Free Agency Compensation

[deanox 8,688]

I didn't want to derail any of the trade threads (I.e. sylvia to Bombers) with a discussion about FA so thought I'd start a thread.

There has been discussion about the worth of the compensation picks and whether they should be awarded. It seems people are on both sides of this and I'd like to understand some of the reasons.

Personally I think compensation picks are a must. Clubs have a limited number of assets, players and draft picks, and when you lose a player with value it is hard to replace. To buy another established player you either trade players or picks, or replace then with FAs.

Regarding bringing in FAs, this requires two things or at least one of them: the money/cap space to buy a player by paying over the odds and/or a desirable club ie facilities or on field performance.

In theory, low ranked clubs should have just as much chance of bringing in FAs as high clubs; they should have more money to buy players as their playing list should be less expensive than the good clubs. In reality it seems that the poor clubs don't have this money. The AFL CBA means that all clubs must pay a minimum amount which is quite big (around 95% of the cap), so there is little cap space to work with to just buy a big fish. Additionally most of the poorer clubs don't pay 100% because they can't afford to. Even if a FA was available and interested they can't afford to throw the money at them.

What I have seen so far is that the good quality free agents are interested in moving to finals bound clubs while mid tier players are more likely to chase a pay day. As a result those low ranked clubs can successfully overpay for average players but will struggle to bring in guns. A massive pay packet would be required to land this sort of fish.

I think compensation is definitely required to make sure that free agency is fair to all clubs regardless of money or ladder position. Otherwise I think we will see the gap between the string and rich and the poor and poor get wider.

Would love to hear some thoughts on these ideas.

edit: cut a bit out that wasn't relevant

Edited September 26, 2013 by deanox

[Sir Why You Little 34,647]

Compensation should be salary cap space.

[rpfc 27,570]

I watch a great deal of draft and salary cap regulated sports; the NBA does not give compensation. The NFL does give a pick in the second or third round depending on the 'net loss' of a team, no pick if they 'gained'. There is so much movement of FA in both sports.

The MLB gives more compensation but baseball is a game that sees draft picks as the most unimportant of the other codes.

I mention these because that is where the AFL gets their ideas from.

I think we should blaze our own trail on this and simplify but keep the compensation.

3 bands - High, Moderate, unclassified.

Pick following your first pick for players considered 'high', pick following in the second for 'moderate', and no comp for the rest.

If a team has a net loss of the first two bands they receive relevant pick(s).

I understand the argument that there should be no compensation but i feel like our game is different to the US where the NBA has not hard a salary floor in the past (they have one now) so that teams can save money and spend 25% of the cap on one player and outbid the bigger teams and change their fortunes. There is also a thing called 'Bird rights' where a team can re-sign a long serving FA and go over the cap.

The movement of the best players in the NFL but they still have some compensation.

MLB is a joke in terms of equalisation. Yankees spend USD$200m and rivals Rays USD$60m...

I would go our own way and try to make sure that there is plenty of movement but keep giving assets to clubs losing players.

But I could definitely see an argument to scrap it. It does make sense.

[deanox 8,688]

rpfc I agree the formula is to convoluted and low to mid tier players who happen to eek or a career for 8 years probably should be the players compensation is based on.

But for a tan like the saints to lose Goddard for nothing would be really hard on the competition. And if Essendon manage to land sylvia the year after landing Goddard then that tells you the system isn't working. No struggling club landed a big name FA last year and probably won't this year. GWS and Franklin won't count, add it is AFL induced. The big names will go to the big clubs who can pay overs and offer finals opportunities. The middle tier players will be squeezed out due to cap space and will end up at bottom clubs.

We have a system that allows teams to stay in the mix without truly being equal. With only a few minor tweaks this could be evened out without being detrimental to any team.

[dee-luded 2,958]

rpfc I agree the formula is to convoluted and low to mid tier players who happen to eek or a career for 8 years probably should be the players compensation is based on.

But for a tan like the saints to lose Goddard for nothing would be really hard on the competition. And if Essendon manage to land sylvia the year after landing Goddard then that tells you the system isn't working. No struggling club landed a big name FA last year and probably won't this year. GWS and Franklin won't count, add it is AFL induced. The big names will go to the big clubs who can pay overs and offer finals opportunities. The middle tier players will be squeezed out due to cap space and will end up at bottom clubs.

We have a system that allows teams to stay in the mix without truly being equal. With only a few minor tweaks this could be evened out without being detrimental to any team.

cap the clubs ability to recruit a free agent somehow. favouring the lesser of the clubs based over the past 5 year period.

[Chook 14,595]

cap the clubs ability to recruit a free agent somehow. favouring the lesser of the clubs based over the past 5 year period.

Perhaps the AFL adds a subsidy that would multiply the club's offer by that club's average finishing position over the last x number of years.

A club that finished an average of 18th over the last 5 years would be able to pay an equivalent of 1.8 times whatever they're offering. A club that won the premiership would receive no subsidy at all (1.0 times their offer).

[deanox 8,688]

Perhaps the AFL adds a subsidy that would multiply the club's offer by that club's average finishing position over the last x number of years.

A club that finished an average of 18th over the last 5 years would be able to pay an equivalent of 1.8 times whatever they're offering. A club that won the premiership would receive no subsidy at all (1.0 times their offer).

That's a pretty good idea but the problem I see is a bottom ranked side buying 3-5 Free agents over two years at half price plus number 1 picks for those years. The top clubs would scream.

I think the best thing the AFL could do is remove the incentive to not pay 100% of the cap. Forget the stadium deals, the poor clubs which are also some of the struggling clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the cap and still operate everything else. These clubs are paying less than 100% to save money. Additionally the clubs that have poor lists still have to pay a minimum of ~95% of the cap to those players.

Do Melbourne players deserve 95% of the money off the Geelong players this season? I doubt it.

In theory we should be able to spend our money to buy free agents but because of existing contracts, signed to ensure we pay the minimum required amount, we probably only have a couple of percent available every year. On top of that we can't afford to pay more than 97 or so % so never have big coin to throw around.

If we could pay our average quality list 85% of the cap, and also have enough money to pay 100% of we wanted/needed to, we would then have money free to buy a free agent when available.

To do this, the AFL would need to guarantee the cap money as part off the dividend it pays the clubs. But it would withhold any amount not paid to players. I.e. Clubs can pay as little as the players deserve but cannot pay money as a saving measure.

Players wages are artificially inflate by having to pay minimum cap levels to the stringent of the competition.

[sue 8,463]

What is the rationale behind the current pay at least 95% of the cap policy? Why have a minimum at all? (Not below 40 times the minimum wage of course.)

[Webber 10,173]

Your arguments seem very sound to me deanox, and highlight again the inequality that is becoming more entrenched in the ironically self professed pro-equalisation AFL. I think they will be loathe to address the inequity until it becomes obvious that it's only the rich clubs that are securing the big FA's over a period of years.....maybe 7-10. The gap will be wider by then, so addressing THAT amongst the other inequalities (stadium deals/fixturing/drafting) will likely create some squealing from the porkier pigs at the trough.

[daisycutter 28,630]

What is the rationale behind the current pay at least 95% of the cap policy? Why have a minimum at all? (Not below 40 times the minimum wage of course.)

aflpa

[Sir Why You Little 34,647]

cap the clubs ability to recruit a free agent somehow. favouring the lesser of the clubs based over the past 5 year period.

That is not free agency....You either have it or you do not.

[rpfc 27,570]

aflpa

Exactly.

Players want a salary floor because we have a hard cap (well supposedly).

The NBA is introducing one this season.

Edited September 27, 2013 by rpfc

[sue 8,463]

Exactly.

Players want a salary floor because we have a hard cap (well supposedly).

The NBA is introducing one this season.

Is there not a minimum salary for a listed player? If so, I presume 40*that is far less than 95% of the cap. So to what extent is the aflpa feather-bedding the top players by insisting on the 95%? It would be interesting to know the distribution of salaries.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Perhaps the AFL adds a subsidy that would multiply the club's offer by that club's average finishing position over the last x number of years.

A club that finished an average of 18th over the last 5 years would be able to pay an equivalent of 1.8 times whatever they're offering. A club that won the premiership would receive no subsidy at all (1.0 times their offer).

My idea is if free agency grows, whats to stop the top clubs from taking 3 players a year.

maybe limit them to ??? a $$$ amount, or 1 player every 2nd year, or something? it should be spread out evenly, with the lower clubs (averaged over a 3 Yr period) enjoying slightly more power in the free agency recruiting wars.

otherwise the divide will always be there, & equality won't ever happen.

Edited September 27, 2013 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,958]

That is not free agency....You either have it or you do not.

free agency isn't about the clubs, its about the players right to move from a club.

if you want the clubs to have free agency represent them,,, then make all contracts no longer than 1 year. with a trade period each end of season. I think thats where your argument is heading.

just ditch contracts and have a season commitment.

Edited September 27, 2013 by dee-luded

[deanox 8,688]

Is there not a minimum salary for a listed player? If so, I presume 40*that is far less than 95% of the cap. So to what extent is the aflpa feather-bedding the top players by insisting on the 95%? It would be interesting to know the distribution of salaries.

The minimum is there because the AFLPA argues that the salary cap is not only the maximum limit for clubs in terms of equalisation but it also represents the amount that its member players will be paid as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

It used to be 92.5% but was increased to 95% in the last CBA.

Many clubs were trying to cut costs and save money (read: not lose money) by paying players less than the cap. The AFLPs aid "that's not right, the players rant their share so should get paid that much.

My problem with this restriction is that it assumes all clubs are equal. Also enforcing that restriction means that no club, not even the clubs with young inexperienced players and no true stars, actually has significant spare funds available to pay free agents. Add the practice of poor clubs paying less than 100% of the cap for money saving and there is no true free agency market.

[deanox 8,688]

I'm staying to think equalisation needs to be driven by the players.

The AFL and AFLPA have an agreement that all players who get drafted should have theoretical equal chance of winning a premiership at any club they are drafted to. The players as a collective want equalisation because of the gap widens only 30% of players will ever have a chance at success.

Our stakeholders are different than other sports where money is often the prime motivator. The clubs are member run so aren't out to make money, even though profit is important for improving and staying ahead. But the players, while restive by drafts and salary caps get paid roughly the sane no matter where they pay. Their big driver will be equalising the playing field for all players.

[QueensBirthday 186]

Just read on AFL website Collingwood expects band 1 compensation for Dale Thomas. I can't imagine he's on massive coin. He didn't feature in the Copeland trophy or Brownlow all year, admittedly due to injury. I just don't see him as elite.

2 questions. Is Collingwood in for a rude shock?

If they get band 1, can we expect band 1 for Sylvia?

[beelzebub 22,243]

Just Collingwood being Collingwood !!

Cant blame them. Doesn't deserve it though. Band 2 max

[rpfc 27,570]

He's on $700k from reports.

That's quite a bit.

[Swampfox 190]

Who cares about Collingwood

Its what Melbourne gets for Sylvia is all that matters

Depending on what trade deals we get done that could change

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Daisy is a better player than Sylvia with a longer career ahead of him and probably on more money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did get a higher band.

The real interest to me is what we get for Sylvia. There was a bit of discussion on Trade Week Radio about this, and they were thinking we should get about what PA got last year for their guys, which would amount to a second round pick. There was a bit of discussion about whether the AFL would be willing to go there given that our second pick will be around 20, as opposed to PA getting picks in the high 30's for their second rounders last year. Personally, I think that this shouldn't come into it at all. This is part of the inbuilt mechanism to help poor clubs get better compo in that their picks in a given round are better and thus their compo is better. I would say that they have Sylvia's value about right as being about the same as Chaplin, so make it a second round pick and don't try to second guess the safeguards that have been built into the system.

[Demon_spurs 1,673]

I don't think the issue should be who is a better player, I would argue that Colin Sylvia was more important to Melbourne than Daisy was to Collingwood. I think this should taken on it's own merit, if Colin had chosen to stay, it would have sent a message of solidarity to all future players that the place was worth hanging around, however I can't see that Daisy has that same effect on the playing group as a whole at Colliwobbles. Therefore I think that Colin is worth more than Daisy.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,364]

I don't think the issue should be who is a better player, I would argue that Colin Sylvia was more important to Melbourne than Daisy was to Collingwood. I think this should taken on it's own merit, if Colin had chosen to stay, it would have sent a message of solidarity to all future players that the place was worth hanging around, however I can't see that Daisy has that same effect on the playing group as a whole at Colliwobbles. Therefore I think that Colin is worth more than Daisy.

Col could have been far more important to Melbourne but..... what we got was ..well ..what we got!!

[Demon_spurs 1,673]

NO I disagree, as it stood before he signed, he was a more important player to MFC than Daisy was to CFC, due to the number of A graders that Colliwobbles have and the dearth of talent on our books, I have watched him since his first 1 handball game against North, he was marketable (hence the Demon shop stuff) and he was unpredictable, but I was always happy to see him back in the side.