Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency X - Club has elected not to fill list spot - Davey returning from injury?

[Lore]

Quick links: Player Contract Status | Draft Watch 2022 | JHA Father/Son and NGA | Adrian Dodoro

Spoiler: LIVE DRAFT ORDER (2022 Draft Order)

Spoiler: FUTURE PICK TRACKER (2023 Draft Order)

 

[citizen-erased]

It's simply farcical what has happened with Bowes and Pick 7 to Geelong for nothing. Serious questions need to be asked of the AFL here.

Feel rather flat about the comp now tbh

 

[Lance Uppercut]

This doesn't happen anywhere near as often as people think it does though. Much as with umpires making bad calls on the ground, often times it's because laypeople don't pay attention when the rules are changed (up to and including the dickhead commentators who perpetuate bad interpretations).

Salary dumps were green lit a few weeks ago and publicised as such. It comes after a series of salary dump trades over the last few years, including injured players and moneyball type trades (we picked up Craig Bird, Hawthorn got Patton, Scully and Scrimshaw, there's loads of examples), Collingwood busting their cap and sending Stephenson, Treloar and Bosenavulagi out the door the other year, and Gold Coast trading out Scrimshaw, Brodie and now Bowes under contract.

The Treloar one was strung out for ages after actual trade period was completed because of inconsistencies in the amount of salary each club expected to pay and still meet the fair trade requirements in terms of the picks exchanged. Allowing for a more unequal trade so that the side taking the player is more willing to also take their salary appears necessary to grease the wheels.

That the first club to benefit from a trade like that happens to be the reigning premiers is a bit on the nose, but it looks like an unintended consequence. The general idea is that more and more players are being traded under contract, and being able to trade salary cap space as a currency in its own right has to be able to happen in order for the salary cap to function as it is intended to. For the players, it's advantageous as they're more likely to get those monster contracts and more job security. And the AFL likes the drama during trade week too.


Probably next year or the year after they will be able to trade salary space for picks without a player being moved on too... it's small steps in that direction at the moment. While players have to consent and choose only to consent when they go to top sides, it seems top sides are most likely to benefit, but if they can trade cap space separately then bottom teams will be better able to trade that out and acquire the picks they need for a rebuild.

that's all well and good, but the issue here appears to be that Geelong have secured the player and the very high pick for a ludicrously low pick, but don't appear to have suffered any negative consequences as a result of the so-called salary cap dump!

It straight up fundamentally goes against the guiding principle of equalisation if they allow a scenario such as this; whereby the player chooses a top club primarily because they are a top club, and when that club is allowed to "restructure" the payments over a longer period and ultimately end up paying more or less what the market rate would have been for any contracted player had they traded for him under normal circumstances. In this circumstance, exactly how has Geelong earned the extraordinary compensation of pick 7? Sure, that may be due primarily to bone-headed and frankly utterly baffling list-management by GC, but ultimately the AFL have to sign off on this as custodians of the game.

It may well be an unintended consequence, as you say, but I have serious doubts about this not being the norm moving forwards because if FA has shown us anything, it is that players will allow a significant "success discount" on their playing wage.

Therefore, in any future salary cap dumps, all things being equal, why would any player consider nominating a lower team? The appeal of the high pick is enough to ensure the interest of a top club who, via the other equalisation processes are not usually eligible for such largesse; so they are utterly certain to throw their hat in the ring and why then would any future player even consider not going to the reigning premiers or other top 4 contender?

Now, if that's all fine then why are we bothering with equalisation at all? If the AFL is happy, as they seem to be, with a scenario like this that cuts against any and all other equalisation mechanisms, why even bother? Quite simply, if we are happy to embrace such laissez faire movement mechanisms, then surely the principle of non-FA players having total control over where they go needs to be looked at as well. Because again, otherwise, what's the point? FA has already proven this. The rich will keep getting richer and the poor will keep getting poorer.

The simple fact is this: the reigning premier has received a good, potentially even very good player; from a lowly placed team; and in doing so has usurped their high pick, and suffered absolutely zero negative consequences of the so-called "salary dump", because the AFL seem to think it's fine for that excess salary for two years to actually form the vast majority of a salary across 4 years, which as I said is as close to market rates for a player movement in contract as to be utterly inconsequential.

Again, if that's ok then what is the point of equalisation? Let's just throw it open and let her rip. The reigning premier now has a better draft pick than teams who placed 12, 11, 10, 9 etc. For a F3. With absolutely no salary cap consequence whatsoever.

It's insane. And if allowed without any rule changes sets a precedent that the top clubs will (rightfully) exploit the ever-loving shit out of, and the bottom clubs can watch on and like it I guess

 

[Mikevk123]

I don’t have any problem with the Cats getting Bowes. They have a very well run club. They simply extended his contract for another few years to even the money out.

Everyone seems to forget that a lot there older players aren’t on the big bucks due to being in the back end of there careers.
Higgins, Selwood and Dalhaus have pulled the pin so there’s the money opened up.

I have a problem with the Gold Coast list management though.

 

[Lore]

that's all well and good, but the issue here appears to be that Geelong have secured the player and the very high pick for a ludicrously low pick, but don't appear to suffer any negative consequences as a result of the so-called salary cap dump!

It straight up fundamentally goes against the guiding principle of equalisation if they allow a scenario such as this; whereby the player chooses a top club primarily because they are a top club, and when that club is allowed to "restructure" the payments over a longer period and ultimately end up paying more or less what the market rate would have been for any uncontracted player had they traded for him under normal circumstances.

It may well be an unintended consequence, as you say, but I have serious doubts about this not being the norm moving forwards because if FA has shown us anything, it is that players will allow a significant "success discount" on their playing wage.

Therefore, in any future salary cap dumps, all things being equal, why would any player consider nominating a lower team? The appeal of the high pick is enough to ensure the interest of a top club who, via the other equalisation processes are not usually eligible for such largesse; so they are utterly certain to throw their hat in the ring and why then would any future player even consider not going to the reigning premiers or other top 4 contender?

Now, if that's all fine then why are we bothering with equalisation at all? If the AFL is happy, as they seem to be, with a scenario like this that cuts against any and all other equalisation mechanisms, why even bother?

The simple fact is this: the reigning premier has received a good, potentially even very good player; from a lowly placed team; and in doing so has usurped their high pick, and suffered absolutely zero negative consequences of the so-called "salary dump", because the AFL seem to think it's fine for that excess salary for two years to actually form the vast majority of a salary across 4 years, which as I said is as close to market rates for a player movement in contract as to be utterly inconsequential.

Again, if that's ok then what is the point of equalisation? Let's just throw it open and let her rip. The reigning premier now has a better draft pick than teams who placed 12, 11, 10, 9 etc. For a F3. With absolutely no salary cap consequence whatsoever.

It's insane. And if allowed without any rule changes sets a precedent that the top clubs will (rightfully) exploit the ever-loving s**t out of, and the bottom clubs can watch on and like it I guess

Tell that to boncer34

 

[Nifft]

that's all well and good, but the issue here appears to be that Geelong have secured the player and the very high pick for a ludicrously low pick, but don't appear to have suffered any negative consequences as a result of the so-called salary cap dump!

It straight up fundamentally goes against the guiding principle of equalisation if they allow a scenario such as this; whereby the player chooses a top club primarily because they are a top club, and when that club is allowed to "restructure" the payments over a longer period and ultimately end up paying more or less what the market rate would have been for any contracted player had they traded for him under normal circumstances. In this circumstance, exactly how has Geelong earned the extraordinary compensation of pick 7? Sure, that may be bone-headed and baffling list-management by GC, but ultimately the AFL have to sign off on this as custodians of the game.

It may well be an unintended consequence, as you say, but I have serious doubts about this not being the norm moving forwards because if FA has shown us anything, it is that players will allow a significant "success discount" on their playing wage.

Therefore, in any future salary cap dumps, all things being equal, why would any player consider nominating a lower team? The appeal of the high pick is enough to ensure the interest of a top club who, via the other equalisation processes are not usually eligible for such largesse; so they are utterly certain to throw their hat in the ring and why then would any future player even consider not going to the reigning premiers or other top 4 contender?

Now, if that's all fine then why are we bothering with equalisation at all? If the AFL is happy, as they seem to be, with a scenario like this that cuts against any and all other equalisation mechanisms, why even bother? Either that, if we are happy to embrace such laissez faire movement mechanisms, then surely the principle of non-FA players having total control over where they go needs to be looked at as well. Because again, otherwise, what's the point? FA has already proven this. The rich will keep getting richer and the poor will keep getting poorer.

The simple fact is this: the reigning premier has received a good, potentially even very good player; from a lowly placed team; and in doing so has usurped their high pick, and suffered absolutely zero negative consequences of the so-called "salary dump", because the AFL seem to think it's fine for that excess salary for two years to actually form the vast majority of a salary across 4 years, which as I said is as close to market rates for a player movement in contract as to be utterly inconsequential.

Again, if that's ok then what is the point of equalisation? Let's just throw it open and let her rip. The reigning premier now has a better draft pick than teams who placed 12, 11, 10, 9 etc. For a F3. With absolutely no salary cap consequence whatsoever.

It's insane. And if allowed without any rule changes sets a precedent that the top clubs will (rightfully) exploit the ever-loving s**t out of, and the bottom clubs can watch on and like it I guess

On top of this, some people have suggested that in future salary cap space may be able to be traded for draft picks. Wouldn't this make equalisation even more farcical? You could see teams like Geelong having an extra mill of cap space at the expense of lower teams, who will forever be trying to play catch up in an uneven playing field.

 

[Sporno 4 Pyros]

GCS must have the work experience kid doing their trading for them this year.

Also…Why would the Giants be chasing O’Meara??
He will be a list clogger and take game time off Finn Callahan et al who will then want to get out of the joint because they are not getting enough of a go.

 

[Lore]

GCS must have the work experience kid doing their trading for them this year.

Also…Why would the Giants be chasing O’Meara??
He will be a list clogger and take game time off Finn Callahan et al who will then want to get out of the joint because they are not getting enough of a go.

They just lost Taranto and Hopper, I don't think they originally expected to lose both...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

On top of this, some people have suggested that in future salary cap space may be able to be traded for draft picks. Wouldn't this make equalisation even more farcical? You could see teams like Geelong having an extra mill of cap space at the expense of lower teams, who will forever be trying to play catch up in an uneven playing field.

yep. The "success discount" is a real, tangible phenomenon. It actively counters equalisation and I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But it's definitely a thing. I recall they thought FA would be an equalisation mechanism and it's turned out to be anything but. Players want success, and will make sacrifices for success, and who can blame them? But let's at least recognise that when we contemplate concepts like equalisation

 

[Lore]

On top of this, some people have suggested that in future salary cap space may be able to be traded for draft picks. Wouldn't this make equalisation even more farcical? You could see teams like Geelong having an extra mill of cap space at the expense of lower teams, who will forever be trying to play catch up in an uneven playing field.

The suggestions going around (which I didn't explicitly state above) is that it would be capped or limited in some way, through the existing cap floor, limiting it to a specific amount, that you can only do it once for each calendar year, only one year in advance, or it has to be attached to a particular player.

At the moment the cap works that you can go under for a couple of years and bank the difference to pay over in the following couple of years, so possibly that would still be a thing as well, where they borrow cap for a year to go over the 105% without being in breach, but still have to average out at 100% over a rolling 5 year period.

There's lots of ways they can do it. But what it means is you don't have a player deciding to go to a club and the salary cap has to adapt to accomodate it, instead you could sell the cap space to the highest bidder in the short term and acquire picks for a batch of players to bring in that then sets you up long term. And therefore you don't have to rubber stamp stupidly unequal trades either.

 

[Mootsy]

how in the blue * does the AFL allow Geelong to Get Bowes + Pick 7 for a bloody F3?

that is insane.

 

[Lore]

 

[bennyg12]

With Weid coming in Brent Stanton

Brent Stanton

Age

38

Ht

183cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.1

4star

K

10.7

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.9

4star

CL

0.9

3star

No current season stats available

D

16.8

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

6.2

5star

T

2.2

4star

CL

0.6

3star

has won this trade period

 

[BrunoV]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

Because there is something more to this story.

GC is acting like it has a gun to its head.

The AFL doesn't seem to mind.

That's where you'll find your answer.

 

[footyfanatic111]

Lol.. danger trolling

 

[fairbump_playon]

Because there is something more to this story.

GC is acting like it has a gun to its head.

The AFL doesn't seem to mind.

That's where you'll find your answer.

Please be explicit with your conspiracy theory

 

[Pweter]

yep. The "success discount" is a real, tangible phenomenon. It actively counters equalisation and I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But it's definitely a thing. I recall they thought FA would be an equalisation mechanism and it's turned out to be anything but. Players want success, and will make sacrifices for success, and who can blame them? But let's at least recognise that when we contemplate concepts like equalisation

And let's be honest, copping a success discount still provides the player a wage that most of the population can only dream about, and if they have half a brain they'll use it to set themselves up for the future.

We get flippant when talking player salaries, even at the mid/lower range. "Poor bastard only earns $350k, he's worth at least $500k". Ok, but $350k is still a lot of money.

 

[citizen-erased]

And let's be honest, copping a success discount still provides the player a wage that most of the population can only dream about, and if they have half a brain they'll use it to set themselves up for the future.

We get flippant when talking player salaries, even at the mid/lower range. "Poor bastard only earns $350k, he's worth at least $500k". Ok, but $350k is still a lot of money.

Its 350k but a career over a short period where he is an elite employee in his field.

I dont buy the footballers are overpaid argument.

 

[Foxx]

Why wouldn't the AFL put provisions on salary dumps?

 

[FrankGrimes]

Do we look at oli Henry, said he would go to draft..

 

[Pweter]

Its 350k but a career over a short period where he is an elite employee in his field.

I dont buy the footballers are overpaid argument.

The scenario we're talking about is the players making a decent fist out of footy and can consider a success discount, not those that only survive their initial post draft years or are struggling to stay on a list.

If they're smart they get a degree, embark on a vocational journey, buy into, buy or start up (with partners) a business while they have the money availableto them. They should be retiring from footy with minimal or zero mortgage so there's a leg up on society too.

If they want to set themselves up for life after footy they have time to do so while earning a significant income.

The figures i threw up were in relation to how flippant we are when discussing salary in comparison to society in general.

 

[Milanista28]

I wonder if the Suns actually breached the cap already and this was the quick fix to sort it?

 

[Vindicater]

Do we look at oli Henry, said he would go to draft..

If we don't need to use 22 for Davey I would look at it.

 

[MiguelM]

Do we look at oli Henry, said he would go to draft..

What is his position?

Haven't seen much of him THB. Is he any good?

 

[Corleone]

Do we look at oli Henry, said he would go to draft..

Would take him at Pick 22 in a heartbeat

 

[BrunoV]

So after, 10 days, Scott hasn't spoken to Francis and we're trying to sort that out.

That's convincing