Jed Lamb trade - Poll

[Ludwig]

The PSD should be ordered by a random selection process for the bottom eight done after the trade period. Every year it causes angst where a player is blamed for what should be a fair negotiated trade like any other - all because the poor performing club has undeserved (in my view) power that effectively tampers with the trade system. But I guess there's holes everywhere and we've not been screwed yet by free agency.

The PSD is a reasonable avenue toward equalisation, which is something that is good for the competition as a whole. It gives the worst performing access to out of contract players that might otherwise be more difficult, as players generally would rather play with successful teams and win premierships.

What has been a bit unfair is that the Giants have used a combination of poor performance and huge financial concessions to target the Swans this year, so we are feeling a bit put off by it.

We should remember that the Swans didn't lose anyone to GC and GWS with there player signing concessions, while Adelaide lost both Bock to GC and Davis to GWS (and then Gunston followed by Tippett). Nor have we lost anyone to free agency.

When you look at the big picture, the Swans have been big winners in the player movement game. Our team performance will not be affected by the players that have left the club this year.

[liz]

The PSD should be ordered by a random selection process for the bottom eight done after the trade period. Every year it causes angst where a player is blamed for what should be a fair negotiated trade like any other - all because the poor performing club has undeserved (in my view) power that effectively tampers with the trade system. But I guess there's holes everywhere and we've not been screwed yet by free agency.

Or just abolish the PSD altogether. Delisted players can now join the club of their choice as free agents so don't need the mechanism of the PSD. Players who have served a certain period of time can now join the club of their choice as free agents. Players can now nominate terms in the ND. Why not just have the ND as the sole drafting process and let everyone else go via the ND?

[liz]

We should remember that the Swans didn't lose anyone to GC and GWS with there player signing concessions, while Adelaide lost both Bock to GC and Davis to GWS (and then Gunston followed by Tippett). Nor have we lost anyone to free agency.

We haven't, and therefore we haven't been given any compensation picks spirited out of mid air by the AFL. Collingwood got a mid first round pick for Thomas, who'd given them 7 or so years of service. We got 4 from Mumford and his age and reported pay package at GWS are similar to Daisy's at Carlton. Had Mumford been a free agent, we'd have got an end of first round pick at worst, maybe one after our normal pick.

I am not bemoaning the Swans' plight. The loss of Mumford at less than fair value is more than compensated for by the gains of Tippett and Franklin. But the compensation system for free agents creates quirks in the process that I think distort it. My beef is with the system, not the impact it has had on the Swans.

[Nico]

Recruiters are saying this year's draft dries up after the first 20 picks. In that case, pick 48 may as well be pick 88. I say all the best to Jed and wish him well and a long career, but it would be nice to get something for all of the effort/money we put into him. If we cant get a decent pick then let him go into the PSD.
By the way, I think that this year we are having a bit of a fire sale and other clubs are circling like vultures, but it wont be happening next year. GWS might be getting a couple of small wins over us, but we got Buddy.

Every single year they say "the draft dries up after no. 20" "its a shallow draft this year". Then after the draft the experts say clubs have found some "gems" at high picks. After the U18 National Comp experts were saying it looked to be a deep draft. Surely our salary cap is a big concern and clubs know it so why would they offer any dcent draft pick. Our mob seem to get it right every year and with any top club after years of success cannot hope to satisfy the financial demands of players. Posters debate here about how deep our list is etc. etc so if our list is that good there is no way we can all those players we think will fit our top 22. I suspect the loss of Mumford will be minimal given his run of injuries. And lets face it Lamb has been ok but no world beater so far. Let him go and give him his chance. Unlikely to kick a goal after the siren to beat us any game soon.

[Ludwig]

Or just abolish the PSD altogether. Delisted players can now join the club of their choice as free agents so don't need the mechanism of the PSD. Players who have served a certain period of time can now join the club of their choice as free agents. Players can now nominate terms in the ND. Why not just have the ND as the sole drafting process and let everyone else go via the ND?

But players who are not delisted, like Lamb, can only choose to nominate for the ND or PSD (not 100% sure on this), I think. I would be in favour of scrapping the PSD and Rookie drafts for a single ND. Perhaps teams can offer only 1 year contracts to players drafted after the 4th round. And all uncontracted players just go into the combined ND draft pool. A player opting for a one year contract can leave the club that drafted him after the contract ends and become a free agent and would then be free to move to whatever club he comes to terms with. It would certainly force a fairer outcome at the trading table. But I can't see the Players Association agreeing to such an arrangement.

- - - Updated - - -

We haven't, and therefore we haven't been given any compensation picks spirited out of mid air by the AFL. Collingwood got a mid first round pick for Thomas, who'd given them 7 or so years of service. We got 4 from Mumford and his age and reported pay package at GWS are similar to Daisy's at Carlton. Had Mumford been a free agent, we'd have got an end of first round pick at worst, maybe one after our normal pick.

I am not bemoaning the Swans' plight. The loss of Mumford at less than fair value is more than compensated for by the gains of Tippett and Franklin. But the compensation system for free agents creates quirks in the process that I think distort it. My beef is with the system, not the impact it has had on the Swans.

Yes, the whole system is a bit of a dog's breakfast. I sometimes listen to internet radio (Trade Week Radio) and even the so called experts, who get paid to make knowledgeable comments on football can't figure it out.

I certainly agree that the Pies stole one with pick 11 for Daisy and Hawthorn got shafted with Franklin. That's why we probably shouldn't look at any one player movement in isolation. Collingwood have definitely nailed it the last couple of years, but we've done quite well for ourselves in recent times. The Mumford deal is the one significant loss for us, but the Swans' management were major contributors to that.

[liz]

But players who are not delisted, like Lamb, can only choose to nominate for the ND or PSD (not 100% sure on this), I think.

Yep. The players wanted free agency and they got it. But maybe the flip side of the coin is that it should be harder to move without a fair trade if you're out of contract but not a free agent.

Lamb can nominate for the ND and the Giants would have to decide what pick they might need to use on him. As Ugg has pointed out, the size of the contract they have offered him means that it is highly possible that no other club would take him on those terms and they could wait until the very end of the ND to select him. If the Giants were confident of that, so be it. But if they thought they would need to use their pick in the 20s to get him (or another player in a similar situation), they might well say that for peace of mind, they might just as well use that pick to trade for him. It would force the trading club to determine their estimate of where the player would go in the ND and hence establish in their mind what a fair pick to trade for him was.

[R-1]

I would be in favour of scrapping the PSD and Rookie drafts for a single ND.

Scrapping the PSD actually can't happen. It is there to protect the whole system against restraint of trade suits by guaranteeing an out of contact player can ultimately set their own terms of employment.

This is pretty much the same reason free agency exists now... The AFLPA must be satisfied enough with the treatment of players to continue supporting the draft and cap.

[liz]

Scrapping the PSD actually can't happen. It is there to protect the whole system against restraint of trade suits by guaranteeing an out of contact player can ultimately set their own terms of employment.

.

But they can do that in the ND too.

[Ludwig]

Maybe the reason that other codes have all gone to total free agency is because of the even increasing complexity, abuses and modifications to avert abuse of the kind of hybrid system we have in the AFL.

It's looking ever more likely that free agency compensation picks will be scrapped. Something needs to be done to rationalise the uncontracted player situation, because it must be driving clubs crazy. One solution is to sign players to 9 year contracts. It will end up with the club that has the best 'Moneyball' wizz kid running the show that will be premiers.

[Mug Punter]

Or just abolish the PSD altogether. Delisted players can now join the club of their choice as free agents so don't need the mechanism of the PSD. Players who have served a certain period of time can now join the club of their choice as free agents. Players can now nominate terms in the ND. Why not just have the ND as the sole drafting process and let everyone else go via the ND?

Fair point - by the time we are past draft week all free agents have found new homes and the Draft Order has been adjusted, though I think Compensation Picks will go soon. Throw all the available talent, young and old, into the pot and draft accordingly. Can't see the need to distinguish between the ND and PSD contenders tbh. Then of course the Rookie Draft can be held last of all I think it serves a very useful purpose in providing a path for late bloomers and project players.

I'd also have the Free Agency Period (i.e. when free agent players find a new home) and the Trade Period (player and draft pick trading) as two separate periods of one week each.

[Gezball]

GWS have also basically committed to picking J. Hunt in the PSD so they'd have to choose between Hunt and Lamb for their first pick.

[ugg]

GWS have also basically committed to picking J. Hunt in the PSD so they'd have to choose between Hunt and Lamb for their first pick.

They're signing Hunt as a delisted FA

[R-1]

But they can do that in the ND too.

I don't think they can set their own contact terms in the ND.

[Mug Punter]

I don't think they can set their own contact terms in the ND.

Think that may be the key difference between the two drafts (PSD and ND). Think all ND picks go in at agreed salaries as per the ALFPA agreement, obviously top picks usually get their salaries upgraded pretty quickly in exchange for a longer contract term. PSD players usually have AFL experience and are able to command a greater salary.

Think the best way to untwine the two would be for the PSD to be scrambled amongst the top 9 and bottom 9 after the ND to avoid the PSD being used as a bargaining chip.

[liz]

Players who have previously been on an AFL list are allowed to name their terms in the ND. They have been for a few years now. Luke Ball was taken at pick 30 by the Pies when they couldn't reach a trade agreement with St Kilda. He didn't join the Pies on a basic first year salary.