Tweet
Bookies have already paid out on Hawthorn winning the next 3 flags. We can all relax now.
-
-
Agree with this. The trade ban is a farce but thats not Hawthorns fault.
Free agency is a crock though, and makes the draft almost pointless.
There are two major problems with the system - the club procuring the player doesnt forfeit any draft picks, not only that but every other club is penalised for each FA trade, and the top four clubs shouldnt be able to participate.
As far as I can tell the system was put in place on the insistence of the players association to make it easier for players to move clubs. That shouldnt mean the lower clubs should have a direct turnstile to the top 4.
I said a while back, the fact we paid nothing for Franklin in draft terms is stupid. Imagine Goodes leaving in 2008 to Collingwood and we received pick 18 for him...He ate more cheese, than time allowedComment
-
The AFL went to the US to learn about Free Agency & equalization
That is like going to China for lessons in DemocracyComment
-
Free Agency was stuffed the minute they went down the compensation pick path.
Maybe they should only have restricted free agency? With the compensation pick removed it means clubs may actually try and keep players instead of just looking at them as just a potential draft pick. Also it would make the other team have to actually "pay" for a player."Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017Comment
-
i thought part of the reason was that 28/29/30 yr olds had great difficulty negotiating fair terms hence the great opportunity to move clubs in these later years after serving their club for 10yrs
ie Rosa at West Coast may stay on at $250k to $300k pa but if he departs to another club he may achieve $350k pa over 2 or 3 years rather then $250k pa for 1 or 2 years"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
-
Hard to believe the Hawks have space to fit Carlisle under the cap.."In some ways we?re less predictable to ourselves and sometimes that can be detrimental because we don?t really know where we?re going" - P.RoosComment
-
Well they've let three premiership players go in Hale, Lake and Suckling for starters, plus it could be backended with the new TV coming in which will increase the salary cap.
Free Agency came in because the system in place is a restraint of trade and one legal challenge away from being completely dismantled. Players should be entitled to the club of their choice after 8 years IMO, they are not pieces of cattle they have the same rights as other employees.
What I do see now is players telling clubs where they will be traded, the players seem to hold all the cards. Whether it is because of the veiled threat of legal action I don't know.
In terms of free agency it can work for struggling clubs trying to accelerate a re-build (e.g. Vince at the Dees has been good). I think the current model should be changed whereby the club gaining the free agent loses their pick in the same round that club loses the free agent gains their compo pick. So, last year the Hawks should have lost their first round pick for Frawley as we should have the year before for BuddyComment
-
I agree with all you have said MP, including your last para re the club gaining a free agent losing a pick.
I also think, in the new world of picks equating to points, that compo points should work on an 'a/b' system. By that I mean if the AFL decides the compo pick should be, say, pick 8, then it should become either pick 8a or 8b, so while both picks 8a and 8b will be activated before the existing pick 9, pick 9 and subsequent picks do not lose any of their accompanying points. Important to the four Academy clubs.
Would that work, do you think?Comment
-
Vince wasn't a free agent, he was traded for something around pick 20. I can't think of a top free agent who has gone to a bottom team.
Looks like gws are cpnsidering trading their pick 8 for 2 second rounders for more points. Makes sense. Jay Clark on Twitter: "GWS pick 8 (1551 points)
Ess pick 23 (815) & pick 25 (756) = 1571
GWS better off with 23 & 25 to use on academy players."Using TapatalkComment
-
If you're saying that by moving our picks down the draft order we effectively paying more for our academy picks and being penalised by Free Agency then that's a fair point.
I think that perhaps netting the draft picks (i.e. club losing a player get a pick, club gaining the player lose one) would be pretty good in achieving that.
How you value the picks I don't know. We had the ridiculous scenario last year of the Dees getting Pick 3 for Frawley and for a while this year it looked like Carltoin might get Pick 2 for Kreuzer (insane). Average Salary for what the player is being offered probably is as good as any other method but I don't get how our comp pick would be 17 and the Blues 2 for a similar standard player. I'd have the compo picks at the end of each round for consistency ordered by the clubs' relative first round picks if there are more than one compo pick.
Whatever they come up with will be imperfect but the clubs losing players need to be compensated because if they don't the haves and have-not divide will just get greater and greater.
- - - Updated - - -
You are right re Vince but they paid for it with the pick they got from Freo for Sylvia so my point is still kind of relevant
Comment
-
It doesn't actually if you are giving an opponent club an advantage in the process. I would think they'd want a bit more than 20 points to do that deal but I agree that it will become a trading strategy.
People saying GWS won't be able to afford Himmelberg are crazy. They will have picks 7 and 8 which should be able to accommodate the points for Hopper and Kennedy. Himmelberg and Flynn will go later but even if first rounders surely the points they get for Hampton and Bugg plus their second rounder will be enough.
Will be interesting to see if the let Cam McCarthy go, I think they need to make an example of a player re the go home factor so he may be the one. Within 5 years they'll basically be a Riverina/ACT rep side and maybe that's not a bad thing.Comment
-
I've loved the fact that the 2016 provisional draft picks are on the table. It opens the way for more deals.
I think the AFL should let teams deal three drafts in advance e.g. 2018 draft. There would be more deals. More speculation about a teams potential future ladder finish.Comment
-
This is just fraught with danger if a club rashly trades away too many top picks for a few years just to secure a marquee player. What's more, we don't even know how trading one year in advance picks will impact yet. It could be tantamount to being banned for 3 consecutive drafts.
Nope Matt, can't agree that three years is even a remotely sensible idea.Comment
Comment