WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - HARLEY BALIC

[rpfc 28,262]

I used to give a sh!t about the ins and outs of every trade we were involved in but then you realise it doesn't matter.

Don't sweat the small stuff. 

If that pick we have given up next year for Lever leads to being a good pick then that is 'big stuff' but it would mean something has gone horribly wrong...

Edited October 24, 2017 by rpfc
Added context coz we are in a Balic thread

[PaulRB 6,348]

Reality is, any assessment of this years trade period is premature, as the rewards (and losses) will only be seen and felt in years to come. 

Of more use is to assess the last couple of trade periods to see (based on the actual outcome) how this trading team did... 

So, Hibberd, Lewis, Melksham, Vince, Bugg, Ben Ken, etc... 

My sense is we’ve become a Club that trades well and has become a preferred destination for genuine talent, Hibberd and Lewis last year, Lever this year.

May they continue to pick and trade well. 

[hillie 41]

free agent Gaff would be nice to add to that list next year

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

On 24/10/2017 at 8:24 PM, hillie said:

Lever was not any kind of free agent. just out of contract.

and yes if i were the dogs or pies i would take him in the draft if it got that far.

 

but Melbourne stated offer of a first and second was about right. Even if it cost a bit more but avoiding the loss of next years first rounder i could understand. However, using the arbitrary points associated with the pick  to equate it to pick 5 i don't really agree with. As i said before, that only comes into things when father sons or academy players are up for grabs.

Anyway. it's done now and there was and is nothing i can do about it.

 

Go Dees.

I have let this go but i have nothing better to do atm....haha so,

Players out of contract now are free agents. There are 2 x categories of FAs.

Restricted and Unrestricted 

Lever was restricted Rockliff was unrestricted as examples from this year 

We are going to jave to agree to disagree re the trades. 

As i said i agree and acknowledge your in principle agreement but there are finer points which wouldn't be public that affect all deals. I dont think you've acknowledged in your analysis that the MFC didn't have the upper hand in the Lever and Watts deal. 

Levers manager was appointed List manager at the Pies before the Lever trade was completed.

Do you really believe knowing that, that it would be wise to push adealide to not deal and force Lever in to the draft? Who'd do you think would be in his ear then?

Lever to the draft was not a good option. Trading with adealide was our best option and the crows were very upset with his departure 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[faultydet 7,594]

23 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

 

Lever was restricted Rockliff was unrestricted as examples from this year 

 

Lever was not a free agent of any kind. He was simply uncontracted.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I don't care how picky you want to be with definitions @faultydet. Out of contracted and uncorrected players alike are taking offers from rival clubs no matter what year of their contract or how long they have served at a particular club.

How many players request trade now? If that's not Free Agency I don't know what is.... The reality is Free Agency is alive and well in the AFL and the players have all the power.

Is it more complicated then that - yes, I understand the difference between the AFL rules and my definition. But if you believe the Rules are followed then you are kidding yourself

 

 

[faultydet 7,594]

Just now, Unleash Hell said:

I don't care how picky you want to be with definitions @faultydet. Out of contracted and uncorrected players alike are taking offers from rival clubs no matter what year of their contract or how long they have served at a particular club.

How many players request trade now? If that's not Free Agency I don't know what is.... The reality is Free Agency is alive and well in the AFL and the players have all the power.

Is it more complicated then that - yes, I understand the difference between the AFL rules and my definition. But if you believe the Rules are followed then you are kidding yourself

 

 

A lot of words to say, "yeah faulty, you are right"

And it isnt being picky to correct something that is plainly incorrect, no matter how many words you use to justify it.

[CBDees 3,167]

8 minutes ago, faultydet said:

A lot of words to say, "yeah faulty, you are right"

And it isnt being picky to correct something that is plainly incorrect, no matter how many words you use to justify it.

Particularly when it is the 'Harley Balic'  thread! ?

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

21 minutes ago, faultydet said:

A lot of words to say, "yeah faulty, you are right"

And it isnt being picky to correct something that is plainly incorrect, no matter how many words you use to justify it.

Free Agency is alive and well m7

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

14 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Particularly when it is the 'Harley Balic'  thread! ?

Haha indeed. My sincere apologies, after all it's very rare for a Demonland thread to get side tracked with personal unrelated discussions

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[demonzz 116]

especially when you have no idea of  the difference between 'out of contract',  'unrestricted',  and 'restricted' players.  all three are in some way different to the others. FFS

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

So maybe you'd care to explain to the uneducated the difference between how an out of contract' player is able to move clubs compared to an 'restricted'' Free Agent then @demonzz

I am all ears... or eyes in this occasion.

You can call it whatever you want, classify the players in to different categories but no matter how you put it, It's Free Agency

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell
i meant restricted haha ahh wells

[demonzz 116]

a player becomes unrestricted when he has served a designated amount of years to one club, he can pretty much go where he wants.

a restricted player has also played a certain amount of years but the club he is playing for has the right to match a rivals offer in monotery terms. if that happens they stay put.

jake lever was out of contract after about three years and wanted to come home, this is when all the trade toing and froing takes place and that's why we gave up what we did to get him.  

the players fought for this in the last agreement a few years ago.

I may be wrong but restricted is after six seasons,   unrestricted after eight. something like that.

 

[DeeSpencer 25,470]

36 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

So maybe you'd care to explain to the uneducated the difference between how an out of contract' player is able to move clubs compared to an 'unrestricted'' Free Agent then @demonzz

I am all ears... or eyes in this occasion.

You can call it whatever you want, classify the players in to different categories but no matter how you put it, It's Free Agency

 

 

I get what you're saying but the AFL has:

Unrestricted free agents - 8years or 10 years for top 10% paid or whatever it is
Restricted free agents - 8 years - deals can be matched by another club. If they aren't matched that player moves for free.
Delisted free agents  

They don't call uncontracted players as 'free agents' because they aren't technically free, they have to be traded for and their original club has to agree to the trade. But in other sports that would be called a restricted free agent. I think we should do away with the Lever style uncontracted players and make all uncontracted players restricted free agents, then put in place ways for clubs to keep on to them and trade them as part of a reasonable trade deal. Club options for 4th years, franchise years, restricted agent offers, a tender system....there's ways to allow clubs to keep someone like Lever then do a trade.

As it stands it's better to just call Lever an uncontracted player not a free agent. Don't confuse the terminology.

Edited October 26, 2017 by DeeSpencer

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

You are 100% correct in your definitions @demonzz

But to speed this up my point is it doesn't matter what restrictions are imposed by the AFL for the length of service - ie - Restricted and Unrestricted or uncontracted

They are still all forms of Free Agency.

The AFL knows they can't stop Free Agency, like the NBA as an example, but no one (Clubs, players, AFL, Supporters) want open slather like the NBA, hence the restrictions imposed

No club wants players to leave after 2 or 3 years, but guess what we are seeing it more and more. And it is a real problem for certain clubs.

There is going to be a time where the more literal definition of FA im referring to will happen

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

8 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I get what you're saying but the AFL has:

Unrestricted free agents - 8years or 10 years for top 10% paid or whatever it is
Restricted free agents - 8 years - deals can be matched by another club. If they aren't matched that player moves for free.
Delisted free agents  

They don't call uncontracted players as 'free agents' because they aren't technically free, they have to be traded for and their original club has to agree to the trade. But in other sports that would be called a restricted free agent. I think we should do away with the Lever style uncontracted players and make all uncontracted players restricted free agents, then put in place ways for clubs to keep on to them and trade them as part of a reasonable trade deal. Club options for 4th years, franchise years, restricted agent offers, a tender system....there's ways to allow clubs to keep someone like Lever then do a trade.

I 100% agree mate

The AFL know this is coming, but luckily for all of us, the PA and the AFL will work together for it to be fair to clubs and players

Some also say the clubs should have the power to trade players in contract without their consent. As of the AFL rules right now a player through their agent can negotiate their next contract a year or two out, we've also seen players like Schace (apologies for the spelling) request trades.....

Just because there are restrictions doesn't mean there isn't a form of Free Agency.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[DeeSpencer 25,470]

1 minute ago, Unleash Hell said:

You are 100% correct in your definitions

My point is it doesn't matter what restrictions are imposed by the AFL for the length of service - ie - Restricted and Unrestricted or uncontracted

They are still all forms of Free Agency.

The AFL knows they can't stop Free Agency, like the NBA as an example, but no one (Clubs, players, AFL, Supporters) want open slather like the NBA, hence the restrictions imposed

No club wants players to leave after 2 or 3 years, but guess what we are seeing it more and more. Get used to it

 

 

The clubs should fight back in the next CBA. 

It doesn't help them to have to pay big money for 21 year olds to stay.

Or the 700 players copping less cause Boyd gets 1mil a year

Only helps the managers

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

25 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The clubs should fight back in the next CBA. 

It doesn't help them to have to pay big money for 21 year olds to stay.

Or the 700 players cfopping less cause Boyd gets 1mil a year

Only helps the managers

Yep again 100% agree

The new CBA was introduced to give all players a bigger slice of the pie, but as we are seeing more and more with the limited talent pool clubs are over paying young talent to stay rather then leave and redraft 

We are lucky in the AFL that we still have some form of loyalty, but I guarantee the AFL will go down the NRL path sooner then later.

I would hate to see the AFL get like the NFL or NBA. But in saying that I would support the ability to sign players on restricted contracts.

For example mid season you need a ruckman - why shouldn't you be able to go the VFL and sign X for 3 months?

The more money in the sytem the more movement there will be as managers and players look to secure their futures  

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[mattjm 151]

pippi longstockings

[hillie 41]

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

The clubs should fight back in the next CBA. 

It doesn't help them to have to pay big money for 21 year olds to stay.

Or the 700 players copping less cause Boyd gets 1mil a year

Only helps the managers

boyd deal only helps one manager. the total salary cap stays the same so logic said says the slice of the pie for managers stays the same.

 

players coming out of contract are still contracted through the trade period until the end of October. hence the need for the club to trade. once the free agency years kick in, the control is removed from the club in the case of unrestricted free agents at this time.

[deelete my account 1,194]

6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

The clubs should fight back in the next CBA. 

It doesn't help them to have to pay big money for 21 year olds to stay.

Or the 700 players copping less cause Boyd gets 1mil a year

Only helps the managers

Isn't it equality at work though? A 21 year old leaves for more money if a lower club has less talent and can make a bigger offer. They can only do this because they don't have a current premiership window open and aren't stacked with elite players. You have to balance who you keep for success now vs success in future. Adelaide were squeezed because they're on top of the ladder. And we'll be squeezed either by being on top and not being able to match offers or stagnating and not making the finals and players leaving to find success on lower pay.


 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

6 hours ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Isn't it equality at work though? A 21 year old leaves for more money if a lower club has less talent and can make a bigger offer. They can only do this because they don't have a current premiership window open and aren't stacked with elite players. You have to balance who you keep for success now vs success in future. Adelaide were squeezed because they're on top of the ladder. And we'll be squeezed either by being on top and not being able to match offers or stagnating and not making the finals and players leaving to find success on lower pay.


 

Yes that is correct

But then there are clubs like GC17 or the Brissy Bears who can't seem to retain talent no matter their players contractual status.

Schace is a prime example of the problem - Brisbane invest pick 2 and lose him for basically half the price in 2 years. That is not fair by any means.

This is partly the club's problem but it is an AFL wide issue. Even Freo and WCE to a limited extent have the same issues about attracting and keeping talent.

IMO the AFL players want their cake and to eat it too. What I mean is the AFLPA have looked at other sports ie: the NBA, NFL etc and have picked the best parts from their agreements and introduced them in to the AFL CBA.

Now that's fine and dandy but it's not necessarily fair to the clubs. In the NBA players can be traded without consent and Free Agency doesn't have restrictions.

My point is the AFLPA will keep pushing for more open Free Agency in the future, but it has to be fair, they cannot just choose the good and ignore the bad, like the ability for clubs to trade contracted players with one year left on their contracts because they know they will leave.

If you look at player movement over the last few years, you will realise the AFL is heading towards a more open free agency model, but it needs to be balanced, and I personally think as Free agency is more accepted in AFL it is a priority for the AFL to get the balance right between the power of the player and the club

Edited October 26, 2017 by Unleash Hell

[jnrmac 20,055]

10 hours ago, mattjm said:

pippi longstockings

Now banned in Sweden for 'racism' - the world has gone mad.

[DeeSpencer 25,470]

11 hours ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Isn't it equality at work though? A 21 year old leaves for more money if a lower club has less talent and can make a bigger offer. They can only do this because they don't have a current premiership window open and aren't stacked with elite players. You have to balance who you keep for success now vs success in future. Adelaide were squeezed because they're on top of the ladder. And we'll be squeezed either by being on top and not being able to match offers or stagnating and not making the finals and players leaving to find success on lower pay.


 

Nope. Maybe for Lever but more often than not you have the top teams paying their A graders good money and their depth kids stay developing in the 2's and are happy to bide their time on fair contracts. Meanwhile the bottom sides who have lots of young talent pay them all big bucks to stay whilst they don't perform yet and then they cut and run when they are about to perform.

It's very rare to have a Lever situation. Geelong and Hawthorn both lost Ablett and Franklin at their peak which no doubt helped keep things together but otherwise they didn't push the guys they wanted and didn't lose quality. They certainly didn't lose quality whilst they were on the way up, they had each won 2 flags before the superstars left.

[Big Kev 361]

On 10/20/2017 at 5:36 PM, Redleg said:

I predict he will be the best pick 66 we have ever used.

Big call Redleg (even though you didn't think it was) -

1997 - Pick 66 - Nathan Brown - 146 Games, 36 Goals, 23 Brownlow votes