I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about how the players' influence on trades has risen so much?
I guess it may be a by-product of Free Agency, but players are now nominating one club they want to go to and basically forcing the clubs' hands into brokering a trade, and excluding all other clubs, even if they can offer more playing time. In the past, if a player wanted out or wanted to go back to Victoria, they'd be traded to a new club that gives their old club the best trade, not the club that gives the player the best pay packet. Nowadays its becoming a bit more like soccer, where players have a much greater say and are basically having full control over their movement.
For example, Jonathon O'Rourke choosing Hawthorn, so St Kilda have ruled themselves out.. Paddy Ryder picking Port Adelaide.. Levi Greenwood nominating Collingwood.. Kurt Tippett opting for Sydney a couple of years ago.. the list goes on
It's as if players are acting like Free Agents before they are eligible to become one
Just some food for thought.. Do you guys see this as a good or bad thing for the game?
IMO, expand FA to any player that is out of contract, or scrap the whole thing.
Now, there is an inherent problem at the moment with players wishing to join those teams who are vying for a flag (ie. Frawley and Lake to Hawthorn), leaving teams like Melbourne and the Dogs little weaker....
...this is the problem that needs solving, but what is the solution? IMO, compensation isn't the full answer. Frawley might/might not equal pick 3 (thats another debate), but Melbourne have still lost a 26yo key defender.
Perhaps the AFL should disallow the top 8 from participating in FA? This would eliminate the strong praying on the weak....
to be honest man players have been nominating clubs for decades it's just that is more open to the media these days and used to be behind closed doors. Clubs would still try facilitate a trade with the club of choice and if it didnt work they'd try sort something else out, like these days.
At the end of the day clubs look to do well by the player if they can work out a fair trade. If not then they'll find a fair trade elsewhere
Quote from: Ricochet on October 07, 2014, 09:50:24 PM
to be honest man players have been nominating clubs for decades it's just that is more open to the media these days and used to be behind closed doors. Clubs would still try facilitate a trade with the club of choice and if it didnt work they'd try sort something else out, like these days.
At the end of the day clubs look to do well by the player if they can work out a fair trade. If not then they'll find a fair trade elsewhere
Damn Twitter. :P
Flowering compo picks!
You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.
Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)
Quote from: meow meow on October 07, 2014, 10:01:38 PM
Flowering compo picks!
You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.
Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)
I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.
i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round
so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc
affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice
Quote from: meow meow on October 07, 2014, 10:01:38 PM
Flowering compo picks!
You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.
Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)
Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?
I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 10:28:18 PM
I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.
Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 07, 2014, 10:40:16 PM
i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round
so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc
affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice
Why should weaker clubs have to pay more for the same player?
Quote from: Big Mac on October 07, 2014, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on October 07, 2014, 10:01:38 PM
Flowering compo picks!
You have a Holden (Frawley). It costs you money to run every year (wages under the salary cap). Your car gets stolen (by Hawthorn). But that's okay, the insurance company gives you the opportunity to go out and buy a new car, a Ford, and it doesn't cost you a thing (Free Agency signing - example: Jackson Trengove in 2016). You still have to pay to run the new car (wages), but in the end you haven't really lost anything.
Then Dad comes home and gives you a BMW as well (pick 3)
Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?
I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 10:28:18 PM
I'm ok with compo picks for restricted FAs, but picks for unrestricted players makes zero sense.
Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 07, 2014, 10:40:16 PM
i like the idea that the AFL should decide what round they are worth but the team gaining the player should have to give up there pick in that round
so Melbourne would have received Hawks 1st rounder for Frawley etc
affects other teams much less and makes the poaching clubs think twice
Why should weaker clubs have to pay more for the same player?
yeah, major issue.
like if hawthorn offered pendles a contract they'd only have to pay pick 19 for him, while saint kilda would have to pay pick 1. The strong would get even stronger.
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
um if Saints could get Pendles with pick 1 they would be more then happy to
Quote from: Big Mac on October 07, 2014, 10:49:16 PM
Weak teams can't just go around signing free agents when 'success' is such a driving factor in player's minds. The only leverage they have is money, but how much can weak clubs be expected to pay? There's really not much of a difference between earning 700k a year and 800/900k a year. Players still live the same lifestyle and can still build a sizeable nest egg. Why not add a premiership as well?
I also don't see you complaining about the Higgins compensation.
Nick Malceski? Dale Thomas?
If you reckon that an extra 200K every year, for 4 years isn't enough to make a player move clubs then you are kidding yourself. Ward? Davis?
We shouldn't have been given anything for Higgins. With that 400k we saved we can front load contracts this year, then go out and get a FA next year who'll probably be better than Higgo anyway, AND we've gotten another 2nd round pick out of it as well. It doesn't make any sense. It's in teams best interests to lose a FA every second year, then sign one every year following. They'll just replace whoever they lost and get an extra pick every couple of years. So much for equalization.
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
I thought players in the bottom 25% were unrestricted FA?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 07, 2014, 11:01:02 PM
um if Saints could get Pendles with pick 1 they would be more then happy to
Yeah, really bad example in hindsite.
Maybe swap pendles for shiels, hawthorn for sydney and pick 19 for pick 18?
better example.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 07, 2014, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
I thought players in the bottom 25% were unrestricted FA?
No, the only exception is if you are a 2nd year player who doesn't want to resign. (I don't like that rule either)
First year players have to go to the draft.
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
Does it not also say "in the relevant contract year"?
Quote from: Big Mac on October 08, 2014, 07:46:29 AM
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
Does it not also say "in the relevant contract year"?
shower, copy paste issue stuffed up my post. cbf typing it up again.
In short, you have to have spent at least 8 years at a club to be unrestricted, regardless of the contract iirc. Unless you are a 2nd year rookie who doesn't want to resign.
Quote from: Master Q on October 08, 2014, 05:25:55 PM
Quote from: Big Mac on October 08, 2014, 07:46:29 AM
Quote from: Master Q on October 07, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Quote"Even though the 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' status is only determined based on the last year of a player's contract? Players could be earning 1mil a year but if their contract is heavily front-loaded then they can still qualify for unrestricted free agency."
"Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club (that is, in the club
Does it not also say "in the relevant contract year"?
shower, copy paste issue stuffed up my post. cbf typing it up again.
In short, you have to have spent at least 8 years at a club to be unrestricted, regardless of the contract iirc. Unless you are a 2nd year rookie who doesn't want to resign.
Not sure what you are arguing.
"eligible for restricted free agency the first time they are out of contract, if they have served at least eight years with the club"
"eligible for unrestricted free agency if they have served at least eight years with the club"
A player has to spend at least 8 years at a club to be any type of free agent. But what does that have to do with what I said?
You said that compensation for UFA's makes no sense, but then I said that a player's free agency status (restricted or unrestricted) is only determined "in the relevant contract year" i.e. the final year of their contract. So if a player earns 2 million over 2 years, they would be earning on average 1 million a year, and would easily be in the top 25% of salaries at their club and qualify for restricted free agency. But if their contract was front-loaded so that they earned 1.7 million in the first year and 300k in the second, their low earning final year would not fit in the top 25% of player's salaries and therefore they would be an unrestricted free agent. So you are saying that because this player's contract was front-loaded they should not warrant compensation?
I'm saying your second paragraph isn't 100% correct :P
I'm going to leave it though as we may be arguing different things.
IMO clubs should only receive compensation picks for first and second year players.
In a very uneducated view, as I don't go deep enough into all the rules, it does seem all the unrestricted " better players " seem to leave the lower clubs, with not much chance of a flag, to head to a team with a premiership window' Not saying I/we wouldn't do the same, but it does seem in the infancy of FA is making the stronger clubs stonger
My two cents is the comp was alot more even before free agency came in. :(
Has done absolutely nothing. Just force players to find trades or make them go into the PSD
Saw this on facebook:
GWS and GC to voluntarily delist Ward and Ablett, then buy each others player, get compo picks 5 and 10, then trade the players back. End up with free draft picks.
#logic
Quote from: Sweetness on October 08, 2014, 11:02:53 PM
Saw this on facebook:
GWS and GC to voluntarily delist Ward and Ablett, then buy each others player, get compo picks 5 and 10, then trade the players back. End up with free draft picks.
#logic
Picks are awarded on the value of a player lost vs the value of any players gained. They wouldn't get extra picks. Unless they did it over a two year period, which is what the smart teams will do. Melbourne might sign a free agent next year with the Frawley money and they'll have pick 3 for free. The compo picks need to be abolished!
Quote from: meow meow on October 09, 2014, 01:52:35 AM
Quote from: Sweetness on October 08, 2014, 11:02:53 PM
Saw this on facebook:
GWS and GC to voluntarily delist Ward and Ablett, then buy each others player, get compo picks 5 and 10, then trade the players back. End up with free draft picks.
#logic
Picks are awarded on the value of a player lost vs the value of any players gained. They wouldn't get extra picks. Unless they did it over a two year period, which is what the smart teams will do. Melbourne might sign a free agent next year with the Frawley money and they'll have pick 3 for free. The compo picks need to be abolished!
What if Nathan Jones leaves via FA next year?
Then you'll have a flowerton of money to lure other FA's. Stop making it sound like nobody wants to play for Melbourne. Didn't have any trouble luring a young player (Tyson) and an older player (Vince). Lumumba would have signed up this year as a FA if he was able to. Garlett has nominated the Dees as his club of choice. Although it was a fail (not at first), Mitch Clark was lured with a big money contract.
What if we lost Griffen this year then signed Cotchin next year, would we deserve to have an extra first round pick too? Hell no.
Quote from: meow meow on October 09, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
Then you'll have a flowerton of money to lure other FA's. Stop making it sound like nobody wants to play for Melbourne. Didn't have any trouble luring a young player (Tyson) and an older player (Vince). Lumumba would have signed up this year as a FA if he was able to. Garlett has nominated the Dees as his club of choice. Although it was a fail (not at first), Mitch Clark was lured with a big money contract.
What if we lost Griffen this year then signed Cotchin next year, would we deserve to have an extra first round pick too? Hell no.
Oh sorry - someone would have signed as a FA? Well that's the same thing isn't it? Every player you listed was traded for. If trading works so well (as you say) then why the flower does free agency exist?
You keep assuming the perfect situation where one FA leaves and you receive compo. Then the next season no free agents leave the club and there is another equal standard free agent waiting who doesn't want success, but wants to go to your club over all the other bottom clubs capable of offering the same money.
So far a player has left Melbourne every year via free agency since its inception - Rivers/Moloney, Sylvia, Frawley. So you're just going to assume that this trend won't continue?
Look at what has happened so far:
Good players who have left via FA:
Franklin - Sydney
Goddard - Essendon
Dal Santo - North
Betts - Adelaide
Thomas - Carlton *
Frawley - Hawthorn
Malceski - Gold Coast *
So that's 2/7 free agents in three years who have left to go to a lesser team for money. Although, Carlton were a top-8 side when Thomas signed and Gold Coast clearly have one of the best lists in the competition and will experience success very shortly. A top player is also yet to go to a bottom 6 club via FA. So if it is as easy as offering big contracts to good free agents to get them to a weak club, why hasn't it been happening?
Even looking at Average players:
White - Port Adelaide
Pearce - Freo
Chaplin - Richmond
Rivers - Geelong
Higgins - North
None went to weaker clubs.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/
Franklin, Betts moved to clubs at similar level btw. Besides, Franklin was looking for a change not a flag, and Betts was pushed out in favour of Daisy.
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 06:48:22 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/
Franklin, Betts moved to clubs at similar level btw. Besides, Franklin was looking for a change not a flag, and Betts was pushed out in favour of Daisy.
I never said anything to the contrary?
Quote from: Big Mac on October 09, 2014, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 06:48:22 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/
Franklin, Betts moved to clubs at similar level btw. Besides, Franklin was looking for a change not a flag, and Betts was pushed out in favour of Daisy.
I never said anything to the contrary?
The Franklin bit is a bit of pie in the sky. He saw Sydney as a flag opportunity, too Goode's to refuse. Yeah the Hawks won it, but just saying. + BIG BICKKIES :P
Quote from: Big Mac on October 09, 2014, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 06:48:22 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/
Franklin, Betts moved to clubs at similar level btw. Besides, Franklin was looking for a change not a flag, and Betts was pushed out in favour of Daisy.
I never said anything to the contrary?
Did you read the link?
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 08:03:01 PM
Quote from: Big Mac on October 09, 2014, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 06:48:22 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/
Franklin, Betts moved to clubs at similar level btw. Besides, Franklin was looking for a change not a flag, and Betts was pushed out in favour of Daisy.
I never said anything to the contrary?
Did you read the link?
What's the point of including delisted free agents? Almost all had no choice where they went to
I didn't write it. But besides, still shows that there are plenty of players who went to similar or lower level clubs via FA, and that it is not just a shortcut to a flag.
Just like every sport in the world, Money usually talks.
Quote from: Master Q on October 09, 2014, 08:12:10 PM
I didn't write it. But besides, still shows that there are plenty of players who went to similar or lower level clubs via FA, and that it is not just a shortcut to a flag.
Just like every sport in the world, Money usually talks.
I was talking about good/average level players though? I was making the point that these players are not currently going to weaker clubs, so how can these clubs expect to benefit from free agency in the future?
That link even proves my point in that it states that the only players to go to weaker clubs have been largely unsuccessful.
So after the Frawley move everyone in the media was jumping up and down about only top teams being destination clubs and only the strong get stronger... but now everyone wants to go to bottom clubs lol. We have two of the best young talents in the comp wanting to go to Brissie, one of the best mids in the comp wanting to go to GWS and last years #1 pick wanting to go Bullies. In terms of where their original club is at and where their new club was at, all three were going backwards, not upgrading. Clubs find a way to improve and they will find a way to attract players. FA isn't as bad as its made to be
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Griffen?
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:03:01 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Griffen?
key word was 'mostly'
and a case to be made that if he goes to GWS they will be better then the Dogs next year and for the rest of Griffs career so could fall under the chasing success bracket
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:03:01 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Griffen?
key word was 'mostly'
and a case to be made that if he goes to GWS they will be better then the Dogs next year and for the rest of Griffs career so could fall under the chasing success bracket
Except that he wants to go there right now. And right now GWS finished below Bulldogs. Anything can happen in a year of footy, look what Port did.
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:09:49 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:03:01 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Griffen?
key word was 'mostly'
and a case to be made that if he goes to GWS they will be better then the Dogs next year and for the rest of Griffs career so could fall under the chasing success bracket
Except that he wants to go there right now. And right now GWS finished below Bulldogs. Anything can happen in a year of footy, look what Port did.
again i said 'mostly' for a reason
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:09:49 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:03:01 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 15, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
none of them are really free agency though they all require trades
That wasn't the point mate... The concern is top clubs like Hawks will be the only destination clubs, yet most players requesting to leave have wanted to go backwards
but the older players are chasing success mostly the ones that are actually free agency
Griffen?
key word was 'mostly'
and a case to be made that if he goes to GWS they will be better then the Dogs next year and for the rest of Griffs career so could fall under the chasing success bracket
Except that he wants to go there right now. And right now GWS finished below Bulldogs. Anything can happen in a year of footy, look what Port did.
again i said 'mostly' for a reason
Well 'most' of big the player requests this trade period have been to go to a lesser club, which is against the grain to what everyone has been complaining about, which was my point. Whether its Free Agency or not, clubs will find a way to attract players
People are complaining that the big Free Agents and trade players are going to big clubs rather than small clubs.
Griffen is going from one low club to another, he just wants to get out of the WB.
Beams just wanted to go to his dad, I doubt that he had anything to do with Brisbane being a more appealing club plus he already has family ties there. Otherwise, most of all other big name players just pick a top 4-5 team for the heck of it.
The only players going from established clubs to low clubs either:
1. Are fringe players/don't play any games at their club (i.e Membrey)
2. Want to go to a particular state/Want to get out of their current club immediately (i.e Beams)
Otherwise, if a player doesn't fall into those two brackets they won't go to a lower club
But why isn't Griff wanting to join a top 4 club?
And think there is a lot more to the Beams situation. Why not also consider GC who were far far ahead of Brissie? Obviously his brother has a bit to do with it
Also Christo wanting to go to Brissie and not another top club
But Christensen is just 1 who bucks the trend vs. so many others who don't
Pearce, Chaplin, Rivers, Frawley, Tippett, Dal Santo, Franklin, Sylvia, Mcevoy, Polec etc. are the guys who have showed why Top clubs are just dominating the offseason.
Then you have good players who get forced out of top clubs and play for lower clubs that way like Chapman and Mumford
Then you have a bunch of fringe players who move anywhere to get games, which is what the trade period/PSD/delisted FA already covers
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 15, 2014, 01:28:45 PM
But Christensen is just 1 who bucks the trend vs. so many others who don't
Pearce, Chaplin, Rivers, Frawley, Tippett, Dal Santo, Franklin, Sylvia, Mcevoy, Polec etc. are the guys who have showed why Top clubs are just dominating the offseason.
Then you have good players who get forced out of top clubs and play for lower clubs that way like Chapman and Mumford
Then you have a bunch of fringe players who move anywhere to get games, which is what the trade period/PSD/delisted FA already covers
Well Dal Santo, Polec were basically pushed (due to lack of opportunites or the club rebuilding) and didn't go to a top 4 club (at the time)
Chaplin went from a team that finished 14th to a team that finished 12th.
Danyle Pearce went to a team that finished 7th
Don't think McEvoy had much of a say in the trade and also the fact Hawks gave up Savage and Pick 18
So the players that actually went to a top 4 team
Tippett went from a team that finished 2nd to the premier so not such a big issue
Buddy went from the premier to the team that lost it the next year so again not sure a big issue
Agree that Rivers and Sylvia went from a poor team to a top 4 team though
But its not about going from poor teams to good teams, its that regardless of where they are they will just keep going to top 8 teams.
Pearce and Chaplin jumped from Port when they only had 5 wins for the entire season, compared to Richmond's 10.
You could make a case for McEvoy but none of Dal Santo, Goddard or Polec got pushed at all. All of them very much had a clear option to stay at their clubs and all chose to leave.
For every 1 Christensen, there's another 5-6 players who do the opposite
But most argue that the strongest get stronger, yet hardly any have gone to a top 4 side.
Polec was a SA boy and only played 1 game for the Lions that year. Like I said, pushed due to lack of opportunity.
Dal Santo didn't go to a top 4 side
Goddard left a side that was 9th to a team that finished 11th
And now look where St.Kilda is compared to where North and Essendon are.
Surely there's no case to say that most major trade/FA player hasn't gone to a strong/stronger team. Beams and Griffen are very much outliers to the argument.
Yeh but at the time the players can't see into the future. They're making a decision based on what they know at that point in time.
A lot can happen in a year of footy
If you want to use Master Q's link (http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/) and remove delisted agents since they're irrelevant in this debate .
Players that have gone from low club to high club
Frawley
Sylvia
Rivers
Chaplin
Goddard
Dal Santo
Pearce
Higgins
Waite
Franklin (went to a Strong team for all intensive purposes)
Players that have gone to a club at a similar level
Knights
Lynch
White (team is now top 4)
Moloney
Betts
Thomas
Players that have gone from high club to low club
Ellis
Byrnes
Murphy
Malceski
This leaves us with 4 players who went genuinely from a High Club to a low club. Of those 4 only 1 can be considered an AFL mainstay in Malceski and GC will likely finish next season in the finals anyway
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 15, 2014, 02:56:52 PM
If you want to use Master Q's link (http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/) and remove delisted agents since they're irrelevant in this debate .
Players that have gone from low club to high club
Frawley
Sylvia
Rivers
Chaplin
Goddard
Dal Santo
Pearce
Higgins
Waite
Franklin (went to a Strong team for all intensive purposes)
Well thats not exactly correct because not all went to a stronger club or a top 4 club, as i showed before.
Going from a mid-tabled club to a slightly better mid-tabled club at 5-10 hardly adds to the argument that the strongest get stronger
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 03:03:50 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 15, 2014, 02:56:52 PM
If you want to use Master Q's link (http://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/2gqg6e/a_look_at_free_agency/) and remove delisted agents since they're irrelevant in this debate .
Players that have gone from low club to high club
Frawley
Sylvia
Rivers
Chaplin
Goddard
Dal Santo
Pearce
Higgins
Waite
Franklin (went to a Strong team for all intensive purposes)
Well thats not exactly correct because not all went to a stronger club or a top 4 club, as i showed before.
Going from a mid-tabled club to a slightly better mid-tabled club at 5-10 hardly adds to the argument that the strongest get stronger
NDS/ Goddard moved because of list/ salary cap restructuring.
Yes, but now you've got a situation where there's a direct correlation to top 8 teams getting the vast majority of FA. It has in no way helped bottom 8 teams.
If it was helping bottom teams, you'd see a WAY wider distribution of Free agents. Heck, you can get rid of Knights, Lynch, Murphy, Byrnes and Moloney considering they barely played and it gives you a pretty clear picture.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 15, 2014, 03:12:50 PM
It has in no way helped bottom 8 teams.
Melb got N3 for Frawley
Melb got N23 for Syvlia and traded that for Vince
Melb got N49 + Byrnes for Rivers + Moloney
Port got N30 for Chaplin and took Mason Shaw
Saints got N13 for Goddard which they traded to GC for Hickey + N25 basically
Saints got N25 for Dal Santo which they used to get Longer
Port got N29 for Pearce
Higgins and Waite too early to tell
You can't say that most of these didn't benefit the bottom 8 teams or are too early to tell who wins
TBH I think free agency is setting a dangerous precedent. The players are getting a LOT more power in the game now, and I think it's turning into soccer a bit
The number of players requesting trades seems to have gone to another level, despite the number of trades going through are dropping (presumably because clubs are demanding over-the-top prices for their players)...
Players are nominating clubs of choice and refusing to negotiate with anyone else...
Salary cap has also just gone up to beyond 10 million a season
Also, "player power" has got coaches sacked for at least 2 clubs (possibly 3) in the last month. This would never be tolerated in past eras
This has all happened since FA came in.. is it a coincidence? I don't know, but FA has given the players more control, there is no question about it. These aforementioned scenarios may just be the side effects of FA.
Quote from: Tominator on October 15, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
The number of players requesting trades seems to have gone to another level, despite the number of trades going through are dropping... Players are nominating clubs of choice and refusing to negotiate with anyone else... Salary cap has also just gone up to beyond 10 million a season
Also, "player power" has got coaches sacked for at least 2 clubs (possibly 3) in the last month. This would never be tolerated in past eras
To be honest man, these two bits aren't anything new. Core players are always consulted in regards to Coaches and if there are issues, they are brought up by the playing group. And players have always nominated clubs, just usually its internal and only made known to clubs involved.
Its just that the media digs in and finds more information than ever before and makes it public.
Quote from: Ricochet on October 15, 2014, 03:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tominator on October 15, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
The number of players requesting trades seems to have gone to another level, despite the number of trades going through are dropping... Players are nominating clubs of choice and refusing to negotiate with anyone else... Salary cap has also just gone up to beyond 10 million a season
Also, "player power" has got coaches sacked for at least 2 clubs (possibly 3) in the last month. This would never be tolerated in past eras
To be honest man, these two bits aren't anything new. Core players are always consulted in regards to Coaches and if there are issues, they are brought up by the playing group. And players have always nominated clubs, just usually its internal and only made known to clubs involved.
Its just that the media digs in and finds more information than ever before and makes it public.
Yeah that's probably true. I think the rise of social media has made players go more public with their trades and coaches and stuff
I read an article somewhere on the weekend that "Gen Y players don't like criticism... They only listen to the feedback they want to hear, not the feedback they need to hear" ... whether its a media circus or not, that statement might be true
Waite is harsh to classify as low to high as well as the main reason he left was because of the contract length.
I think the sample size is a bit low as well, it also ignores guys who forced trades before becoming free agents, or situations like monfries, where the clubs traded for an average pick basically to stop FA from impacting ports compensation.
Thats just another player going to a top 8 side, even if he was already in one.
Unless these clubs throw the kitchen sink at these guys, the bottom 8 will never sign good players