy at Melbourne is worth a hell of a lot more to the club that Buddy at the Hawks. Strong teams can cover good players leaving, Struggling teams cannot as much.

I defnitely agree with that sentiment mate. I just think comparing Hawks to Melbourne in that context is a little unfair. I am coming from the angle that other clubs outside the 8..are actually worse off in the draft because of Frawley. It just doesn't sit right with me..good debate though  ;) ;)

[dirkdiggler]

yeah I am not sure I like you tone buddy...getting all smart ass about dictionary definitions is not my bag.

Good to know you resort to name-calling when unable to formulate a real argument. I won't waste my time again.

I have forumalted a real argument. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.It's called debating, and it is what a forum is for. My views are the same as the Lions CEO and Mick Malthouse....I guess they can't form a real argument either then.
To start with sarcastic comments using dictionary defintions..and saying I have some hate filled agenda against Melbourne suggests it is you that has troubling debating.

[Mat0369]

Melbourne deserve pick 3 for what teams are reportedly offering Frawley. The rule is it is a pick after your first round pick if they are categorised as a star, Frawley under the guideline looks to fit that category. If they had pick 10 no body would be complaining if they got 11 for him. There is always talks for equalisation in the comp and this is a way of doing it. They applied for a priority pick but the AFL shot them down, which team in the last decade has probably needed a priority pick more then the Dees? You can't talk about equalisition of the competition and then when the AFL actually try and do something about it with compensation for teams best players leaving supporters and executives slam the league. I am assuming one of the reasons the AFL didn't award Melbourne the priority pick is because they expected to give them pick 3 for the loss of Frawley.

Swann and Malthouse are just butthurt over the situation, I wouldn't bother with anything they say.

Brisbane are on crack if they think Pick 4/5 and Golby/Lester is equal to Beams

They other option for the way compensation picks are awarded is that they could do it like the NFL and not award compo picks the year they actually lose the FA and do it the year after. They could also involve trigger clauses like games played etc in the grading system but that becomes a mess. The way they are doing it now is the most simple and effective way. While it looks lopsided in cases of Buddy, had Hawthorn finished last then lost Buddy they would have got pick 2 with the system in place.

/rant

[Ricochet]

Well said Mat

[dirkdiggler]

Melbourne deserve pick 3 for what teams are reportedly offering Frawley. The rule is it is a pick after your first round pick if they are categorised as a star, Frawley under the guideline looks to fit that category. If they had pick 10 no body would be complaining if they got 11 for him. There is always talks for equalisation in the comp and this is a way of doing it. They applied for a priority pick but the AFL shot them down, which team in the last decade has probably needed a priority pick more then the Dees? You can't talk about equalisition of the competition and then when the AFL actually try and do something about it with compensation for teams best players leaving supporters and executives slam the league. I am assuming one of the reasons the AFL didn't award Melbourne the priority pick is because they expected to give them pick 3 for the loss of Frawley.

Swann and Malthouse are just butthurt over the situation, I wouldn't bother with anything they say.

Brisbane are on crack if they think Pick 4/5 and Golby/Lester is equal to Beams

They other option for the way compensation picks are awarded is that they could do it like the NFL and not award compo picks the year they actually lose the FA and do it the year after. They could also involve trigger clauses like games played etc in the grading system but that becomes a mess. The way they are doing it now is the most simple and effective way. While it looks lopsided in cases of Buddy, had Hawthorn finished last then lost Buddy they would have got pick 2 with the system in place.

/rant
[/quote

you could also suggest that the Dees applied for the priority pick knowing it would be knocked back...but securing pick 3. Good post matt. I think there are arguments for and against...with no ideal solution. One of the by products of FA is that players will get "overs". Frawley will clearly get overs..so basing his compo pick of these numbers is perhaps unrealstic. Your right, I wouldn't complain about the Dees getting say pick 11..Because at least all the lesser teams have got their pick that their ladder positon deserved.

[Ringo]

The simple solution as I said earlier is for the AFL to decree when the compo picks are taken based on the criteria.

eg Splitting the finishing order 3 ways and if it is deemed a club is entitles to a first round pick then teams finishing 13 - 18 get their priority picks after round 6 Teams finishing 7-12 after team 7 picks and so on through all the rounds as well. That way picks are more equal for teams based on finishing order and will help equalise the competition.

We had this debate last year over FA and compo picks so obviously something is still not right with the rulings.  Like the NFL suggestions that Compo Picks are to be used the following year as well.

BTW Matt that trade for Beams is only suggested and is the one being talked about.  What eventuates remains to be seen. With Patful and Sauce both possibly being able to be traded three way trades could eventuate

[Big Mac]

I have forumalted a real argument. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.It's called debating, and it is what a forum is for. My views are the same as the Lions CEO and Mick Malthouse....I guess they can't form a real argument either then.
To start with sarcastic comments using dictionary defintions..and saying I have some hate filled agenda against Melbourne suggests it is you that has troubling debating.

I'll spell it out for you.
- I made an argument and you offered no rebuttal other than a remark which I can only assume was intended to insult me. An insult is not a real argument.
- I was not sarcastic once. The synonyms were used to illustrate what finishing 'below' someone on the ladder actually means.
- The reason I initially entered this debate was because of this remark. "And to think that the Dees also wanted a priority pick as well. Next year they might ask the AFL to just award them a spot in the top 8". You paint the club I support as weak and unwilling to put in any hard work. I understood this to be an insult to the club and indirectly an insult to me because of my emotional investment in the club. I recognise that the use of the word 'hate' may be brash on my part, but I can only assume that you heavily dislike the club if you are willing to insult it on a forum.

[Mat0369]

The simple solution as I said earlier is for the AFL to decree when the compo picks are taken based on the criteria.

eg Splitting the finishing order 3 ways and if it is deemed a club is entitles to a first round pick then teams finishing 13 - 18 get their priority picks after round 6 Teams finishing 7-12 after team 7 picks and so on through all the rounds as well. That way picks are more equal for teams based on finishing order and will help equalise the competition.

We had this debate last year over FA and compo picks so obviously something is still not right with the rulings.  Like the NFL suggestions that Compo Picks are to be used the following year as well.

BTW Matt that trade for Beams is only suggested and is the one being talked about.  What eventuates remains to be seen. With Patful and Sauce both possibly being able to be traded three way trades could eventuate

The only issue with rewarding picks the next year is that it might encourage tanking. The NFL also only awards compo picks from the 3rd round and after which is interesting but you have more players moving through FA each year then you do in the AFL.

The other way to look at it, how much of a difference is there between picks 4 and 5 on any given year? Basically nothing. I don't think the Pies care if they get 4 or 5. They just want adequate compensation for Beams and if anything, knocking the picks down one actually helps the Lions as it makes the GC picks as valuable.

I still think the trade I have read on here multiple times of Lester/Golby and a 1st is ridiculous. Beams is one of the top players in the league in his age bracket and has won a B&F at Collingwood. I can't see them willingly being screwed over just because he wants to go home. They will want someone like Aish/Mayes/Rich or a 2nd round pick as well. If the Lions can get a 2nd rounder for Patfull they will want that will be the pick to send and it works out as a pretty fair deal.

[Ringo]

Agree 90% with what you are saying let the negotiations take place and see what happens in the end. Pies have stated they want Pick 4 and Hanley which is way over and Brisbane have said only pick 4 given what the previous pick 4's have been and this is way under.

I would like to see us deal with GWS for Patful and then see what transpires.  Have a feeling we may have to use our second rounder on Dawson for Academy bidding given that he is performing well at the combine.So we just wait and see what transpires.  Brisbane will be meeting with Collingwood later today.