First contractee’s trade prices

[Ants]

Once upon a time about it was rare for a player to be targeted off their first contract. Now days, it seems to be much more common. This particular trade period we have seen speculation on Laverde, Marchbank, and Steele. Last few years we’ve also seen McCarthy, Boyd, Aish, Freeman, Gunston, Docherty, Yeo, Longer, and others targeted and moved to other clubs after one or two years on the list. No doubt some element of this is targeting of clubs seen as susceptible (GWS, Brisbane), but it does appear to be a greater trend.

Which raises a question, what is a fair price? There is obviously a great deal of speculation on that particular matter going on in the Marchbank and Steele threads, but at a more generic level, what is a fair price? Often these kids are targeted for the very fact that clubs still rate their potential which went into their draft position barely two years earlier, but the players haven’t proven that or cemented a role yet. Although sometimes the senior games missed are due to form, they can as easily be due to injury, senior team strength, or just not being ready yet for AFL.

And the bulk of these guys do appear to go for unders.

Obviously there will be some players clubs are happy to let go at a cheaper price. But often the original club would like to keep the player.

It makes me wonder if in a world of free agency where clubs can’t keep the players forever, should there be some protection for clubs for kids coming off their first contract? If other clubs can poach your players after 8 years (maybe soon less), should you have protections against poaching unproven players in the early part? Because it seems the penalty for picking slow developing players is getting harsher and harsher.

So two questions:

1. What is a fair price for these players?
   
2. And should there be some restrictions or floor on the price they can be traded at without the original club’s consent?

 

[Ants]

My personal view? If a team doesn’t want to let a player go, it feels unfair that they get back less than the draft pick. However, it is incredibly hard to come up with a way to negotiate this issue. Some options are:

• Extend first contracts for players drafted at 18 or 19 years of age to three years. Possibly need to increase list sizes (and hence salary cap) slightly to compensate and allow clubs flexibility.
  
• Players under 22 targeted 3 or less years after being drafted have “minimum” prices. Unlike FA this comes out of the targeting club’s pocket. The minimum is based on the higher contract offer of the original and poaching clubs, and original draft position. This can be waived by the original club if desired. If the player ends up at the destination through the draft/PSD, then the original club still needs to pay the cost and the new club also ponies up the difference (somehow). If a different club takes the player, the new club gets the player with that pick, but the original club can use the pick again in the draft as compensation.
  
• If a player under 21 leaves within 2 years of being drafted then the club gets back their original pick as long as certain contractual minimums are met. The poaching club still pays something, but how it would be determined is a bit of a headache.

All of these have drawbacks. Especially if a player leaves for unders for opportunity, because how do you objectively value a player except via the contract? I’m curious on others’ thoughts.

 

[Furn2]

I think teams should have a 2 year extension option based on the best offer from other clubs. Just making draftee contracts longer has the issue of clubs getting stuck with players and young superstars not being able to getting market value of they are on a standard contract.

So for example, Marchbank wants to leave and he nominates Carlton who are offering him $900k over 3 years. GWS have the option to match that over 2 years but you add say 10% for each year the offer is over 2 years. So they can keep him for 2 years for $660k or agree to a trade. The option is binding so no going in the psd etc.

This will have the added effect of making teams have to pay closer to real value in a trade.

 

[Suma Magic]

A bit of a separate issue, but I like the following amendment to the rules:
- you can't nominate for the PSD unless you nominate for the ND. And you can't put a much higher price on your head for the ND.

This would help to address the issue of clubs getting unders for players leaving after their initial contract (in a small way).

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Fairness should be gauged by the poaching clubs contract size and lengh IMO, a bit like FA.

 

[grouse mate]

First rounders standard 4 year contracts. Make players be honest in pre draft interviews about theirs and their families willingness to move interstate. Break contract you have to sit out until the contract term is served.

 

[freo_leo29]

A bit of a separate issue, but I like the following amendment to the rules:
- you can't nominate for the PSD unless you nominate for the ND. And you can't put a much higher price on your head for the ND.

This would help to address the issue of clubs getting unders for players leaving after their initial contract (in a small way).

May as well just scrap the PSD then

The drafts are only days apart now so there isn't extra time to make a list management decision such as running 1 player low on the main list with 1 extra rookie player between drafts so there would be literally 0 point to waiting til the PSD to pick someone, just grab them at the end of the ND if they are available.

Really the only thing the PSD is good for is the unlikely but possible situation where the destination club is offering significantly more opportunity or money and the current club won't agree to any trade or delisting. (For example GWS would have done it last year if McCarthy was uncontracted, all about making a big stand)

 

[dlanod]

May as well just scrap the PSD then

The drafts are only days apart now so there isn't extra time to make a list management decision such as running 1 player low on the main list with 1 extra rookie player between drafts so there would be literally 0 point to waiting til the PSD to pick someone, just grab them at the end of the ND if they are available.

Really the only thing the PSD is good for is the unlikely but possible situation where the destination club is offering significantly more opportunity or money and the current club won't agree to any trade or delisting. (For example GWS would have done it last year if McCarthy was uncontracted, all about making a big stand)

They want to scrap the PSD and tried to this year but clubs didn't want to on short notice. It's going, sooner or later.

You can nominate your contract offer in the ND and have been able to for years, so your only pro-PSD example could see the player get through to their desired club in the ND as well.

 

[Furn2]

First rounders standard 4 year contracts. Make players be honest in pre draft interviews about theirs and their families willingness to move interstate. Break contract you have to sit out until the contract term is served.

Clubs don't want players on 4 year deals when 30-40 % are delisted after their first contract. Many more are kept on at very low salary.

A set 4 year deal wooing have have very decent money by year 4.

 

[Suma Magic]

May as well just scrap the PSD then

The drafts are only days apart now so there isn't extra time to make a list management decision such as running 1 player low on the main list with 1 extra rookie player between drafts so there would be literally 0 point to waiting til the PSD to pick someone, just grab them at the end of the ND if they are available.

Really the only thing the PSD is good for is the unlikely but possible situation where the destination club is offering significantly more opportunity or money and the current club won't agree to any trade or delisting. (For example GWS would have done it last year if McCarthy was uncontracted, all about making a big stand)

I'd argue that there would be very little value in retaining it (in that situation), as opposed to no value.

 

[grouse mate]

Clubs don't want players on 4 year deals when 30-40 % are delisted after their first contract. Many more are kept on at very low salary.

A set 4 year deal wooing have have very decent money by year 4.

I said first round picks. This is where clubs are investing the most to get a long term player.

 

[Carl]

This thread is exactly why there is a players association. It's not all about the clubs and supporters. If a player wants to move because of family, opportunities or medical reasons then they should be allowed to. This is the exact reason they brought in the academies and why they should stay. Clubs most affected by players leaving are the NSW/QLD teams so let them keep the academies.

In the long run everything seems to even out. One year you lose a player, then the next you gain a player. Other the NSW/QLD teams losing players, I can't think of another club that loses players consistently. That is why the academies must stay.

 

[dlanod]

In the long run everything seems to even out. One year you lose a player, then the next you gain a player. Other the NSW/QLD teams losing players, I can't think of another club that loses players consistently. That is why the academies must stay.

Adelaide has lost heaps in recent years.

I'd be in favour of a three year standard rookie contract, with a trigger for an automatic fourth (say, 15+ games played in season 3) with free agency thereafter.

 

[Fatcat08]

Adelaide has lost heaps in recent years.

I'd be in favour of a three year standard rookie contract, with a trigger for an automatic fourth (say, 15+ games played in season 3) with free agency thereafter.

I'd swap the auto 4th trigger for a club optioned 4th year with the minimum salary for the 4th based on games played perhaps?

 

[freo_leo29]

I'd argue that there would be very little value in retaining it (in that situation), as opposed to no value.

yeah thats why I am saying you may as well scrap it, although Dlanod says you can nominate a price in the ND anyway so why on Earth do we have the PSD if it takes place 3 days after the ND anyway?

I guess its getting scrapped anyway as Dlanod said, so it's not a big deal

 

[Suma Magic]

yeah thats why I am saying you may as well scrap it, although Dlanod says you can nominate a price in the ND anyway so why on Earth do we have the PSD if it takes place 3 days after the ND anyway?

I guess its getting scrapped anyway as Dlanod said, so it's not a big deal

It would be so clubs could choose to take someone in the ND or RD. As they may want a bit of time to make that decision, rather than doing it under the time pressures of the ND.

 

[freo_leo29]

It would be so clubs could choose to take someone in the ND or RD. As they may want a bit of time to make that decision, rather than doing it under the time pressures of the ND.

3 days though? makes sense when it was a couple of months in between but if its only 3 days then they probably have it sorted before hand, on their list somewhere they would have marked rookie only

There isn't even any time for them to train with the club in between which may have changed the clubs mind in the past

 

[Furn2]

I said first round picks. This is where clubs are investing the most to get a long term player.

Yeah but even then you will still get spuds in the 1st round you are stuck with and you will have someone like Zac Merrett or Fyfe able to walk after 2 years still.

A players value can change massively from being drafted to 2 years later. There needs be a way for clubs to have the option to hold on to them but also reflect that value.

 

[Suma Magic]

3 days though? makes sense when it was a couple of months in between but if its only 3 days then they probably have it sorted before hand, on their list somewhere they would have marked rookie only

There isn't even any time for them to train with the club in between which may have changed the clubs mind in the past

The benefits would be minimal.

But given that (some) clubs want to retain it, and they can't cite using it to get players cheaper in trades as their rationale, then removing that (the psd threat) element whilst retaining the PSD could be a successful path for reform for the AFL.

 

[Ants]

This thread is exactly why there is a players association. It's not all about the clubs and supporters. If a player wants to move because of family, opportunities or medical reasons then they should be allowed to. This is the exact reason they brought in the academies and why they should stay. Clubs most affected by players leaving are the NSW/QLD teams so let them keep the academies.

In the long run everything seems to even out. One year you lose a player, then the next you gain a player. Other the NSW/QLD teams losing players, I can't think of another club that loses players consistently. That is why the academies must stay.

I agree players have to be able to move. But there also has to be a balance. They got FA and its probably going to kick in earlier relatively soon. They will still be able to enter the ND/PSD (if it exists) if uncontracted and they want to leave their original club. And clubs can still trade for them.

But that is very different from saying there needs to be rules about minimum compensation. The nature of the draft is that it will in some cases by its very nature have players under-valued after two years. Those who sit either in a good team or a team with depth in their area, ones who struggle to initially acclimatise to a new club or a new standard, those who require physical development (especially rucks) can come on slowly. And of course injuries will play a part. If the draft is to have the effect it is meant to, clubs can't see young players being poached so soon.

It is also bad for the perception of the AFL, although I'll quickly agree the clubs often enough tarnish that on their own.

As to the academy's, that wasn't really the main reason they were introduced. Otherwise there would be ones in other states. It was to get non-AFL players into the system. That they might create a more loyal base for the new clubs was simply an additional advantage.

And is there any evidence that it evens out over time? Or just wishful thinking?

 

[Carl]

I agree players have to be able to move. But there also has to be a balance. They got FA and its probably going to kick in earlier relatively soon. They will still be able to enter the ND/PSD (if it exists) if uncontracted and they want to leave their original club. And clubs can still trade for them.

But that is very different from saying there needs to be rules about minimum compensation. The nature of the draft is that it will in some cases by its very nature have players under-valued after two years. Those who sit either in a good team or a team with depth in their area, ones who struggle to initially acclimatise to a new club or a new standard, those who require physical development (especially rucks) can come on slowly. And of course injuries will play a part. If the draft is to have the effect it is meant to, clubs can't see young players being poached so soon.

It is also bad for the perception of the AFL, although I'll quickly agree the clubs often enough tarnish that on their own.

As to the academy's, that wasn't really the main reason they were introduced. Otherwise there would be ones in other states. It was to get non-AFL players into the system. That they might create a more loyal base for the new clubs was simply an additional advantage.

And is there any evidence that it evens out over time? Or just wishful thinking?

Believe what you want but the academies were introduced to help nsw/qld teams develop and keep players. If not the AFL would run the academies and they would go into a draft. Why did the AFL scrap any club from rookie listing young nsw players? They wanted them for GWS.

What's wishful thinking is thinking the AFL is an even competition. Never will be.

 

[Carl]

Adelaide has lost heaps in recent years.

I'd be in favour of a three year standard rookie contract, with a trigger for an automatic fourth (say, 15+ games played in season 3) with free agency thereafter.

They can give us Eddie and Sauce back if they like.

Clubs don't want to give 3 year contracts, restricts list management. Imagine if you have a player who you know won't make it after 1 year and you have to keep him for 2 more. That's why clubs love the rookie draft, they can get rid of players after 1 year.

 

[dlanod]

They can give us Eddie and Sauce back if they like.

Eddie was a free agent, but I'm sure they'd give them back for Dangerfield, Gunston, Griffen and Davis (plus probably others I missed).

Clubs don't want to give 3 year contracts, restricts list management. Imagine if you have a player who you know won't make it after 1 year and you have to keep him for 2 more. That's why clubs love the rookie draft, they can get rid of players after 1 year.

Given we're talking about the walking out factor which disproportionately affects interstate clubs, it's worth noting that pretty much every interstate club attempts to sign their new draftees (or at least those taken in the first three or four rounds) to a three year deal immediately. I suspect it's not true for the Victorian clubs, but then those aren't really the ones we're talking about here.

 

[markm106]

I was thinking bring free agency back to 6 years. In those first 6 years a player can be traded to wherever the club wants. Will stop players walking so early. However AFLPA wouldn't agree to this.
This would also have to ban such players from entering a draft unless club doesn't want said player as they couldn't find a suitor for trading.

 

[freofc1994]

They can give us Eddie and Sauce back if they like.

Clubs don't want to give 3 year contracts, restricts list management. Imagine if you have a player who you know won't make it after 1 year and you have to keep him for 2 more. That's why clubs love the rookie draft, they can get rid of players after 1 year.

Clubs should be able to terminate contracts at any time as long as they pay them out. This should allow that player to become a free agent and go to whatever club he likes.....scrap this psd crap and allow clubs to go after uncontracted players as they see fit