List Mgmt. List Management Discussion for 2022

[Dewnior]

We whinged about what Geelong got for Gazza compared to what we got for Buddy. But at least we did ok with the compo
Anyone remember who the cats got with the compo for losing Gazza?

Caddy and Smedts

 

[theiaofseed]

We got pick 19 for Buddy for the largest contract in the history of the game. The AFL is not giving us pick 3 for Sicily.

Most likely would be a pick at the end of the first round.

I would keep him, make the contract heavily front ended (Yr 1 = $1m, Yr 2 = $900k, Yr 3 = $800k, Yr 4 = $700k and Yr 5 = $600k) so 5 year $4m deal. Expect we will not have Shiels, Hartigan or McEvoy to pay for next year, so we should have cap space. I would also not have a problem trading out someone like JOM to keep Sis.

Not how free agency comp works, Essendon got pick 7 for Daniher after a year of not playing and on the back of a 3 year deal.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Not how free agency comp works, Essendon got pick 7 for Daniher after a year of not playing and on the back of a 3 year deal.

This is exactly how it works. Contract length and age determine the potential compensation... Buddy should have been two first rounders at least... but the old bit in bold at the bottom came into play...

From the AFL website...

A club that has a net loss of players transferring to/from other clubs as free agents in one transfer period is entitled to compensation via National Draft picks allocated by the AFL.

The compensation formula produces a points rating for players based on:

1. The new contract of the free agent;
2. The age of the free agent.

Draft picks are allocated to clubs based on the net total points for free agents lost and gained during the transfer period.

Draft picks will be allocated to one of five places:

• 1st round
• end of 1st round
• 2nd round
• end of 2nd round
• 3rd round

In applying the formula, an expert committee reviews the formula outcomes. The committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes to GM – Football Operations where the formula produces a materially anomalous result.

 

[RoughysMullet]

Reckon tanner bruhn is leaving… is he worth throwing the kitchen sink at? It’s like his speaking in past tense..

"I'm loving where I'm at, at the moment. I'm loving the club and loving the boys and feeling really settled at the moment," Bruhn told AFL.com.au earlier this month.

"I'm just looking forward to hopefully starting the year off well and playing some consistent footy. That’s at the forefront of my mind right at the moment.

"I feel like the club and my manager will take care of the contract talks when the time is right. For the moment it is about playing some good footy and we'll worry about that when it comes."

Would be keen but reckon he goes back to Geelong

 

[Ned Ryerson]

This is exactly how it works. Contract length and age determine the potential compensation... Buddy should have been two first rounders at least... but the old bit in bold at the bottom came into play...

From the AFL website...

A club that has a net loss of players transferring to/from other clubs as free agents in one transfer period is entitled to compensation via National Draft picks allocated by the AFL.

The compensation formula produces a points rating for players based on:

1. The new contract of the free agent;
2. The age of the free agent.

Draft picks are allocated to clubs based on the net total points for free agents lost and gained during the transfer period.

Draft picks will be allocated to one of five places:

• 1st round
• end of 1st round
• 2nd round
• end of 2nd round
• 3rd round

In applying the formula, an expert committee reviews the formula outcomes. The committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes to GM – Football Operations where the formula produces a materially anomalous result.

We all know how the formula works. What people disagreeing with you are saying is that you can't compare losing Buddy when we finished as premiers to losing Sicily to a 5 year deal when we possibly finish in the last third of the ladder. There is no AFL conspiracy against us - if Sicily takes a 5 year deal on good coin then we would get a compensation pick directly after our first round pick. That's exactly what happened with Buddy also - it just so happened our pick was at the end of the first round on account of us being premiers and all.

And no free agent has ever yielded two compensation picks so you're being a tad silly.

 

[cryptor]

And no player has ever yielded two compensation picks so you're being a tad silly.

As he said, the AFL had put a provision in the rules for alternative compensation should the formula produce a "materially anomalous result".

The formula awarded us with the pick after our first rounder which by virtue of the fact we won the flag was also equal to the next tier of compensation, an end of first round pick.

So their formula awarded what was the equivalent of the second tier compo for a player who was a generational talent, the best forward in the game, and arguably our best player.

It was only the end of 2013 at that point. They had no idea that we'd still be able to go on to win the next 2 flags without him. They had no idea that losing him wouldn't have us plummet down the ladder.

Now I have my own thoughts on what the compo should have been but it's not really relevant. The point (and I think it's the same one CLA was making) is that their formula has never been tested to such a degree before or since, and no other free agent compo has been so obviously inadequate. So, if that rule provision wasn't going to be used to address the compo we received for Buddy then under what circumstances would it ever be used?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

As he said, the AFL had put a provision in the rules for alternative compensation should the formula produce a "materially anomalous result".

The formula awarded us with the pick after our first rounder which by virtue of the fact we won the flag was also equal to the next tier of compensation, an end of first round pick.

So their formula awarded what was the equivalent of the second tier compo for a player who was a generational talent, the best forward in the game, and arguably our best player.

It was only the end of 2013 at that point. They had no idea that we'd still be able to go on to win the next 2 flags without him. They had no idea that losing him wouldn't have us plummet down the ladder.

Now I have my own thoughts on what the compo should have been but it's not really relevant. The point (and I think it's the same one CLA was making) is that their formula has never been tested to such a degree before or since, and no other free agent compo has been so obviously inadequate. So, if that rule provision wasn't going to be used to address the compo we received for Buddy then under what circumstances would it ever be used?

It's not the AFL's job to ensure that we wouldn't plummet down the ladder. It is to compensate the club based on multiple factors. We had just made 3 preliminary finals in a row, 2 grand finals in a row and won a flag. We also had the reigning Coleman medallist in the side along with Gunston, Breust and Rioli. I don't think even the most ardent haters of our side were tipping us to tumble down the ladder once Buddy departed for Bondi.

I understand that the Buddy pick ended up being essentially an end of first round pick - but do you honestly think they should have given us more? If the Demons won a second flag this year, and let's say theoretically Petracca then departed in free agency - would you think it would be okay for Melbourne to then get the first pick in the draft as a compensation pick? Of course you wouldn't. If the AFL gave us pick 1 in the draft in 2013 there would have been a massive outcry and deservedly so. The compensation is not meant to reflect what you would have got in a trade.

The compensation formula is of course able to be determined by the AFL at the time and can be a bit funny at times - but if we finish towards the bottom of the table for the third year running and lose Sicily to a wealthy 5 year deal then for what reason, other than something that would require a tinfoil hat, would you expect the AFL to not give us a compensation pick after our regular pick in the first round?

And you say it's never been tested to this degree since. It absolutely has - Gold Coast lost Lynch who was their captain and marquee player after years of struggling. He left for a lucrative 7 year deal with Richmond. What did Gold Coast get? A solitary pick after their first pick in that draft.

 

[cryptor]

It's not the AFL's job to ensure that we wouldn't plummet down the ladder. It is to compensate the club based on multiple factors. We had just made 3 preliminary finals in a row, 2 grand finals in a row and won a flag. We also had the reigning Coleman medallist in the side along with Gunston, Breust and Rioli. I don't think even the most ardent haters of our side were tipping us to tumble down the ladder once Buddy departed for Bondi.

I understand that the Buddy pick ended up being essentially an end of first round pick - but do you honestly think they should have given us more? If the Demons won a second flag this year, and let's say theoretically Petracca then departed in free agency - would you think it would be okay for Melbourne to then get the first pick in the draft as a compensation pick? Of course you wouldn't. If the AFL gave us pick 1 in the draft in 2013 there would have been a massive outcry and deservedly so. The compensation is not meant to reflect what you would have got in a trade.

The compensation formula is of course able to be determined by the AFL at the time and can be a bit funny at times - but if we finish towards the bottom of the table for the third year running and lose Sicily to a wealthy 5 year deal then for what reason, other than something that would require a tinfoil hat, would you expect the AFL to not give us a compensation pick after our regular pick in the first round?

And you say it's never been tested to this degree since. It absolutely has - Gold Coast lost Lynch who was their captain and marquee player after years of struggling. He left for a lucrative 7 year deal with Richmond. What did Gold Coast get? A solitary pick after their first pick in that draft.

Think of it this way. When the Suns came into the comp and they were allowed to sign players from other teams and the AFL was going to compensate clubs based on another one of their formulas. The Cats were originally looking at a start of second round pick for losing Ablett (which is about the same as an end of first round pick) Cats contemplate compensation for Ablett but as we know and accept that would have been a manifestly anomalous result for a player of his calibre. And so the compensation ended up being 2x first rounders for him. Arguably still unders, but a hell of a lot better than a start of second round pick. And that compensation occurred after the Cats had just won their third flag in five years.

Pick 1 alone for Buddy wouldn't have been enough, but I accept that would never happen. Even just having had it be moved up to mid-first round would have allowed us to draft Patrick Cripps.

And no, it hasn't been tested. Pick 3 for Tom Lynch was totally adequate. The compensation doesn't need to be the market value of the player, but it should at the very least be within the post code of the ball park of the market value of the player.

Anyway, imo they should do away with restricted free agency, compensation picks, and minimum salary cap spends. Award lifetime unrestricted free agency for every player after 7 years. The compensation is the freed up cap space. No minimum salary cap then allows weaker clubs to create the cap room to make plays for multiple talented free agents to shoot up the ladder. This also incentivises clubs to really look after the wellbeing of their players to encourage them to stay rather than forcing them to through a restrictive player movement system.

 

[MrPremiership]

There shouldn't be any compensation for losing FA

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

There shouldn't be any compensation for losing FA

I like to see it at the end of the second round, holding clubs accountable with effort and trade value.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Think of it this way. When the Suns came into the comp and they were allowed to sign players from other teams and the AFL was going to compensate clubs based on another one of their formulas. The Cats were originally looking at a start of second round pick for losing Ablett (which is about the same as an end of first round pick) Cats contemplate compensation for Ablett but as we know and accept that would have been a manifestly anomalous result for a player of his calibre. And so the compensation ended up being 2x first rounders for him. Arguably still unders, but a hell of a lot better than a start of second round pick. And that compensation occurred after the Cats had just won their third flag in five years.

Pick 1 alone for Buddy wouldn't have been enough, but I accept that would never happen. Even just having had it be moved up to mid-first round would have allowed us to draft Patrick Cripps.

And no, it hasn't been tested. Pick 3 for Tom Lynch was totally adequate. The compensation doesn't need to be the market value of the player, but it should at the very least be within the post code of the ball park of the market value of the player.

Anyway, imo they should do away with restricted free agency, compensation picks, and minimum salary cap spends. Award lifetime unrestricted free agency for every player after 7 years. The compensation is the freed up cap space. No minimum salary cap then allows weaker clubs to create the cap room to make plays for multiple talented free agents to shoot up the ladder. This also incentivises clubs to really look after the wellbeing of their players to encourage them to stay rather than forcing them to through a restrictive player movement system.

The Suns/Giants examples don't factor because that wasn't free agency - it was an expansion draft where players who were not contracted could be selected. Completely different system and completely different circumstances.

You agree we would never have gotten pick 1 for Buddy - so why spend so much time arguing about it?

You agree that the compensation doesn't need to be the market value of the player - so again why are we arguing that point?

The overall point being made by CLA is that supposedly we would never get a pick after our first round pick for Sicily if he left on a 5 year deal on the grounds of the AFL having it in for us. My point is that's a little unfounded - and Buddy's compensation doesn't prove that the AFL is after us because given the entire circumstances of that deal we were never going to do any better than an end of first round pick.

If Sicily goes on a 5 year deal it won't be for a packet of chips - so we will likely get a band 1 compensation and that would be a pick after our first rounder.

 

[MrPremiership]

We would get Band 1 for Sicily (as we did for Buddy).

So the pick is based on where we finish.

End of.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I like to see it at the end of the second round, holding clubs accountable with effort and trade value.

No compensation would be better I feel also. You would then see clubs be smarter with RFAs and match deals to force trades and upcoming UFAs potentially traded to extract value before they leave for free. Rather than getting free picks it would force clubs to play hardball which is how the system is meant to work.

 

[Bugs1977]

We would get Band 1 for Sicily (as we did for Buddy).

So the pick is based on where we finish.

End of.

 

[cryptor]

The Suns/Giants examples don't factor because that wasn't free agency - it was an expansion draft where players who were not contracted could be selected. Completely different system and completely different circumstances.

You agree we would never have gotten pick 1 for Buddy - so why spend so much time arguing about it?

You agree that the compensation doesn't need to be the market value of the player - so again why are we arguing that point?

The overall point being made by CLA is that supposedly we would never get a pick after our first round pick for Sicily if he left on a 5 year deal on the grounds of the AFL having it in for us. My point is that's a little unfounded - and Buddy's compensation doesn't prove that the AFL is after us because given the entire circumstances of that deal we were never going to do any better than an end of first round pick.

If Sicily goes on a 5 year deal it won't be for a packet of chips - so we will likely get a band 1 compensation and that would be a pick after our first rounder.

The Suns/Giants example was a precursor to the current free agency system. It doesn't matter that it wasn't official free agency. The relevant part was that it shows precedence for the AFL to develop a formula for determining compensation, recognising that the formula has produced a materially anomalous result, and then subsequently using their power to increase compensation to something more adequate.

You brought up pick 1 as compo for Buddy in your example. I was just making it clear that I never expected the AFL to give us that. Nor did I expect that we should have got market value (which would have been more than pick 1). Only that the AFL had the power (as described in their free agency compensation guidelines) and the precedence (the Ablett compensation) to do better by us.

I think if Sicily leaves on a big 5 year deal we'll get the band 1 compo. I'm confident of that. But the fact you've said we'll "likely" get it is interesting. You're clearly not certain, and how could you be? The AFL doesn't make the formula public. It's not clear how much age plays a role in it relative to the contract terms. What if it happens to spit out that we only get band 2, another end of first round pick? Would you not be upset? Would you not expect them to adjust it based on the materially anomalous result provision?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The Suns/Giants example was a precursor to the current free agency system. It doesn't matter that it wasn't official free agency. The relevant part was that it shows precedence for the AFL to develop a formula for determining compensation, recognising that the formula has produced a materially anomalous result, and then subsequently using their power to increase compensation to something more adequate.

You brought up pick 1 as compo for Buddy in your example. I was just making it clear that I never expected the AFL to give us that. Nor did I expect that we should have got market value (which would have been more than pick 1). Only that the AFL had the power (as described in their free agency compensation guidelines) and the precedence (the Ablett compensation) to do better by us.

I think if Sicily leaves on a big 5 year deal we'll get the band 1 compo. I'm confident of that. But the fact you've said we'll "likely" get it is interesting. You're clearly not certain, and how could you be? The AFL doesn't make the formula public. It's not clear how much age plays a role in it relative to the contract terms. What if it happens to spit out that we only get band 2, another end of first round pick? Would you not be upset? Would you not expect them to adjust it based on the materially anomalous result provision?

I don't remotely accept that Ablett is precedent for anything to do with free agency because a) It wasn't free agency, it was an expansion draft; and b) it wasn't remotely like free agency because Ablett would have been in the top 25% of Geelong's top paid players, therefore a RFA and they could have forced a trade under normal free agency. Under the expansion draft they had **** all recourse. It's not a comparable set of events.

Regarding me saying it's likely - to quote Carson Wells - I don't know to a certainty. Nobody does. I just think it is foolish to start the chicken little act over the AFL screwing us if Sicily was to depart on a 5 year deal because of a perception that the AFL bogeyman is out to get us.

 

[Brishawk]

I don't remotely accept that Ablett is precedent for anything to do with free agency because a) It wasn't free agency, it was an expansion draft; and b) it wasn't remotely like free agency because Ablett would have been in the top 25% of Geelong's top paid players, therefore a RFA and they could have forced a trade under normal free agency. Under the expansion draft they had fu** all recourse. It's not a comparable set of events.

Free agency isn’t really free agency so I’m not sure why you struggle to see the comparison here. Compo in both cases is a tool used by the afl to manage public relations. AFL don’t want to deal with endless howling over free agents departing lower ranked clubs to higher rank clubs so they bribe them with compo. There is no formula. There is only public relations. We got caught out because we thought there was a formula. Geelong realised there was only public relations and they played it that way and got a benefit from it. The point is, if we want band 1 compo we need to make it hard for the afl to do otherwise or else we risk not getting it.

 

[I got the outside word]

We would get Band 1 for Sicily (as we did for Buddy).

So the pick is based on where we finish.

End of.

It states in the rules that there are exceptions, Buddy should of been an exception. Sicily not so much.

 

[MrPremiership]

It states in the rules that there are exceptions, Buddy should of been an exception. Sicily not so much.

AFL rules? That's cute.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Free agency isn’t really free agency so I’m not sure why you struggle to see the comparison here. Compo in both cases is a tool used by the afl to manage public relations. AFL don’t want to deal with endless howling over free agents departing lower ranked clubs to higher rank clubs so they bribe them with compo. There is no formula. There is only public relations. We got caught out because we thought there was a formula. Geelong realised there was only public relations and they played it that way and got a benefit from it. The point is, if we want band 1 compo we need to make it hard for the afl to do otherwise or else we risk not getting it.

Expansion drafts are not free agency. No matter how badly the AFL did either - they are not the same thing.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Buddy should of been an exception.

No. We were reigning premiers and went on two win another two flags. We did okay.

 

[Toasted]

It states in the rules that there are exceptions, Buddy should of been an exception. Sicily not so much.

They couldn’t do it. Clubs would of exploited the exception like they are already exploiting the rules. Essendon are suddenly holding onto Daniher until the lions offer a godfather offer and they get pick 1.

It would of also given the AFL free reign to give the giants 2 top 10 picks for Cameron when he went to the cats. Imagine how much better the cats would be if the giants hadn’t screwed 3 first rounders out of them.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

The thing that concerns me the most is the Club normally resigns the champion players the year before there contract expires in the Oct - Dec period.

I feel like Sis is holding off and that concerns me in a way.

I guess what will be, will be an the Hawks will benefit either way.

A senior Hawk stays or a senior Hawk leaves for a big contract which means we should be well compensated.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

The thing that concerns me the most is the Club normally resigns the champion players the year before there contract expires in the Oct - Dec period.

I feel like Sis is holding off and that concerns me in a way.

I guess what will be, will be an the Hawks will benefit either way.

A senior Hawk stays or a senior Hawk leaves for a big contract which means we should be well compensated.

This was unique though as he was coming off an injury and no one knew if and how he would recover.

He seems to enjoy being part of the club, so hoping the deal gets signed in the next month. If he's still not signed by the middle of the year, expect he will be seriously considering offers from other clubs.

 

[chopflop]

Current contract expiry by year:

2022

Tyler Brockman, Jackson Callow (rookie), Connor Downie, Sam Frost, Jack Gunston, Kyle Hartigan, Daniel Howe, Emerson Jeka, Mitchell Lewis, Ned Long (2021 rookie draftee), Ben McEvoy, Seamus Mitchell, Harry Morrison, Conor Nash, Tom Philips, Jack Saunders (rookie), James Sicily, Chad Wingard

2023

Lachie Bramble, Luke Breust, Sam Butler (2021 national draftee), Will Day, Jarman Impey, Jacob Koschitzke, Max Lynch (trade), Connor MacDonald (2021 national draftee), Finn Maginness, Tom Mitchell, Josh Morris, Jai Newcombe (2021 mid-season draft), Jaeger O'Meara, Ned Reeves, Jai Serong (2021 national draftee), Josh Ward (2021 national draftee), James Worpel

2024

Denver Grainger-Barass, Blake Hardwick, Changkuoth Jiath, Jack Scrimshaw

Having a look at the end of 2022... Who is gone? Who is in trouble?

For me - gone are
McEvoy, Hartigan, Shiels

Young players who could be in trouble are
Saunders, callow, Jeka, s. Mitchell

Senior players who could walk/we push
Dan Howe, tom Phillips, the Chad, gunston

Priority re-signings
Morrison, Frost, Nash, Lewis, Sic,

Young players who I think re-sign
Downie, long, brocky

The interesting watch for me will be if we get offers for Tom Mitchell or Jaeger who expire the following year. They might like the sound of a new three year deal with another team (similar boat for Chad)