2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[707]

My view of it was that it was crooked. As the article says the Hawks put an article on their own website saying he had a 3 year deal and then changed it to 2 after the fact.

Imagine if we’d varied the terms of Buddy’s deal AFTER the Hawks had elected not to match it? That’s what happened with a restricted free agent.

The whole Vickery arrangement stinks

One of the sweetest FA signings for me :-)

I'm in two minds about the compo picks. I think it's important for the (generally lower) teams that are losing FA's but it does push out non participating clubs draft picks. I also don't like the fact that the better FA always seem to choose to move to already strong clubs or clubs seen to be on the rise.

FA distorts the level playing field the AFL try to create.

AFL secret formula, what a crock, they manipulate outcomes to suit themselves, the number of over inflated compo picks stinks. If it's in the AFLs interest for the player to move they seem to ensure the compo is very juicy for the losing club.

[bloodspirit]

My recollection (and this is reflected in the article you provided a link to) is that the angst amongst other clubs wasn't due to the initial three year term but the reduction from three to two years. The AFL doesn't publish a transparent formula for working out compensation picks, but it's generally perceived to be based (amongst other criteria) on the per annum payment, rather than the total contract value. The presumption was that the Hawks restructured their overall offer to Vickery to be a two year deal, rather than three year, but on essentially the same money over the contract, thus making the per annum amount higher and improving the compensation pick the Tigers received. I imagine there was then a verbal agreement with Vickery that if he was retained beyond the initial two years, it would be on a significantly lower amount.

This just highlights one of the issues in the way compensation pick are handed out. They should just abolish them all. Free agents are free agents. And where the player is a restricted free agent, their current club's decision on whether to match the deal or not won't be distorted by the lure of a compensation pick.

Winners and losers however you do it. If you abolish compensation picks the players and non "destination" clubs, like Gold Coast, lose.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Not to mention the value he (Buddy) has to the existing playing list in terms of his contribution to the development of the young forwards.

How certain is it that he is contributing to the development of the forwards?
It's always been assumed he does, and I know I'm treading into taboo territory again but are we sure?
When Buddy plays he kicks goals (usually more than anyone else) but when he's the centre of your forward line does the team kick more goals?
FWIW Clarkson at Hawthorn thought not.
And so far this year the Swans have scored more in his absence than when he's playing.

I wonder how a young forwards development is affected, at the very least by being largely ignored, when midfields become Buddy obsessed.
Some Swan forward prospects have certainly not developed as expected since season 2014. It's assumed that this is an intrinsic problem with the players, but is it?

[liz]

How certain is it that he is contributing to the development of the forwards?
It's always been assumed he does, and I know I'm treading into taboo territory again but are we sure?
When Buddy plays he kicks goals (usually more than anyone else) but when he's the centre of your forward line does the team kick more goals?
FWIW Clarkson at Hawthorn thought not.
And so far this year the Swans have scored more in his absence than when he's playing.

I wonder how a young forwards development is affected, at the very least by being largely ignored, when midfields become Buddy obsessed.
Some Swan forward prospects have certainly not developed as expected since season 2014. It's assumed that this is an intrinsic problem with the players, but is it?

I was referring more to the work he does with them off-field. For instance, Hayward, Ronke and Papley spoke last year about how he'd stand on the sidelines during the training sessions he couldn't participate, and give them advice on what he should be doing. And Blakey has spoken this season about how he (Buddy) spends time going through his tapes with him.

The impact of his onfield presence on other players' development is harder to gauge, though you'd think that the likes of McCartin and Blakey should benefit from not having the best (or spare) defenders focussing their attention on them because they are preoccupied elsewhere. I don't dispute the tendency for the team to look for Buddy too often when he's out there, but there's no inherent reason why the team can't improve in that department, especially if there are talented alternative targets in the forward line. Buddy needs to be part of the solution to this, especially as his effectiveness wanes in the twilight years of his career. His mindset of wanting the ball was made stark by his comment to Whately when awarded the AA captaincy last year. And who can blame him. But part of playing maturely at the end of one's career is understanding that you need to tweak your game to match your abilities. He can still be very damaging and productive to the team, even when he's not always the primary target. It's up to him, the coaches and the rest of the team to learn how to make this happen.

With regard to Hawthorn, Clarkson's deliberate efforts to make him less of a focus only really kicked in in 2013, when I'm pretty sure Clarkson knew he wouldn't have Buddy beyond that season. And he was able to play Franklin further up the ground because he had an array of very talented and dangerous forwards besides Franklin - Roughead, Breust, Rioli, Gunston, Puopulo and others. We've not really had this for most of Franklin's time at the club. It's been him, an injury prone Reid, and an array of very young, mostly smaller players around him, especially post Goodes. But that's changing with the talented and diverse firepower that is gradually developing to be deployed around him.

[Markwebbos]

Depends what you mean by "after the fact". They didn't change it after it had been made official and Richmond had had a chance to match. They changed it beforehand - reducing it from the originally touted three years down to two - for the purpose of securing Richmond a better compensation pick (ie by paying essentially the same total dollars but over two years, not three, thereby increasing the per annum amount on which the AFL's formulae machinations are based).

Liz, if you are right, the two clubs worked together to effectively game the system.

Nonetheless the change from 3 to 2 did happen after the fact. Quoting from the article: "When announcing Vickery's signing, Hawthorn published a statement on social media saying the 26-year-old had accepted a three-year deal, but quickly replaced it with an updated version that referred to a two-year deal."

The deal was announced as 3 years by the Hawks themselves after the deal was done, and then magically became 2.

[liz]

Liz, if you are right, the two clubs worked together to effectively game the system.

Nonetheless the change from 3 to 2 did happen after the fact. Quoting from the article: "When announcing Vickery's signing, Hawthorn published a statement on social media saying the 26-year-old had accepted a three-year deal, but quickly replaced it with an updated version that referred to a two-year deal."

The deal was announced as 3 years by the Hawks themselves after the deal was done, and then magically became 2.

I'm not sure what you mean by "after the fact". The article to which you provided a quote says that the offer lodged with the AFL (and thus the one Richmond had the opportunity to match) was the two year deal. To me, "after the fact" would mean they changed it after Richmond declined to match it.

And yes, I do believe that if you piece together what is written in that article, it strongly suggests that the two sides worked together to game the system. They are not the first to do so, and won't be the last either, not while compensation picks remain.

I understand the need to protect weaker clubs from losing players but there are other mechanisms for doing that. Besides, the main impact on Gold Coast and Brisbane hasn't been through losing free agents. They've been far more severely affected by losing players yet to reach free agent status because there aren't mechanisms in place to protect non-free agents demanding a trade when the fancy takes them, or to ensure that the club losing the player can demand adequate compensation via trade - players like Yeo, Redden, Docherty, Aish from Brisbane, and Prestia, Caddy, O'Meara from Gold Coast.

[S.S. Bleeder]

My recollection (and this is reflected in the article you provided a link to) is that the angst amongst other clubs wasn't due to the initial three year term but the reduction from three to two years. The AFL doesn't publish a transparent formula for working out compensation picks, but it's generally perceived to be based (amongst other criteria) on the per annum payment, rather than the total contract value. The presumption was that the Hawks restructured their overall offer to Vickery to be a two year deal, rather than three year, but on essentially the same money over the contract, thus making the per annum amount higher and improving the compensation pick the Tigers received. I imagine there was then a verbal agreement with Vickery that if he was retained beyond the initial two years, it would be on a significantly lower amount.

This just highlights one of the issues in the way compensation pick are handed out. They should just abolish them all. Free agents are free agents. And where the player is a restricted free agent, their current club's decision on whether to match the deal or not won't be distorted by the lure of a compensation pick.

Correct. There was definately shenanigans going on between the two clubs on that deal so that Richmond could get their high compensation pick and not match Hawthorns bid for Vickery. Glad he turned out to be a dud.

[Nico]

Looks like we will go for 2 in the mid season draft and with MVeigh and Jack retiring plus at least a couple of delistings for the National Draft, if we get it right our list will develop quickly. My thoughts are we should go for younger players in the mid season draft.

[liz]

Looks like we will go for 2 in the mid season draft and with MVeigh and Jack retiring plus at least a couple of delistings for the National Draft, if we get it right our list will develop quickly. My thoughts are we should go for younger players in the mid season draft.

I wonder if the prognosis on Joey's knee in the next day or two might change the thinking. It's unlikely (from reports of a medial ligament issue) that it will be season ending but it could keep him out for a good few weeks. His role is one that the list is already light on for young, developing players and there's no-one in the NEAFL side yet physically equipped to come in and play his role. I know we won last week without him, but only just, and North really aren't much chop.

Our younger players - the outside runners and the forwards - won't get as much chance to develop during the season if we can't hold our own in the middle. I realise there is no-one playing state league football that is going to come in and deliver what Kennedy does, but it might persuade them to use the second pick on a stronger, mature body who can play in the middle - a Jye Bolton maybe?

[Ludwig]

I don't think the JPK injury should influence who we take in the mid season draft. We should just keep giving the young mids more opportunities to step up. We have the midfielders on the list. They just need time to develop. They just might be better off without having Kennedy carry them on his back.

[liz]

I don't think the JPK injury should influence who we take in the mid season draft. We should just keep giving the young mids more opportunities to step up. We have the midfielders on the list. They just need time to develop. They just might be better off without having Kennedy carry them on his back.

If we had a young player able to come in and play a similar role I'd agree. But we don't. We're already missing Jones in there (hopefully short term), and Heeney is clearly sore. Though one thing that would persuade me otherwise is if an extended absence to Kennedy is what finally persuades Longmire that a certain past RS winner is wasted as a medium sized defender.

[707]

If we had a young player able to come in and play a similar role I'd agree. But we don't. We're already missing Jones in there (hopefully short term), and Heeney is clearly sore. Though one thing that would persuade me otherwise is if an extended absence to Kennedy is what finally persuades Longmire that a certain past RS winner is wasted as a medium sized defender.

Play someone else at HB and put Mills in the middle. Results don't matter now, use the rest of this year as development.

[Blood Fever]

Play someone else at HB and put Mills in the middle. Results don't matter now, use the rest of this year as development.

Rowbottom will probably get another crack but Hewitt may be out as well. Mills an option but if Longmire is reluctant, why not give O'Riordan a crack in midfield? Has played there in NEAFL IIRC. Hard at it with a bust of speed, Jones style. Worth a thought.

[ugg]

Judging by the centre bounces in the 4th quarter Dawson’s the likely JPK replacement

[Auntie.Gerald]

Unless mills finally gets a shot at inside mid with parks and Hewett while kennedy and Jones are out

I’d be very happy to see this, if we we can bring in some more speed for the Backline to start becoming a force in our counter attack

I’d rather see Dawson playing his rotation between HBF, CHF and Wing as he is dangerous on the lead and kick