Strategy How would you fix free agency?

Should FA Compo be changed, canned, or kept as is?

  • Changed

    Votes: 39 45.9%

  • Canceled

    Votes: 43 50.6%

  • Kept as is

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    85

Remove this Banner Ad

mezaire said:
I don't mind this, although if compo starts at 11 then we will get far more matching. Whether that's a good thing or not, I don't know.
I'd also like to see more bands, eg. the difference between band 1 and 2 for Crouch is too great. If Band there was a band 1.5, it be closer to good value for both clubs
Click to expand...
I think if the picks are not aligned with your draft position, that would solve it, similar to MLB and their sandwich picks.

Brad would have been pick 11 or 19 (well 20 after the GC concessions for just being rubbish last year)

More matching is good IMO, it means the destination club has to pay market rate, rather than getting them for free. It does even the playing field more.
 
Last edited:
mezaire said:
Just my idea....

Create a formula based on the following, and make the formula public!
- Average B&F finish, AFPA votes or/and coaches votes (perhaps best 3/4 seasons)
- Previous and new contract $$ and length
- Age

Then the formula creates a pick that has no relevance to the new or old clubs ladder position, simply creates a pick.
That pick could not be any higher than pick 5. If the pick created is higher than pick 5 then the old club would also receive a 2nd/3rd rd compo pick.
The old club would then have to give up 1/3 the points of the compo pick(s) off any picks they choose.

Eg,
Crouch triggers pick 8, Saints have to give up 520 points, equivalent to pick 36
Cameron trigger pick 5 + start of 3rd rd pick, Geelong have to give up 700 points, equivalent to pick 27

Just a thought.....
Click to expand...
See I think the B&F status is irrelevant, as are the AFLPA votes.

For B&F results, is Jarrod Harbrow (1 win, 1 RU) a better player than Adam Treloar who has never won one?

For AFLPA votes, you don't get votes if you are in a bottom ranked team.

Age, I think it irrelevant, players are FAs only once they are 26, but if you get a 6 year deal at 26 or 29, does it really matter?
 
I've had a go at seeing what the draft order in 2019 would have looked like using this system. I've compared it to the 2019 draft order after taking FA compensation, NGAs and FS adjustments into account. For simplicity I have not accounted for any auctioning of players or trading points between years, but have just allocated each draft pick to the team with the highest points balance at the time. Only 65 picks were used in 2019, so I've excluded the points value.

I did make one adjustment from the original proposal. I made it a requirement that each team would nominate the number of picks they are to take (which is the same number they selected in 2019) - so that a team with fewer picks is not disadvantaged, each team must keep a certain number of points in reserve depending on how many picks they have left (ie you can't bid all your points on your first pick if you still have picks to go afterwards).

At the end of the draft, some teams had a small points deficit and others a small surplus (average surplus/deficit = +/- 18 points) - these could probably be carried over to the following season or otherwise written off.

Here are the results:
Screenshot 2020-11-04 at 11.47.37 AM.png

Overall the distribution is similar, but there are a few noticeable changes.
- Gold Coast get picks 1 and 3 instead of 1 and 2, but all of their other picks are brought forward.
- Freo's picks 7, 8 and 9 turn into 2, 12 and 25. Obviously with an auction they could choose to target either option.
- Port had a strong-ish hand with picks 14, 18, 23 and 25 all very close together - this is spaced out a bit more, turning into 7, 14, 30 and 47.
- If a team traded out their second-round pick, but kept their first and third (eg Bulldogs), the picks are brought closer together - eg 15 and 53 turn into 22 and 37.

It would be interesting to simulate a draft for 2020, properly factoring the trade period, FA and other compensation, and simulating auction bids - if I have time I'll put something together.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chiz said:
I've had a go at seeing what the draft order in 2019 would have looked like using this system. I've compared it to the 2019 draft order after taking FA compensation, NGAs and FS adjustments into account. For simplicity I have not accounted for any auctioning of players or trading points between years, but have just allocated each draft pick to the team with the highest points balance at the time. Only 65 picks were used in 2019, so I've excluded the points value.

I did make one adjustment from the original proposal. I made it a requirement that each team would nominate the number of picks they are to take (which is the same number they selected in 2019) - so that a team with fewer picks is not disadvantaged, each team must keep a certain number of points in reserve depending on how many picks they have left (ie you can't bid all your points on your first pick if you still have picks to go afterwards).

At the end of the draft, some teams had a small points deficit and others a small surplus (average surplus/deficit = +/- 18 points) - these could probably be carried over to the following season or otherwise written off.

Here are the results:
View attachment 1002964

Overall the distribution is similar, but there are a few noticeable changes.
- Gold Coast get picks 1 and 3 instead of 1 and 2, but all of their other picks are brought forward.
- Freo's picks 7, 8 and 9 turn into 2, 12 and 25. Obviously with an auction they could choose to target either option.
- Port had a strong-ish hand with picks 14, 18, 23 and 25 all very close together - this is spaced out a bit more, turning into 7, 14, 30 and 47.
- If a team traded out their second-round pick, but kept their first and third (eg Bulldogs), the picks are brought closer together - eg 15 and 53 turn into 22 and 37.

It would be interesting to simulate a draft for 2020, properly factoring the trade period, FA and other compensation, and simulating auction bids - if I have time I'll put something together.
Click to expand...
Where do those 'current' picks come from? They don't look right...
 
Laphroaig said:
Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I can't see how that makes sense in terms of your other arguments.

Free agency is not going anywhere, like it or not the AFL and particularly the players are 110% behind it.

With that in mind removing compensation will punish the weaker clubs terribly while only being a relatively minor inconvenience to the powerful clubs.

Higher clubs will lose a good player and a mediocre pick, but they will gain cap space they can they use on other top-level players.

Lower clubs will lose their best players, lose very good draft picks and gain cap space they have little use for because good players don’t want to go to lowly clubs.
 
Laphroaig said:
Were already up to about 10,00 words in outline of how this "simple" system works.

Including additional volumes of what "we would just" do when the inherent flaws in the concept manifest themselves. And then we have to do it all again the next year because the constantly changing dynamic of Club aspirations and priorities adds up to a different dynamic. So all the things we "just did" in response to last years dynamic are useless.

I think the story has been told.

The core purpose of the draft is to give the highest draft picks to the lowest teams. It is not to facilitate trades of contracted players or make invented academies and ridiculous free agent compensation picks work better.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...you are starting to sound like you are more interested in hand wringing than actually engaging in a substantive practical discussion.

So if for example a bottom club has thousands of more points than a top club and trading an elite player only nets a top club hundreds of points, then how is the top club going to outbid the bottom club?

There is no obfuscation, giving the lower clubs lots more points than the higher clubs is a very simple and practical solution to the problems you are talking about.

As said previously if in time it was found that there was some sort of inequity a currency-based system makes it massively easier to move the line to where it balances all the issues best.

...And of course, keeping in mind the current system allows top clubs to trade for top picks. If you are so dogmatically arguing that bottom clubs should be protected, shouldn’t you be arguing on some sort of trade ban for top clubs in the current system?

Otherwise it sounds a bit like you are saying it is the crime of the century if it happens in a currency system and just bad luck if it happens in a barter system.
 
weevil said:
Hmmm...you are starting to sound like you are more interested in hand wringing than actually engaging in a substantive practical discussion.

So if for example a bottom club has thousands of more points than a top club and trading an elite player only nets a top club hundreds of points, then how is the top club going to outbid the bottom club?

There is no obfuscation, giving the lower clubs lots more points than the higher clubs is a very simple and practical solution to the problems you are talking about.

As said previously if in time it was found that there was some sort of inequity a currency-based system makes it massively easier to move the line to where it balances all the issues best.

...And of course, keeping in mind the current system allows top clubs to trade for top picks. If you are so dogmatically arguing that bottom clubs should be protected, shouldn’t you be arguing on some sort of trade ban for top clubs in the current system?

Otherwise it sounds a bit like you are saying it is the crime of the century if it happens in a currency system and just bad luck if it happens in a barter system.
Click to expand...

If you need a three volume close printed list of conditions, exceptions, alterations and tweaks and claim that the end result at the draft will magically be just the same - really - why bother?

If it can be done (and I sincerely doubt it can) to achieve a set of clauses and conditions which ensure that a lower club never gets queue jumped by a higher club at auction, it's a lot of effort and complexity for no reason at all.
 
Laphroaig said:
If you need a three volume close printed list of conditions, exceptions, alterations and tweaks and claim that the end result at the draft will magically be just the same - really - why bother?

If it can be done (and I sincerely doubt it can) to achieve a set of clauses and conditions which ensure that a lower club never gets queue jumped by a higher club at auction, it's a lot of effort and complexity for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

Simply put - there isn't any reason that should be a requirement. You have this completely backwards by trying to defend the picks system.

There is also no way a top club can beat a low club at Auction - A lower club starts with (substantially) more points than a top club and before any decisions are made can outbid any club finishing higher.

If the low club believe they get better value from having say 3 top 10 kids instead of the #1 then why should they be FORCED into a decision they have themselves decided is sub-optimal?

You are penalising the lower club purely to support a Barter system with discrete (chunky) values.

Very little effort required, significantly strips the complexity out of the current market and makes it far more transparent and fair to all. (Aha! now we've found why the AFL will never implement it!)
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
There is also no way a top club can beat a low club at Auction - A lower club starts with (substantially) more points than a top club and before any decisions are made can outbid any club finishing higher.
Click to expand...

Can't a higher club beat a lower one by accumulating more points through trades etc? For example, I can imagine Essendon this year gaining a stack of points through their outgoings and moving well up the order (possibly to the top; someone else can do the maths on this).

That aside, under the proposed points system, the bottom-placed team is forced to compete for pick 1; they don't have to do this under the current system. One possible outcome is that Gold Coast (for example) still gets Matt Rowell (for example) but is forced to pay much more for him, thereby depleting much of its remaining trade spend. Maybe that's not a bad outcome: it's a way of valuing someone like Rowell higher than your average number 1 pick. Still, the additional cost to the bottom-placed is one they'd obviously prefer not to incur.

Anyway, I'm just not convinced that the 'barter' system is so inflexible as to be limiting trades that would otherwise happen. I'd guess player mobility has been higher in the past five years or so than it has been in decades: the capacity for pick swaps, trading of future picks etc gives clubs plenty of flexibility to get deals done. When deals falls through, it's typically due to clubs disagreeing on what's fair (e.g. Jack Martin last year), or due one or both of the clubs being insufficiently motivated to do a deal (e.g. Daniher last year). Of course this will still happen under a points model. "You want 1,200 points for player X!? 850 is as high as we can go. That's our final offer" etc etc.
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
Simply put - there isn't any reason that should be a requirement. You have this completely backwards by trying to defend the picks system.
Click to expand...

Just coz?

Simon_Nesbit said:
There is also no way a top club can beat a low club at Auction - A lower club starts with (substantially) more points than a top club and before any decisions are made can outbid any club finishing higher.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. It's an auction.

Clubs will go in with an overall draft strategy which will always include a plan on how many points they are prepared to spend on each of the selections they want to make. Some Clubs will simply go all in on pick one, and keep going all in on every subsequent picks.

And please don't come back with yet another "then we would just.....". This thread has at least 50 of those already.

Any version of a points system is fatally flawed because the "currency" not only lacks an objective value framework, every Club will have a different subjective value framework which will change every year.

You could compare it to sending every club in with a stack of banknotes. Some have dollars, some have pounds, some have lira and some get francs.
 
Laphroaig said:
Just coz?



Rubbish. It's an auction.

Clubs will go in with an overall draft strategy which will always include a plan on how many points they are prepared to spend on each of the selections they want to make. Some Clubs will simply go all in on pick one, and keep going all in on every subsequent picks.

And please don't come back with yet another "then we would just.....". This thread has at least 50 of those already.

Any version of a points system is fatally flawed because the "currency" not only lacks an objective value framework, every Club will have a different subjective value framework which will change every year.

You could compare it to sending every club in with a stack of banknotes. Some have dollars, some have pounds, some have lira and some get francs.
Click to expand...

No, that's Picks again. Picks cannot be compared directly due to their discrete nature and inability to be reapportioned.

Points = Everyone gets the same currency - some just get more to spend. Can spend how they like.
 
The Tilt said:
Can't a higher club beat a lower one by accumulating more points through trades etc? For example, I can imagine Essendon this year gaining a stack of points through their outgoings and moving well up the order (possibly to the top; someone else can do the maths on this).

That aside, under the proposed points system, the bottom-placed team is forced to compete for pick 1; they don't have to do this under the current system. One possible outcome is that Gold Coast (for example) still gets Matt Rowell (for example) but is forced to pay much more for him, thereby depleting much of its remaining trade spend. Maybe that's not a bad outcome: it's a way of valuing someone like Rowell higher than your average number 1 pick. Still, the additional cost to the bottom-placed is one they'd obviously prefer not to incur.

Anyway, I'm just not convinced that the 'barter' system is so inflexible as to be limiting trades that would otherwise happen. I'd guess player mobility has been higher in the past five years or so than it has been in decades: the capacity for pick swaps, trading of future picks etc gives clubs plenty of flexibility to get deals done. When deals falls through, it's typically due to clubs disagreeing on what's fair (e.g. Jack Martin last year), or due one or both of the clubs being insufficiently motivated to do a deal (e.g. Daniher last year). Of course this will still happen under a points model. "You want 1,200 points for player X!? 850 is as high as we can go. That's our final offer" etc etc.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - clubs have much greater control over HOW they improve their lists.

Correct again - ideal outcome and is fairer for all clubs rather than being 'lucky' to be down the ladder in a good draft class (or unlucky if a bad draft class).

Player mobility is increasing as we add yet more convoluted rules to free up the trade period and player movement, allow future picks to be traded, etc. All aimed at breaking down the discrete nature of using picks instead of points.

And your final point - with Points instead of Picks this is SO much easier to workaround - even when clubs still cannot agree, arbitration can easily be applied.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Tilt said:
Can't a higher club beat a lower one by accumulating more points through trades etc? For example, I can imagine Essendon this year gaining a stack of points through their outgoings and moving well up the order (possibly to the top; someone else can do the maths on this).

That aside, under the proposed points system, the bottom-placed team is forced to compete for pick 1; they don't have to do this under the current system. One possible outcome is that Gold Coast (for example) still gets Matt Rowell (for example) but is forced to pay much more for him, thereby depleting much of its remaining trade spend. Maybe that's not a bad outcome: it's a way of valuing someone like Rowell higher than your average number 1 pick. Still, the additional cost to the bottom-placed is one they'd obviously prefer not to incur.
Click to expand...

So picks 6,7 and 8 (which Essendon may have, although they will surely be pushed down) are worth nearly 5000 points, so yes this would put them into a position to bid for pick 1. Having more teams in the running for pick 1 would be a good thing as it would mean pick 1 is more likely to go for its market value (like having more bidders attend an auction for a house). As you say, a player like Rowell would be valued higher, which is much fairer across seasons. In contrast, a draft year where you could throw a blanket over picks 1-10, the first pick would cost much less, allowing the bottom side to maybe take multiple top ten picks - so in that way they're not disadvantaged by the luck of the draw.

Anyway, I'm just not convinced that the 'barter' system is so inflexible as to be limiting trades that would otherwise happen. I'd guess player mobility has been higher in the past five years or so than it has been in decades: the capacity for pick swaps, trading of future picks etc gives clubs plenty of flexibility to get deals done. When deals falls through, it's typically due to clubs disagreeing on what's fair (e.g. Jack Martin last year), or due one or both of the clubs being insufficiently motivated to do a deal (e.g. Daniher last year). Of course this will still happen under a points model. "You want 1,200 points for player X!? 850 is as high as we can go. That's our final offer" etc etc.
Click to expand...

There may still be cases under a points system where two teams don't agree to a trade, but at least there would be transparency around this, rather than one club holding the other to ransom as we often see.

The Josh Dunkley trade (or potential trade) will be an interesting one to watch this season. Essendon have a surplus of high picks, but the Bulldogs have no need for high picks - in fact they are better off getting rid of them under the ridiculous NGA rules. Essendon have already lost a number of players to trade/FA so are unlikely to want to trade any more. This is a classic case of where the barter system fails - it's not that the two parties wouldn't agree on the value of the player, it's just that one party doesn't have the right assets to trade.

The trade might still get done of course, but extremely unlikely without having to get another club (or clubs) involved. You're right that many of these trades still get done, but I'd argue that's no reason not to make the process easier.
 
Laphroaig said:
Clubs will go in with an overall draft strategy which will always include a plan on how many points they are prepared to spend on each of the selections they want to make. Some Clubs will simply go all in on pick one, and keep going all in on every subsequent picks.
Click to expand...

And they would be perfectly entitled to do that. But firstly they'd have to accumulate sufficient points to be able to bid on pick 1, which for most clubs will mean trading out players. Secondly, if a club blows all of their points on their first pick, they won't be able to take any further picks - not really a sensible strategy.

Any version of a points system is fatally flawed because the "currency" not only lacks an objective value framework, every Club will have a different subjective value framework which will change every year.
Click to expand...

I've explained the objective value framework already (ie each pick already has a points value associated with it). As for clubs having a subjective value framework which changes, this is the perfect reason for an auction system - if pick 1 gives a particular club access to a player that they really need, they will be willing to pay more for this. If the club with the most points is indifferent between picks 1 to 5, they can happily just wait until pick 5 and have more points to spend on other top picks.

You could compare it to sending every club in with a stack of banknotes. Some have dollars, some have pounds, some have lira and some get francs.
Click to expand...

Simon_Nesbit said:
No, that's Picks again. Picks cannot be compared directly due to their discrete nature and inability to be reapportioned.

Points = Everyone gets the same currency - some just get more to spend. Can spend how they like.
Click to expand...

This.
 
weevil said:
Yeah sure, your still here to talk smack, but soon as there is a question you, you're off like the flash.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Just waiting for something new other that it WILL. Sound of crickets following in place of how.

Or we would just. Interminably after every question.

Here's an idea.

The team that finishes last gets the highest draft pick. To use or trade as they wish. Repeat for second worst and so on.

Full stop. The end.

No we would just every time it doesn't work.

No baseless claims that there is a better way which would never ever no shit change that advantage. Just coz.

It is so tiring trying to reason with fanatics.
 
Laphroaig said:
Nope.
[snip]
Click to expand...
Yep.

Waiting for your brilliant system that gets rid of free-agent compensation without massive penalising the weaker clubs.

Waiting for you to explain why you care about weak clubs in a points system and don't give a stuff about them in a picks system.

Waiting for you to explain the magical way you think a club with thousands of points could be outbid by a club with only hundreds and no practical way of obtaining enough to match.

Waiting for you to explain how the current hybrid points/picks cluster**** of a system that every footy fan, player and club complain about is actually really great.

Roll out your standard deflection and avoidance template.

You like to dish it out but have shown zero capacity to back any of it up.
 
Messenger said:
It can have that effect, yes. Ultimately the best tool for a bottom team to rise to the top is good drafting.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if the bottom team is constantly losing it's best talent and having to go back to the Draft, when will it end, and when will they have the success that will make players want to stay?
 
Just an idea to solve the F/A issues that are giving everyone a headache. No compo , no restrictions and full F/A for players after 6 yrs on 1 teams list

A FREE AGENCY CAP

Not a complicated system based on ladder positions to avoid the top teams grabbing all the top players

2020 Ladder. FA cap increase
Richmond 200,000
Geelong 225,000
Etc
Etc
North 575,000
Adelaide 600,000

Clubs can pay what they have in the have in the cap averaged out over the length of the players contract

Let’s say Richmond win again in 2021 , 200,000 + 200,000 = 400,000 so they can afford in the 2021 FA period a 400,000 player averaged out over the length of his deal

No compo or restrictions but protects the struggling teams by helping them get the better FA’s

Maybe retroactive on season 2020 , FA stays the same for 21 to help planning FA cap starts 22 with the balances accrued over 20-21

Thats pretty much it


Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy How would you fix free agency?

Similar threads

Cleric
Strategy How would this work?
Replies
2
Views
348
perplexed
perplexed
Taylor
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Confirmed 2024 Key Dates, Confirmed Trades & Free Agency Moves
2
Replies
25
Views
8K
Taylor
Taylor
DragoDelph
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Confirmed 2024 Confirmed Trades & Free Agency Moves
Replies
12
Views
439
DragoDelph
DragoDelph
The Nostradamus
Free Agency Jack Carroll - signs with St Kilda
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
9K
branedotorg
branedotorg
eaglevision
Restricted Free Agent Kane Farrell
Replies
8
Views
569
markm106
markm106
O
Restricted Free Agent Marcus Bontempelli
Replies
8
Views
837
BulldogMuscle
BulldogMuscle
The Nostradamus
Restricted Free Agent Tom De Koning
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
2K
CatToTheFuture
CatToTheFuture
Back
Top