Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate the comp picks but surely the free agency period should finish before the trade period starts i.e the week after the grand final

This allows the draft picks to be set before trades open

(Im in the no comp picks team but just throwing out an easy solution to Andrew Mackie's comment)
The compo you get from losing a FA should be the $$$$$ in the cap it free's up to target other players
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The compo you get from losing a FA should be the $$$$$ in the cap it free's up to target other players
The problem with this is 1. not enough players are free agents. If they opened up all out of contract players to be free agents it would actually be useful to have that cap space and be able to poach a player in trade week. 2. players can't be traded against their will. So even if Stkilda and Melbourne agreed on an Oliver trade and to match his contract with the cap space from battle leaving, they can't do it.

However I don't think you should get compensation for an UFA. If you don't value them high enough to 1. let them fall into out of contract exactly when free agency hits. and 2. not pay them enough for them to be RFA. They probably aren't worth a first round compensation.
 
Just watch the media jump on this next week and blame us for holding everything up :rolleyes:
If we don't have any other targets or trades to do, we should just offer pick 14 on it's own and let the clock run down. They won't be able to bring in their targets without it unless they give up pick 3.
 
From Richmond ? What / who are we trading for that pick?
I think the assumption is that It would end up at West Coast as part of the Baker trade.

And then Barrass trade could be

HAW GIVE: 14 and Pick 33/Future 2nd

WC GIVE: Barrass, Pick 42 (tied to Richmond Jack Graham compensation)

That way west coast get a little bit more than just pick 14 with the 2nd round swap.
 
If we don't have any other targets or trades to do, we should just offer pick 14 on it's own and let the clock run down. They won't be able to bring in their targets without it unless they give up pick 3.

Slight risk that Eagles will just tell Barrass that he will be playing for them next season if they don't get what they believe is fair compensation.

Could end up like this...

giphy (5).gif
 
I think the assumption is that It would end up at West Coast as part of the Baker trade.

And then Barrass trade could be

HAW GIVE: 14 and Pick 33/Future 2nd

WC GIVE: Barrass, Pick 42 (tied to Richmond Jack Graham compensation)

That way west coast get a little bit more than just pick 14 with the 2nd round swap.
I'd prefer pick 13 for Barrass and pick 42 (which will end up close to 50 with all the matching.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The problem with this is 1. not enough players are free agents. If they opened up all out of contract players to be free agents it would actually be useful to have that cap space and be able to poach a player in trade week. 2. players can't be traded against their will. So even if Stkilda and Melbourne agreed on an Oliver trade and to match his contract with the cap space from battle leaving, they can't do it.

However I don't think you should get compensation for an UFA. If you don't value them high enough to 1. let them fall into out of contract exactly when free agency hits. and 2. not pay them enough for them to be RFA. They probably aren't worth a first round compensation.

I heard someone on radio yesterday suggest that rather than provide compo picks, the AFL should apply a penalty to the club acquiring the player under free agency in the form of an additional salary cap hit - e.g. if you get a player by FA for say $800k p.a., it would count for say $1.2m in your salary cap.

This would incentivise clubs to trade for players if reasonable to avoid the hit (which would benefit the other club) and also make for a cumulative impact on 'destination' clubs that snare a number of FA's due to 'lifestyle factors' or 'big crowds' as opposed to those who need to use the cap to retain players. We also avoid compromising the draft order and avoid the rubbish manipulation of player contracts to achieve an outcome

Whilst I know it would never happen, I personally dont mind the suggestion as just allowing full Free Agency would inevitably institutionalise the 'rich club/poor club' dynamic more than it is. We already know that star players will move for less to play in big crowds or with other star players so people who say the freed up salary cap is all the benefit the club losing the player needs are wrong in my view.
 
I heard someone on radio yesterday suggest that rather than provide compo picks, the AFL should apply a penalty to the club acquiring the player under free agency in the form of an additional salary cap hit - e.g. if you get a player by FA for say $800k p.a., it would count for say $1.2m in your salary cap.

This would incentivise clubs to trade for players if reasonable to avoid the hit (which would benefit the other club) and also make for a cumulative impact on 'destination' clubs that snare a number of FA's due to 'lifestyle factors' or 'big crowds' as opposed to those who need to use the cap to retain players. We also avoid compromising the draft order and avoid the rubbish manipulation of player contracts to achieve an outcome

Whilst I know it would never happen, I personally dont mind the suggestion as just allowing full Free Agency would inevitably institutionalise the 'rich club/poor club' dynamic more than it is. We already know that star players will move for less to play in big crowds or with other star players so people who say the freed up salary cap is all the benefit the club losing the player needs are wrong in my view.
Whatever the free agency changes are, it should impact the clubs in the deal and not the other 16 clubs. So salary cap penalties make sense
 
I heard someone on radio yesterday suggest that rather than provide compo picks, the AFL should apply a penalty to the club acquiring the player under free agency in the form of an additional salary cap hit - e.g. if you get a player by FA for say $800k p.a., it would count for say $1.2m in your salary cap.
I actually don't mind this. But I'd imagine the Players Association would and would argue it's restraint of trade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top