AFL Surprised Free Agency Not Working

[threenewpadlocks]

Mark Evans has said that the AFL is looking at doing something else with the draft to help equalisation as they don't think that Free Agency is working in a manner they envisioned when the AFL brought it in.

Something that most punters thought at the time when Free Agency was brought in was that it was going to benefit a hand full of clubs and seriously disadvantage quite a few.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-09/afl-to-explore-alternatives-to-priority-pick-system

I love how the AFL comes out and says that they want the entire league to pay 100% of their salary cap, literally ten days later, come out and say that Free Agency is not having the desired effect on equalisation.

Do these nuffies at AFL House even realise the contradictory element of the statement?

The entire principle of free agency and a free market of players, and a salary cap for equalisation, is that bad teams pay their players less because the sum of the equation of their bad team is the bad players they're playing. These bad teams can then take room in their salary cap that good teams don't have, offer more money in free agency, and the competition is more equalised as result?

You know what happens, Mr Evans, if the entire league pays 100% of its cap - free agency causing equalisation doesn't occur! If every club is paying 100% of the salary cap, the subsequent cap room in the off-season is created by the players that leave the team. Bad teams will have less players leaving - because their players are getting over-paid compared to market value because their team is paying their players the same amounts of good teams, and good teams will have more salary cap room - because their fringe players will seek more money at a bad club forced to pay 100% of their cap. Lo and behold, the good teams as a result have salary cap room ... more salary cap room to chase free agents in the off-season which in fact has an inverse equalisation effect.

It's not even that complex to explain. The competition is not equalised if players are not close to being paid their true market value in a football production sense.

I understand the desire for every club to pay 100% of their cap is not so much talked about by the AFL in the context of equalisation, rather the Collective Bargaining Agreements with the AFLPA to ensure that more money actually flows to the players as a collective unit.

But surely there's a better way of achieving that then implementing forcing each club to pay 100% of their cap which in fact has an inverse equalisation effect.

The only reason that there should be a minimum salary cap at all is to stop a form of tanking where clubs simply recruit dud players and play out their year on a 50% team list.

But the AFL is living in an antiquated logic, where the only logical process of thought is that the competition is more equal in an individual year in a vacuum if every team is paying 100% of the cap - and that is true, all things being equal, the competition is more equalised if everybody is paying their players the same. But that completely and utterly flies in the fact that list management is not for one year alone, and is completely bankrupted when the concept of salary cap room is incredibly more important with the introduction of free agency.

Do the idiots at AFL house not even realise this?

 

[King Elvis]

The decision makers at the AFL are unbelievably stupid.

 

[Damon_3388]

Because the vast majority of players are Victorians, Western Australians or South Australians and history tells us that the vast majority of Victorians want to play in Victoria, Western Australians in Western Australia and South Australians in South Australia. I agree that the FA implementation hasn't been great but definitely don't agree that all uncontracted players become 'unrestricted' free agents. Only have to look at Brisbane right now to see why this is problematic. They're losing players easily and that's because players know they can get out whenever they want. "Culture" is always lauded as the beginning and the end of the problem but culture begins and ends with players that actually want to be there. The evidence so far suggests that a 20-year old Victorian originally drafted to Brisbane will jump at the chance to move back to Victoria as soon as they can.

I'm in favour of their being restrictions on players coming off their first contract, as in a built-in ability for the player's original club to match the offer, but that's hard to implement effectively with a hard salary cap (something that we should keep). Possibly a cap on what they can be offered in their second contract (eg. 125% of their original deal), to prevent other clubs simply making a phantom big offer, to hedge on the original team blowing a massive amount of cap room to match.

I also think draftees should have longer contracts to begin with as well (either 2 or 3 years, with a 3rd or 4th team option year), as well as some sort of guaranteed rookie pay scale, which would lessen the blow and possible likelihood of draftees leaving after their first deal expires, and give the clubs a bit more power too.

Not to mention that in other sports, teams can trade players far easier than they can in the AFL.

Well it's definitely something that should change.

From what I've seen, the NHL have the best free agency model. I like this particular aspect of it as free agency becomes self-regulating. Teams only have a limited number of draft picks so by extension will only be able to pick up a certain number of free agents. There's no need to add picks into the draft which tends to annoy a lot of people. People will find issue with the difference between Hawthorn giving up a first round pick as compensation and Essendon giving up a first round pick as compensation (pick 18 vs pick 1) but it's never going to be perfect. The AFL finally have future draft pick trading so this could provide more flexibility to FA compensation also.

I'm not a massive fan of the net free agent gain/loss also, I'd rather teams just have to pay their pick(s) to get a FA and get compensated in the same way.

The overall outcome might end up the same but the process is completely different. Theoretically, Player X wants to leave Team A and Team A wants him out:
Trade - Team A approaches Team B to negotiate a trade. End result is both teams agree to a trade, Team B trade first-round pick to Team A for Player X.
FA - Player X is out of contract and a restricted free agent. Team B approaches Player X and he agrees to join Team B. As a restricted free agent, Team A is compensated for the loss of the player with Team B's first-round draft pick.

In both situations a first-round pick moves for the player but the trade is team-oriented while the FA situation is player-oriented, which was the point of free agency in the first place, to give players more freedom to change clubs.

Why does there need to be any compensation at all? If you lose a player, you lose a player. That's your fault and your tough shit. Use the free list spot and salary cap space to sign someone else. I think in general we've become too obsessed in footy with everything being even and there being no losers. Sometimes there needs to be a losing party, and it's up to them to pick up the pieces and make something else work.

I really think we should follow the NBA model of trading and free agency, except with a hard salary cap. Would be a revolution for the better.

 

[Crankyhawk]

This talk of giving teams that have missed finals for three years an extra draft pick is ridiculous .

Why 3 years and why finals?

What about teams that haven't won a flag in 60 years like the bulldogs or the saints. Why should Hawthorn get a an extra draft pick in 3 years when they rebuild and all their stars retire.

If they want to give help to teams that have been unsuccessful, they should focus on premierships and go back 50 years.

Surely the loyalty of fans following unsuccessful teams should be rewarded. Give them some hope, they deserve it

I like the idea of aggregating your finish this year, average wins in H&A for 5 years, and longest time without a preliminary (prelims are where flag launches come from; could go with GFs) to determine draft order.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not sure that's right either, didn't he agree to go before all the players got banned?

I don't remember them being any good in 2012 though.

 

[Furn2]

You can say how many too players have gone to bottom 4 teams through FA but how many have actually had offers ?

The thing is bottom sides are obsessed with youth and FAs are at least 26.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Brian lake being able to chase premiership glory after being a loyal bulldogs player for such a long time is perfectly fair enough IMO. If you cant retain a player after they have been at your club for so long then so be it. Look at your club and the fact players want to leave instead of blaming the system.

Lake leaving was a win / win before he had success at Hawthorn. Give it a break.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Why does there need to be any compensation at all? If you lose a player, you lose a player. That's your fault and your tough shit. Use the free list spot and salary cap space to sign someone else. I think in general we've become too obsessed in footy with everything being even and there being no losers. Sometimes there needs to be a losing party, and it's up to them to pick up the pieces and make something else work.

I really think we should follow the NBA model of trading and free agency, except with a hard salary cap. Would be a revolution for the better.

In theory this is what should happen but this comes back to the shallow FA pool due to only players who have been at the one club for 8 years qualifying.

 

[Damon_3388]

In theory this is what should happen but this comes back to the shallow FA pool due to only players who have been at the one club for 8 years qualifying.

Oh no doubt, there's a lot of aspects that need adjusting for things to work effectively.

Don't really know why the AFL is puzzled/disappointed by the outcomes so far though. They've gotten what they paid for with the half-arse system they've put together.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Oh no doubt, there's a lot of aspects that need adjusting for things to work effectively.

Don't really know why the AFL is puzzled/disappointed by the outcomes so far though. They've gotten what they paid for with the half-arse system they've put together.

The AFL wouldn't know a good idea if it popped up in their porridge. They may be good at making money by ripping off the public but they have no idea how to organise a viable competition. It's a shambles.

 

[Bokonon]

what's free agency, and should I be worried?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Why not charge the club going for a Free agent a draft pick. eg say Eddie Betts to the crows . The crows would have been assessed that Eddie at the time was a second rounder and therefore Adelaide lost its second round pick. This would leave the draft uncompromised. It would make the club chasing players think about the worth of a player and they are not getting freebee.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Quite simply this is how free agency should work

7 years in the system should be when a player is a free agent, not 7 years at a club

At 6 years a club can trade a player to any other club without the player's consultation. The play does not have to see Gm a new contract (their current one is transferred)

This would ensure that the original club gets valuable compo as opposed to the AFL derived one
The trading allows a team near a premiership to recruit a star, or lower teams to sell the club to a recruit over the course of a season
The player also, most likely gets a big contract the following year to stay on at either club (if it's truely about money)

If the player doesn't enact free agency, the club is given a compensation pick at the beginning of the 3rd round, regardless of contract

3rd round means no club is disadvantaged by losing a place in the early round, whilst still leaves a large talent pool to recruit from

 

[Malifice]

Only clubs outside the 8 get a 1st rounder.

Round 2 begins at pick 11.

Do it every year.