The Future of Player Contracts - Club to take back control?

[muttonchops]

With the advent of free agency now upon us we have seen over the last 2 seasons clubs lose great players to other clubs for virtually nothing and with the AFL seeing the possibility of even scrapping compo picks for free agents lost I can foresee clubs seizing back control of the situation so they are not left empty handed when a star leaves.

The way it has gone over the last couple of seasons players that have let their contract enter a final year have been the subject of huge speculation (Cloke, Franklin) Some stated some left but it is a situation clubs would prefer not to be in. If I was in charge of a club this would be a situation I would not want to be in.

I can see clubs starting to wrestle back the control. The way I see it is if a club has a player coming to the end of the contract and the player refuses to sign with say 2 years left clubs are going to start trading them out before they get to the last year so that they can at least get something for a star player. Hawthorn is a case in point. Yes having Franklin there for the last year of his contract was good and he helped win a flag but they got nothing for him. Now rewind to the end of 2012 season and what if the Hawks said if you don't sign now we are going to trade you so at least we can get something for you. This would be the clubs getting back control so they are adequately compensated.

I just feel this is the way it might go. Clubs may get a bit harder on cases like this. At the moment the players have all the power and there is no way clubs will let this continue and be bent over by players who are going to leave as free agents. It will be a bold move for a club to do this but what would a club prefer. On and open market trade a player when they can get the best possible deal or wait a year and get nothing.

Now lets use David Mundy as an example. He is a free agent at the end of next year and could walk to say Hawthorn or Collingwood who have space for nothing. Now therefore that leaves Freo with say a end of first round pick for compo say pick 18. Now if they bit the bullet at the end of this season and traded him what could they get. A top 5 pick? A player? Both? At least they have options and control. At the end of this season they wont.

I know this is just a hypothetical example but but what is better for the Freo footy club inthis situation? And that is complicated by the fact that they in premiership contention. I think it is worth discussing because I just cant see clubs putting up with getting nothing or crap picks for their players anymore.

It will be an interesting thing to follow.

 

[Suma Magic]

Contracted players can refuse trades.

 

[Kwality]

Geelong had a contract with Ablett & both parties saw the contract through. If Geelong were to change the contract retrospectively, what changes would they want, what would they give up assuming they would want Gaz to give up some rights in a rewritten contract.

Buddy is no different, he made up his mind he wanted out, played out his contract, then moved on.

As for Mundy, the potential to play in a premiership will probably drive him & it might be at Freo or any other State, not just Vic.

As the Saints proved with McEvoy, you can trade players any time.

 

[Lensen]

Yes having Franklin there for the last year of his contract was good and he helped win a flag but they got nothing for him.

they got a flag. that's pretty something.

also, this

Contracted players can refuse trades.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I doubt they'll trade out gun players due to the fear of losing them, especially if they are premiership contenders like the Cats were with Ablett and the Hawks were with Franklin.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

It's hard to find examples in the AFL since free agency is so new to us, but a caution to trading players early can be found in the NBA- where some teams are paranoid about losing stars for nothing.

Okalahoma City had three stars but feared not being able to retain James Harden under the salary cap- when an extension wasn't signed he was promptly traded out for a variety of role players and pieces. The results weren't great and few of those pieces remain with the team whilst Harden has been a revelation at Houston.

Elsewhere, Denver did the same with Carmelo Anthony with decent results. Whilst still getting role players and not a grade stars from New York, the players and picks they have got have contributed well and they had a franchise best season last year. However, they are still no closer to winning a title without a star player.

Interestingly, going by the dumping of a star player theory- imagine if Hawthorn had done that with Buddy. Would they still have won a flag? Who knows- but I'm sure they harbour no regrets over their decision to retain him for 2013.

Long story short- I think clubs will need to be wary of dumping a star early for an assortment of decent players. They need to get a very good player right back, or top draft picks, otherwise they are still losing him for relatively nothing.

 

[Rob]

I agree to an extent. Although if the player is after the highest contract he can get, he's probably not going to do it through a trade. Clubs that give up something in a trade deal are almost certainly not going to pay as much for the player as they would if they were getting him for nothing as a free agent.

You're also relying on the honesty of the player a year (or more) out from the end of his contract that he's actually going to put himself on the open market. I'd imagine most players don't want to leave clubs, but would only do so if the gap in salary offers is excessive.

 

[SSSSSS]

Didn't the Dogs do it with Lake? Lose him for nothing or get something mutually beneficial out of it. Thankfully for both parties they chose the latter.

 

[IanW]

I doubt they'll trade out gun players due to the fear of losing them, especially if they are premiership contenders like the Cats were with Ablett and the Hawks were with Franklin.

Note that clubs who are good at this trade and free agency stuff are already addressing this

http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2013-10-25/trade-stars-before-free-agency-allan

 

[Messenger]

Until the players cannot refuse a trade (and I never see them giving up that right) this is the system we're stuck with.

 

[IanW]

Until the players cannot refuse a trade (and I never see them giving up that right) this is the system we're stuck with.

Theres refuse, and refuse.

For example, lets take Dom Tyson - signs his contract extension on the dotted line at GWS but wants to go back home, family links to Richmond, and a number of fine BigFooty threads about how he's moving back there.

Melbourne come asking GWS about trading down, and now Tyson is playing in blue and red.

 

[Messenger]

Theres refuse, and refuse.

For example, lets take Dom Tyson - signs his contract extension on the dotted line at GWS but wants to go back home, family links to Richmond, and a number of fine BigFooty threads about how he's moving back there.

Melbourne come asking GWS about trading down, and now Tyson is playing in blue and red.

Tyson doesn't have the refuge of free agency available to him unless he is delisted IIRC.

If we're talking about Franklin, Dale Thomas et al., that ploy doesn't work.

 

[IanW]

Tyson doesn't have the refuge of free agency available to him unless he is delisted IIRC.

If we're talking about Franklin, Dale Thomas et al., that ploy doesn't work.

You mean like Shane Mumford the first time ? Or Jed Lamb ?

 

[Purple Suit]

I think contracts will be worked slightly differently due to free agency. Guns will be signed up on 4-5 year deals at the seven year mark. In some situations it might pay a team to shop around a star before they walk but I would be waiting until free agency compo is scraped. No point pissing of someone who might want to stay.

Cap space and contract length can also get a player for free in the PSD as per Tippet so I don't think there will be wholesale changes just because they are become a free agent and won't sign an extension.

 

[IanW]

No point pissing of someone who might want to stay.

This is the key point.

The Pittsburgh model, where a team plays a slightly unusual style that works for them, aggressively re-signs their good kids and doesnt go chasing after shiny free agents is the way to go.

The slightly unusual style means other teams dont go 'Blah is a great fit for us ! We should sign him !'

Re-signing their good kids keeps continuity, which is a good thing.

Not chasing shiny free agents means you have the cap room to re-sign your kids.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Note that clubs who are good at this trade and free agency stuff are already addressing this

http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2013-10-25/trade-stars-before-free-agency-allan

GWS is a special case where a large number of players will want out for a variety of reasons. Predicting which players will want out is pretty much impossible. Who would've thought Ablett would leave that club that had been such a huge part of his life? Clubs would be stupid to trade away their stars while they are in their prime because they have no idea if they'll leave in the future.

Should Richmond trade Cotchin now because he might want out in 2 years?
Should the Crows do the same with Patrick Dangerfield?
Should Carlton have done the same with Bryce Gibbs this year?

All three would be stupid moves.

 

[Focal#32]

It's hard to find examples in the AFL since free agency is so new to us, but a caution to trading players early can be found in the NBA- where some teams are paranoid about losing stars for nothing.

Okalahoma City had three stars but feared not being able to retain James Harden under the salary cap- when an extension wasn't signed he was promptly traded out for a variety of role players and pieces. The results weren't great and few of those pieces remain with the team whilst Harden has been a revelation at Houston.

Elsewhere, Denver did the same with Carmelo Anthony with decent results. Whilst still getting role players and not a grade stars from New York, the players and picks they have got have contributed well and they had a franchise best season last year. However, they are still no closer to winning a title without a star player.

Interestingly, going by the dumping of a star player theory- imagine if Hawthorn had done that with Buddy. Would they still have won a flag? Who knows- but I'm sure they harbour no regrets over their decision to retain him for 2013.

Long story short- I think clubs will need to be wary of dumping a star early for an assortment of decent players. They need to get a very good player right back, or top draft picks, otherwise they are still losing him for relatively nothing.

You left out Dwight Howard.
It was a complex trade, but the Lakers traded Bynum for Howard, Duhon and Clark.
A year later when his contract is up Dwight goes straight to Houston for no compensation.

It would be more effective if teams put the effort into renegotiating a contract (or extend it) as soon the the player is traded to avoid having one team screwed by the free agency deal.

The thing that stuffs up the current rule is that the team gaining the free agent doesn't want to give anything up for him (the Dal Santo thing this year is an example of this) and the team letting players go isn't being rewarded enough (the Buddy Franklin thing).

 

[Messenger]

You mean like Shane Mumford the first time ? Or Jed Lamb ?

From memory, Mumford wanted to go to Geelong and got there. If wanted to go to Brisbane but ended up in Sydney, yes.

Note that clubs who are good at this trade and free agency stuff are already addressing this

http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2013-10-25/trade-stars-before-free-agency-allan

Your asset rich right now. Lets see if your patting yourself on the back in 3-5 years when your list is structured in line with most other teams.

The thing that stuffs up the current rule is that the team gaining the free agent doesn't want to give anything up for him (the Dal Santo thing this year is an example of this) and the team letting players go isn't being rewarded enough (the Buddy Franklin thing).

Compensation stuffs the system up. Remove it and players will move more freely.

Teams will head for big deals like they did in the late 90's, early 00's. Then you'll have a player not fulfil the final half of a deal and it will scare the shit out teams.

 

[MowShow]

You left out Dwight Howard.
It was a complex trade, but the Lakers traded Bynum for Howard, Duhon and Clark.
A year later when his contract is up Dwight goes straight to Houston for no compensation.

It would be more effective if teams put the effort into renegotiating a contract (or extend it) as soon the the player is traded to avoid having one team screwed by the free agency deal.

The thing that stuffs up the current rule is that the team gaining the free agent doesn't want to give anything up for him (the Dal Santo thing this year is an example of this) and the team letting players go isn't being rewarded enough (the Buddy Franklin thing).

Unless I'm wrong, this isn't really comparable since with our system the player would lose FA rights when traded? For example if Hawthorn traded Franklin at the end of 2012, he would no longer be eligible for Free Agency after 2013 - a team that trades for a player 1 year out from Free Agency in the AFL isn't at risk of losing the player a year later.

This would completely avoid a Lakers-Howard situation.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Okalahoma City had three stars but feared not being able to retain James Harden under the salary cap- when an extension wasn't signed he was promptly traded out for a variety of role players and pieces. The results weren't great and few of those pieces remain with the team whilst Harden has been a revelation at Houston.

This isn't true.

They could have kept him, amnestied Perk and probably be on their way to a second championship by now.

Unfortunately with more liberal economic practices, leagues tend to suffer. I'm not a huge fan of free agency, but I respect the right for employees to be able to move about more freely (In fact "Australia" as a nation was created primarily to allow such a thing). We will have a few years of teething problems before it gets sorted out. The key thing is to make sure no third party deals are entered into, full stop. As it is a massive factor in having a lopsided competition.

 

[IanW]

From memory, Mumford wanted to go to Geelong and got there. If wanted to go to Brisbane but ended up in Sydney, yes.

Nope, was at Geelong, and Sydney offered him excellent personal terms.

 

[Furn2]

Free agency means you can get overs.

Sydney wouldn't have given Buddy a $10mil 9 yr deal if they had to give up Hannebury and a 1st round pick as well.

So when a player is a year of being a FA and plans on going he's just gonna wait out and get thAt monster deal.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Free agency means you can get overs.

Sydney wouldn't have given Buddy a $10mil 9 yr deal if they had to give up Hannebury and a 1st round pick as well.

So when a player is a year of being a FA and plans on going he's just gonna wait out and get thAt monster deal.

Agree. I' interested in seeing how the RFA stuff pans out though.

Frawley is heading into his last year with the MFC, then he's an RFA so we can match his contract (we have plenty of room too).

If he wants pure $$$, he will probably sign a small extension with Melbourne on massive coin, then run when he's an unrestricted agent. That's my theory anyway.

 

[IanW]

Your asset rich right now. Lets see if your patting yourself on the back in 3-5 years when your list is structured in line with most other teams.
.

Lets look at the Mumford deal, where we have up, errr, stuff all.

Then lets look at the Lamb deal, where we leveraged the Mumford deal to give up, errr, nothing.

 

[IanW]

Agree. I' interested in seeing how the RFA stuff pans out though.

Frawley is heading into his last year with the MFC, then he's an RFA so we can match his contract (we have plenty of room too).

If he wants pure $$$, he will probably sign a small extension with Melbourne on massive coin, then run when he's an unrestricted agent. That's my theory anyway.

Hi, my name's Ian, Im a GWS supporter, and I admire creative cap control and utter bastardry.

If Frawley wants massive coin, he will *threaten* to sign a small extension with Melbourne that leaves him eligible for free agency when it expires, and then have his agent talked into him signing for $3m over 4 years (which is probably a cold million more than he's worth)

Until Hogan needs a 10 year deal, Melbourne have the actual highest amount of available cap room, and Frawley's a pretty good player. If he wants to cash in, he'll threaten to leave and stay at Melbourne.