Is Free Agency a certainty now?

[evo]

Yeah i understand it is different, but the point is in the context of the OP. YOu say Collingwood were keen on him, but the fact is they weren't keen on him at any price, and rightly so. So trade doesn't get done.

Luke Ball hasn't been that badly compromised. He is AFL quality and will be picked up by an AFL club; likely on a very generous contract.

St. Kilda has no more ethical or moral duty to deliver him packaged up to the exact employer he requires than Bhp would have a duty to deliver one of their accountants out of contract to Rio Tinto.

The Saints seemd to make a genuine effort to trade him but fell short. Shit happens in love and trading.

If the AFL change the free agency laws over this particular (non)trade , I 'll fair dinkum spew up.

 

[kensington]

Can someone give a realistic attempt at drawing up what free agency would look like - and how this wouldn't result in a comptetion where some clubs gain a clear advantage over others?

Rather than full blown free agency, I am in favour of a restricted free agency system. This would mean when a player came out and wanted to shift teams they could accept offers from other teams and only be prevented from moving if their own team matches the offer.

Therefore, this system ensures that players are paid comensurate to their market value, but does not allow a player to simply abandon a club.

This also solves the problem of players accepting less money to play in another destination. For example, if Collingwood wanted Salopek from PA who was a restricted FA and offered 1,000,000 over three years (when his market rate might be 1.2m) Port can then match/beat the offer and retain him.

 

[the ranger]

You can view the professional sporting world however you like. The law sees no difference between a professional sportsman and an "ordinary" employee. They have the same rights.

I realise this. But common sense says that you have to treat it differently or there would soon be no league to employ those workers. Players cede certain rights in exchange for living the childhood dream of millions. If they don't like the work conditions, they are free to play in another lower paying, lower exposure league.

 

[Powerstufff]

so ignoring that new trading rules which allow rookies to be traded, 23 players out of 608 senior list players in the AFL were traded during the exchange period.

the fact is, less than 3.8% of senior players have found a new home via the trade mechanism.

what a success!

Perhaps you've misunderstood. Not every player has to change clubs each year.

 

[FarangPie]

I think free agency will benefit the most powerful, wealthy clubs the most. They will always be able to pay 100% of the salary cap and therefore offer big contracts to the free agent. The Luke Ball deal or lack there of may be I line in the sand for the AFL.

 

[SriLankanCat]

We offered pick 25 and 62... how is that not fair for Balls output this year?

I'm glad we stuck true to our word and didn't pay the house for him, he isn't that good.

Hopefully he walks to Melb.

I agree there...Pick 25 and 62 is good compensation for Ball. They obviously didnt rate him that highly which is why there was doubt about him in the finals and why he only played less than half of the grand final.

Clubs gotta do things in the right spirit. The system works. The people in it dont.

I think uncontracted players should be able to have free agency. At the end of the day the salary cap is there to spread talent anyway.

Trade should only be for contracted players. If a player that is contracted doesnt wanna stay then they can request a trrade. If the trade doesnt come through than that is harsh but that is the consequence of signing a contract.

 

[KissStephanie]

Luke Ball hasn't been that badly compromised. He is AFL quality and will be picked up by an AFL club; likely on a very generous contract.

His desire is to get to Collingwood only. After eight years, he wants a chance at success, and he believes there is a specific role involving specific teammates. It seems that he won't talk to other clubs, so I think he will enter the national draft. Obviously he is angry about being forced toward a club of St.Kilda's choosing in the pre-season draft.

St. Kilda has no more ethical or moral duty to deliver him packaged up to the exact employer he requires than Bhp would have a duty to deliver one of their accountants out of contract to Rio Tinto.

Those companies don't do that though. They don't prevent an unwanted employee from going to a specific company as St.Kilda has done in this case. However, of course they're not obligated to package him up to an exact employer either, but that is one of the reasons I feel that free agency should be introduced. In St.Kilda's case, they were unprepared to compromise and they had very little intention of trading him to Collingwood. He deserved better.

The Saints seemd to make a genuine effort to trade him but fell short. Shit happens in love and trading.

I absolutely disagree. They were rigid and uncompromising. They wanted either Andrejs Everitt from the Western Bulldogs with North Melbourne's pick #21 or Tyson Goldsack and pick #25, but Collingwood would have to also give-up Sharrod Wellingham and pick #30 to get North Melbourne pick #25. Collingwood were prepared to trade Wellingham and pick #30 though. They were also prepared to trade Goldsack and pick #30 directly to St.Kilda, but that wasn't enough either.

To give up two players and two second round draft picks was an unreasonable request from St.Kilda, and they had no intention of compromising. If that couldn't be done, which it wasn't, then they'd rather see Ball in the pre-season draft and go to a bottom club, and Lyon made mention of that after the failed trade. I think he has failed to realise that Ball can also nominate for the national draft first.

If the AFL change the free agency laws over this particular (non)trade , I 'll fair dinkum spew up.

I won't spew-up Plow. I think there should be at least restricted free agency next season.

"If anyone's not up for the challenge, they can walk in and tell me and I'll move them on." - hypocrite Ross Lyon lie - 27th September, 2009.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Can someone give a realistic attempt at drawing up what free agency would look like - and how this wouldn't result in a comptetion where some clubs gain a clear advantage over others?

the modified form of Free Agency being proposed by the AFL & AFLPA will require players to satisfy specific criteria to be classified as a 'Free Agent'. one ofcourse is that a player has to be out of contract beyond the given season.

a second, and hotly debated point between the two parties, is that a player will need to have accrued 'x' number of years service within the AFL at the club that originally drafted them. The number of years the AFLPA are pushing for is seven (7). The AFL are attempting to push this out a bit more. then there are issues as to the minimum number of years a player must serve at the 2nd club to be able to satisfy FA criteria again, if at all.

there might be a restricted form of free agency adopted for players who are out of contract beyond a given season but have not satisfied the other FA criteria as described above, where incumbent clubs are able to have a right of refusal, receive high draft picks as compensation, etc. but this would get complicated for the AFL who like to keep the system simple.

a compensatory draft selection system might also be introduced. here, a club which has lost more than it has gained via FA in a given year, or one year in comparison to the prior year, may receive a compensation draft selection at a specific point of the draft. however, there will need to be a system to value this which again, like restricted FA, might end up being a bit too complicated for the AFL to implement.

in its basic form, FA would continue to operate under the salary cap. A draft will continue to be utilised for new players coming into the league. a trading mechanism will still be utilised for players or clubs seeking to make changes to the list re contracted players, or players who have not satisfied other FA criteria.

some clubs which are considered amongst players to have some sort of prestige, and clubs within a player's home state, might be advantaged via a FA system. but there is still the matter of the salary cap which will prevent a club or certain clubs accumulating all the best players in the league............unless most of them want to be paid peanuts.

other issues re the introduction of FA will affect the details of the CBA. at present, every player receives very handsome financial rewards, which include minimum base salaries & minimum match payments based on whether a player is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd + year player. furthermore, every club in the competition is required to spend a minimum of 92.5% of the year's maximum TPP amount. this means teams who are genuinely bad or have a high proportion of young players must still pay decent money to its players, whoever they are. these financial rewards for players in the CBA would definately be revised in an environment consisting of FA. basically, these generous rewards are a compromise for the absence of FA.

as JD mentioned in one of his posts, FA will actually improve the competitiveness of the competition. a larger proportion of the top players who satsify the FA criteria will be rewarded much better than they are now as they will finally have a market to value their services. and the existance of a market will provide clubs with a more effective and efficient system to value players - i guarantee that many bums at many clubs are being paid more than they're worth at the moment.

it will allow clubs who are struggling (using Melbourne as an example) a mechanism to add established players to their list without giving up their draft selections thus improve their competitiveness now, rather than 4-5 years down the track. right now, a club such as Melbourne simply hides behind the 'veil of development'........it is accepted that they will be bad while waiting for their players to develop. The existance of FA will remove the conservatism displayed by some clubs and recruiters. If they dont take part, they will always be left behind.

 

[Rhino5]

a second, and hotly debated point between the two parties, is that a player will need to have accrued 'x' number of years service within the AFL at the club that originally drafted them. The number of years the AFLPA are pushing for is seven (7). The AFL are attempting to push this out a bit more. then there are issues as to the minimum number of years a player must serve at the 2nd club to be able to satisfy FA criteria again, if at all.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread so others may have touched on this, but why is the above necessary? - 7 years seems like far too long for such a system to work. There will be individual circumstances where a player will know after a couple of seasons that a club isn't the right fit for him or he's not going to get enough opportunities. If he's no longer under contract, why shouldn't he be able to look to move if another club is willing to pay the right price?

Maybe I have a different perspective because I also follow US leagues such as the NBA, where rookies are given a standard contract on a rising scale, depending on where they are drafted (within the first round means a guaranteed contract) and I believe that first contract lasts for 3 years. After this they are free agents (if they haven't signed an extension in the interim). The thing with the NBA is that the salary cap is tight and they have a luxury tax which adds a real incentive to spend responsibly. You are free to go over the cap, but if you do, you have to pay dollar for dollar extra and that goes into league revenue. For example, if you want to sign a player to a $20m deal that will take you $10m over the salary cap, you will be paying an extra $10m again for that privilege. It may not be worth it if you're not in a position to win. Teams aren't compensated for losing players who are FAs, but obviously that player's contract will no longer count against that cap figure and they are free to pursue other players with that cap space. Of course, that can be a problem for teams that have difficulty attracting players.

All systems will have their flaws, but I believe the NBA model works really well for the most part. The only real issue is that in the current economic climate, a lot of the trades made are done for purely financial reasons to get under the luxury tax level. And clubs with very wealthy owners can spend up big to try to win a title, in a way that a struggling team wouldn't be able to do.

You could argue that this kind of system treats players too much as commodities and maybe that doesn't fit as well in our sporting culture where there is more 'pride in the jumper', team loyalty etc.....anyway, I got off topic, but it just struck me that that initial 7 year period seemed like an odd restriction to impose.

 

[the ranger]

NBA 1st rounders get 2 guaranteed years and then the team has options on their 3rd and 4th year. If they keep them for all 4 years, the player will be a restricted free agent at the end of the 4th season. That means their club can match any offer from another team and the player has to stay. For 2nd round picks, the team signs them for 1-3 years after the draft and then they become an unrestricted free agent a the end of that deal.

It is a pretty good system and the AFL would be wise to borrow from it. It took time, plus a player strike and numerous holdouts (players being drafted but refusing to play until their contract demands were met) to get it to where it is.

 

[Rhino5]

NBA 1st rounders get 2 guaranteed years and then the team has options on their 3rd and 4th year. If they keep them for all 4 years, the player will be a restricted free agent at the end of the 4th season. That means their club can match any offer from another team and the player has to stay. For 2nd round picks, the team signs them for 1-3 years after the draft and then they become an unrestricted free agent a the end of that deal.

It is a pretty good system and the AFL would be wise to borrow from it. It took time, plus a player strike and numerous holdouts (players being drafted but refusing to play until their contract demands were met) to get it to where it is.

Thanks mate, I always forget the details.....the restricted free agency part is kind of a crucial aspect that I somehow managed to overlook.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread so others may have touched on this, but why is the above necessary? - 7 years seems like far too long for such a system to work. There will be individual circumstances where a player will know after a couple of seasons that a club isn't the right fit for him or he's not going to get enough opportunities. If he's no longer under contract, why shouldn't he be able to look to move if another club is willing to pay the right price?

you've got to look at the whole system.

players in the AFL are drafted at 17-18yo. there's a few years of development that needs to go into them. as the player matures, the club deserves the exclusivity of their services for the time they've put into them.

in contrast, most players in the NFL or NBA are drafted at a mature age - 22 or 23 yo. the NFL players themselves must also satisfy an accrued service criteria to qualify for FA - 3 years for restricted FA, 4 years for unrestricted FA.

re the rest of your post, adding in onerous financial implications such as luxury taxes, etc will defeat the objective in the AFL. it will also require much more transparency into player salaries and the salary cap than what exists at present.

the systems which have evolved in pro US leagues are a compromise due to the balance of employment law, industry argument for competitiveness within their competitions, and player strikes. unless the threat of the latter occurs here, going to the extent of the systems which they have over there isnt worth it. clubs in the AFL would go broke.

FA in the AFL should be a mechanism to give players who have served their dues, an option to choose their place of employment, within a system which will increase the overall competitiveness of the competition.

personally, i think the 7 years the AFLPA are advocating is about right. players will 24-25yo and still in their prime. the AFL want to push this out to further. with the average age of AFL footballers on the decline, what would be the point?

 

[Motown]

I'm not opposed to some form of free agency, but you're never going to have the same conditions apply to AFL players as the average worker because the league would not survive (and even if it did, you'd have a European soccer situation where there are only a handful of clubs that can ever hope to win anything meaningful).

I agree.

We exist on a sliding scale where at the extremes the clubs or players hold all the power. At the moment, there's too much power held by the clubs whereby they can exert too much power over a player's destiny for too long. I think it should be slid a little toward the players end by instituting free agency for those who've done their time (8 years) and come out of contract. I don't see why that warrants the doom and gloom talk I see from some around here.

 

[mcgarnacle]

I agree there...Pick 25 and 62 is good compensation for Ball. They obviously didnt rate him that highly which is why there was doubt about him in the finals and why he only played less than half of the grand final.

it was essentially just pick 25. STK probably arent going to use 62. maybe a COL 3rd rounder as opposed to a 4th rounder mightve got the deal done.

 

[Rhino5]

you've got to look at the whole system.

players in the AFL are drafted at 17-18yo. there's a few years of development that needs to go into them. as the player matures, the club deserves the exclusivity of their services for the time they've put into them.

in contrast, most players in the NFL or NBA are drafted at a mature age - 22 or 23 yo. the NFL players themselves must also satisfy an accrued service criteria to qualify for FA - 3 years for restricted FA, 4 years for unrestricted FA.

re the rest of your post, adding in onerous financial implications such as luxury taxes, etc will defeat the objective in the AFL. it will also require much more transparency into player salaries and the salary cap than what exists at present.

FA in the AFL should be a mechanism to give players who have served their dues, an option to choose their place of employment, within a system which will increase the overall competitiveness of the competition.

personally, i think the 7 years the AFLPA are advocating is about right. players will 24-25yo and still in their prime. the AFL want to push this out to further. with the average age of AFL footballers on the decline, what would be the point?

Sure, I wasn't saying the NBA system would necessarily work for the AFL but there are aspects of it that I think are good. Your point about AFL players being younger is fair and I didn't really look at it like that, although not too long ago there weren't the current drafting restrictions (i.e. a year of college) that exist now in the NBA.

If 7 years would be about right, taking everyting into account, then fine. But I agree that anything longer than that as the AFL is suggesting is unecessarily restrictive. You can't assume that eveyone's going to have a 300 game career over 12-15 years.

 

[mcgarnacle]

I think free agency will benefit the most powerful, wealthy clubs the most. They will always be able to pay 100% of the salary cap and therefore offer big contracts to the free agent. The Luke Ball deal or lack there of may be I line in the sand for the AFL.

if clubs cant be competitive within a system utilising a salary cap, then frankly, perhaps they dont deserve to be part of it.

 

[the ranger]

you've got to look at the whole system.

players in the AFL are drafted at 17-18yo. there's a few years of development that needs to go into them. as the player matures, the club deserves the exclusivity of their services for the time they've put into them.

in contrast, most players in the NFL or NBA are drafted at a mature age - 22 or 23 yo. the NFL players themselves must also satisfy an accrued service criteria to qualify for FA - 3 years for restricted FA, 4 years for unrestricted FA.

re the rest of your post, adding in onerous financial implications such as luxury taxes, etc will defeat the objective in the AFL. it will also require much more transparency into player salaries and the salary cap than what exists at present.

the systems which have evolved in pro US leagues are a compromise due to the balance of employment law, industry argument for competitiveness within their competitions, and player strikes. unless the threat of the latter occurs here, going to the extent of the systems which they have over there isnt worth it. clubs in the AFL would go broke.

FA in the AFL should be a mechanism to give players who have served their dues, an option to choose their place of employment, within a system which will increase the overall competitiveness of the competition.

personally, i think the 7 years the AFLPA are advocating is about right. players will 24-25yo and still in their prime. the AFL want to push this out to further. with the average age of AFL footballers on the decline, what would be the point?

NBA players are often under that age now, as many don't complete college before going pro. But still, under their system the team can hold a player for their first 4 years and then match any offer to keep them for another contract before they are unrestricted. That would take it up to 7 years or more before they can become an unrestricted FA. If they really don't want to play for that club anymore, the club can sign and trade them so that they are properly compensated.

Trades can also be done during a much larger window which I think is important. It's hard to get a fair deal for both teams and the players involved when you only have a week. It should be open from October to January at least.

Using NBA rules, Ball would have become a restricted FA after the 2006 season. He'd probably be coming out of his second contract next year, at which point the Saints would be forced to make a sign and trade deal with Collingwood (if that's where Ball intended to go) or he would just go there as an unrestricted free agent with no compensation (provided the Magpies had the room under the salary cap to accommodate his demands).

Nick Stevens would have finished his rookie deal with Port after 2001. Port would have been able to re-sign him for 2002-05, so Carlton would have had to do a trade to get him at the time they did, or wait until 2006 to bring him in as a FA.

Ryan O'Keefe would have been eligible for unrestricted free agency by about 2007, so if out of contract, he'd have been free to go where he liked last year.

 

[mattys123]

it was essentially just pick 25. STK probably arent going to use 62. maybe a COL 3rd rounder as opposed to a 4th rounder mightve got the deal done.

Collingwood didn't have a 3rd round pick to trade with, as our 1st and 3rd round picks were used on Jolly.

In simple terms, both clubs weren't "desperate" for this trade to happen, so that's why both offered/accepted more/less then what would reasonably be expected when you have an un contracted player.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Collingwood didn't have a 3rd round pick to trade with, as our 1st and 3rd round picks were used on Jolly.

In simple terms, both clubs weren't "desperate" for this trade to happen, so that's why both offered/accepted more/less then what would reasonably be expected when you have an un contracted player.

then it was up to Collingwood to get a hold of one. just because they didnt have access to the pick doesnt mean the player isnt worth it.

in the end, the system failed Ball, although he isnt without blame. He shouldve had another club as an option.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Perhaps you've misunderstood. Not every player has to change clubs each year.

no, but less than 3.8% of players already in the system moving clubs is hardly the boast and a case for the merits of the trading mechanism/recruiting system in its current guise.

 

[greennick]

this is a really bad post.

in the NFL, MLB, NBA & NHL he wouldn't need a trade.

he could wait until his contract expired, and walk to the club of his choice.

Only after a certain period of time. Even then, there are restrictions. It is not as easy as it seems for players that were drafted. Undrafted players don't have the same restrictions.

And in most of those sports the kids are fully developed when they are drafted, so it is not he same as in the AFL, so you need to add at least 3 years on to it to make it fair. Otherwise clubs will become even more myopic with players than they already are. Someone needs to be responsible for the development of KPP and the like.

 

[greennick]

If they made it so you could trade future picks, that would help the situation a lot.

Though, I think we should have free agency, but it needs to kick in quite late. Maybe around the same time someone can be put on the vets list, or a few years earlier. This would be a good balance. You must really want to leave then or your club must really not rate you to lock you in at discounted rates. Hence, it is fair they don't get any compensation.

 

[iameviljez]

then it was up to Collingwood to get a hold of one. just because they didnt have access to the pick doesnt mean the player isnt worth it.

in the end, the system failed Ball, although he isnt without blame. He shouldve had another club as an option.

Exactly. Collingwood didn't want to sacrifice enough to get him, such is life.

The thing with Free Agency in the AFL is that it doesn't recognise what a club gives up to get a draftee in the first place; it sacrifices something (a pick), and hence has taken far more risk on a good player than a soccer club which signs youngsters for virtually nothing.

 

[Powerstufff]

Can someone give a realistic attempt at drawing up what free agency would look like...

Free agency means once you have been drafted and served a certain minimum term with your club (let us say 6 years) you/your manager can, on expiration of your most recent contract, sign you with any club. It is common if not univeral in professional sport in the US.

....every year the same question is asked, there is always a olayer or players that were not able to move to the club of their choice. As always the trade process does not change

And at least 1/3 of the time Collingwood leave a burnt quality player in limbo, having induced them to burn bridges with their current club and then refusing to trade with that club. BTW who was O'Keefe hoping to go to? Or did he sensibly keep that quiet?

 

[KissStephanie]

it was essentially just pick 25. STK probably arent going to use 62. maybe a COL 3rd rounder as opposed to a 4th rounder mightve got the deal done.

I don't see how the acquisition of a third round draft pick would have made any difference. St.Kilda wanted players, or pick #21 from North Melbourne so that they could trade that for Andrejs Everitt from the Western Bulldogs. I don't think they wanted two draft picks no mater what round they were.

The best Collingwood could do was trade Sharrod Wellingham and pick #30 to North Melbourne for pick #25 in return, which is a bad deal, but they were prepared to do it, and then trade that pick with pick #62 to St.Kilda. Collingwood were also prepared to trade pick #30 along with Tyson Goldsack but that wasn't enough either.

A second round pick and a third round pick wasn't going to satisfy a team that wanted players. St.Kilda simply wanted Collingwood to give up too much because they didn't want to trade Luke Ball to Collingwood, even though he is unwanted and uncontracted.

in the end, the system failed Ball, although he isnt without blame. He shouldve had another club as an option.

Luke Ball did nothing wrong. He stated that he wanted to be traded to Collingwood which is fair enough. He felt he had a specific role there that he wanted that was not available at St.Kilda or any other club.

Exactly. Collingwood didn't want to sacrifice enough to get him, such is life.

Come off it. St.Kilda wanted Collingwood to off-load two young players and two second round draft picks. Collingwood were prepared to off-load two second round draft picks and one young player which was more than fair and reasonable.

"If anyone's not up for the challenge, they can walk in and tell me and I'll move them on." - hypocrite Ross Lyon lie - 27th September, 2009.