The problems with free agency

[barry]

I have a theory on Jeremy Cameron:

Cameron got screwed by the club (not intentionally) and covid. Because GWS kept loading up the backend of his contract, so they could stay under the cap during 2016-2019, and then when his big pay day came (2020), he lost 30% of it. He has every right to feel aggreived. But I still think he likes to Sydney lifestyle.

But him and GWS couldnt work out what would be a fair contract for 2021 onwards. So they hatched a plan. Let him test the free-agency waters and see what his market value is. Geelong bit, and its $6m over 5 years (?). Cameron is happy with that, GWS are happy with that. The match the bid. He stays with GWS.

[Markwebbos]

I have a theory on Jeremy Cameron:

Cameron got screwed by the club (not intentionally) and covid. Because GWS kept loading up the backend of his contract, so they could stay under the cap during 2016-2019, and then when his big pay day came (2020), he lost 30% of it. He has every right to feel aggreived. But I still think he likes to Sydney lifestyle.

But him and GWS couldnt work out what would be a fair contract for 2021 onwards. So they hatched a plan. Let him test the free-agency waters and see what his market value is. Geelong bit, and its $6m over 5 years (?). Cameron is happy with that, GWS are happy with that. The match the bid. He stays with GWS.

Lets see how it plays out?

[stellation]

I have a theory on Jeremy Cameron:

Cameron got screwed by the club (not intentionally) and covid. Because GWS kept loading up the backend of his contract, so they could stay under the cap during 2016-2019, and then when his big pay day came (2020), he lost 30% of it. He has every right to feel aggreived. But I still think he likes to Sydney lifestyle.

But him and GWS couldnt work out what would be a fair contract for 2021 onwards. So they hatched a plan. Let him test the free-agency waters and see what his market value is. Geelong bit, and its $6m over 5 years (?). Cameron is happy with that, GWS are happy with that. The match the bid. He stays with GWS.

Matching contract offers made to free agents is relatively common in the NBA, and it generally comes down to a bit of free market economics where the player/team aren't particularly in disagreement on anything other than agreeing on a contract.

[bloodspirit]

Article by Pete Ryan about free agency rules and whether they're working:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/free-agency-rules-not-clubs-have-failed-cameron-20201107-p56cdk.html

. He seems to think that Jeremy Cameron is hard done by because he isn't guaranteed a smooth transition to Geelong. However, to me, his argument is weakened because he doesn't explain why this is so wrong. The matching option for free agency bids was exactly how the system was intended to work. In fact it's the first time it's ever even been exercised (although the Crows threat of matching Geelong's bid for Dangerfield a few years back prompted the Cats to trade). He also says that the free agency rules have become outdated - but, again, he doesn't say why. What has changed? Why were they appropriate but are no longer? I am confused and even less persuaded. Lastly he says that free agency is not one of the AFL's equalisation measures. On what basis does he say this? It seems patently untrue to me. Undoing the equalising effect of tying compensation to a club's ladder position seems a retrograde step at first blush to me. I'm all in favour of maximising equalisation.

In sum, I agree the free agency rules have problems but I find the criticisms and solutions put forward in this article really unconvincing. Disappointing because I normally think Peter Ryan is thoughtful and worth listening to.

[barry]

It's an article written for the Geelong readership.

[Thunder Shaker]

Lastly he says that free agency is not one of the AFL's equalisation measures. On what basis does he say this? It seems patently untrue to me. Undoing the equalising effect of tying compensation to a club's ladder position seems a retrograde step at first blush to me. I'm all in favour of maximising equalisation.

A player can cross from one club to another with the destination club giving up nothing in the draft. The club that the player is leaving is not disadvantaged by this because they get a compensation pick. The clubs that suffer are the other 16 clubs whose draft picks are diminished in value by the compensation pick.

It subverts equalisation because the destination club pays no draft price, unlike father/son and NGA academy recruitment. Father/son and academy recruitment exacts a draft price for the prospects in exchange for priority access to the player. It's time that free agency had a similar price. I have already proposed a couple of alternatives, both of which exact a fair price on the destination club by making them contribute to the value of the compensation picks so the non-participating clubs are not penalised.

[bloodspirit]

How Silvagni and Rendell would fix free agency

[Thunder Shaker]

How Silvagni and Rendell would fix free agency

An interesting read.

The problems with the proposals:
* Clubs who regularly lose players to free agency are disadvantaged. Getting rid of the compensation picks disadvantages the club losing players. What other compensation is proposed for these clubs to aid player retention? I don't see it.
* Restricting the number of free agents per two or three years to top 8 clubs but less restriction to clubs outside the top 8 is flawed. If a club happened to finish ninth after making the finals for several years, they can recruit free agents with fewer restrictions. It could encourage tanking.
* Trading players a club picks up by free agency is massively unfair. A club can raid another club of a star player, then trade that player. Who gets the benefit of that raid? Not the club losing the player.

Alternative approaches:
* A club has a limit of two players on their list recruited via free agency at any time. This limit is increased to three if the club has lost a player to free agency in the past three years.
* A club that has the maximum number of free agents on their list loses the protection of restricted free agency. All players who are eligible to be free agents become unrestricted.

[barry]

Free agency is designed to allow a player who has played a significant time at a club (ie, repaid the dept of draft pick used to get him), can negotiate a deal with a club of his choice to move there.

Its not designed for equalisation or anything else. Its designed to empower the player, and player only.
Player may choose to exercise it to:
1) Move back home. (if they are starting a family)
2) Follow the dollars. (Anyone who goes to Carlton)
3) Follow a premiership dream (Lynch to Richmond)
4) Escape the fishbowl (Buddy and Lynch).

The club he leaves should not expect "fair value" in return, and the compensation pick is generally below fair value.
However the club he goes to should pay a similar less-than-fair value.

Maybe a concept where the player (lets take Jeremy Cameron* as an example), nominates Geelong. Cameron enters the draft and Geelong have the same arrangement as an academy player. At some point in the draft, he gets bid on (Lets say, for arguments sake by Sydney at 3). Geelong can then match that bid with points. If they dont, Cameron has a choice. Stay at GWS, or go to Sydney. If he goes to Sydney, The Giants get the next available pick (4).

* Jeremy cameron is a restricted free agent, so not quite the same.

[Thunder Shaker]

Free agency is designed to allow a player who has played a significant time at a club (ie, repaid the dept of draft pick used to get him), can negotiate a deal with a club of his choice to move there.

Its not designed for equalisation or anything else. Its designed to empower the player, and player only.
Player may choose to exercise it to:
1) Move back home. (if they are starting a family)
2) Follow the dollars. (Anyone who goes to Carlton)
3) Follow a premiership dream (Lynch to Richmond)
4) Escape the fishbowl (Buddy and Lynch).

The club he leaves should not expect "fair value" in return, and the compensation pick is generally below fair value.
However the club he goes to should pay a similar less-than-fair value.

Maybe a concept where the player (lets take Jeremy Cameron* as an example), nominates Geelong. Cameron enters the draft and Geelong have the same arrangement as an academy player. At some point in the draft, he gets bid on (Lets say, for arguments sake by Sydney at 3). Geelong can then match that bid with points. If they dont, Cameron has a choice. Stay at GWS, or go to Sydney. If he goes to Sydney, The Giants get the next available pick (4).

* Jeremy cameron is a restricted free agent, so not quite the same.

Another very interesting idea that's worth considering.

[bloodspirit]

You make some good points, barry. In particular it's true that free agency is designed primarily to empower players but the compensation existing, and being tied to the club's finishing position, is designed to provide some protection and equalisation for lower ranked clubs so that they're not trapped down the bottom of the table, starved off sucess, with players steadily leaving as they get to free agency because they've got more chances of winning flag elsewhere. Additional levers for equalisation are a good thing in my view.

[neilfws]

There's a good overview of free agency over the HPN Footy blog:

So how does free agency work (sort of)?

They also analyse and rate every trade as it happens using their player value system, worth following.