Talking Point: Announcing Plans to Change Clubs in Mid-season

[Whispering_Jack 27,985]

Earlier in the week Paul Roos flagged an unsettling trend in changes to the way clubs and players are dealing with their contractual relations ~ Melbourne coach Paul Roos believes 2014 trade period game-changer after sensational Dayne Beams, Tom Boyd moves.

In today's news, Carlton CEO Stephen Trigg goes further suggesting that before long players will be announcing plans in mid-season about plans to play with rivals the following year ~ Carlton chief Stephen Trigg believes players will soon be making NRL-style mid-season trade announcements

This has become an accepted thing in rugby but I think many of us will find it hard to come to terms in a game where loyalty to the team was for so long considered part and parcel of our game with the idea that one of your players will be elsewhere next season.

It's been bad enough with speculation in recent years during the season about the futures of players like Brent Moloney, Jarrad Rivers and James Frawley wondering if they were giving their all in their final years. Seeing Frawley in some games last year suspecting he was gone was a real turn off for me personally even though Roos said he handled it all very professionally.

What are your views - how would you deal with a player who says he's outta here at the end of the season?

[Freddy Fuschia 665]

It's going to be a challenge for supporters. Many of those who sat around me in later games last year were pretty cynical about how dinkum Frawley was in some of those games. We knew he was going and good luck to him. I'm glad that he did but I wish he would have made himself available for trade at the end of the year before so we might have picked up someone who really wanted to play for us.

[Moonshadow 16,200]

Correct me if I'm wrong please but aren't Rugby league clubs privately owned? Makes for these things to be more like a business transaction.

[ILLDieADemon 804]

I would prefer to know mid season.

I'm over this full season drama the media make with players staying or going which now it's obvious if a player hasn't resigned by the start of there final contract season then there going.

I'm sick of feeling like a girl waiting for my cheating boyfriend to leave me.

Edited February 6, 2015 by ILLDieADemon

[Wiseblood 24,636]

I'd be interested to see how clubs handled it if players began naming their club of choice mid-season.

If Malceski had done it, for example, would the Swans have dropped him for the rest of the year or played him because they were having a crack at a flag?

If Chip had done it would we have dropped him or kept playing him to help us be, theoretically, more competitive?

[Macca 16,173]

The advent of free agency has opened up the notion of players changing clubs whether they are contracted or not ... this was always going to happen by the way. Think of it more in an opportunistic sense. I can remember writing about the very subject on some thread nearly 3 years ago.

A snowball effect has been created and we only have to look at any number of other sports and how those sports operate to see where it's all going. I like free agency and the ability of a player to make his own choices.

The clubs for too long have had too much power - for instance, clubs have the power to draft a kid (17/18 year old) and then spit that same kid out 2 years later. I find that to be morally and ethically wrong. For a start, the draft age should be raised and I also believe that there should be some protection afforded to these kids (tertiary education should be incorporated and there should be some other protective measures brought in so that kid is able to pick up the pieces if he's effectively sacked)

When it suits the clubs, they can be utterly ruthless - just look at how our own club treated it's veteran players from 2007 onwards. Turfing them out like used rags because of an insane youth policy (ironically, we then turfed out the youth who didn't deliver)

So in answer to the question - I don't have a problem with full transparency in a meat market. Loyalty is a 2-way street and if a player wants to shift camps, so be it. Even if he announces it mid year - it closes down all speculation and we'll all know where we stand. It's up to the clubs to create an environment where players won't want to leave.

[Moonshadow 16,200]

I'd be interested to see how clubs handled it if players began naming their club of choice mid-season.

If Malceski had done it, for example, would the Swans have dropped him for the rest of the year or played him because they were having a crack at a flag?

If Chip had done it would we have dropped him or kept playing him to help us be, theoretically, more competitive?

I think they pretty much knew Chip was gone mid season. Iwould say Roos played Chip up forward in 2014 to fast track the development of our backline without him.

It's also quite likely the relevant clubs know Rance, Danger, etc will go as FAs this year.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Moonshadow

[Macca 16,173]

Let's look at Frawley and everything that surrounded his footy ...

• He may not have liked the drafting system to begin with (plenty of people don't like the system)
• He may not have been wanting to be drafted by Melbourne in the first place
• The club became a basket case not long after he came to our club (not his fault)
• He saw a lot of the senior players being turfed out (some of them might have been his friends)
• A toxic environment had been created with regards to the coaching/Admin power struggles
• His coaches in general (pre Roos) left a lot to be desired
• He eventually became a free agent
• Other clubs wanted him and some of those clubs are well set up for a tilt at a flag
• He may well have been offered a fair bit more money elsewhere

If all the above is true then it's hard to find a reason for him to stay (other than blind loyalty) I just believe it was a perfect storm and him leaving came as no surprise at all ... but, I would rather have known earlier and I'm sure the club would have too. And the supporters.

Also, I don't believe he's that good a player anyway ... he's had one A grade year but for the most part he's been no better than C+ to B grade. I also don't have an issue with him being able to make his own choices on who he wants to play with.

[sue 8,433]

I would prefer to know mid season.

I'm over this full season drama the media make with players staying or going which now it's obvious if a player hasn't resigned by the start of there final contract season then there going.

I'm sick of feeling like a girl waiting for my cheating boyfriend to leave me.

Sadly all that would happen is that we'd have all that speculation in the first half of the year and again in the second half. While it might be shorter, it would be more intense.

Personally this discounting of any sort of loyalty is a giant turn-off for me. Eventually it will all be as interesting to me as watching Coles and Woolworths battle it out.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

I much prefer the NFL rules with strict tampering rules and free agency not starting until well after the season is over.

You sign a contract, you finish the contract then you can sign another one.

I'm aware that does open up players to risk of injury towards the end of their contracts but if they wish to avoid that they could've extended longer with their current side or moved at an earlier time.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

The advent of free agency has opened up the notion of players changing clubs whether they are contracted or not ... this was always going to happen by the way. Think of it more in an opportunistic sense. I can remember writing about the very subject on some thread nearly 3 years ago.

A snowball effect has been created and we only have to look at any number of other sports and how those sports operate to see where it's all going. I like free agency and the ability of a player to make his own choices.

The clubs for too long have had too much power - for instance, clubs have the power to draft a kid (17/18 year old) and then spit that same kid out 2 years later. I find that to be morally and ethically wrong. For a start, the draft age should be raised and I also believe that there should be some protection afforded to these kids (tertiary education should be incorporated and there should be some other protective measures brought in so that kid is able to pick up the pieces if he's effectively sacked)

When it suits the clubs, they can be utterly ruthless - just look at how our own club treated it's veteran players from 2007 onwards. Turfing them out like used rags because of an insane youth policy (ironically, we then turfed out the youth who didn't deliver)

So in answer to the question - I don't have a problem with full transparency in a meat market. Loyalty is a 2-way street and if a player wants to shift camps, so be it. Even if he announces it mid year - it closes down all speculation and we'll all know where we stand. It's up to the clubs to create an environment where players won't want to leave.

I'm not against free agency, but some of that is complete trash.

AFL draftees get a good deal. Most get more than the 2 years. But for those who get 2 years it's hardly 'ethically wrong'. They get well looked after and can go in to study and pick up exactly where all their school friends left off after 2 gap years and with some cash or a commodity in their footy skills and some great life lessons. If they sacrificed schooling to go all in on their footy careers then that's personally responsibility or parental. It also isn't anywhere near the decisions that young tennis and soccer players have to make at much earlier ages, throwing in schooling all together to move to expensive academies with no promises.

Which of our veterans were tossed out like used rags? The ones who played like used rags? Yze? White? Robbo? Green? They were all finished. Bruce ran off to Hawthorn. We made one wrong call on James McDonald. A very bad call. But the failures to develop the next generation came on Bailey and Schwab after clearing out the old players, which worked very well for Hawthorn and plenty of other clubs. All of those players had opportunities to continue their careers with other clubs, we didn't hold them hostage. Only McDonald did.

For every player in a mature quality team playing well who announces mid season and carries on playing with full support there will be a player in a lowly side who announces mid season he's off to a better club. The first player will be treated with respect. The second will be treated with disdain by supporters and depending on circumstances might be treated the same way by coaches. I don't think it's a necessary thing to bring in.

[Macca 16,173]

The clubs help to create disloyalty and always have done. Up until a few years ago, the player hasn't had the power to fight back (properly) They've been treated as commodities and now that they've got a bit of destiny in their own hands, people don't like it.

It's not going to go back to the draconian way it once was. I believe in a free market system with a properly policed salary cap - that's all we need. A good club usually won't lose it's best players - there's always a Buddy Franklin scenario but I look upon that as an aberration.

The best clubs are the best clubs for a reason - they cross all the t's and dot all the i's and they do things properly. I like a market where clubs are forced to operate well to prosper - a sink or swim approach. No comfort zones.

We may see our own club become that 'good club' whilst other clubs might end up being run like we were in more recent times.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Macca

[Macca 16,173]

I'm not against free agency, but some of that is complete trash.

AFL draftees get a good deal. Most get more than the 2 years. But for those who get 2 years it's hardly 'ethically wrong'. They get well looked after and can go in to study and pick up exactly where all their school friends left off after 2 gap years and with some cash or a commodity in their footy skills and some great life lessons. If they sacrificed schooling to go all in on their footy careers then that's personally responsibility or parental. It also isn't anywhere near the decisions that young tennis and soccer players have to make at much earlier ages, throwing in schooling all together to move to expensive academies with no promises.

Which of our veterans were tossed out like used rags? The ones who played like used rags? Yze? White? Robbo? Green? They were all finished. Bruce ran off to Hawthorn. We made one wrong call on James McDonald. A very bad call. But the failures to develop the next generation came on Bailey and Schwab after clearing out the old players, which worked very well for Hawthorn and plenty of other clubs. All of those players had opportunities to continue their careers with other clubs, we didn't hold them hostage. Only McDonald did.

For every player in a mature quality team playing well who announces mid season and carries on playing with full support there will be a player in a lowly side who announces mid season he's off to a better club. The first player will be treated with respect. The second will be treated with disdain by supporters and depending on circumstances might be treated the same way by coaches. I don't think it's a necessary thing to bring in.

Hardly trash, just a contrary view that you obviously don't agree with. I could call a lot of your posts 'trash' but I've got a bit too much class for that (however, I can't wait to resurrect that Tom McDonald thread of yours )

• The draft age is too young - it should be 20/21 and we should have a proper Australia wide next tier system where we can get the next generation of players from. People are just too accepting of a really bad system - it deserves to be questioned and in a lot of ways the system we have just doesn't work. We attach a number to all these 17/18 year olds and many people then think that that number is accurate - ridiculous
• Are you seriously apologising for the myriad of mistakes that our previous list management team, recruiters and coaches have made? *News flash* for you - collectively they decimated this club to a point where we became a complete basket case. Bailey and Neeld both had their shortcomings and the rest of them were often just taking up space.
• Why do think so many of our players have wanted out? We created a toxic environment and we've only got ourselves to blame - Yze, Robbo, McDonald, TJ, Bruce, Moloney, Rivers, Green et al were all terrific servants of this club. A club has to know how to treat it's veteran players when they are coming to the end and we did it poorly. Now we're trying to bring in experience - all too predictable.

Good clubs keep their good players and those clubs won't be worried about free agency - on the contrary, those clubs will be embracing free agency. If clubs like ours can't keep up, bad luck.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Macca

[Macca 16,173]

Just on all those 'ugly exits' (apart from how we treated our experienced players, we did the same with Dean Bailey - we left him alone in front of a hungry media ... poor form)

Don McLardy made mention of those ugly exits in August of 2012 ... in this article ...

Demons work on respectful exits

"We actually spoke to the coaches and the senior [members of the] footy department, if you like, about making sure we really respect our older players, and in fact anyone on our list, because there are people coming and going on AFL lists all the time. Everyone understands that has got to happen but there is a way to do things," McLardy said.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

Hardly trash, just a contrary view that you obviously don't agree with. I could call a lot of your posts 'trash' but I've got a bit too much class for that (however, I can't wait to resurrect that Tom McDonald thread of yours )

• The draft age is too young - it should be 20/21 and we should have a proper Australia wide next tier system where we can get the next generation of players from. People are just too accepting of a really bad system - it deserves to be questioned and in a lot of ways the system we have just doesn't work. We attach a number to all these 17/18 year olds and many people then think that that number is accurate - ridiculous
• Are you seriously apologising for the myriad of mistakes that our previous list management team, recruiters and coaches have made? *News flash* for you - collectively they decimated this club to a point where we became a complete basket case. Bailey and Neeld were clueless and the rest of them were just taking up space.
• Why do think so many of our players have wanted out? We created a toxic environment and we've only got ourselves to blame - Yze, Robbo, McDonald, TJ, Bruce, Moloney, Rivers, Green et al were all terrific servants of this club. A club has to know how to treat it's veteran players when they are coming to the end and we did it poorly. Now we're trying to bring in experience - all too predictable.

Good clubs keep their good players and those clubs won't be worried about free agency - on the contrary, those clubs will be embracing free agency. If clubs like ours can't keep up, bad luck.

Some 18 year olds can and do play AFL. The rest need to be in professional systems. That means serious money if they aren't in the AFL system. Which means people watching (on TV or in person) this new league. Unless it's a US college style league hooked in to a system no one will watch it and the chances of a college league working here are pretty remote.

Neither the NFL or NBA or any other draft that I'm aware of is any more accurate than the AFL draft despite kids coming in at a latter age. It's still a crapshoot. It's an advantage over years to equal the comp not some magic bullet to gift great players to bottom clubs automatically.

I can support raising the draft age to 19 to let kids finish school and start a trade or studies. But after that you are just restricting good athletes from being where they should be. I don't get how you can support free agency but not support letting 20 year olds do what they are damn good at doing.

Travis Johnstone was right to be moved on. He played 3 ordinary years at Brisbane playing out his contract whilst we got Jack Grimes. As was Yze, White and Robbo. The handover then went to Bailey and Schwab and it was up to them to foster the environment for leaders of Bruce, Green, Moloney, Rivers, Davey, Jamar. Up until 2010 it was working fine. We hit hurdles in 2011 and the crap hit the fan. I'm not defending those who did that and the mess it left us in. But to say somehow that AFL players deserve more freedom based on the way we treated senior players back then is crap. We gave them freedom and we were punished by players enforcing the existing trade/free agency rules when they left us. I totally understand that and understand those players.

I'm not arguing free agency, I'm arguing that it should stay at the end of the year. In fact be pushed later in to the end of the AFL calendar year and to have stricter punishments on tampering.

[The Devil Inside 2,147]

Footy is just starting to catch up with other sports world wide, loyalty is the exception rather than the rule now

I do find it rather funny though that most on here wouldn't give it a second thought if somebody came to us and said I will pay you twice what you are getting now and you have a chance for success, and yet we continually bemoan players doing the same thing now, it's their job

[Macca 16,173]

Some 18 year olds can and do play AFL. The rest need to be in professional systems. That means serious money if they aren't in the AFL system. Which means people watching (on TV or in person) this new league. Unless it's a US college style league hooked in to a system no one will watch it and the chances of a college league working here are pretty remote.

Neither the NFL or NBA or any other draft that I'm aware of is any more accurate than the AFL draft despite kids coming in at a latter age. It's still a crapshoot. It's an advantage over years to equal the comp not some magic bullet to gift great players to bottom clubs automatically.

I can support raising the draft age to 19 to let kids finish school and start a trade or studies. But after that you are just restricting good athletes from being where they should be. I don't get how you can support free agency but not support letting 20 year olds do what they are damn good at doing.

Travis Johnstone was right to be moved on. He played 3 ordinary years at Brisbane playing out his contract whilst we got Jack Grimes. As was Yze, White and Robbo. The handover then went to Bailey and Schwab and it was up to them to foster the environment for leaders of Bruce, Green, Moloney, Rivers, Davey, Jamar. Up until 2010 it was working fine. We hit hurdles in 2011 and the crap hit the fan. I'm not defending those who did that and the mess it left us in. But to say somehow that AFL players deserve more freedom based on the way we treated senior players back then is crap. We gave them freedom and we were punished by players enforcing the existing trade/free agency rules when they left us. I totally understand that and understand those players.

I'm not arguing free agency, I'm arguing that it should stay at the end of the year. In fact be pushed later in to the end of the AFL calendar year and to have stricter punishments on tampering.

I'll expand on that under 21 next tier Australia wide system that I'm advocating (keep in mind that it's just a rough draft and would almost certainly need some fine tuning) I could happily toss out 3 or 4 criteria and add in 3 or 4 other criteria ...

• I believe a system like I've suggested could work and be commercially viable. It would need to be marketed well and TV would almost certainly need to be involved (probably cable)
• Therefore, the players could get paid ... the better players could be paid more or subsidised by the AFL. The salaries can be comparable to what draftees receive now (or perhaps paid a bit more depending on the viability of the system)
• 18 clubs - all could be aligned with their AFL counterparts (also acting as a feeder system/academies - although you'd still have a draft)
• Tertiary education or such like to be compulsory (much like the US College system)
• The players would be far more prepared for AFL footy especially if the style of footy mirrors the AFL style
• The draft that we would subsequently have would have to be far more accurate than the lottery that we have now
• Players to be primarily based in their own state.
• Players would need to be turning 20 before the 1st game of the season after they were initially drafted
• You might allow each team to have 4/5 players who are aged over 21 (mature age players therefore getting a 2nd crack at it)
• Canberra, NT and Tassie teams would probably be needed but then you're left with 21 clubs (each team gets a bye in a 21 round season?)

There's probably more stuff I could add but I've seen you suggest a similar system centered around our Universities (which I'm not sure could work)

The trouble with just lifting the draft age is that you run the risk of losing young sportsmen to other sports (especially if the draft age is increased by 2 years) Or we could just leave things as they are and continue to put up with the draft's obvious faults.

By the way, TJ's first year for Brisbane was quite good - after that, his form dropped away but he was getting older. Anyway, my point centered around how we got rid of our veterans. You don't want to create an 'everyman for himself' situation in a sporting club. I believe we did create that situation and the results speak for themselves.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Macca

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

By the way, TJ's first year for Brisbane was quite good - after that, his form dropped away but he was getting older. Anyway, my point centered around how we got rid of our veterans. You don't want to create an 'everyman for himself' situation in a sporting club. I believe we did create that situation and the results speak for themselves.

I was disappointed that Bailey didn't back himself to get the best out of TJ. Maybe his hand was forced - who knows?

Let's deal with this one first. Why would any coach back themselves with a 28 year old TJ when they've inherited a side that needed serious rebuilding post the Daniher years? He had to go and it was a great trade then and still a great trade now. There were enough leaders (younger and older) to carry the club forward without TJ. There were a number of mistakes, the biggest being James McDonald, but TJ wasn't one of them.

[Macca 16,173]

Let's deal with this one first. Why would any coach back themselves with a 28 year old TJ when they've inherited a side that needed serious rebuilding post the Daniher years? He had to go and it was a great trade then and still a great trade now. There were enough leaders (younger and older) to carry the club forward without TJ. There were a number of mistakes, the biggest being James McDonald, but TJ wasn't one of them.

But we didn't rebuild (or at least properly) What we did was decimate the list - the results speak for themselves.

I never fell for their bs then and I haven't changed my mind - if you bought in, you shouldn't have. That whole development garbage? ... it was designed to buy time. If the words had come from experienced, proven people, different story. We lost our way.

Also, people protect their own backyard.

Look at our list now - within 2 years it has a much more solid look to it and that's because we've got people at the helm now who know what they're doing. We were run by a bunch of amateurs who had no idea how to run a club.

The one thing we did do well was to keep making profits against all odds - we can largely thank Jimmy for that.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Macca

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

I'll expand on that under 21 next tier Australia wide system that I'm advocating (keep in mind that it's just a rough draft and would almost certainly need some fine tuning)

• I believe a system like I've suggested could work and be commercially viable
• Therefore, the players can get paid ... the better players could be paid more or subsidised by the AFL. The salaries can be comparable to what draftees receive now (or perhaps paid a bit more depending on the viability of the system)
• 18 clubs - all aligned with their AFL counterparts (also acting as a feeder system/academies - although you'd still have a draft)
• Tertiary education or such like to be compulsory (much like the US College system)
• The players would be far more prepared for AFL footy especially if the style of footy mirrors the AFL style
• The draft that we would subsequently have would have to be far more accurate than the lottery that we have now
• Players to be primarily based in their own states
• You might allow each team to have 4/5 players who are aged over 21 (mature age players therefore getting a 2nd crack at it)
• Canberra, NT and Tassie teams would probably be needed but then you're left with 21 clubs (each team gets a bye in a 21 round season?)

There's probably more stuff I could add but I've seen you suggest a similar system centered around our Universities (which I'm not sure could work)

By the way, TJ's first year for Brisbane was quite good - after that, his form dropped away but he was getting older. Anyway, my point centered around how we got rid of our veterans. You don't want to create an 'everyman for himself' situation in a sporting club. I believe we did create that situation and the results speak for themselves.

I was disappointed that Bailey didn't back himself to get the best out of TJ. Maybe his hand was forced - who knows?

So commercially viable whilst paying players 1-2k or more per game. Looking at a few million dollars turnover per club. That's going to take a heck of a TV deal and a good crowd and it's all to compete against the AFL from within. Plus it kills the state leagues that are still very popular in WA and SA. How do you work out which player goes where? Do you have a draft to start this D league?

Then there's this belief that junior footy isn't AFL footy. I think you've taken some words from Paul Roos and run with them. No doubt AFL is much more defensive. But half of that is work rate and tackling. Important skills, but it's winning and using the ball that still makes most of a footballer. JKH and Salem both did pretty well last year and you could see their talent. They don't need 3 years in a D league to learn to chase and tackle like AFL players.

Even if Roos thinks they do I bet that Ken Hinkley has an alternative opinion especially if you tried to take Wingard and Wines out of his team.

Being older and more physically mature I'm sure the players would be more ready to go and impact games. But I'm not convinced it will sort the issues in the draft. What are the issues anyway? We completely botched our picks and our development, but every other team seemed to do it pretty well. Port and Richmond were down the bottom, now are back up. Gold Coast and GWS are building on the back of great picks. Even the dogs seemed to be making some progress and you can see their top picks adding to the side.

The draft works. The best players get drafted the highest. The best clubs develop them the smartest and they go on to have long careers. The smart individuals study or gain work experience part time and come out ahead whether their career lasted 3 years or 13 years.

This is games played per draft pick. Just because Melbourne found a way through culture, development, recruiting etc to completely botch the system it doesn't mean it's broken.

[Macca 16,173]

So commercially viable whilst paying players 1-2k or more per game. Looking at a few million dollars turnover per club. That's going to take a heck of a TV deal and a good crowd and it's all to compete against the AFL from within. Plus it kills the state leagues that are still very popular in WA and SA. How do you work out which player goes where? Do you have a draft to start this D league?

Then there's this belief that junior footy isn't AFL footy. I think you've taken some words from Paul Roos and run with them. No doubt AFL is much more defensive. But half of that is work rate and tackling. Important skills, but it's winning and using the ball that still makes most of a footballer. JKH and Salem both did pretty well last year and you could see their talent. They don't need 3 years in a D league to learn to chase and tackle like AFL players.

Even if Roos thinks they do I bet that Ken Hinkley has an alternative opinion especially if you tried to take Wingard and Wines out of his team.

Being older and more physically mature I'm sure the players would be more ready to go and impact games. But I'm not convinced it will sort the issues in the draft. What are the issues anyway? We completely botched our picks and our development, but every other team seemed to do it pretty well. Port and Richmond were down the bottom, now are back up. Gold Coast and GWS are building on the back of great picks. Even the dogs seemed to be making some progress and you can see their top picks adding to the side.

The draft works. The best players get drafted the highest. The best clubs develop them the smartest and they go on to have long careers. The smart individuals study or gain work experience part time and come out ahead whether their career lasted 3 years or 13 years.

This is games played per draft pick. Just because Melbourne found a way through culture, development, recruiting etc to completely botch the system it doesn't mean it's broken.

For a start, I had no idea about what Roos said so you can forget that line of thinking - I form my own views on matters without bias or favour. And my views on the draft aren't specific to our club. It's an overall view that I've always had.

Hey, my system has zero chance of ever getting off the ground but that doesn't make it a bad idea. The system we have now doesn't work very well and it causes an unnecessary amount of lashing out at the players & recruiters involved. Plus, I believe it puts too much pressure on these kids that have been speculated upon (specifically the top end picks)

Look at how Roos wants to protect these draftees when they come into the system. No fanfare, no big statements - they're just treated like a normal recruit. He does a good job at cooling down expectations - and so he should. What did we hear previously? Roos gets it.

I guess I like questioning things - there's nothing more feeble than going along with the crowd.

What happens if Toumpas turns out to be a bust? Those wanting closure will blame the club - those with a semblance of intelligence will blame the system. I know which camp I'm in - what about you?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Macca

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

For a start, I had no idea about what Roos said so you can forget that line of thinking - I form my own views on matters without bias or favour. And my views on the draft aren't specific to our club. It's an overall view that I've always had.

Hey, my system has zero chance of ever getting off the ground but that doesn't make it a bad idea. The system we have now doesn't work very well and it causes an unnecessary amount of imbecilic lashing out. Plus, I believe it puts too much pressure on these kids that have been speculated upon (specifically the top end picks)

Look at how Roos wants to protect these draftees when they come into the system. No fanfare, no big statements - they're just treated like a normal recruit. He does a good job at cooling down expectations - and so he should.

I guess I like questioning things - there's nothing more feeble than going along with the crowd.

What happens if Toumpas turns out to be a bust? Those wanting closure will blame the club - those with a semblance of intelligence will blame the system. I know which camp I'm in - what about you?

If it's not feasible then it's a bad idea. That's living in the real world.

Evaluating character and resilience is part of recruiting no matter the age. Cooling expectations are part of smart development. Knowing when to trade out of the top picks if possible is smart list management. None of that should significantly change with more mature kids, particularly as they'll be playing 3 years in a development league, just how more mature will they be? Until they are thrown in to the deep end you can't tell if they will sink or swim.

If Toumpas fails it will likely be because he's a limited athlete and not gifted enough at winning the footy against fully grown men. These things should've stood out on tape. He seems dedicated and committed to being the best he can be. Over preseasons he'll develop his body and with more exposure he'll develop his ability to win the footy. If it doesn't work out then we should review his contested ball winning percentage and his athletic potential, maybe his mentality as well to see if he had/has the confidence in himself to make it. He's still largely on track to play quite a few AFL games though, so it's all relevant to expectations and outcomes. The NFL draft which requires guys to be 3 years out of high school produces first round busts year after year. From the same draft as Toumpas we have Kent and Viney who are both doing pretty well and have played games where they've been amongst the best players.

[pantaloons 2,019]

I much prefer the NFL rules with strict tampering rules and free agency not starting until well after the season is over.

You sign a contract, you finish the contract then you can sign another one.

This. It's unthinkably moronic to even entertain the thought of following rugby's laughable path here. It's all well and good for Gil go on a junket to watch the super bowl, but rather than come back and say "Hey, what about a night Grand Final so Cindy Lauper can perform under lights", how about looking at the (many) systemic things US sports leagues do well. I realise this free agent stuff isn't necessarily coming out of his mouth though.

[Macca 16,173]

If it's not feasible then it's a bad idea. That's living in the real world.

Evaluating character and resilience is part of recruiting no matter the age. Cooling expectations are part of smart development. Knowing when to trade out of the top picks if possible is smart list management. None of that should significantly change with more mature kids, particularly as they'll be playing 3 years in a development league, just how more mature will they be? Until they are thrown in to the deep end you can't tell if they will sink or swim.

If Toumpas fails it will likely be because he's a limited athlete and not gifted enough at winning the footy against fully grown men. These things should've stood out on tape. He seems dedicated and committed to being the best he can be. Over preseasons he'll develop his body and with more exposure he'll develop his ability to win the footy. If it doesn't work out then we should review his contested ball winning percentage and his athletic potential, maybe his mentality as well to see if he had/has the confidence in himself to make it. He's still largely on track to play quite a few AFL games though, so it's all relevant to expectations and outcomes. The NFL draft which requires guys to be 3 years out of high school produces first round busts year after year. From the same draft as Toumpas we have Kent and Viney who are both doing pretty well and have played games where they've been amongst the best players.

Depends on your definition of feasible - a lot of things are quite feasible but never happen. t20 cricket was feasible 150 years ago but it's only now that it's happening. It's the implication bit that matters.

As for Toumpas, I've seen enough of him to believe he can be a good player ... somewhere between C+ and A-. He might even be better than that or he might be a bust. And that's my point about the draft and it's lack of accuracy.

Hey, we can go on all day here or agree to disagree ... I'll let you have the last word.

Back on topic ...

Whether we like it or not or whether we can accept it or not, there will be at least 1 free agent that will signal his intentions before a season is completed. It might even happen inadvertently. Then watch what happens.

We're now seeing contracted players who aren't free agents signal their intentions after the season is over ... the process has begun and the players haven't reached a stop sign yet. They're nowhere near it.

Footy as we once knew it is changing - rapidly.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

Depends on your definition of feasible - a lot of things are quite feasible but never happen. t20 cricket was feasible 150 years ago but it's only now that it's happening. It's the implication bit that matters.

As for Toumpas, I've seen enough of him to believe he can be a good player ... somewhere between C+ and A-. He might even be better than that or he might be a bust. And that's my point about the draft and it's lack of accuracy.

Hey, we can go on all day here or agree to disagree ... I'll let you have the last word.

Back on topic ...

Whether we like it or not or whether we can accept it or not, there will be at least 1 free agent that will signal his intentions before a season is completed. It might even happen inadvertently. Then watch what happens.

We're now seeing contracted players who aren't free agents signal their intentions after the season is over ... the process has begun and the players haven't reached a stop sign yet. They're nowhere near it.

Footy as we once knew it is changing - rapidly.

My last word on draft accuracy is that it is accurate. It will never be perfect, but it already follows a pattern. And that's why you get the picks distributed for every round and every year. Toumpas might not be great. But Petracca might be. Or at least together both are better than two pick 15's. Pretty much I think you're planning on flipping the junior development and draft age etc etc when there isn't much to gain. To allow kids to finish school and start other study/work is noble. But there's nothing stopping them from rising to the challenge of doing both how it is nor anything that will force them to study seriously. You're aware of how all NFL players have attended college yet clearly many are not scholars!

Back on topic. If we have strict tampering rules and you can't sign free agents until after the season then it would be a foolish player to signal their intentions definitively before the end of the year. As it is in the US sports players openly ponder whether their contracts and pay will have them back in town. So I'm fine with that. There's a difference between discussing hypotheticals and announcing that you wont be back and have already signed to the opposition.

The issue we have with contracted players should be countered when free agency becomes more open and accepted. Teams will deal players with 1 year to go or keep them based on free agency compensation OR being able to replace them at the end of the contract. Expanded free agency should actually counter against the Beams style situation where a player forces a trade as the alternative is them being traded a year later or the PSD. Compensation or a viable market place for a replacement will get rid of that sillyness. Of course the compassionate case for a player to be released or trade from a contract might still come up, but that should be an individual case by case thing.

You talk about player rights. At the moment clubs are not allowed to sack players mid way through the season. It's only happened rarely and usually with just cause (see Josh Bootsma, Dayle Garlett etc). I know players will still be playing and finishing contracts but I think along the same lines I don't think players should be able to effectively give notice of their next job whilst still finishing out their current contracts.

There wont be anything to stop a player telling their current team they have plans to leave if they can secure a contract elsewhere. I don't buy that clubs will be shocked all that often. Typically if a player isn't signed up ahead of time then they are unlikely to change their minds at the last minute. I just don't see the benefit for the fans in allowing players to sign with new teams mid year and I think it will actually harm some of the players anyway if they sign early before opportunity and form changes. Let's get used to players moving around and open up their rights in regards to that first, then we can worry about mid season deals.