Did the AFL make a huge mistake denying us a priority pick last year?

[SaberFang 7,141]

The AFL made an almighty mistake last year.

Pick 3 was obviously a priority pick in disguise because it was simply an unpalatable PR situation giving us one outright, but nudging up our compensation for Frawley allowed them to help us in stealth. So what's the problem? They've now cornered themselves into a situation where lowly clubs are better off pushing out their free agents and rorting the compensation because the threshold of band 1 now has a lowly precedent. $500k will be peanuts for clubs in a few years. All and sundry now discuss compensation for Brisbane and Carlton as if pick 2 and 4 are a fait accompli. Disastrously for the AFL, they desperately need Brisbane to get the kid who Carlton will now take with pick 2 compo if, as expected, they push out Kreuzer (Carlton withdrew their contract to Kreuzer upon hearing what money other clubs are offering him, realising the likelihood of getting pick 2).

So once again, the AFL are caught with their pants down, and their inability to be transparent in their decision making has created yet another rort for clubs to legally exploit; if clubs sense a free agent is leaving, it now benefits teams to sink on the ladder for a year and secure two high draft picks before climbing up again. This is worse than the old priority pick rules (two seasons at the bottom) which no modern club would willingly do just to get one extra first rounder.

The problem is, while pick 3 was overs for Frawley, their only alternative was a wholly inadequate end-of-first rounder for a club in dire need of help. But surely we're past the point of farce if Carlton can get pick 2 for Kreuzer and Brisbane can get pick 4 for Leuenberger. The most pathetic irony of the situation though? Carlton tanked to get Kreuzer and are now rorting the system once again to get compensation for his departure. Another absolute farce of a situation created by the geniuses at AFL House who should've been transparent in the first place about our compensation for Frawley.

Surely the most logical solution here is to limit band 1 compo to begin after pick 10, so the first pick after the year's non-finalists. With these 10 teams all striving to get up the ladder, and the negative ripple affect that compensation has inside the precious top 10 picks, it's simply too detrimental on the numerous struggling clubs in desperate need of high-end talent. The AFL were forced to change the PP rules because teams found out how to exploit it; well, it hasn't taken them long to discover how to exploit this. The rewards for losing are once again becoming far greater than the rewards for winning.

[Gorgoroth 12,308]

Was speaking about this with a Lions supporter at work yesterday.

The AFL have once again caused themselves grief that wasn't necessary.

To avoid this, they should be honest for once and tell the public, yes Kruezer should give Carlton a pick straight after their first. But, we think that is wholly unfair on Brisbane who we applaud for not tanking the last game so they will keep pick 2, Carlton will get pick 3 for Kruezer, Brisbane pick 4 for Luenburger.

Then they should announce the scrapping of this system as it is obviously stupid, as neither Kruezer nor Luey are worth picks that high.

The AFL if keeping compensation for these players should give the club what the player is worth on the open market. ie, what pick would clubs give up to get Kruezer? I think pick 10-15 would be about right due to his injuries. He ain't worth pick 2. But like Frawley for us, the AFL in their wisdom create problems for themselves each and every day.

[71 Molloy 266]

Agree it's a rort in regards to Carlton but think anything that allows bottom clubs to get back on their feet with extra top end picks is a good thing. This club knows better than most the difficulty in getting talent back onto a list via the draft.

More concerned with top clubs picking the eyes out of the bottom teams. Would like to see top 6 clubs each year barred from acquiring free agents along the lines of the NFL model.

[CBDees 3,162]

Was speaking about this with a Lions supporter at work yesterday.

The AFL have once again caused themselves grief that wasn't necessary.

To avoid this, they should be honest for once and tell the public, yes Kruezer should give Carlton a pick straight after their first. But, we think that is wholly unfair on Brisbane who we applaud for not tanking the last game so they will keep pick 2, Carlton will get pick 3 for Kruezer, Brisbane pick 4 for Luenburger.

Then they should announce the scrapping of this system as it is obviously stupid, as neither Kruezer nor Luey are worth picks that high.

The AFL if keeping compensation for these players should give the club what the player is worth on the open market. ie, what pick would clubs give up to get Kruezer? I think pick 10-15 would be about right due to his injuries. He ain't worth pick 2. But like Frawley for us, the AFL in their wisdom create problems for themselves each and every day.

You each make a lot of sense but it doesn't absolve the AFL from the fact that we were given no compensation by way of a Priority Pick which we were clearly entitled to after winning two and four games in successive years. We should have been given a PP, clear and simple. The Frawley farce was ingenious and they have shot themselves in the foot, particularly if Carlton becomes the beneficiary. Gorgoroth makes some sense: give Carlton and Brisbane picks 10 and 11 as compensation for their player losses! Edited September 7, 2015 by CBDees

[Chook 14,456]

The AFL doesn’t make mistakes.

[whatwhat say what 18,881]

if the players are rewarded with contracts from other clubs that offer to pay them a small fortune, then they deserve compo picks at the pointy end.

i am very, very curious how the pies, for instance, are affording to pay treloar and kreuzer over a million a season, and can still afford to bring in aish, as has been rumoured.

leuenberger going to the swans, isn't he?

the whole think reeks.

but, as chook says, the afl doesn't make mistakes - the public just misinterprets their magnanimous gestures.

[praha 10,270]

Pick 3 wasn't overs for Frawley, though. That's based upon an entirely subjective interpretation of his value, which is only determined by his salary.

Salary + finishing position = compensation

If those same players were leaving top teams the pick would be higher.

So many on here cry about equalisation and this system actually adequately compensates poor teams that lose players with high market value.

The only way to determine a player's value is salary. Any other interpretation is merely subjective.

Edited September 7, 2015 by praha

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

A timely article on comp pics: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-08/firstround-free-agency-picks-unfair-pelchen?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

A 1st round comp pick apparently is @ about $500k pa - not that far over the AFL average (around $350k).

Clearly they have set the bar far too low!

As more players come out of contract to FA status a club could get pick 1, 2, 3 if it loses several 'above average' FA's at once!

Crazy stuff!

Imagine if the AFLPA gets its way and lowers the FA service period to 6 years!

The AFL will have comp picks all over the place and the 'natural' draft order will become meaningless.

Yes, the AFL is in a bind! One of its own making, as usual!

Scrap the whole FA thing and have players traded in the usual way.

Eliminates distortion and unfairness across the whole player/trade/draft processes.

Simple!

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

This years 'high value' FA's that appear likely to attract 1st round draft picks:

Kreuzer

Leuenberger

S Selwood

Dangerfield

Then add in 3 'Academy' players that look likely to go top 10-15. (Not sure if there are any Father/Son picks likely to go in the first round).

Suddenly 'natural' 2nd rnd picks are seriously devalued: using Melbourne for example our 2nd round pick 24 will get us the 31st best player not the 24th!!

Eddie is right: its time for a truly 'uncompromised' draft and scrap all those draft benefits.

This years draft will show what a farce of a system the AFL has hatched.

[P-man 13,168]

Pick 3 wasn't overs for Frawley, though. That's based upon an entirely subjective interpretation of his value, which is only determined by his salary.

Salary + finishing position = compensation

If those same players were leaving top teams the pick would be higher.

So many on here cry about equalisation and this system actually adequately compensates poor teams that lose players with high market value.

The only way to determine a player's value is salary. Any other interpretation is merely subjective.

I think this is true to a large degree. The factors taken into account are reasonable and as much as Dogs fans complain about the Frawley and Scully compo compared to what they received for Ward, they can't dispute their salaries and our ladder position at the time.

That said, pick 3 still seems high if I take off my Demon supporter hat, and I've no doubt the AFL used the most favourable means of calculating it in lieu of a PP.

[P-man 13,168]

Lam, your point has merit but I think only some minor tweaking is needed. Let's not forget that the clubs in question, Brisbane, Carlton and Melbourne, are or have been all struggling clubs themselves. You can't have a situation where the bottom clubs are nothing but feeder clubs that receive peanuts for their free agents who command high salaries on the open market.

Set the band 1 compo to begin after Pick 5. It has slightly less stench to it if these players aren't commanding picks 2, 3 & 4. Berger for a pick 4 especially, if that is what unfolds, is a little bit nuts.

Edited September 7, 2015 by P-man

[praha 10,270]

I have a pretty wild idea, but I'm sure there are some holes in it.

1. Introduce a luxury tax for teams that finish in the 11th-18th range: they can pay more than the salary cap to sign a free agent, and pay a tax on the extra amount, with the tax decreasing the further down the ladder you go. Let's say 75% of the amount over the cap for 11th, and 25% for 18th. So the cap is $10 million. You have $1 million left in your cap, and you sign a free agent to a 3 year, $3.6 million contract. If the contract is back-ended and you don't go over the cap until the third year of the contract, you pay a tax rate reflective of your position that year. If you finish 18th, you're best placed to front-end the contract so that you pay the minimum amount of tax at the earliest point of the contract. In the case of this contract, the 18th-placed team could pay the free agent $2 million in the first year, and $800,000 in the following years as they rise up the ladder. They'd only pay tax on that extra $1 million they pay over the cap in the first year of the contract.

2. If you lose a player via free agency, the band compensation is reflected in a lower tax rate: the higher the salary and lower the position, the lower your luxury tax rate over a specified period (again determined by band). So in Frawley's case, our tax rate falls to, say 5% of the amount of the cap for the following year, maybe over two years if his salary band dictates it. This would entice Melbourne to sign a free agent at a premium price with a front-ended contract over the cap, pay a lower tax rate in the process, and then bring it back down in corresponding years to balance the cap out again.

Discuss. *runs and hides*

Edited September 7, 2015 by praha

[TheoX 1,218]

Frawley's contract was bigger than 500K/year though, ranged between 2.2 and 2.5 million. Doubt either of those injury prne players get a contract that big. Plus I hope any salary cap increase is factored in.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Frawley's contract was bigger than 500K/year though, ranged between 2.2 and 2.5 million. Doubt either of those injury prne players get a contract that big. Plus I hope any salary cap increase is factored in.

Hoping that the AFL will make a fairly obvious, straightforward and fair decision is an exercise in futility.

[daisycutter 28,484]

unless kreuzer and leuie get big overs contracts i expect carlton and bears will get end of round 1 compo picks (i.e. band 2)

i reckon the bar for band 1 is about 600k + 4 years (for an 8 year fa, not a 10 year fa)

and this is why frawley scraped in. and yes dorks paid overs

Edited September 7, 2015 by daisycutter

[P-man 13,168]

i reckon the bar for band 1 is about 600k + 4 years (for an 8 year fa, not a 10 year fa)

Which it is almost impossible seeing Berger receive. Especially if it's at Sydney who have a couple of well paid players as it is.

Edited September 7, 2015 by P-man

[biggestred 4,273]

Heres an idea.

Instead of doing the draft order on 1 year and 1 year alone,

Do it on total ladder positions over 3 or 5 years.

18 points if you finish last etc. Highest points go first.

Would eradicate tanking on a short term level and give picks to those teams that actually deserve them.

Imagine if the hawks had won 2 flags and then been decimated by injury this year and finished bottom 4. they still wouldn't get pick 4 - and fair enough too as they've just won 2 flags.

[SaberFang 7,141]

Factoring in free agency compensation and Academy concessions, our pick 6 suddenly looks a whole lot more like pick 10-11. We still desperately need high-end draft talent coming through the doors to succeed long-term; however, the AFL have created another new rules system that again reaps benefits for teams that lose and punishes teams that win. Gil's 17-5 fixture actually had a lot of merit; force the bottom 6 teams after 17 rounds to play each other for draft picks. It rewards winning.

Heres an idea.

Instead of doing the draft order on 1 year and 1 year alone,

Do it on total ladder positions over 3 or 5 years.

18 points if you finish last etc. Highest points go first.

Would eradicate tanking on a short term level and give picks to those teams that actually deserve them.

Imagine if the hawks had won 2 flags and then been decimated by injury this year and finished bottom 4. they still wouldn't get pick 4 - and fair enough too as they've just won 2 flags.

Outside the box, intelligent idea. For this reason, it obviously has no place in the AFL.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Lamashtu

[rpfc 27,427]

A timely article on comp pics: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-08/firstround-free-agency-picks-unfair-pelchen?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

A 1st round comp pick apparently is @ about $500k pa - not that far over the AFL average (around $350k).

Clearly they have set the bar far too low!

As more players come out of contract to FA status a club could get pick 1, 2, 3 if it loses several 'above average' FA's at once!

Crazy stuff!

Imagine if the AFLPA gets its way and lowers the FA service period to 6 years!

The AFL will have comp picks all over the place and the 'natural' draft order will become meaningless.

Yes, the AFL is in a bind! One of its own making, as usual!

Scrap the whole FA thing and have players traded in the usual way.

Eliminates distortion and unfairness across the whole player/trade/draft processes.

Simple!

You are making assumptions with those numbers for comp bands. The article is just guessing.

And average salary in the AFL was $265k in 2014.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-players-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-average-salary-now-265179/story-fni5f22o-1226834339957

And for the OP - we got ND3 because another club took our player on a $2.4m+ contract over 4 years.

It was not a Priority Pick let alone an obvious one.

Yes, the AFL tied it's hands because of the pressure of idiots who don't know any better and that is their failing and their problem.

The Lions will need one soon they way they lose players and the Saints will need one soon when they lose their players to retirement - but that's life when you listen to spite and ignorance.

[Moonshadow 16,157]

The AFL did not give us pick 3 for Chip, they gave us band 1 compo, which because we finished low, happened to be pick 3. Hawthorn got pick 18 (or was it 19?) for Buddy because they won the flag that year. He too was band 1. Had they finished lower they would have got a better pick for him. FA compo obviously delivers better picks for lower clubs who lose FAs, as it should. Within reason, I don't mind low clubs getting good picks for FA, as long as there is not too many in any single draft, which I don't know how that can be controlled. But I hope the PP system is scrapped. If we couldn't get one for the last 4 years of crappola, no one should. As for Leuie and Kruze getting band one, well that's a joke IMO.

[Vanilla Gorilla 204]

I have a pretty wild idea, but I'm sure there are some holes in it.

1. Introduce a luxury tax for teams that finish in the 11th-18th range: they can pay more than the salary cap to sign a free agent, and pay a tax on the extra amount, with the tax decreasing the further down the ladder you go. Let's say 75% of the amount over the cap for 11th, and 25% for 18th. So the cap is $10 million. You have $1 million left in your cap, and you sign a free agent to a 3 year, $3.6 million contract. If the contract is back-ended and you don't go over the cap until the third year of the contract, you pay a tax rate reflective of your position that year. If you finish 18th, you're best placed to front-end the contract so that you pay the minimum amount of tax at the earliest point of the contract. In the case of this contract, the 18th-placed team could pay the free agent $2 million in the first year, and $800,000 in the following years as they rise up the ladder. They'd only pay tax on that extra $1 million they pay over the cap in the first year of the contract.

2. If you lose a player via free agency, the band compensation is reflected in a lower tax rate: the higher the salary and lower the position, the lower your luxury tax rate over a specified period (again determined by band). So in Frawley's case, our tax rate falls to, say 5% of the amount of the cap for the following year, maybe over two years if his salary band dictates it. This would entice Melbourne to sign a free agent at a premium price with a front-ended contract over the cap, pay a lower tax rate in the process, and then bring it back down in corresponding years to balance the cap out again.

Discuss. *runs and hides*

I like your creativity. But the issue with a luxury tax is that it would further exacerbate the discrepancy between rich and poor clubs.

With so many clubs struggling to break even and pay 100% TPP, the idea of finding funds over and above that is impractical. It would mean that rich teams who bottom out would have the opportunity to rebound quicker than poor teams because of their strong balance sheet.

Luxury tax works in leagues like the NBA, where the teams are funded by private owners. The oil barons and fund managers who own the teams can decide to inject their own personal capital into the team and pay however much of the luxury tax they feel comfortable paying. Unfortunately AFL teams don't have that same option.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Vanilla Gorilla

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

You are making assumptions with those numbers for comp bands. The article is just guessing.

And average salary in the AFL was $265k in 2014.

Both figures may be correct, rpfc.

The $350k is the average figure the AFL used to cap the salary Sydney could pay a player being traded in.

The diff $$ to the $265k average is likely 1st/2nd year and rookie player and as they are nearly 20% of players, skew the average down.

For FA discussion, I felt the $350k was more relevant.

The $500k came from a number of commentators who yes, were probably guessing as no-one knows the Frawley contract!

Nonetheless, the whole FA system is very seriously flawed and it will only get worse as more players become FA's and if the AFLPA get the changes they want. The draft will be a joke!

Edited September 8, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[Whispering_Jack 27,959]

Like all large organisations of its type, the AFL makes mistakes from time to time but I'm not sure that it erred with the Frawley situation. Rather, it was disingenuous in the way it treated Melbourne's application for special assistance which was appropriate under its rules and was not, in my view, treated with the regard it warranted. Given that we've once again finished in the bottom third of the ladder, we should be entitled to a fair hearing on a further application which we won't get if we bother to make one.

The AFL will however, manipulate the Carlton/Brisbane situation to suit itself anyway.

[jnrmac 18,943]

The AFL did not give us pick 3 for Chip, they gave us band 1 compo, which because we finished low, happened to be pick 3. Hawthorn got pick 18 (or was it 19?) for Buddy because they won the flag that year. He too was band 1. Had they finished lower they would have got a better pick for him. FA compo obviously delivers better picks for lower clubs who lose FAs, as it should. Within reason, I don't mind low clubs getting good picks for FA, as long as there is not too many in any single draft, which I don't know how that can be controlled. But I hope the PP system is scrapped. If we couldn't get one for the last 4 years of crappola, no one should. As for Leuie and Kruze getting band one, well that's a joke IMO.

Its staggering that people don't realise this.

[Pates 9,536]

Melbourne's first application, when Roos came to the club, that was the one they stuffed up by not granting us a PP. 2 wins, absolutely woeful %, club in despair. The fact that we got Paul Roos on board was irrelevant, we were a rabble and if we didn't deserve it then then no team will ever deserve it. Even if they gave us a compo pick at the end of the second round they could've saved face from it but they didn't and now they've dug themselves a hole.