Pick 1 2023 Trade value - What would it take?

[Roosurgence]

Agree pick 1 and 16 are irrelevant.. I think you would agree that if someone gives enough for pick 2 for McKay, that is gigantic overs?

Of course it is. But I am of the opinion that the FA pick should be in line with what the contract deems it to be. So if that’s Pick 2, 19 or something above, so be it.

It shouldn’t form any part of compensation. It’s a pick in line with current AFL rules. People are arguing the number of the pick, when they should be questioning the rules. It’s not like we get Pick 2 for free, we have to give up a key defender in his prime. You can argue his actual value until the cows come home, but we are still giving up something, it’s not a gift where we give nothing in return.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Of course it is. But I am of the opinion that the FA pick should be in line with what the contract deems it to be. So if that’s Pick 2, 19 or something above, so be it.

It shouldn’t form any part of compensation. It’s a pick in line with current AFL rules. People are arguing the number of the pick, when they should be questioning the rules. It’s not like we get Pick 2 for free, we have to give up a key defender in his prime. You can argue his actual value until the cows come home, but we are still giving up something, it’s not a gift where we give nothing in return.

Like my other post, that is fine, the gigantic overs is then enough "assistance" for the year and an additional leg-up is not required

 

[Roosurgence]

Like my other post, that is fine, the gigantic overs is then enough "assistance" for the year and an additional leg-up is not required

It’s not overs if the contract meets the requirements. It’s the actual entitlement as per AFL rules. It needs to be separated from the assistance conversation, because if we were not asking for assistance we would still get that result. The only premise I agree that it’s overs is if the AFL manipulate the outcome to give us Pick 2 when the contract wasn’t actually Band 1.

Argue against the rule and application of the rule, buts it’s nothing to do with any outside assistance.

If West Coast were last and Barrass left as a free agent the same logic is applied. People are trying to make out like we are being given something for a FA above what any other club in the same situation would be given, which is false.

 

[Big_Birdy]

It’s not overs if the contract meets the requirements. It’s the actual entitlement as per AFL rules. It needs to be separated from the assistance conversation, because if we were not asking for assistance we would still get that result. The only premise I agree that it’s overs is if the AFL manipulate the outcome to give us Pick 2 when the contract wasn’t actually Band 1.

Argue against the rule and application of the rule, buts it’s nothing to do with any outside assistance.

If West Coast were last and Barrass left as a free agent the same logic is applied. People are trying to make out like we are being given something for a FA above what any other club in the same situation would be given, which is false.

The safety net to stop anomalous results, like pick 2 for McKay, is built into the system. It won't be manipulation to deny you pick 2 even if the contract meets band 1 compo. You aren't entitled to it if it falls that way.

That may not happen, but the AFL will be operating within its rules if it does.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It’s not overs if the contract meets the requirements. It’s the actual entitlement as per AFL rules. It needs to be separated from the assistance conversation, because if we were not asking for assistance we would still get that result. The only premise I agree that it’s overs is if the AFL manipulate the outcome to give us Pick 2 when the contract wasn’t actually Band 1.

Argue against the rule and application of the rule, buts it’s nothing to do with any outside assistance.

If West Coast were last and Barrass left as a free agent the same logic is applied. People are trying to make out like we are being given something for a FA above what any other club in the same situation would be given, which is false.

It doesnt need to be separated because your not entitled to assistance. Everything has to be taken into account. You received help last year getting two mature players for free which is more than anyone else recently got including teams who have be a longer record of not doing much than you.

Your position has you entitled to some form of additional leg up from the AFL. That is not correct, there are no rules about it, it is entirely subjective.

 

[Wild Bill]

So not wining in Tassie this weekend could and should be considered tanking? Can't wait for Saturday lol

No, if Sanders is granted NGA(dubious AFL call) pick15 will be used to match a bid, and pushed back based into the second or third round based on residual points.

That's if the AFL gives North the concession to match a bid inside the top 40. Concessions, concessions, concessions. Freo would like the same so they can match a bid for Edwards.

Tipping the viewing numbers will go through roof if the game is close late in the 4th!!

 

[Roosurgence]

It doesnt need to be separated because your not entitled to assistance. Everything has to be taken into account. You received help last year getting two mature players for free which is more than anyone else recently got including teams who have be a longer record of not doing much than you.

Your position has you entitled to some form of additional leg up from the AFL. That is not correct, there are no rules about it, it is entirely subjective.

We are entitled to Pick 1, the compensation for McKay leaving as a FA and Pick 16. They are entitlements as per AFL rules. To try and state that these are assistance is factually wrong.

Yes, anything above this assistance. You are correct we aren’t entitled to anything, but we have the right to apply and the AFL can make a call if our predicament warrants it.

I am assuming you are leaving the Gold Coast out of your statement, as they received an assistance package that dwarves anything we got last year and would ask for this year recently and were statistically better than what we have been over our period at the bottom.

 

[Roosurgence]

The safety net to stop anomalous results, like pick 2 for McKay, is built into the system. It won't be manipulation to deny you pick 2 even if the contract meets band 1 compo. You aren't entitled to it if it falls that way.

That may not happen, but the AFL will be operating within its rules if it does.

It’s not built into the system. Have a look at what Melbourne received for Frawley. It was argued at the time this was way overs for a player of his age and calibre. But because of Melbourne’s finishing position and Band 1 grading they received the pick straight after their first as per AFL rules.

You can argue the system is stupid, but the pick we get for McKay will be as per the Band dictated by the player age and contract.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

We are entitled to Pick 1, the compensation for McKay leaving as a FA and Pick 16. They are entitlements as per AFL rules. To try and state that these are assistance is factually wrong.

Yes, anything above this assistance. You are correct we aren’t entitled to anything, but we have the right to apply and the AFL can make a call if our predicament warrants it.

I am assuming you are leaving the Gold Coast out of your statement, as they received an assistance package that dwarves anything we got last year and would ask for this year recently and were statistically better than what we have been over our period at the bottom.

You are entitled to pick 1, you are entitled to pick 2 if the amount paid is enough. I have never disputed that and the arguments people are putting forth are wrong. You are entitled to apply and I believe the AFL will take all circumstances into account before giving assistance that you can ask for, but shouldn’t necessarily get.

GC operate under a different set of rules and I am comfortable with that

 

[Big_Birdy]

It’s not built into the system. Have a look at what Melbourne received for Frawley. It was argued at the time this was way overs for a player of his age and calibre. But because of Melbourne’s finishing position and Band 1 grading they received the pick straight after their first as per AFL rules.

You can argue the system is stupid, but the pick we get for McKay will be as per the Band dictated by the player age and contract.

It is built in, it is right there on the website explaining some of the rules (but clearly not all, otherwise a committee wouldn't be needed only a calculator). It is also not just age and contract and this should not be in dispute at this point given all the previous evidence provided.

Melbourne got pick 3 for Frawley for lots of other reasons. It wasn't handing a club pick 1 and 2. GWS were already getting picks 6 and 7 on top of 3 so getting pushed back a spot wasn't as bad as it could have been. And Brisbane had already offloaded their pick 4 to Collingwood for Beams, so they didn't care who got pushed back. Collingwood also already had another first rounder and Darcy Moore coming as a F/S. So Melbourne benefitted without all the fellow strugglers being done in completely for that draft.

Also, Frawley although not worth pick 3, was probably worth at least an early teens pick at worst. It is easier to accept getting a pick a few places higher than the players worth in FA. We are talking 20 odd places here with McKay. They are not close to the same thing, and the AFL has left themselves wriggle room in these situations to stop it, like they did with Rockliff.

 

[Roosurgence]

It is built in, it is right there on the website explaining some of the rules (but clearly not all, otherwise a committee wouldn't be needed only a calculator). It is also not just age and contract and this should not be in dispute at this point given all the previous evidence provided.

Melbourne got pick 3 for Frawley for lots of other reasons. It wasn't handing a club pick 1 and 2. GWS were already getting picks 6 and 7 on top of 3 so getting pushed back a spot wasn't as bad as it could have been. And Brisbane had already offloaded their pick 4 to Collingwood for Beams, so they didn't care who got pushed back. Collingwood also already had another first rounder and Darcy Moore coming as a F/S. So Melbourne benefitted without all the fellow strugglers being done in completely for that draft.

Also, Frawley although not worth pick 3, was probably worth at least an early teens pick at worst. It is easier to accept getting a pick a few places higher than the players worth in FA. We are talking 20 odd places here with McKay. They are not close to the same thing, and the AFL has left themselves wriggle room in these situations to stop it, like they did with Rockliff.

It was handing a club Pick 2 and 3 LOL.

Just admit it you are shitty that West Coast could be pushed back to 3. Your whole argument is based on anger at the situation and no relevance to the system.

As other posters have stated, if another club is stupid enough to put a contract in front of McKay that triggers Band 1, then that’s his worth…… BAND 1!!!!

You can argue his actual trade value all you like. It has nothing to do with what Band applies. The inverse happened with Franklin. He was worth shit tonnes more than Pick 19 but he is classified as Band 1, which is the pick after your first.

As Chadwiko stated the system is designed to help teams at the bottom get value to replace losing a player in their prime.

You can hate it all you want, but that’s the system.

If West Coast were in the top 4 you wouldn’t even be commenting. The interesting thing is the majority of posters in this thread are posters of clubs near the bottom of the ladder who are of the opinion we are taking something from them.

 

[Roosurgence]

You are entitled to pick 1, you are entitled to pick 2 if the amount paid is enough. I have never disputed that and the arguments people are putting forth are wrong. You are entitled to apply and I believe the AFL will take all circumstances into account before giving assistance that you can ask for, but shouldn’t necessarily get.

GC operate under a different set of rules and I am comfortable with that

100% agree, except the Gold Coast part.

What is scary is the AFL have done such a good job of brainwashing people that they are actually ok with having a different set of rules for different teams.

As a professional sport, there should be one set of rules that apply to all teams equally.

 

[Big_Birdy]

It was handing a club Pick 2 and 3 LOL.

Just admit it you are shitty that West Coast could be pushed back to 3. Your whole argument is based on anger at the situation and no relevance to the system.

As other posters have stated, if another club is stupid enough to put a contract in front of McKay that triggers Band 1, then that’s his worth…… BAND 1!!!!

You can argue his actual trade value all you like. It has nothing to do with what Band applies. The inverse happened with Franklin. He was worth s**t tonnes more than Pick 19 but he is classified as Band 1, which is the pick after your first.

As Chadwiko stated the system is designed to help teams at the bottom get value to replace losing a player in their prime.

You can hate it all you want, but that’s the system.

If West Coast were in the top 4 you wouldn’t even be commenting. The interesting thing is the majority of posters in this thread are posters of clubs near the bottom of the ladder who are of the opinion we are taking something from them.

Its a very simple riddle which can answer this whole debate.

If it is purely based on player contract and age, why is there an expert committee to review outcomes?

Free Agency - AFL.com.au

 

[Jibroni]

It’s not built into the system. Have a look at what Melbourne received for Frawley. It was argued at the time this was way overs for a player of his age and calibre. But because of Melbourne’s finishing position and Band 1 grading they received the pick straight after their first as per AFL rules.

You can argue the system is stupid, but the pick we get for McKay will be as per the Band dictated by the player age and contract.

He was 26 at the time, an All Australian and one of the premier defenders at the time. Maybe pick 3 was a little high but Mckay is not in the same band.

 

[Obeanie1]

Sheezels been our best this year a lock for our bnf

Wardlaw when fit has had a huge impact also but hasn’t played more than a third of the year

The elite young talent have immediate impact these days to making a side better

And elite young talent being relied on to carry the team too early is not great.

Josh Fraser perfect example.

North keep throwing kids into the mince grinder they will get a sugar hit every so often but they will end up with ruined bodies and short careers.

 

[Obeanie1]

100% agree, except the Gold Coast part.

What is scary is the AFL have done such a good job of brainwashing people that they are actually ok with having a different set of rules for different teams.

As a professional sport, there should be one set of rules that apply to all teams equally.

Cool. That would mean clubs get the soft cap increased back to what it was even though North didn't have the coin to pay it.

But everyone had to lower their spending to what North and others could afford.

 

[Roosurgence]

Cool. That would mean clubs get the soft cap increased back to what it was even though North didn't have the coin to pay it.

But everyone had to lower their spending to what North and others could afford.

Don’t have an issue with it if the competition is set up equally across all teams.

What you have demonstrated is that the rule is equally applied with all clubs having the same cap limit, as it should be.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Cool. That would mean clubs get the soft cap increased back to what it was even though North didn't have the coin to pay it.

But everyone had to lower their spending to what North and others could afford.

It's not North Melbourne's fault though that Nizzie and The Eagle's board chose to give Simpson a massive and costly long term contract a few Years ago, which included significant interest in a couple of Hunry Jacks franchises over in WA.

The deal the Eagles gave Simpson with those two HJ restaurants does sound fairly dicey tbh

 

[Chadwiko]

Cool. That would mean clubs get the soft cap increased back to what it was even though North didn't have the coin to pay it.

But everyone had to lower their spending to what North and others could afford.

 

[beagles]

It’s not overs if the contract meets the requirements. It’s the actual entitlement as per AFL rules. It needs to be separated from the assistance conversation, because if we were not asking for assistance we would still get that result. The only premise I agree that it’s overs is if the AFL manipulate the outcome to give us Pick 2 when the contract wasn’t actually Band 1.

Argue against the rule and application of the rule, buts it’s nothing to do with any outside assistance.

If West Coast were last and Barrass left as a free agent the same logic is applied. People are trying to make out like we are being given something for a FA above what any other club in the same situation would be given, which is false.

Leave West Coast out of this. They have not applied for compensation, nor should have North.

 

[Roosurgence]

Leave West Coast out of this. They have not applied for compensation, nor should have North.

If they had just won 3 wooden spoons in a row and been at the bottom of the table for 4 plus years, you can put your house on them asking for assistance.

Why don’t you type what you really mean…….. I’m having a massive sook because North could push out West Coast pick to 3 and I will throw a tantrum about it. It’s nothing to do with compensation, it’s all about the perception that your club is losing something.

 

[beagles]

Don’t have an issue with it if the competition is set up equally across all teams.

What you have demonstrated is that the rule is equally applied with all clubs having the same cap limit,

If they had just won 3 wooden spoons in a row and been at the bottom of the table for 4 plus years, you can put your house on them asking for assistance.

Why don’t you type what you really mean…….. I’m having a massive sook because North could push out West Coast pick to 3 and I will throw a tantrum about it. It’s nothing to do with compensation, it’s all about the perception that your club is losing something.

So you are OK with giving WC AFL assistance? I am laughing so much it's hurting. I can just hear the comments....

 

[SheezNuts]

North wont get additional assistance.

North will get Pick 2(Compo) and Sanders.

Which will likely mean their draft hand is 1,2,15 + Sanders

or if it goes the other way this weekend, 2,3,15 + Sanders.

This is it.

 

[Demon 16]

Instead of all the North supporters carrying on about how many other picks you want, why don’t you throw up some thoughts as to what pick 1 might be worth?

 

[Keystone agony]

Instead of all the North supporters carrying on about how many other picks you want, why don’t you throw up some thoughts as to what pick 1 might be worth?

I dont think anyone has the capital their willing to give up for North to bypass it