Free Agency benefiting Top clubs!

[T-34 409]

As far as I can tell some good players are exercising their options at 20 or 21, e.g. Gunston. Players out of contract are walking if they want and ask. Why do we need FA at all these days.

Spot on. Players walk and choose their club of choice, and generally get there.

The only one I can think of that didn't was Nick Stevens who wanted to go to Collingwood but finished up at Carlton.

I'm sure there are others but they would be few and far between.

An unnecessary rule that only punish the weak and aid the strong.

Highly unAustralian.

[Macca 17,007]

Spot on. Players walk and choose their club of choice, and generally get there.

The only one I can think of that didn't was Nick Stevens who wanted to go to Collingwood but finished up at Carlton.

I'm sure there are others but they would be few and far between.

An unnecessary rule that only punish the weak and aid the strong.

Highly unAustralian.

The advent of free agency has in effect, opened up opportunities for other players to change clubs (mainly those who are out of contract) The law of unintended consequences or is it? The cynic in me reckons that the players association and the AFL knew where it would all end up. They'd only have to take a glance at how things work in other sports.

Next we're going to see contracted players wanting a move ... in soccer, that sort of player movement is widespread. Over time, conclusions have been reached that keeping a contracted player who wants to move is often counter productive. Under those circumstances, a player can decide to not play up to expectations if he's not granted a move so a club will therefore often decide to trade the player concerned.

The problem we've got as a club is that we're probably paying our lesser lights far too much money. A way out of that is to front end the contracts of our best players until we've got a much better list. Given the state of our list we should have a lot of room in our salary cap but I'm not sure we do have that room.

The problem isn't and won't be confined to free agency.

[Demonsone 2,042]

What was wrong with the trade system... Players nominate the club they wish to go to & they do the trade.... Eg Judd to Carlton .... WC got a decent player & a pick... Win win!

Right now Hawks lose nothing & gain a kpp vs Melb a early pick & hope they develop in 3-5 yrs

Edited October 5, 2014 by Hogan2014

[Earl Hood 6,086]

Haven't we just returned to the 80's where the Hawks and Carlton just bought premierships by pillaging tje playing lists of the SANFL and WAFL for nothing except the dollars they could muster. Many other clubs couldn't compete money wise.

Then they could do it because they had the money, now the Hawks have the money but so does everyone else but now they can just pick off the best FA for nothing in trade terms anyway, offering a premiership experience. The salary cap it seems is no impediment to drafting or trading players although it was meant to be.

[deejammin' 2,371]

The advent of free agency has in effect, opened up opportunities for other players to change clubs (mainly those who are out of contract) The law of unintended consequences or is it? The cynic in me reckons that the players association and the AFL knew where it would all end up. They'd only have to take a glance at how things work in other sports.

Next we're going to see contracted players wanting a move ... in soccer, that sort of player movement is widespread. Over time, conclusions have been reached that keeping a contracted player who wants to move is often counter productive. Under those circumstances, a player can decide to not play up to expectations if he's not granted a move so a club will therefore often decide to trade the player concerned.

The problem we've got as a club is that we're probably paying our lesser lights far too much money. A way out of that is to front end the contracts of our best players until we've got a much better list. Given the state of our list we should have a lot of room in our salary cap but I'm not sure we do have that room.

The problem isn't and won't be confined to free agency.

Actually front ending contracts is part of the reason Frawley found it so easy to leave as had we not front ended his contract he would have been a RFA and Melbourne could have matched what was an entirely match able offer.

I have said my piece above and agree that the problem is not confined to free agency but FA is definately making things worse not better.

Also what we are paying our players is only relevant as far as the rule that makes teams pay 90+% of the cap needs to be revised. Given players get to choose where to go MFC don't even get to the stage where we discuss money as almost every desirable player has flatly refused to entertain coming to MFC, if the clubs chose where players go we may get a look in with our higher draft picks and our cap space however as long as players choose and they can go get an easy premiership for a little less money we will have no chance. Sad, inequitable, broken but true. We cannot "wait until we have a better list" as if the current trends continue we have no reason to believe we will get one, no matter how good and clever our management are

Edited October 5, 2014 by deejammin'

[Macca 17,007]

Actually front ending contracts is part of the reason Frawley found it so easy to leave as had we not front ended his contract he would have been a RFA and Melbourne could have matched what was an entirely match able offer.

I have said my piece above and agree that the problem is not confined to free agency but FA is definately making things worse not better.

Also what we are paying our players is only relevant as far as the rule that makes teams pay 90+% of the cap needs to be revised. Given players get to choose where to go MFC don't even get to the stage where we discuss money as almost every desirable player has flatly refused to entertain coming to MFC, if the clubs chose where players go we may get a look in with our higher draft picks and our cap space however as long as players choose and they can go get an easy premiership for a little less money. Sad, inequitable, broken but true. We cannot "wait until we have a better list" as if the current trends continue we have no reason to believe we will get one, no matter how good and clever our management are

I probably should have explained the idea of front ending contracts a bit better in my original post.

As an overall example ...

1) Our 1st and 2nd year draftees (and rookies) are on whatever the base salary is for their initial 2 years (unless a rookie is upgraded)

2) Our bottom 10-15 players should be on the base contract (or not much more) plus maybe match payments if that's how their salaries are structured. This particular area may need to be addressed going forward.

3) Our top 15-20 players should get the bulk of the TPP but again, they shouldn't be getting paid "overs" so ... we can front end their contracts so as to leave space in the cap for ......

4) Incoming free agents or other talented, experience recruits.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Macca

[Macca 17,007]

I might also add that we need to have our "possible" free agents stitched up on longer term contracts (if we want to retain them of course) We can't be leaving those negotiations to just prior to their last year either.

The trading window starts tomorrow and if Jones or Garland aren't re-signed in the next 2 weeks, we run the risk of losing either or both as free agents next year.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Macca

[angrydee 842]

All of my children (ages 22 - 46) and grandchidren (excluding the 2yo ages 7 - 21) were raised to love aussie rules.

NONE now follow the game.

[monoccular 17,432]

What was wrong with the trade system... Players nominate the club they wish to go to & they do the trade.... Eg Judd to Carlton .... WC got a decent player & a pick... Win win!

Right now Hawks lose nothing & gain a kpp vs Melb a early pick & hope they develop in 3-5 yrs

.....and if they do develop then they will be bought by a successful club and the cycle rolls in and on

[Pates 9,660]

As far as I can tell some good players are exercising their options at 20 or 21, e.g. Gunston. Players out of contract are walking if they want and ask. Why do we need FA at all these days.

Difference in trading vs FA is the clubs have the ability to push the value and decide if they are going to get the compensation they feel is correct, and it also forces the club they're going to give something up.

As that article points out, the Hawks got their man on money and nothing else. No pick or anything. Maybe a transfer fee should be placed in since money is where it's all going anyway.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Pates

[ManDee 7,162]

When a club gains a player through FA it costs them nothing (the worst player on their list - delisted)

This is a major problem with the system. The recipient club should have to give up the equivalent compensation pick. In Frawleys case probably Hawthorns first pick (Band 1) this pick goes back to the AFL. The current compensation from the AFL for the donor club is OK.

No FA to top 4 sides other than from other top 4 sides.

[BIG JIM 508]

Frawley only got a 4 year deal with Hawthorne this is a real problem. Band 1 is no chance IMO

[Jack Jack 415]

When a club gains a player through FA it costs them nothing (the worst player on their list - delisted)

This is a major problem with the system. The recipient club should have to give up the equivalent compensation pick. In Frawleys case probably Hawthorns first pick (Band 1) this pick goes back to the AFL. The current compensation from the AFL for the donor club is OK.

No FA to top 4 sides other than from other top 4 sides.

It's been talked about a bit on trade radio. If a club has to give up something for a free agent then they explained that it would not be true free agency. Whether you like it or not, it's unlikely to change.

I don't really have a problem with clubs not having to give up picks, but I see a major problem with the "net total points". Hawthorn could theoretically sign Frawley, Higgins and Waite without it costing them anything. But after losing Frawley, we have no motivation to sign any free agents as it would water down our compo. Further to that if we were interested in signing a free agent, we would more than likely have to trade so as not to effect our compo.

The bottom clubs should, in theory, have the most cap room to throw money at free agents. But if we lose a good player, it's difficult to use without compromising compensation.

[ManDee 7,162]

It's been talked about a bit on trade radio. If a club has to give up something for a free agent then they explained that it would not be true free agency. Whether you like it or not, it's unlikely to change.

I don't really have a problem with clubs not having to give up picks, but I see a major problem with the "net total points". Hawthorn could theoretically sign Frawley, Higgins and Waite without it costing them anything. But after losing Frawley, we have no motivation to sign any free agents as it would water down our compo. Further to that if we were interested in signing a free agent, we would more than likely have to trade so as not to effect our compo.

The bottom clubs should, in theory, have the most cap room to throw money at free agents. But if we lose a good player, it's difficult to use without compromising compensation.

Is the player a Free Agent or the club? That's BS.

Who cares if is or is not true. To be true it was designed to give a chance to those players not getting one at their existing clubs. To be true that is not how it is working. Why bother developing players through the draft, just raid the bottom clubs and it costs nothing.

A flawed system, must be fixed.

[Bossdog 2,002]

I don't get why everybody gets upset about how much he is getting.......The only people who KNOW how much a player is getting is the player, his manager, the club, the AFL, and his wife/girlfriend if she's lucky

All the rest is pure speculation drummed up by the media.

[hoopla 418]

It's been talked about a bit on trade radio. If a club has to give up something for a free agent then they explained that it would not be true free agency. Whether you like it or not, it's unlikely to change.

I don't really have a problem with clubs not having to give up picks, but I see a major problem with the "net total points". Hawthorn could theoretically sign Frawley, Higgins and Waite without it costing them anything. But after losing Frawley, we have no motivation to sign any free agents as it would water down our compo. Further to that if we were interested in signing a free agent, we would more than likely have to trade so as not to effect our compo.

The bottom clubs should, in theory, have the most cap room to throw money at free agents. But if we lose a good player, it's difficult to use without compromising compensation.

That might be the theory - but every ream has to pay 90-95% of the cap every year. If you don't have any standouts its not easy for weak clubs to create the space to throw $$$$ at free agents

[What 18,810]

Non-free agents continue to choose the club they want to be traded too

So why the hell do we have free agency?

[Jack Jack 415]

Is the player a Free Agent or the club? That's BS.

Who cares if is or is not true. To be true it was designed to give a chance to those players not getting one at their existing clubs. To be true that is not how it is working. Why bother developing players through the draft, just raid the bottom clubs and it costs nothing.

A flawed system, must be fixed.

If a free agent costs a club a pick it will cause them to consider whether they are worth it or not. Or even worse they give them a low contract to avoid any costs and renegotiate soon after.

Anyway, my point was that there are 2 top 4 clubs that have signed free agents. They have come from 2 bottom 5 clubs that can't sign free agents or they risk water down compensation. If free agents are no cost to these top teams, why should the bottom teams losing free agents be subject to a cost?

I was just highlighting another example of a system that benefits the top teams. I think they should scrap the compensation all together, or at the very least scrap the "net total points" and just award picks for losing players, and not take into account gaining them.

That might be the theory - but every ream has to pay 90-95% of the cap every year. If you don't have any standouts its not easy for weak clubs to create the space to throw $$$$ at free agents

The minimum is 95%. And it's difficult to understand exactly how much of the cap we are paying and how much space we have. It just seemed strange that we can lose a player and basically be prevented from offering that space to another free agent for fear of watering down our compo.

[autocol 448]

Malceski from grand finalists to 12th. Dale Thomas from top 4 to laughing stock. Buddy left an absolute powerhouse. I'm sorry, but the evidence to support the claim made in the OP is beyond flimsy. There's only one bottom club who's been really hammered by free agency - us. Other than that, it's pretty balanced across the league.

[rpfc 28,539]

Malceski from grand finalists to 12th. Dale Thomas from top 4 to laughing stock. Buddy left an absolute powerhouse. I'm sorry, but the evidence to support the claim made in the OP is beyond flimsy. There's only one bottom club who's been really hammered by free agency - us. Other than that, it's pretty balanced across the league.

OUT: Moloney, Rivers, Sylvia, Frawley

IN: Byrnes, Kent, Vince, Pick 3

FA has taken a few players but when you look at how we have used (or not used) FA, it is not the train wreck some think it is.

Compensation has helped though...

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

OUT: Moloney, Rivers, Sylvia, Frawley

IN: Byrnes, Kent, Vince, Pick 3

FA has taken a few players but when you look at how we have used (or not used) FA, it is not the train wreck some think it is.

Compensation has helped though...

I agree we have done well, especially with Vince but looking at that list we are well behind on the deal. If you think a speculative youngster with pick 3 equates to an experienced big bodied proven KPP in his prime you are wrong. Any youngster we get this year is a couple of years away from being what we need right now.

It is hard to predict how it will work out but IMO long term there will be drift from the lower placed clubs to the successful ones. It wont be all one wany but overall it will be harder for clubs to climb from the bottom. I doubt we will ever see a buddy come to a club in Melbournes current situation.

[rpfc 28,539]

I agree we have done well, especially with Vince but looking at that list we are well behind on the deal. If you think a speculative youngster with pick 3 equates to an experienced big bodied proven KPP in his prime you are wrong. Any youngster we get this year is a couple of years away from being what we need right now.

It is hard to predict how it will work out but IMO long term there will be drift from the lower placed clubs to the successful ones. It wont be all one wany but overall it will be harder for clubs to climb from the bottom. I doubt we will ever see a buddy come to a club in Melbournes current situation.

Well behind?

We won't know for years.

Pick 3 is yet to be used/traded/lost under the couch - until that is known, free agency as it stands isn't the massive evil it is portrayed to be.

If we trade it for Shiel - we are immediately far ahead. If Brayshaw comes on in two years time - we are likely ahead.

The better run clubs can make the most of Free Agency as it stands. However, remove the compensation and the stakes are changed. The top tier free agents will still look for the bigger clubs. But hopefully it will be the bigger paycheck, and the AFLPA have got to pressure players to not accommodate pressure on them to sign under market value for clubs - equalisation under a salary cap with free agency requires players being paid their market value or higher. If only the small clubs are paying higher than market - we have a problem.

[deejammin' 2,371]

Well behind?

We won't know for years.

Pick 3 is yet to be used/traded/lost under the couch - until that is known, free agency as it stands isn't the massive evil it is portrayed to be.

If we trade it for Shiel - we are immediately far ahead. If Brayshaw comes on in two years time - we are likely ahead.

The better run clubs can make the most of Free Agency as it stands. However, remove the compensation and the stakes are changed. The top tier free agents will still look for the bigger clubs. But hopefully it will be the bigger paycheck, and the AFLPA have got to pressure players to not accommodate pressure on them to sign under market value for clubs - equalisation under a salary cap with free agency requires players being paid their market value or higher. If only the small clubs are paying higher than market - we have a problem.

The likelihood we won't know for years if pick 3 is worth it is why it is a bad deal. MFC needs big bodied KPP players with experience now, with pick 3 we can trade for developing young players or draft an even younger player. By the time MFC benefits from this pick clubs like Hawthorn (who are already 70 points ahead of us while we had Frawley and they didn't) will have had time to remain ahead by nicking struggling clubs best players in their prime for success.

Right now we are well behind most clubs, with Frawley gone we are further behind and unlikely to catch up on the back of pick.

PS Vince for Sylvia is the only deal we are ahead on. Rivers is the no.3 defender in the comp statistically for the cats while Kent is coming on but hasn't set the world on fire. Moloney helped Brisbane smash us a few times and has enabled their equally young midfield to develop well ahead of ours while Byrnes was a total bust. MFC is well behind on free agency as the player driven system favours the top clubs. Believe it as it's only getting worse when Dangerfield goes to a top 4 team next year for nothing.

[rpfc 28,539]

The likelihood we won't know for years if pick 3 is worth it is why it is a bad deal. MFC needs big bodied KPP players with experience now, with pick 3 we can trade for developing young players or draft an even younger player.

I said we won't know if it is a good deal.

Just like we don't know if the Tyson trade is a good deal.

We all knew the McLean deal was a good deal, until it wasn't...

And we didn't need Frawley, he proved himself surplus to requirements in 2014. The backline functioned quite well with McDonald, Dunn, Howe, and an out of sorts Garland.

Frawley played some very solid games up forward but that forward line is about to be headlined by someone else, and in a few years all he will need is good delivery, some help, and for his teammates to get out of his way.

ND3 can be far more useful right now for this club than James Frawley.

Let's hope we use it to its full potential.

[deejammin' 2,371]

I said we won't know if it is a good deal.

Just like we don't know if the Tyson trade is a good deal.

We all knew the McLean deal was a good deal, until it wasn't...

And we didn't need Frawley, he proved himself surplus to requirements in 2014. The backline functioned quite well with McDonald, Dunn, Howe, and an out of sorts Garland.

Frawley played some very solid games up forward but that forward line is about to be headlined by someone else, and in a few years all he will need is good delivery, some help, and for his teammates to get out of his way.

ND3 can be far more useful right now for this club than James Frawley.

Let's hope we use it to its full potential.

Sorry Rpfc I love your contributions round here but I strongly disagree. Our back line functioned so well without Frawley that we came second last and lost 18 games including a 10 goal loss to GWS. Frawley was key I all of our wins and performed exceptionally well when he went back against North and Petrie in round 23. MFC needs a stable high quality player more than a speculative one right now. Hawthorn hasn't stuffed up a trade in years. If they need Frawley with Lake, Gibson, Spangher, Stratton and Schoenmakers we definately need him with Dunn, Garland and McDonald.