News Dan Houston traded to Collingwood

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Everyone says this. But if we did abolish compensation, you can say goodbye to any notion of equalisation.

The only solution is to scrap free agency entirely. Which imo is the right thing. It doesn’t suit our game.

It was an enormous, disastrous mistake to institute a Free Agency without the accompanying trading without consent. FA works in American sport because it's balanced by teams being able to trade contracted players without the player's consent.

It's wildly unbalanced in the AFL and they can never fix it without having to make some huge concessions to the AFLPA.
 
It was an enormous, disastrous mistake to institute a Free Agency without the accompanying trading without consent. FA works in American sport because it's balanced by teams being able to trade contracted players without the player's consent.

It's wildly unbalanced in the AFL and they can never fix it without having to make some huge concessions to the AFLPA.

Yeah I’ve said this before. It was adopted from an American system where players come into the league already developed by insanely professional high school and college systems.

Teams that lose players coming into their prime didn’t spend years waiting for the player to physically develop or to learn to play the game.

It’s just incredibly stupid here.
 
Yeah I’ve said this before. It was adopted from an American system where players come into the league already developed by insanely professional high school and college systems.

Teams that lose players coming into their prime didn’t spend years waiting for the player to physically develop or to learn to play the game.

It’s just incredibly stupid here.

In the NBA, players are essentially one and done prospects from college coming into the league as 19 year olds. Far from a finished product. But they are on a team friendly 4 year contract and are a restricted free agent thereafter.

Then you've got the NFL where players entering the league are a bit older (21-23 on average) but even then very few rookies start and play meaningful snaps from day 1.

The concept of free agency in the AFL well and truly works. But what is ridiculous is when you see players requesting a trade one year into their career to sign long contracts with another team.

Players in the AFL have way too much power relative to the teams.

One correction I'd like to see is contracts transfer from one team to another when a player is traded, and the ability for players to be traded to another Club against their will, so long as their contract obligations are met. This would never happen, but I could see a variant whereby it eventually reaches a point where any player going home per se can't nominate a club and instead they can be traded to any team in that state (or city).
 
I think the biggest change that needs to come in (and wont) is equality of exposure and fixture.

This would lead to greater equality of off field opportunities.

Which would allow the salary cap to properly balance out free agency wins and losses.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
900k a year. Leadership role. Playing finals in a couple of years?

If I were in his position I wouldn't mind it if it was Ports preferred deal.

I don't believe Carlton or Collingwood can get a deal done.
I think if Port tell him that they'll accept North's deal tomorrow but they won't accept Blues or Pies' deal of only 1 mid first rounder then it'll be very interesting to see what he does.

Btw Carlton can get a deal done, they don't want to. Give us 12 + future first. We can either trade back into this year with that F1 or keep it to package up next year and potentially get Sharp.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

900k a year. Leadership role. Playing finals in a couple of years?

If I were in his position I wouldn't mind it if it was Ports preferred deal.

I don't believe Carlton or Collingwood can get a deal done.
To be honest, if North have the best trade deal in front of us we shouldn’t be giving Houston a choice.

He wants to be back in Victoria, tell him we will trade him to which ever Victorian club offers us the best deal.
 
So let me get this straight.
Dan Rioli is worth pick 6
Josh Battle is worth pick 8
John Noble is worth pick 13.

On that basis/weighting, Dan Houston is worth pick 2. Nothing else should be entertained.
 
So let me get this straight.
Dan Rioli is worth pick 6
Josh Battle is worth pick 8
John Noble is worth pick 13.

On that basis/weighting, Dan Houston is worth pick 2. Nothing else should be entertained.
Noble and Rioli are only "worth" that because Gold Coast don't need those picks. Those prices wouldn't be entertained at other clubs. Dan is worth Pick 2 though.
 
900k a year. Leadership role. Playing finals in a couple of years?

If I were in his position I wouldn't mind it if it was Ports preferred deal.

I don't believe Carlton or Collingwood can get a deal done.
I’ve got a gut feeling that we’ll settle for a first rounder in the early teens and f2.
I hope you’re right though as he’s worth 2 first rounders. Oneofwhich should be a top ten.
 
Tell Dan if it's not Roos or Tigers we will rewrite his contract to 800 a yr like we were going to offer Perryman
Do you think this is part of the reason he wants to go. Could this be the real issue here.
He’s had two great seasons since he signed that contract and he’s worth a lot more now than what he agreed to.

I wonder if we did offer perryman money if this issue might go away.
 
Have I missed something here? We've gone from 2 top 10 picks, to 2 first rounders, to one first rounder and a good second, to pick 2 being overs?

Are we being buttered up to take another rogering?

AA in the last two seasons, 3 years left on contract, will easily be in any clubs top few. If Rioli and Smith are inside the top 10, then two first rounders for Dan isn't unreasonable.
 
A big part of trading a player away is sometimes getting lucky on which club they select. Based on what picks they actually have available, do they need those picks due to academy / father son’s etc.

Clubs tend to still do the trades, even though they know they could absolutely get a better haul with another club. It is just bad luck that the player leaving hasn’t selected that other club.
 
Have I missed something here? We've gone from 2 top 10 picks, to 2 first rounders, to one first rounder and a good second, to pick 2 being overs?

Are we being buttered up to take another rogering?

AA in the last two seasons, 3 years left on contract, will easily be in any clubs top few. If Rioli and Smith are inside the top 10, then two first rounders for Dan isn't unreasonable.
Pick 2 for a soon to be 28yr old in May next year is massive.
Pick 2 itself is probably worth two picks in the later part of the top 10. I think you are massively underselling what a top 3 pick is worth compared to picks greater than 5 or 6.

A club is giving up an absolute star at pick 2 for the next 12-15 years for a star half back who probably has 3-4 years of his absolute prime left.
 
Have I missed something here? We've gone from 2 top 10 picks, to 2 first rounders, to one first rounder and a good second, to pick 2 being overs?

Are we being buttered up to take another rogering?

AA in the last two seasons, 3 years left on contract, will easily be in any clubs top few. If Rioli and Smith are inside the top 10, then two first rounders for Dan isn't unreasonable.

You're worried because supporters on a football forum can't agree on a value?

Has the club changed its position publicly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top