AFL Surprised Free Agency Not Working

[Smokeless Wardance]

Is the floor in those other sports so high? 95% seems ridiculous.

It's 90% in the NBA and 89% in the NFL. But there are plenty of articles explaining why it actually doesn't matter as you can just pay the difference among the players at the end of the year (and thus can still have more than 5% of cap space at year end). I assume it is the same in the AFL.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

LOL at the people having a winge that the good players are going to the good teams.....
OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!
If you where looking to change jobs would you go to the best company in the field or to some shit one?

The only way to fix FA in my opinion is to ban the top 4 from signing a FA unless they lose a player to FA.

I also think that the media has overlooked how good free agency has been for delisted players. Its giving them another lifeline.

Some people would just go to whichever company paid them the most.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It's 90% in the NBA and 89% in the NFL. But there are plenty of articles explaining why it actually doesn't matter as you can just pay the difference among the players at the end of the year (and thus can still have more than 5% of cap space at year end). I assume it is the same in the AFL.

Clubs fonrt/back end contracts but I don't think any only pay say 85% of the cap and distribute the remainder to their players at the end of the year.

 

[dmac_55]

Clubs fonrt/back end contracts but I don't think any only pay say 85% of the cap and distribute the remainder to their players at the end of the year.

This is what should be implemented however.. Proportional to their current wage everyone's salary increases up to the floor at 95% for that year only.. Example: Zorko is on a higher salary of say 500K, he represents a certain % of our TPP at say 0.5%.. Therefore he gets 0.5% of the gap between the Brisbane Lions TPP and the salary floor. Rookies get less of a raise than the higher salary guys..

 

[Montana2Rice]

Dangerfield left in a trade.
Dixon left in a trade.
Bennell left in a trade.
Treloar left in a trade.
Carlisle left in a trade.
Jetta left in a trade.
Sinclair left in a trade.
Fitzpatrick left in a trade.
Yarran left in a trade.

So how is Free Agency working again?

None of them were forced. Indeed, it seems to be that free agents try to move but help their club out.

So perhaps it's that true free agency doesn't exist. Typical of the afl, they create something that is a mish mash. Even free agents that don't form part of a trade see the club they leave get a compensation pick. (Melbourne got compensation when frawley went to Hawks)

So, my point is what free agency moves are evidence of problems? It's fine to say it's not working as they intended, but I want to see the moves that are actually causing the angst. And, what would the afl see happen?

 

[ziad]

poor old dumb AFL - always making decisions but completely unable to think through the flow on effects of a decision. (Before putting their foot in it)

 

[Boxhead_31]

None of them were forced. Indeed, it seems to be that free agents try to move but help their club out.

So perhaps it's that true free agency doesn't exist. Typical of the afl, they create something that is a mish mash. Even free agents that don't form part of a trade see the club they leave get a compensation pick. (Melbourne got compensation when frawley went to Hawks)

So, my point is what free agency moves are evidence of problems? It's fine to say it's not working as they intended, but I want to see the moves that are actually causing the angst. And, what would the afl see happen?

To me what I think what the AFL thought would happen is that players would leave top eight teams to join bottom six teams for money, but they don't seem to realise that with the minimum salary cap spend limit the trigger isn't there for lower clubs to be able to attract the players they need to make the rise up the ladder

 

[LittleG]

Lower the minimum requirements for the salary cap and exclude teams that finish in the top 4 from FA. It's simple.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Technically he wasn't though.....we did not use a top 10 draft pick on him....

In reality he is since you traded pick 10 + a pick that ended up being pick 20.

 

[KissKiss]

Clubs fonrt/back end contracts but I don't think any only pay say 85% of the cap and distribute the remainder to their players at the end of the year.

I think thats part of the problem with how secretly we maintain our salary cap. Distribution like that makes a lot of sense but its not really clear whether its allowed or not

 

[Bad Horse]

AFL are good at making money, it's their only skill. Running a fair and equitable competition is way out of their reach not even something they care about.

 

[Bad Horse]

2 thoughts.

1) The AFL need to become acquainted with the law of unintended consequences. It seems to come as a huge surprise over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

2) It's news to me the free agency rules were primarily an equalisation mechanism. They were a tradeoff with the AFLPA to avoid a shitfight last collective bargaining round. The design of the compensation arrangements was driven slightly by equalisation concepts but thats about all.

 

[DrEvil_]

That race to slip down to 9th would be fierce.

No it wouldn't. Richmond has a mortgage on that spot

 

[swiftdog]

Surprised at the amount of people voting for "No - players are only going to successful teams" given that this was going to be the case for most players. Free agents are the icing, not the cake. Different players have different motives for moving clubs but the two most successful clubs of the last decade (Geelong and then Hawthorn) built their teams around strong drafting, it's still the way to go.

Nothing to do with team results. Free agency is "not working" because they haven't actually implemented it properly. The system we have is half-arsed and illogical.

If you're out of contract, you should be unattached, free to sign with whatever team you want to go to that has salary cap space to accommodate you. It shouldn't still require a trade to move on. Trades should be for contracted players, or players and draft picks, provided the outgoings and incomings all match within the salary cap and list places available.

It works easily and simply this way in nearly every other professional sport. Why can't it here?

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.

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

Interesting that in the NHL the compensation picks come from the destination club instead of additional picks being added to the draft.

I've previously posted about draft pick compensation coming from the destination club, including use of the academy/father son points system as an alternative value and was largely shit canned for it as people seen the idea as forced trading or trading to a pre-determined value. For mine the destination club paying in the way of picks is a good limiting factor and the free agent isn't as much of a free hit.

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.

So... Like trading?

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.

 

[FallingLiefs]

Free Agency needs to be 8 years in the system not 8 years at one club. all it is at the moment is for players is a retirement/premiership plans. make it possible to have 1-2 year deals and be able to move again via FA after the contract. more fluid movement, big 1 year deals by lower clubs with big cap space to improve the lower clubs. sure, players will move to clubs on a low price contract for 1 year in hope for a flag but they already do. salary cap floor has to go too.

 

[Kwality]

The problem is two-fold

1) not enough players qualify for FA each year due to the 8/10 year timeframes. This means the pool is extremely shallow with maybe one big fish, a couple of mid-range players and the rest close to retirement

2) clubs forced to pay a minimum amount of salary cap. This means when FA's do become available clubs aren't able to bank money to lure them across. They're effectively only able to offer similar salaries to what successful clubs or the FA's existing club can.

The problems you outline are the product of poor list management, short term thinking - Geelong weren't lucky attracting Danger, its good management.

 

[Kwality]

These probably should go too - a players contract should be averaged over its life not paid 80% this year and 10% for the enxt two years. It distorts the market and will get clubs into a hell of a lot of strife sooner or later, especially with the cap floor.

Distorts the market, not the way I see it, its a management tool & good management rewards the club, poor management is punished.

 

[shaqsuns]

The issue isn't free agency it's the trade period. Essentially they have two free agency periods because the players nominate what team they would like to be traded too, which gives the team B all the power in the trade and team A who loses the player also gets screwed in the trade as they forced to trade with that team.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gravity]

My thinking - If the intent of free agency is to give players an opportunity to move where they like (opportunities which presumably are not possible via trade), the players who are most likely to benefit are your journeyman types on average wages. Clubs will find a way to make trades happen for top end players who want to move.

So I'd make it - players become potential free agents after (5, 7, 10, whatever) years if they're chasing a contract at or below the current mean wage (or possibly a bit higher). No compensation, because under the current system we're talking 3rd round or something anyway.

Players valued above mean wage have two choices as I see it - they can either take a small pay cut to get to the Free Agent bracket or be traded. If their intent is the destination they'd likely be willing to take the cut, if they're a gun who's worth a heap, clubs will make a trade happen.

Lower clubs are directly compensated for giving up top players (a trade happens), players that have done their service can move with minimal fuss (no compensation and considering their wage, they're obviously not required players), top players have to be paid for (but I can hardly see them missing out).

Probably not perfect, but it's simple and no one gets too screwed.

 

[MarkT2]

FA cannot be part of equalisation. If it is compromised the reason it was really implemented will be defeated and equalisation with fly out the window. The player restrictions are challengeable and if a challenge succeeds you will have free agency for every player not contracted and clubs that are poorly administered will struggle to hold any talented draftees.

All the AFL needs now is to send all the best talent to poorly run clubs and wait for someone to challenge the draft.

 

[harmesy 37]

[

The Hawks gave up their first two national draft picks, No.21 and No.41, in return for Lake and pick No.27.
What has Lake got to do with free agency?

And you think this is a fair trade?

Lake was arguably the best full back of the last 15 years.

And all Footscray got for him was effectively pick 21???

WTF. That is crazy stuff.

Get rid of the draft or reform it as Hawthorn is picking the eyes out of the system. Hawthorn should have had to give the Bulldogs a proper player if they want to trade for a player that is a bona fide star such as Lake. Would Hawthorn have won the 2013 g/f without Lake?
He took 7 intercept marks in that match.

You guys won grand finals basically on the back of AFL concessions, (Tasmania), plus all this free agency, and being able to trade for players that basically cost you nothing other than some meaningless draft picks. eg Frawley, McEvoy.

Any player that has been at a club for 5 years or more should only be traded for a player from that club that is of a high standard. A draft pick 25-49 basically is giving up nothing.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The problems you outline are the product of poor list management, short term thinking - Geelong weren't lucky attracting Danger, its good management.

Yeah lucky he grew up in Moggs Creek

 

[Messenger]

Its simple. If you finish top 8 you cant pick up anyone via free agency.

Problem solved.

Here's a suggestion; leave it alone.

Someone can actually describe the problem I'd be fascinated to hear it.

*Nearly half of all free agents taken so far have been delisted free agents (23/51 by my count)
*If teams are bad because they make bad choices, why do we need to keep throwing picks at them like it actually cures their problem?
* How many legitimate examples do we have of players leaving from a bottom team to a top team? One?
* Why exclude teams from free agency because they're good?

 

[Messenger]

[



And you think this is a fair trade?

Lake was arguably the best full back of the last 15 years.

And all Footscray got for him was effectively pick 21???

WTF. That is crazy stuff.

Get rid of the draft or reform it as Hawthorn is picking the eyes out of the system. Hawthorn should have had to give the Bulldogs a proper player if they want to trade for a player that is a bona fide star such as Lake. Would Hawthorn have won the 2013 g/f without Lake?
He took 7 intercept marks in that match.

You guys won grand finals basically on the back of AFL concessions, (Tasmania), plus all this free agency, and being able to trade for players that basically cost you nothing other than some meaningless draft picks. eg Frawley, McEvoy.

Any player that has been at a club for 5 years or more should only be traded for a player from that club that is of a high standard. A draft pick 25-49 basically is giving up nothing.

It's a trade between two willing parties. The Dogs wanted him off their list and Hawthorn obliged.

 

[Chism]

The AFL is delusional if they thought that FA was going to equalize the comp as all it did was allow players to go to contending teams for a shot at Flag glory ever widening the gap between the good and poor teams.

One of the few things MM was right about.....

Malthouse said emerging stars would opt to join powerhouses playing regularly in September rather than slug it out at stragglers.

“It’ll be worse when this sets in and becomes the regular,” he said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...y/news-story/79b8a2f98f146700cf26be5ca5ac29f6