2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[TheBloods]

Stephens has been promised more inside midfield time in 2022.

Good.

[Roadrunner]

As regards the proposals for changing the rules about players changing clubs (not being able to nominate etc), I'm not sure they are properly thought through.

First, there is no formal rule that a player can 'nominate' a club they want to be traded to. It's just that a player doesn't have to sign another contract with their existing club and, if they don't, and they're not traded, they can go to the PSD. A rule change would somehow have to relate to the way the pre-season draft or another part of that process works. I would like to see something concrete proposed before commenting further.

Second, it overlooks the power of the players. In AFL it seems the players have more power compared with, say, US sport (I don't really know because I don't follow US sport). There is a strong cultural dimension to this - we are a more egalitarian society with greater regard for the people at the bottom of the pile compared to the US - and I don't think that's a bad thing. More to the point, the players have bargaining power. On the one hand, the AFL can seek to lay down the rules; on the other the players can refuse to accept those rules and refuse to play. The stakes are high for both: without players the AFL doesn't have a product and can't continue to exist. Without playing the players won't get paid or get to play in front of big crowds in a high performance environment. That's why they have to negotiate and why the AFL doesn't get everything its own way. And that is the strength of the players having a body to negotiate for them collectively - otherwise the AFL could just pick off players individually.

A major change would be to create contracts where players could be traded between clubs without their consent. I can't see the players agreeing to this, even if it were to result in some increase in total $$ they got. If was a player, I wouldn't.

Bloodspirit, I’m not looking to diminish player’s ability to move. I’m saying that in negotiations more power should be given to the selling club. I don’t know how the US works, but I follow the EPL which is the top football league in the world and use the transfer system in European football. We don’t have to re-invent the wheel, just take some of the good aspects of their contracts etc.

Any player can put in a transfer request irrespective of their contract status when the transfer windows are open twice a year. The contract usually has a release clause in $s and this is the minimum that the buying club has to pay to the selling club. Personal terms are then agreed on by the buying club and the player.

However, if a player is out of contract, he can go to a new club for free, so every club endeavours to renew the contract well before expiry.

This system seems to work very well for both players and clubs. I don’t see why we can’t adapt it to our game.
We can still have the draft and the ability to trade picks, but do away with the trading of players as we have at present.

Instead of a $ release clause, we could have a player exchange and/or draft picks nominated by the selling club, as it is entitled to hold the cards. If the contract has expired then the AFL grants the draft pick similar to how it’s done currently. However, this needs to be fine tuned as we lost George for pick 39, and George would be in top 22 for at least 16 teams, so I can’t see how pick 39 is fair!

Of course, all this needs a lot of input from gifted sports admin people, but I respectfully suggest that the AFL would be better served by working on this rather than tinkering with the rules ad nauseum.

[Markwebbos]

The rule change would be to abolish the pre-season draft. It was introduced due to player claims that there weren't enough ways for a player to change club but that was before free agency was introduced. Now with free agency, after a qualifying period, the argument is diminished.

Players who haven't yet reached free agency will still be able to move away from their existing club, either by requesting a trade or by nominating for the draft. But they will have less control over getting to the club of their choice, which seems an appropriate distinction for those who haven't yet qualified as free agents.

If it weren't for the PSD, clubs would be more realistic about having to trade fairly for young players out of contract.

+1 look at poor Richmond with CCJ being offered a future 3rd rounder

[bloodspirit]

Just listening to the interview with Charlie Gardiner, I don't think he's so bad. He isn't as polished as Harley and says "ahhm" a lot; also he didn't give much away so it wasn't that interesting to listen to - but I don't think any of that means he's not good at his job. I thought the questions from Kane Cornes were good - it's just a pity they didn't lead to more revealing answers. But I can understand that Charlie didn't want to give away what players or types of players we are interested in. It seems obvious to me that we must have an interest in KPPs and rucks but there's no point announcing that to the competition at the beginning of trade period. Really he's just being like Horse and most of the personnel at our club a lot of the time in not giving a lot away.

[bloodspirit]

The rule change would be to abolish the pre-season draft. It was introduced due to player claims that there weren't enough ways for a player to change club but that was before free agency was introduced. Now with free agency, after a qualifying period, the argument is diminished.

Players who haven't yet reached free agency will still be able to move away from their existing club, either by requesting a trade or by nominating for the draft. But they will have less control over getting to the club of their choice, which seems an appropriate distinction for those who haven't yet qualified as free agents.

If it weren't for the PSD, clubs would be more realistic about having to trade fairly for young players out of contract.

That's what I'm talking about. That makes a lot more sense. And so elegantly simple. Thanks liz.

Bloodspirit, I’m not looking to diminish player’s ability to move. I’m saying that in negotiations more power should be given to the selling club. I don’t know how the US works, but I follow the EPL which is the top football league in the world and use the transfer system in European football. We don’t have to re-invent the wheel, just take some of the good aspects of their contracts etc.

Any player can put in a transfer request irrespective of their contract status when the transfer windows are open twice a year. The contract usually has a release clause in $s and this is the minimum that the buying club has to pay to the selling club. Personal terms are then agreed on by the buying club and the player.

However, if a player is out of contract, he can go to a new club for free, so every club endeavours to renew the contract well before expiry.

This system seems to work very well for both players and clubs. I don’t see why we can’t adapt it to our game.
We can still have the draft and the ability to trade picks, but do away with the trading of players as we have at present.

Instead of a $ release clause, we could have a player exchange and/or draft picks nominated by the selling club, as it is entitled to hold the cards. If the contract has expired then the AFL grants the draft pick similar to how it’s done currently. However, this needs to be fine tuned as we lost George for pick 39, and George would be in top 22 for at least 16 teams, so I can’t see how pick 39 is fair!

Of course, all this needs a lot of input from gifted sports admin people, but I respectfully suggest that the AFL would be better served by working on this rather than tinkering with the rules ad nauseum.

I like your thinking but the devil is in the detail and I would want to see a concrete proposal. As I just wrote - I like liz's proposal which is so simple yet seems like it could be really effective. I think walking the player to the ND creates a lot more uncertainty that players and trading clubs would not be risking yet still permits a player to leave if they are desperately unhappy.

[Aprilbr]

Just listening to the interview with Charlie Gardiner, I don't think he's so bad. He isn't as polished as Harley and says "ahhm" a lot; also he didn't give much away so it wasn't that interesting to listen to - but I don't think any of that means he's not good at his job. I thought the questions from Kane Cornes were good - it's just a pity they didn't lead to more revealing answers. But I can understand that Charlie didn't want to give away what players or types of players we are interested in. It seems obvious to me that we must have an interest in KPPs and rucks but there's no point announcing that to the competition at the beginning of trade period. Really he's just being like Horse and most of the personnel at our club a lot of the time in not giving a lot away.

Charlie is certainly not a polished media performer. Remember that train wreck of an interview that he did after the trade deadline a couple of years back when we did not get the Daniher deal done? He was like a lamb to slaughter in answering the media pack.

Harley is the opposite in this regard. He is polished, confident and articulate. I just hope that Charlie is much better at the other parts of his job description. I feel we have a strong administration and coaching panel at present. The only question marks in my eye are over Charlie and perhaps our Reserves coach, Laidler.

[barry]

The rule change would be to abolish the pre-season draft. It was introduced due to player claims that there weren't enough ways for a player to change club but that was before free agency was introduced. Now with free agency, after a qualifying period, the argument is diminished.

Players who haven't yet reached free agency will still be able to move away from their existing club, either by requesting a trade or by nominating for the draft. But they will have less control over getting to the club of their choice, which seems an appropriate distinction for those who haven't yet qualified as free agents.

If it weren't for the PSD, clubs would be more realistic about having to trade fairly for young players out of contract.

The PSD is also there for players who wanted to move, and their club didnt want them, but a deal couldnt be made in trade period.

So rather than scrap the PSD, just allow the club who they play for to be able to match a bid by a new club. A bit like the academy, and father son matching.

Eg. Dawson nominates for PSD at $650k for 4 years.
Adelaide select him at pick 5
Sydney get the chance to match that bid, and if so Dawson stays at Sydney.
Sydney loose next pick, or some combination of picks. *
Adelaide get pick 6.


Note: There has to be a price Sydney pays for this behaviour, to discourage it. So the price might be losing picks in the next national draft (future picks), or paying 10% above nominated price.

[rickmat]

Not arguing about giving anything away, but it's just his bumbling along in answering not really tough questions from Cornes. I'm not expecting any "leaking" of any of the confidential discussions , I'll leave that to the player agents or the so called "experts" like Goddard or Lloyd!!!

[liz]

The PSD is also there for players who wanted to move, and their club didnt want them, but a deal couldnt be made in trade period.

If a club doesn't want a player, they have no business no doing a deal during trade week. If the club really doesn't want them, they should delist them. Delisted free agents can then join the club of their choice.

Your alternative - as well as being pretty complex - prevents a player from leaving a club. There may be many reasons (valid ones) for them to leave. So they have to be able to nominate for a draft if their club refuses to trade them to a nominated club. They just have less control over which club they land up at. Prior to actually being a free agent, of course.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Daniel Cherny at The Age is writing that we’re privately threatening to walk him to the PSD if we don’t get a decent deal. (Won’t post link as don’t want to bugger up the thread). Cherny tends to be a bit more circumspect in his reporting than gibberers like Tom Morris or Sam Edmund, so it certainly caught my eye.

Given we know GC and Collingwood are out, that suggests the Swans have at least scoped the threat of Norf taking him.

I’ve always thought it unlikely as we tend to be practical traders, but all we need is him and his manager to know the threat is there and that they need to go get us what’s rightfully ours: a great return.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Just listening to the interview with Charlie Gardiner, I don't think he's so bad. He isn't as polished as Harley and says "ahhm" a lot; also he didn't give much away so it wasn't that interesting to listen to - but I don't think any of that means he's not good at his job. I thought the questions from Kane Cornes were good - it's just a pity they didn't lead to more revealing answers. But I can understand that Charlie didn't want to give away what players or types of players we are interested in. It seems obvious to me that we must have an interest in KPPs and rucks but there's no point announcing that to the competition at the beginning of trade period. Really he's just being like Horse and most of the personnel at our club a lot of the time in not giving a lot away.

The two other interesting bits were: Wicks two year deal is all but done and Reid has been told he’ll need to wait till trade period is over before a decision is made.

[barry]

If a club doesn't want a player, they have no business no doing a deal during trade week. If the club really doesn't want them, they should delist them. Delisted free agents can then join the club of their choice.

Your alternative - as well as being pretty complex - prevents a player from leaving a club. There may be many reasons (valid ones) for them to leave. So they have to be able to nominate for a draft if their club refuses to trade them to a nominated club. They just have less control over which club they land up at. Prior to actually being a free agent, of course.

Its a bit complex, but no more complex than the national draft.

It also puts more power in the clubs hands (prior to free-agency ages), but that is a good thing. The players will still have far more power than their US sporting cousins.

[Jimitron5000]

According to Fox Sports, the Crows have offered us pick 17 (currently with the Bulldogs).
I thought this pick might come into it, but I think we should hold out for more.

[Markwebbos]

According to Fox Sports, the Crows have offered us pick 17 (currently with the Bulldogs).
I thought this pick might come into it, but I think we should hold out for more.

It's a good start, I reckon we'd want more like double that. If they chucked in next years 2nd and 3rd maybe? I can't believe there aren't any players at the Crows we'd be interested in. Jordon Butts?

[Roadrunner]

The rule change would be to abolish the pre-season draft. It was introduced due to player claims that there weren't enough ways for a player to change club but that was before free agency was introduced. Now with free agency, after a qualifying period, the argument is diminished.

Players who haven't yet reached free agency will still be able to move away from their existing club, either by requesting a trade or by nominating for the draft. But they will have less control over getting to the club of their choice, which seems an appropriate distinction for those who haven't yet qualified as free agents.

If it weren't for the PSD, clubs would be more realistic about having to trade fairly for young players out of contract.

Excellent solution Liz! I just think the whole system needs a re-work and hope the AFL give this some serious attention.
Re : Jordan- please insist on pick 4. If Adelaide refuse, it will show Jordan how he is valued by them and combined with a threat of the PSD, it may just change his mind, which would be the best outcome for us. However if we lose him, so be it.

Regarding George: can someone please explain how pick 39 is fair, without referring to other deals. Surely this is way unders for a player of his ability. Only reason we’re letting him go is due to team balance-a late 1st rounder would be nearer to the mark.