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

cryptor said:
Honestly not the worst idea. As long as the salary cap still applies then what difference does it make? Matt Rowell is currently on the standard draftee wage for a player picked with pick 1 which is still less than some older players who also only played a few games this year (some not even due to injury). He'd have no doubt fetched much more than what he's on currently and it would have likely been deserved.
Click to expand...
And for every Matt Rowell making 500k there's a Jimmy Toumpas making 350k.

The draft is an important equalisation tool as well as the salary cap but more than that it's a fair way to make sure young players pay their dues to older guys who have gone before. Rowell can sign a big extension pretty quickly and probably make a bunch of cash from additional opportunities, it's not like he's completely ripped off. If a heap of money goes in to teenagers the good solid clubman type starts getting a pretty raw deal too. Overwhelming those are the guys who help win games and if all of sudden they are making 200k because top juniors are making 500k they are getting shafted.
 
master bate said:
And for every Matt Rowell making 500k there's a Jimmy Toumpas making 350k.

The draft is an important equalisation tool as well as the salary cap but more than that it's a fair way to make sure young players pay their dues to older guys who have gone before. Rowell can sign a big extension pretty quickly and probably make a bunch of cash from additional opportunities, it's not like he's completely ripped off. If a heap of money goes in to teenagers the good solid clubman type starts getting a pretty raw deal too. Overwhelming those are the guys who help win games and if all of sudden they are making 200k because top juniors are making 500k they are getting shafted.
Click to expand...
It would in theory be a system that forces clubs to be conservative. Sure, a club could offer untried potential Matt Rowell $600k in his first year to join them and it works out and maybe it's even considered a bargain in that instance. But maybe if they turn out to be a Jack Watts it will set them back a long way. Ultimately it gives clubs the power to take risks and if they've made good calls they can be rewarded handsomely for it, whereas if they stuff it up they are punished - which is probably fair if you're offering ridiculous money to an untried player regardless of the potential they've shown in lower comps.

The problem is that the AFL panics when fringe clubs make poor recruiting decisions and they over compensate with other measures to save them from themselves. Almost completely removing the consequences for making poor list management decisions. Just look at some of the ridiculous offers that are being made for some free agents this year when clubs should really be playing it safe given the impacts of COVID on the entire league.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think compensation needs to stay, does need re-jigging thou. As bad as Buddy generating pick 19 was, potentially getting nothing at all is ludicrous.

The first band needs to be split. Band 1 - non finalist starting at pick 11, Finalist tied to finishing position. The rest seem fine as it is.

With any band 1 generating offers, I think it should be more an aid than outright free trade. I believe the club receiving the free agent should forfeit their next pick after the generated compensation.

Using Zac Williams as an example, GWS receive pick 11, Carlton forfeit their next schedule pick after the generated compensation, So their 2nd round ~pick 29.
Daniher as an example, Essendon would receive pick 12, Brisbane forfeit pick 16. If we didn’t hold a first rounder, we would carry that defecit (Pick 16) to come off a future first, so can’t trade out of that round the following year.

This would mean teams outside the finals can still potentially get a band 1 free agent and keep their first rounder. Would also act as a slight deterrent of the finalist teams, constantly picking from the lower teams. Could extend this for band 2 for Finalist also.
 
1. Draftee options for 3rd/4th year deals with hefty performance benefits.

2. Restricted free agency at 4-6 years (can scale it down over time). Teams can match or trade these players.

3. Unrestricted free agency at 6-8 years (scale it as above)

4. Franchise tag. 1 player per year can be kept on the franchise tag (give it a better Aussie name) allowing that club to keep them for the average of the top 5 salaries at their position or 120% of their previous wage (whichever is highest).

The salary cap will do its job. Teams will be able to keep their very best players or force trades for them but with the vast majority of players over 24 freely available the mature age talent will start to spread out.

The current need to trade for so many players completely restricts the market. Good solid players who might get games but are stuck down the pecking order at clubs are pretty much untouchable because teams would have to trade so much for them.

An example could be someone like Cam Guthrie. The Cats can afford to bring in big name free agents because Guthrie is signed up (at least until next year) and as good as he is no one wants to trade a first round pick as well as the hefty contract it would take to get him. He'll be the 4th best midfielder at Geelong rather than say the best midfielder at Adelaide. Every year there should be a huge crop of free agents who aren't big names the clubs can filter through and spread to where they are best valued.
 
master bate said:
1. Draftee options for 3rd/4th year deals with hefty performance benefits.

2. Restricted free agency at 4-6 years (can scale it down over time). Teams can match or trade these players.

3. Unrestricted free agency at 6-8 years (scale it as above)

4. Franchise tag. 1 player per year can be kept on the franchise tag (give it a better Aussie name) allowing that club to keep them for the average of the top 5 salaries at their position or 120% of their previous wage (whichever is highest).

The salary cap will do its job. Teams will be able to keep their very best players or force trades for them but with the vast majority of players over 24 freely available the mature age talent will start to spread out.

The current need to trade for so many players completely restricts the market. Good solid players who might get games but are stuck down the pecking order at clubs are pretty much untouchable because teams would have to trade so much for them.

An example could be someone like Cam Guthrie. The Cats can afford to bring in big name free agents because Guthrie is signed up (at least until next year) and as good as he is no one wants to trade a first round pick as well as the hefty contract it would take to get him. He'll be the 4th best midfielder at Geelong rather than say the best midfielder at Adelaide. Every year there should be a huge crop of free agents who aren't big names the clubs can filter through and spread to where they are best valued.
Click to expand...

I like the effort, I don't agree with everything that you've said, but I really appreciate the thought that you put into this post and think there are some good ideas here. I'd really like to see extended draftee contracts.

Maybe something like 4 years for 1st rounder, 3 years for 2nd rounders, then 2 years with club options for the rest. Of course, in a year like this year where the first round could run to 30 picks that might pose a problem! But hopefully that doesn't become the norm.

I'm not a huge fan of the franchise tag myself, but a couple of people in this thread seem to be. As changes like this would need to be negotiated between the AFL and AFLPA, I don't think the AFL would pursue a franchise tag over the ability for clubs to trade players to any club without their consent. I think that would be a significant bargaining chip if players wanted RFA at 6 years and UFA at 8. I also think it would give clubs more flexibility in finding a better deal for themselves when a player says they want out. Although considering how the Treloar situation is being handled at the moment, I can't see the AFLPA agreeing to that sort of trading ability anytime soon.
 
Boner Spirit said:
I think like for like give the club that loses the player the number said player was drafted at.
Click to expand...
Terrible idea. There's a huge amount of examples of players taken early who aren't that great but still make it to free agency vs. those taken late (and even in the rookie draft) that are then some of the best in the comp.

Just to show I've got no self serving purpose... are you suggesting Hawthorn should receive pick 19 in the 2020 draft for Isaac Smith leaving as an UFA at 31 years old on a 2 year contract?
 
cryptor said:
It would in theory be a system that forces clubs to be conservative. Sure, a club could offer untried potential Matt Rowell $600k in his first year to join them and it works out and maybe it's even considered a bargain in that instance. But maybe if they turn out to be a Jack Watts it will set them back a long way. Ultimately it gives clubs the power to take risks and if they've made good calls they can be rewarded handsomely for it, whereas if they stuff it up they are punished - which is probably fair if you're offering ridiculous money to an untried player regardless of the potential they've shown in lower comps.

The problem is that the AFL panics when fringe clubs make poor recruiting decisions and they over compensate with other measures to save them from themselves. Almost completely removing the consequences for making poor list management decisions. Just look at some of the ridiculous offers that are being made for some free agents this year when clubs should really be playing it safe given the impacts of COVID on the entire league.
Click to expand...
The rugby codes engage in bidding wars for teenagers and it's often ended poorly. Teams love potential, there's no way they won't be taking all sorts of silly risks that harm themselves but also do harm to the young players who get saddled with huge deals. We saw that with Tom Boyd and others, it's not healthy.


The salary cap seems safe, or at least players will be all docked equal percentages (apart from the suckers who front loaded or backloaded at the wrong time). At least it's big money for what are some pretty decent players (mostly). If the market was bigger the money would be spread around more.
 
The AFL Draft has become complicated and compromised where it's a become a complete mess and a joke.
Imagine if you're Dogs, St Kilda, Collingwood, Brisbane or Richmond and have your first pick 2 picks later because of free agency compensation to other teams?
They've tinkered away with it year after year where it bares little resemblance to what it's meant to be.
Major turn-off.
 
dazedjosh said:
I like the effort, I don't agree with everything that you've said, but I really appreciate the thought that you put into this post and think there are some good ideas here. I'd really like to see extended draftee contracts.

Maybe something like 4 years for 1st rounder, 3 years for 2nd rounders, then 2 years with club options for the rest. Of course, in a year like this year where the first round could run to 30 picks that might pose a problem! But hopefully that doesn't become the norm.

I'm not a huge fan of the franchise tag myself, but a couple of people in this thread seem to be. As changes like this would need to be negotiated between the AFL and AFLPA, I don't think the AFL would pursue a franchise tag over the ability for clubs to trade players to any club without their consent. I think that would be a significant bargaining chip if players wanted RFA at 6 years and UFA at 8. I also think it would give clubs more flexibility in finding a better deal for themselves when a player says they want out. Although considering how the Treloar situation is being handled at the moment, I can't see the AFLPA agreeing to that sort of trading ability anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The 3rd and 4th year deals are options for the clubs. So they can choose to pick up the option or they can delist or trade the player. 1st rounders can get a 3rd year automatically I guess, that can all be worked out.

I like the franchise tag for a few reasons. It's really good for clubs, it suppresses the top pay as a bargaining chip. It's not great for players but it's a 1 year deal and I'd limit it to be used only once per player. The year after that player becomes an unrestricted free agent, so more often than not it will lead to a long term deal or a trade. It just guarantees you don't lose your best player for nothing unless you're willing to risk it.

I don't see a need or desire for clubs to be able to trade players against their will. For one players don't earn enough to up and move all the time. Moving comes at both a financial cost but also a heavy social cost. If it were to come in I'd imagine it would be for players in the 1-4 year range still finding their way. Once guys are experienced and have done their time I don't think they should be moved. But really I hate it in general. Draft a young guy and stick with him, don't go trading him around up and down for other deals.

If the market for experienced players is opened up they are guys who have made or will make good money over their career and will be able to sign deals of a certain length to make moves worthwhile. It potential disadvantages the Northern states with less players going home but I think we're seeing now that anonymity and good weather is a strong draw card if the teams are successful. And with 4 years to keep draft picks they have the time to rebuild via the draft if they need to do so.
 
master bate said:
The rugby codes engage in bidding wars for teenagers and it's often ended poorly. Teams love potential, there's no way they won't be taking all sorts of silly risks that harm themselves but also do harm to the young players who get saddled with huge deals. We saw that with Tom Boyd and others, it's not healthy.


The salary cap seems safe, or at least players will be all docked equal percentages (apart from the suckers who front loaded or backloaded at the wrong time). At least it's big money for what are some pretty decent players (mostly). If the market was bigger the money would be spread around more.
Click to expand...
I don't follow rugby so can't comment in regards to that. I'm willing to say clubs who make poor decisions should be left to deal with the consequences (even though we know the AFL doesn't let them suffer). But I do think you raise a good point regarding young players being saddled with huge deals. It would be almost impossible for a manager to advise a kid against accepting a huge deal in an industry that regular chews up and spits out players - particularly when said manager stands to take a cut from said huge deal.

But does restraint of trade arguments outweigh protecting the mental health of young recruits arguments? Hard to say to because not all young recruits would be affected by the pressures of a huge deal like Tom Boyd said he was. And players would always have the option of rejecting those offers if they didn't think they could handle the pressure. So maybe it comes down to a case of letting people decide for themselves: If they don't think they can handle the pressure of a huge contract as a young recruit then don't take it, stand aside and let those who can do so and make the best of the talent they have.
 
The Fonz said:
The AFL Draft has become complicated and compromised where it's a become a complete mess and a joke.
Imagine if you're Dogs, St Kilda, Collingwood, Brisbane or Richmond and have your first pick 2 picks later because of free agency compensation to other teams?
They've tinkered away with it year after year where it bares little resemblance to what it's meant to be.
Major turn-off.
Click to expand...
What is it meant to be?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It wasn't that long ago, for finishing last you got Pick 1 and 17 (in a rare non PP year). Now you get Pick 1 and 23 or thereabouts.

My main gripe with FA and it's compo is that it's way too generous. Assuming Crouch gets Adelaide Pick 2, you used to have to tank the back end of the season to get such luxury. Now all you have to do is push out the door a good-ish player that's got value but you don't want.

Personally what I'll do is either:
Option 1:
Tier 1: Pick 19 and these are for the superstars
Tier 2: End of team's pick round 2
Tier 3: Start of round 3
Tier 4: End of teams pick round 3
Tier 5: Nothing
If a players worth more, you match it and trade. If you can't afford to match it, you lose the player under 'FA'.

Option 2:
Tie the compo to the points system (used for FS and Academy prospects).
E.g. Adelaide loses Crouch but instead of getting Pick 2, they get 1000 (or whatever) points of which they can upgrade their round 3 pick.
The intent here is to avoid adding new picks into the draft, give transparency for a players worth but also tie in ladder positions.
 
The Fonz said:
Do what they do in the States
Much simpler, less BS that compromises it.
Scrap father/son.
No more priority picks.
No more compensation
Understand why they have academies and I guess to grow the game in these states this has to stay.
Click to expand...
Forget about what they do in the states. We aren't them.

But change the compo.
FS stays.
Academies stay.
Any compo has to be after the first round. Or at least outside the top 10.

Lets keep some originality in our game that makes it ours. Not everything needs to be like US sports.
 
Scrap the compo all together..

but should also have first round draft picks automatic locked into 3 or 4 year contracts, could pay them double to compensate but at least give the club time to develop them and make them fall in love with the club, if they don’t like it after 2 years they can force a trade.
 
The Fonz said:
The AFL Draft has become complicated and compromised where it's a become a complete mess and a joke.
Imagine if you're Dogs, St Kilda, Collingwood, Brisbane or Richmond and have your first pick 2 picks later because of free agency compensation to other teams?
They've tinkered away with it year after year where it bares little resemblance to what it's meant to be.
Major turn-off.
Click to expand...
Boo Hoo the Dogs - imagine getting the best young player in the land in a year you made the finals. Not a word about the draft being unequal for the past 20 years when Victorian sides got father/son choices every other year and Geelong almost had half a team of father son picks.
 
TBH I haven't understood how the draft worked for about a decade now. I think that originally teams got given picks based on how shit they were... Then something happened and now its just a mystery box which tries to combine egalitarianism with equalization. I'd vote for returning it to its original recognizable form, getting rid of compo picks(for multiple reasons)and honestly getting rid of academy and father son rules would also make sense. I think lowering the floor for the salary cap is a good idea, no real downside there IMO (unless you a list clogger)
 
Becoming pretty farcical. If Cameron doesn't get matched that's now 3 more picks inside first round.

If we then play it out and include Lachie Jones, JUH, Campbell there's now 6 extra picks in the first round. Just ridiculous.

Clarkson is a whinger but he's not wrong about the draft being compromised.
 
The simplest Free Agency tweak would be to abolish compo altogether for RFA's and provide compo only for UFA's.

The rationale being a club can match an RFA and trade them if they wish to get value back while they cannot match offers for UFA.

The reason compo is in place is to encourage clubs to let players go, thereby enhancing the players ability to move to their club of choice

Unfortunately the FA compo in place is far too generous and has way too much impact at the pointy end. If it has to stay end of round 1 for absolute gun players (ie multiple All Australian noms), end of round 2 for A-Graders or end of round 3 for the next tier (ie Atkins) would be the way to go.

If full loss of compo or less generous compo sees less FAs moving clubs then reduce the number of years required to be eligible for FA.

I am actually a supporter of revamping the draft itself in favour of bottom sides, post round 1. Basically round 1 is as per the current system then Rounds 2 and 3 are combined so that each club gets 2 consecutive picks - ie Adelaide would get picks 19, 20 while Richmond would get picks 53 and 54, then similar for Rounds 4 and 5 (Adelaide 55 and 56, Tigers 89 and 90) and if require Rounds 6 and 7.
 
TL1988 said:
Becoming pretty farcical. If Cameron doesn't get matched that's now 3 more picks inside first round.

If we then play it out and include Lachie Jones, JUH, Campbell there's now 6 extra picks in the first round. Just ridiculous.

Clarkson is a whinger but he's not wrong about the draft being compromised.
Click to expand...
It's not so much of an issue if it equals itself out. The issue that is bad is when a club gets consistent extra players while other clubs don't have access to the same rule. Such as when only NSW & Qld teams had academies and only Melbourne clubs had access to father/son picks.
 
Father Son absolutely should stay. It's great.

No more academy bids in the first two rounds. Well done if you've contributed a player to the pool in that position, you can trade up for them or you can let them go.

Free agency compensation either scrapped completely or changed to 3rd round picks based on net contributions to free agency over the prior 2 years. Cap space is your compensation for unrestricted free agents.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy How would you fix free agency?

Similar threads

Cleric
Strategy How would this work?
Replies
2
Views
354
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
448
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
598
markm106
markm106
O
Restricted Free Agent Marcus Bontempelli
Replies
8
Views
861
BulldogMuscle
BulldogMuscle
The Nostradamus
Restricted Free Agent Tom De Koning
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
3K
CatToTheFuture
CatToTheFuture
Back
Top