Thoughts on Free Agency

[Tominator]

I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about how the players' influence on trades has risen so much?

I guess it may be a by-product of Free Agency, but players are now nominating one club they want to go to and basically forcing the clubs' hands into brokering a trade, and excluding all other clubs, even if they can offer more playing time. In the past, if a player wanted out or wanted to go back to Victoria, they'd be traded to a new club that gives their old club the best trade, not the club that gives the player the best pay packet. Nowadays its becoming a bit more like soccer, where players have a much greater say and are basically having full control over their movement.

For example, Jonathon O'Rourke choosing Hawthorn, so St Kilda have ruled themselves out.. Paddy Ryder picking Port Adelaide.. Levi Greenwood nominating Collingwood.. Kurt Tippett opting for Sydney a couple of years ago.. the list goes on

It's as if players are acting like Free Agents before they are eligible to become one

Just some food for thought.. Do you guys see this as a good or bad thing for the game?

[WCarey18]

IMO, expand FA to any player that is out of contract, or scrap the whole thing.

Now, there is an inherent problem at the moment with players wishing to join those teams who are vying for a flag (ie. Frawley and Lake to Hawthorn), leaving teams like Melbourne and the Dogs little weaker....

...this is the problem that needs solving, but what is the solution? IMO, compensation isn't the full answer. Frawley might/might not equal pick 3 (thats another debate), but Melbourne have still lost a 26yo key defender.

Perhaps the AFL should disallow the top 8 from participating in FA? This would eliminate the strong praying on the weak....

[Ricochet]

to be honest man players have been nominating clubs for decades it's just that is more open to the media these days and used to be behind closed doors. Clubs would still try facilitate a trade with the club of choice and if it didnt work they'd try sort something else out, like these days.

At the end of the day clubs look to do well by the player if they can work out a fair trade. If not then they'll find a fair trade elsewhere

[WCarey18]

to be honest man players have been nominating clubs for decades it's just that is more open to the media these days and used to be behind closed doors. Clubs would still try facilitate a trade with the club of choice and if it didnt work they'd try sort something else out, like these days.

At the end of the day clubs look to do well by the player if they can work out a fair trade. If not then they'll find a fair trade elsewhere

Damn Twitter.  :P

[meow meow]

Flowering compo picks!

You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.

Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)

[Master Q]

Flowering compo picks!

You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.

Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)

I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.

[kilbluff1985]

i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round

so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc

affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice

[Big Mac]

Flowering compo picks!

You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.

Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)

Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?

I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.

I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.

Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency.

i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round

so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc

affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice

Why should weaker clubs have to pay more for the same player?

[Ziplock]

Flowering compo picks!

You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.

Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)

Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?

I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.

I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.

Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency.

i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round

so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc

affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice

Why should weaker clubs have to pay more for the same player?

yeah, major issue.


like if hawthorn offered pendles a contract they'd only have to pay pick 19 for him, while saint kilda would have to pay pick 1. The strong would get even stronger.

[Master Q]

"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."

"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club

[kilbluff1985]

um if Saints could get Pendles with pick 1 they would be more then happy to

[meow meow]

Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?

I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.

Nick Malceski? Dale Thomas?

If you reckon that an extra 200K every year, for 4 years isn't enough to make a player move clubs then you are kidding yourself. Ward? Davis?

We shouldn't have been given anything for Higgins. With that 400k we saved we can front load contracts this year, then go out and get a FA next year who'll probably be better than Higgo anyway, AND we've gotten another 2nd round pick out of it as well. It doesn't make any sense. It's in teams best interests to lose a FA every second year, then sign one every year following. They'll just replace whoever they lost and get an extra pick every couple of years. So much for equalization.

[Ziplock]

"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."

"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club

I  thought players in the bottom 25% were unrestricted FA?

um if Saints could get Pendles with pick 1 they would be more then happy to

Yeah, really bad example in hindsite.

Maybe swap pendles for shiels, hawthorn for sydney and pick 19 for pick 18?


better example.

[Master Q]

"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."

"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club

I  thought players in the bottom 25% were unrestricted FA?

No, the only exception is if you are a 2nd year player who doesn't want to resign. (I don't like that rule either)

First year players have to go to the draft.

[Big Mac]

"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."

"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club

Does it not also say "in the relevant contract year"?