Mid-Season Trading and AFL

[Obeanie1]

I honestly can't imagine the broadcasters would support something like this.

If the teams out of contention can get raided by contending teams (which is realistically what would happen), then the number of non-competitive games towards the end of the season would very likely increase. The strong get even stronger and the weak get even weaker.

This would likely drive viewers and interest away as the season goes on.

Raided?

demand and supply will drive price.

The two likely highest valued players would be a ruck and a tall defender. Those two positions can come in and play an important role in the current season and finals.

Other positions IMO would be much harder to come into a new club and system and get up to speed. Tall forwards reading the midfield would be the most difficult position to pick up quickly Id suggest.

Id be limiting it to one trade per club in the MSD only to begin with. Just so we dont have something big happen and a semi silly outcome eventuates.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Cancel all trading?

No, just mid season ones. Honestly all this does is increase the already huge gap between Victorian and non Victorian sides. At least the after season trading players have time to prepare for a move. If there was a restriction (no players who have played an AFL game in the season) then maybe but you recon Victorian clubs would do that

 

[boncer34]

No, just mid season ones. Honestly all this does is increase the already huge gap between Victorian and non Victorian sides. At least the after season trading players have time to prepare for a move. If there was a restriction (no players who have played an AFL game in the season) then maybe but you recon Victorian clubs would do that

So players won't want to move interstate to win a flag?

 

[Obeanie1]

List attrition is a good thing, not bad.

The better hypothetical is this. West Coast and Carlton are both at the pointy end of the ladder competing for a flag. Both lose two key players from the same area of the ground. Carlton is able to trade for 2 replacements from other Vic clubs. West Coast can't attract anyone over to Perth. Carlton thrash West Coast in a prelim to make the granny using the two replacements. That is what'll happen.

Great example.

Ive been thinking through who would be most advantaged and yep, its the location with the most teams playing there. Melbourne.

100% if the Eagles or any non Vic side were desperate to land a specific player and all the Melbourne teams are looking for the same thing chances are the player will choose to stay in Melbourne and take the best offer.

The non move factor is massive. If the player has a partner working in Melbourne or they have a family and kids at school who will want to move?

So the new MST concept is great if your club is embedded in the most active market location.

 

[boncer34]

Great example.

Ive been thinking through who would be most advantaged and yep, its the location with the most teams playing there. Melbourne.

100% if the Eagles or any non Vic side were desperate to land a specific player and all the Melbourne teams are looking for the same thing chances are the player will choose to stay in Melbourne and take the best offer.

The non move factor is massive. If the player has a partner working in Melbourne or they have a family and kids at school who will want to move?

So the new MST concept is great if your club is embedded in the most active market location.

In his example he neglects to mention Carlton are now weaker in other areas than West Coast.

Unless you think clubs are going to give Carlton a leg up out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So players won't want to move interstate to win a flag?

You realise how hard it is to uproot a family? No surprise the ones that want it are Victorian clubs...who are the most vocal about any advantage non Victorian sides have. All this does is make Victorian sides stronger and them to not worry about poor list management as they'll just trade players in. Ridiculous idea.

 

[Elixuh]

Cancel all trading?

Dense.

 

[Elixuh]

In his example he neglects to mention Carlton are now weaker in other areas than West Coast.

Unless you think clubs are going to give Carlton a leg up out of the goodness of their hearts.

You're assuming all lists are equal.

Carlton might have great depth in the backline and less depth in the midfield. Carlton give up a backman to another team for a similar placed mid. Carlton are no worse off, aside from depth. West Coast hasn't been able to replace.

 

[boncer34]

You're assuming all lists are equal.

Carlton might have great depth in the backline and less depth in the midfield. Carlton give up a backman to another team for a similar placed mid. Carlton are no worse off, aside from depth. West Coast hasn't been able to replace.

Yes I'm such a fringe mid will be the difference.

 

[Elixuh]

Yes I'm such a fringe mid will be the difference.

So you agree there is no need for an MST? Glad we can agree.

 

[boncer34]

So you agree there is no need for an MST? Glad we can agree.

Clubs aren't going to trade like for like with a club in a window.

A lower club will demand overs. An equal club will laugh.

To strengthen one position you will need to weaken another.

 

[Obeanie1]

In his example he neglects to mention Carlton are now weaker in other areas than West Coast.

Unless you think clubs are going to give Carlton a leg up out of the goodness of their hearts.

How are Carlton weaker in the same season they play the Eagles later in a final?

That was the scenario.

They trade a future pick to gain a player to boost them that season.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

How are Carlton weaker in the same season they play the Eagles later in a final?

That was the scenario.

They trade a future pick to gain a player to boost them that season.

You are forgetting they may have to trade out a decent player (in an area they dont need) to make the cap room to trade in a player in an area they do need.

 

[Obeanie1]

You are forgetting they may have to trade out a decent player (in an area they dont need) to make the cap room to trade in a player in an area they do need.

True however that doesnt make them weaker.

It strenthens an area of weakness by giving up on an area of depth.

 

[HeHateMe]

Something like 1st Rd picks cannot be used and the player can't be in the top 25% of the clubs tpp.

This should stop marquee players from moving but still allow B Grade and C Grade players to move around for more opportunities.

 

[boncer34]

True however that doesnt make them weaker.

It strenthens an area of weakness by giving up on an area of depth.

Who's going to give Carlton a leg up for a depth player?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Something like 1st Rd picks cannot be used and the player can't be in the top 25% of the clubs tpp.

This should stop marquee players from moving but still allow B Grade and C Grade players to move around for more opportunities.

Starting to get more reasonale but make it 50% of the clubs TPP. Personally I'd make the restriction that they can't have played an AFL game that season.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Starting to get more reasonale but make it 50% of the clubs TPP. Personally I'd make the restriction that they can't have played an AFL game that season.

Yep.

The optics of playing for two different teams in the same season is a poor one, and I'm surprised more people aren't put off by it.

You at least limit that by only allowing movement of players who haven't represented their club at senior level yet.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yep.

The optics of playing for two different teams in the same season is a poor one, and I'm surprised more people aren't put off by it.

You at least limit that by only allowing movement of players who haven't represented their club at senior level yet.

Yep, I'm still against it but at least if it purely for a depth signing that the other club isn't using it's somewhat okay. A player turning out for one side and then a week later playing for another side is a huge problem.

 

[HeHateMe]

Starting to get more reasonale but make it 50% of the clubs TPP. Personally I'd make the restriction that they can't have played an AFL game that season.

Yeah 25% would only rule out the top couple, 50% would probably capture most of the best 22. Entirely depends how restrictive the league and clubs want it. Imo tpp is a better way to approach it than games played because of injuries/form and what not.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah 25% would only rule out the top couple, 50% would probably capture most of the best 22. Entirely depends how restrictive the league and clubs want it. Imo tpp is a better way to approach it than games played because of injuries/form and what not.

Whatever the percentage is to rule out the best 22, that's what it should be if it is enforced. Whether it be 40, 50 or 60% of TPP. I just took the figure in the middle and that should take care of most

 

[Pure_Ownage]

True however that doesnt make them weaker.

It strenthens an area of weakness by giving up on an area of depth.

Thats true but all clubs have access to this option so its not exactly biased to one or two clubs only.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Thats true but all clubs have access to this option so its not exactly biased to one or two clubs only.

Mid season will be heavily skewed to Vic clubs. Hopefully we don’t have it in any time soon. It’s bad enough losing players back home normally for unders

 

[eastfreo75]

How much of an advantage will this be to Victorian clubs, who have 9 other local clubs they can get players from?

I would imagine, it would be hard to get a player to move interstate at short notice, especially if he has a young family.

AFL players are soft. Happens all the time in professional sports that you have to move.

In the defense forces, Salvation Army and other industries people move all the time.

 

[eastfreo75]

If it is only Taberner, or Goldstein then I don't think they will make a difference. Having said that, I don't think Goldstein would move to Port, when he is already playing at North.

The type of player I am talking about is a Tom Lynch, or Jeremy Cameron level player.

Imagine if Port and Melbourne is top 4, but forward line is struggling, and Richmond and Geelong are bottom 6 with an aging list.

If Geelong and Richmond are happy to trade the player, who would they go to?

Why would you move interstate, when you don't even have to move house.

Sure role players don’t have the same impact of stars.

Let’s say that Collingwood have a few key forwards due injuries.

Taberner is sitting at Peel kicking 5 goals a game.

Fremantle trades Taberner to the pies. Dockers win as they open up salary cap space and Collingwood wins as they fill a problem.