Outlook Rocky: he likes an expensive Tawny

[Hollow Knight]

I understand the club's frustration with Colonel Gillon's secret herbs and spices but using the Rockliff situation as a case study isn't great IMO.

We were shoving him out the door like the Flintstone's sabre-tooth cat was shoving out Fred. The free agency picks are meant to be compensation for clubs who can't compete with the opposing club's offer, not a generous trade-in scheme.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Except for Geelong.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Except for Geelong.

Maybe.

Quite possible though that Motlop just scraped into band 2 and Rockliff was a hair away from Band 1.

 

[jjami15]

Maybe.

Quite possible though that Motlop just scraped into band 2 and Rockliff was a hair away from Band 1.

This is exactly what would have happened. Just think they have to suck it up frankly.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Maybe.

Quite possible though that Motlop just scraped into band 2 and Rockliff was a hair away from Band 1.

An argument for a sliding scale. It's like two people with an 18 year age difference considered to be a part of the same generation - boomers

 

[Lacesout]

Stop clubs from pushing players out I think.

But this is no different to an un-contracted player. Their market value is their worth. The consensus at the moment is that when a FA player leaves, pushed out or not, their market value is taken into account and the AFL will almost compensate accordingly. Why not fully? I don’t get it.

 

[CarterS]

argument could be made clubs should get nothing if they are able to yet choose to not match an offer.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lacesout]

argument could be made clubs should get nothing if they are able to yet choose to not match an offer.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

True but this would be counterproductive to the idea that a player has earnt the right to choose because with no compensation clubs are more likely to match. The goal is to promote an amicable result for player and club.

 

[braddsey]

What I think doesn't make sense in the compensation is that band-1, band-3 and band-5 are linked to the clubs ladder position. band-2 and band-4 are not. This is where the Rocky / Motlop compensation fell in the same place. If both players had got band-3, then Rockliff would have been pick-19, Motlop would have been 34.

Aside from making the compensation transparent (probably fantasy land with the AFL), I'd be inclined to fix the compensation pick position:

• band-1: after pick 10 - after non-finalists 1st pick (and mid 1st round).
• band-2: after pick 18 - end of round-1.
• band-3: after pick 28 - after non-finalists 2nd pick (and mid 2nd round).
• band-4: after pick 36 - end of round-2.
• band-5: after pick 46 - after non-finalists 3rd pick (and mid 3rd round).

By taking away the possibility that any club could end up with a top-10 pick, I think the competition as a whole would be more accepting of band-1 compensation being given.

• Tom Rockliff does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is about right.
• Steven Motlop does not equal pick-19 if Rockliff is pick 18... but he's probably better than pick 34. 19 would be acceptable, but 28 feels better.
• James Frawley does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.
• Lance Franklin does not equal pick-19 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Maybe.

Quite possible though that Motlop just scraped into band 2 and Rockliff was a hair away from Band 1.

Which could be an argument as to the need for additional bands in the middle of first round as Noble was saying.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Which could be an argument as to the need for additional bands in the middle of first round as Noble was saying.

I said it before him

 

[Jivlain]

What I think doesn't make sense in the compensation is that band-1, band-3 and band-5 are linked to the clubs ladder position. band-2 and band-4 are not. This is where the Rocky / Motlop compensation fell in the same place. If both players had got band-3, then Rockliff would have been pick-19, Motlop would have been 34.

Aside from making the compensation transparent (probably fantasy land with the AFL), I'd be inclined to fix the compensation pick position:

• band-1: after pick 10 - after non-finalists 1st pick (and mid 1st round).
• band-2: after pick 18 - end of round-1.
• band-3: after pick 28 - after non-finalists 2nd pick (and mid 2nd round).
• band-4: after pick 36 - end of round-2.
• band-5: after pick 46 - after non-finalists 3rd pick (and mid 3rd round).

By taking away the possibility that any club could end up with a top-10 pick, I think the competition as a whole would be more accepting of band-1 compensation being given.

• Tom Rockliff does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is about right.
• Steven Motlop does not equal pick-19 if Rockliff is pick 18... but he's probably better than pick 34. 19 would be acceptable, but 28 feels better.
• James Frawley does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.
• Lance Franklin does not equal pick-19 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.

Technically, bands two and four are linked to ladder position, in that within those bands they go in ladder order. So we get 18 while Geelong gets 19 because we finished below Geelong, not because of the difference in contract sizes. And, in this system (which I think is more appropriate), I would have multiple compensation picks within those bands ordered by ladder position too.

But yeah, I think this is a much better system

 

[Gadzorks]

Technically, bands two and four are linked to ladder position, in that within those bands they go in ladder order. So we get 18 while Geelong gets 19 because we finished below Geelong, not because of the difference in contract sizes. And, in this system (which I think is more appropriate), I would have multiple compensation picks within those bands ordered by ladder position too.

But yeah, I think this is a much better system

Linking it to ladder positon just ensures that teams low on the ladder remain low on the ladder. F'd.

 

[dlanod]

What I think doesn't make sense in the compensation is that band-1, band-3 and band-5 are linked to the clubs ladder position. band-2 and band-4 are not. This is where the Rocky / Motlop compensation fell in the same place. If both players had got band-3, then Rockliff would have been pick-19, Motlop would have been 34.

Aside from making the compensation transparent (probably fantasy land with the AFL), I'd be inclined to fix the compensation pick position:

• band-1: after pick 10 - after non-finalists 1st pick (and mid 1st round).
• band-2: after pick 18 - end of round-1.
• band-3: after pick 28 - after non-finalists 2nd pick (and mid 2nd round).
• band-4: after pick 36 - end of round-2.
• band-5: after pick 46 - after non-finalists 3rd pick (and mid 3rd round).

By taking away the possibility that any club could end up with a top-10 pick, I think the competition as a whole would be more accepting of band-1 compensation being given.

• Tom Rockliff does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is about right.
• Steven Motlop does not equal pick-19 if Rockliff is pick 18... but he's probably better than pick 34. 19 would be acceptable, but 28 feels better.
• James Frawley does not equal pick-2 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.
• Lance Franklin does not equal pick-19 compensation, but pick-11 is acceptable.

Better yet, all the picks have point values now - given I assume the current formula gives out a continuous range of results (see comments that Rockliff was close to band 1 while Motlop was close to band 3) why not map them on to draft values and give the losing club any pick?

 

[braddsey]

Better yet, all the picks have point values now - given I assume the current formula gives out a continuous range of results (see comments that Rockliff was close to band 1 while Motlop was close to band 3) why not map them on to draft values and give the losing club any pick?

Good suggestion. Why not do it? Because then the AFL would have to be transparent and publish the secret tamper proof formula...

 

[dlanod]

Good suggestion. Why not do it? Because then the AFL would have to be transparent and publish the secret tamper proof formula...

No they don't, they can just declare "Player X generates pick Y" same as they do now.

 

[braddsey]

No they don't, they can just declare "Player X generates pick Y" same as they do now.

True. I can see the compo meeting now...
Player X, 26 years old, $2.2mil over 4. x + y + z, multiply the square root = pick 32.
Gil: shit. That seems low. F*ck it, just throw them pick 12.

 

[lioninthesand]

Maybe.

Quite possible though that Motlop just scraped into band 2 and Rockliff was a hair away from Band 1.

This is what I think happened. We are hell bent on finding the conspiracy ATM, but really - it is very possible that is the answer.

I like Nobles suggestion of compo dropping in after pick 10 - surely that is a fair and reasonable solution. Could even do it for band 2 and 3 as well, drop them in the middle of each band.

 

[Lazza16]

Wonder how Voss/Rocky n Polec are getting along hahahahahahaha

 

[ZoBlitz]

Time for the official locking of the traded players threads.