Analysis The go home factor, equalisation, draftees requesting trades

[The Passenger]

Can't believe no one has mentioned Chris Judd, which was the biggest go home deal so far in the draft era and will take something extraordinary to top it. The Vic media couldn't line up to give a wristy quick enough to get the scoop on that one.

The system was fine a few hours ago when the Tim Taranto

14

Tim Taranto

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.3

5star

K

12.8

5star

HB

9.5

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.0

4star

CL

5.5

5star

D

15.6

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

8.0

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

trade just got announced. but now it has a problem because two SA kids and one WA kid want to go home. Give me a ****ing spell.

.

I'd have no drama if the AFL added 20 or 25% onto a player's contract if he is still at the same club he is drafted at after four years.

 

[eastfreo75]

The best solution to this would be to give every club a zone as the AFL franchises currently get. The zones would be in AFL heartland so for argument sake Geelong would have the Geelong Falcons, Hawthorn would have the Eastern Ranges, etc., and the Western Australian clubs would divide the State in two and the same with the South Australian clubs.

From your zone each club would be able to select one player prior to the draft, with the pool of players once this selection has been made thrown into the general draft. The advantage would be that every club would have a stronger interest in developing the zone they are granted and it would mean elite players would largely get to play in their home State and likely preferred club. The players that are selected in the general draft are being provided with an opportunity to play AFL football and make a huge amount of money.

The only downside is that the AFL franchise clubs would likely not support it, as it would dilute the huge advantage they currently receive, where they get the best of both worlds in having a zone and access to the draft.

NSW and Queensland is the issue and possibly Tasmania.

You could give Ireland as a recruiting zone for Tasmania. Not sure that would make a massive difference.

We need to grow the game in the northern states to make it happen.

Zones might increase the Northern state pools.

 

[iameviljez]

The best solution to this would be to give every club a zone as the AFL franchises currently get. The zones would be in AFL heartland so for argument sake Geelong would have the Geelong Falcons, Hawthorn would have the Eastern Ranges, etc., and the Western Australian clubs would divide the State in two and the same with the South Australian clubs.

I'm not saying this can never ever work, but it was a massive factor in the near-death of the VFL in the 70s and 80s, as powerful clubs sat back in their productive zones and ate up the best talent. Sides like South, Fitzroy, StKilda, Melbourne and Footscray either died or had near-death experiences.

Besides, it's certainly open to rorting. Got the next Jason Horne-Francis living a few kms from your zone? Have whisper to his family that he'd be much better off moving a few suburbs around to land in your zone, rather than being stuck at North Melbourne.

 

[quotemokc]

The AFL has a massive contract transparency issue.

Too often players are asking for trades once their front loaded contract is over.

In the NFL if a player leaves before their contract is up that team is up for a dead money hit on their salary cap.

 

[DaTBird187]

There’s also something a little bit unintentionally sexist about it, too. Hello, we’re trading you to Boston. Oh, your wife has a job here and enjoys it? That’s too bad

I like how you think NBA wives work.

 

[WillHayward]

The best solution to this would be to give every club a zone as the AFL franchises currently get. The zones would be in AFL heartland so for argument sake Geelong would have the Geelong Falcons, Hawthorn would have the Eastern Ranges, etc., and the Western Australian clubs would divide the State in two and the same with the South Australian clubs.

From your zone each club would be able to select one player prior to the draft, with the pool of players once this selection has been made thrown into the general draft. The advantage would be that every club would have a stronger interest in developing the zone they are granted and it would mean elite players would largely get to play in their home State and likely preferred club. The players that are selected in the general draft are being provided with an opportunity to play AFL football and make a huge amount of money.

The only downside is that the AFL franchise clubs would likely not support it, as it would dilute the huge advantage they currently receive, where they get the best of both worlds in having a zone and access to the draft.

You mean the huge advantage that has seen the Suns never even make finals once?

Or the huge advantage that has seen Vic clubs win 9 of the last 10 flags?

Righto. Thought so.

 

[Ant_]

Tom Boyd got off lightly, but the fact that his request came hot on the heels of Griffen’s did ameliorate it.

Lightly? Leigh Matthews wrote he hopes he fails. Caro, Quatermain, Ling all attacked Boyd going to the Dogs. Barrett was so obssesed he had an almost had a weekly article about him until he quit the game.

 

[Sphynx]

You mean the huge advantage that has seen the Suns never even make finals once?

Or the huge advantage that has seen Vic clubs win 9 of the last 10 flags?

Righto. Thought so.

Are you referring to the GF location?

When two of those 9 flags were won in Brisbane and Perth?

 

[Turbocat]

The afl has a huge problem with their draft system now

The draft is flawed but is there a better way that would stand up in court? How does the NRL do it? Players signing mid year at other clubs? Out of contract players just move?

There is a problem..on that you are correct. The model probably doesn't stand up to the 2020's tastes and youthful expectations.

The draft spreads the talent but the contractual system can not hold them there. If you push highly talented players to where they would not have originally chosen... when they get a choice they will often take it and rectify that original lack of choice. No one is worried about the kid who was pick 60 in the draft getting flicked.. or the kid drafted mid year getting delisted after a few months. Its the kids taken early that have perceived value.

The draft has an element of unfairness on the players that has been accepted to try to spread young talent... and since the afl has increased the ability for players to move, and that taint of player moving clubs has lessened because we have a profession comp..not one based around tribalism or zones. Is it fair to push some and not others? One player who is a Rookie B can sign at club he chooses and another kid just gets told to move... is it any wonder that in this era that young players are not willing to wait for what they would prefer.

Those who want extended draft contracts should think what it would take to get that approved. A probable reduction in FA rules could be one outcome. Maybe FA kicks in at 5 or 6 years. Then clubs who struggle to hold player would be losing players like Taranto age for zero.. or comp if comp still existed.

And as much as it causes pain , the AFL enjoy all the attention trade week brings. I cant see change happening but I agree it needs to be altered.

 

[The Kings Ransom]

Why are first round picks playing at s**t clubs the vast majority of players that get homesick… sounds like the same textbook as mental health issues when white “anti-inflammatory” powder videos get leaked.

Spot on.

When’s the last time a pick 55 demanded out because of ‘home sickness

I think they’d be completely fine if just left to play there.

When port Adelaide (in the most recent instance) is speaking with your manager from the day your drafted asking if your interested in coming home… all you need to do is say ‘I’m homesick’

’

 

[Cornelius Roy]

It's fun that the reigning premiers are looking like they'll get two first round picks at this years draft with one being 7 simply for taking on, and amending, the contract of a 24-year old previous top ten pick.

Would give my left nut to be a Geelong supporter right now.

 

[iameviljez]

It's fun that the reigning premiers are looking like they'll get two first round picks at this years draft with one being 7 simply for taking on, and amending, the contract of a 24-year old previous top ten pick.

Would give my left nut to be a Geelong supporter right now.

Just pop on the 92 and 94 replays mate

 

[iameviljez]

Can't believe no one has mentioned Chris Judd, which was the biggest go home deal so far in the draft era and will take something extraordinary to top it. The Vic media couldn't line up to give a wristy quick enough to get the scoop on that one.

The system was fine a few hours ago when the Tim Taranto trade just got announced. but now it has a problem because two SA kids and one WA kid want to go home. Give me a ******* spell.

FWIW, I don’t think there is a major issue with the system, but Judd’s go home had to be connected to the West Coast implosion, too.

 

[Simche]

The best solution to this would be to give every club a zone as the AFL franchises currently get. The zones would be in AFL heartland so for argument sake Geelong would have the Geelong Falcons, Hawthorn would have the Eastern Ranges, etc., and the Western Australian clubs would divide the State in two and the same with the South Australian clubs.

From your zone each club would be able to select one player prior to the draft, with the pool of players once this selection has been made thrown into the general draft. The advantage would be that every club would have a stronger interest in developing the zone they are granted and it would mean elite players would largely get to play in their home State and likely preferred club. The players that are selected in the general draft are being provided with an opportunity to play AFL football and make a huge amount of money.

The only downside is that the AFL franchise clubs would likely not support it, as it would dilute the huge advantage they currently receive, where they get the best of both worlds in having a zone and access to the draft.

This completely ignores the fact that not all zones are equal and in the 70s the power clubs simply refused to 'rotate' zones as they were supposed to leading to a situation which really entrenched clubs with good zones. Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton and North Melbourne won every flag between 67 and 83. Modern zoning would be a disaster for the northern clubs and any Vic clubs who copped dud zones. It would hugely benefit WA and SA sides.

The only real solution in my view is to negotiate out player approval in trades in the CBA unless specifically qualified for a 'no trade' clause after a certain tenure of years. I would then completely eliminate RFA, with all concluding contracts qualifying for FA and extend draftee contract terms to 3 years with a club option for 1 for first round and 2 and 1 for 2-4th round etc.

The players need to realise what a privilege it is to play AFL and if that means you have to see out 3 years somewhere you don't want to live, bad luck. Clubs therefore can get full market value for want away players and have more flexibility with their lists. It is the way forward.

 

[rabidcrow]

Are you referring to the GF location?

When two of those 9 flags were won in Brisbane and Perth?

When they happened to be two VIC teams playing ? Not that relevant one would think


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[iameviljez]

Spot on.

When’s the last time a pick 55 demanded out because of ‘home sickness

Admittedly, p55 just doesn't have choice. Usually those picks don't make it past two or three years anyway.

 

[iameviljez]

The only real solution in my view is to negotiate out player approval in trades in the CBA unless specifically qualified for a 'no trade' clause after a certain tenure of years. I would then completely eliminate RFA, with all concluding contracts qualifying for FA and extend draftee contract terms to 3 years with a club option for 1 for first round and 2 and 1 for 2-4th round etc.

So in other words, players can be traded wherever the clubs like in the first x years of their career, without the need for player approval? Come on.

 

[iameviljez]

This completely ignores the fact that not all zones are equal and in the 70s the power clubs simply refused to 'rotate' zones as they were supposed to leading to a situation which really entrenched clubs with good zones. Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton and North Melbourne won every flag between 67 and 83. Modern zoning would be a disaster for the northern clubs and any Vic clubs who copped dud zones. It would hugely benefit WA and SA sides.

Add in Essendon and it's every flag up until 1989.

 

[Jibroni]

Increase the draft age to 19 and give all top 20 picks mandatory 3 year contracts.

 

[The Kings Ransom]

Admittedly, p55 just doesn't have choice. Usually those picks don't make it past two or three years anyway.

yeah, that's the point - homesickness is almost a choice for the top rated guys.

 

[Robroy22]

It's fun that the reigning premiers are looking like they'll get two first round picks at this years draft with one being 7 simply for taking on, and amending, the contract of a 24-year old previous top ten pick.

Would give my left nut to be a Geelong supporter right now.

Sorry but it costs both nuts....

 

[FB19]

A lot to be fixed equalisation is a farce with magic compo, free agency disproportionately aiding the top clubs the draft not working for rebuilds. Free agency theory doesn’t work in large part in the afl because it seems most players chase success at a reduced rate to open market not cash. And the club getting the agent only gives up cap space at a reduced rate. We need to force the club to give up draft capital too, I guess by changing compo to be forced trading i.e. whatever the compo pick value the club getting the free agent has to hand over that or a greater value pick they either have or are forced to acquire. I see this as the only way to bridge the reduced rate gap

 

[Denno]

Victorian clubs benefitting the most from the "go-home" factor is a myth perpetuated on here nearly every day.

Do more players get traded to Victorian clubs than any other single state? Yes, they do - but that's because there are 10 clubs in Victoria.

Do players really move because they are homesick? Not often, no. Most of the time players move because they have been offered a better contract (let's be honest, this is the majority), or a better role or a better chance at success. Players rarely move just to 'go home', otherwise they would be nominating a state and not a specific club that has lured them with the best contract.

For those that are just looking to move to a certain state, Victorian teams have 9 other clubs competing for the contract. Not only does this mean they have to pay more to get their man, but each individual club is not overly benefitted because the spoils are split 10 ways. Non Victorian clubs, when a player identifies they wish to go to WA, SA, etc - only have 1 other club they are competing with - and most of the time, one of the clubs is massively struggling (West Coast Now, Freo previously, Adelaide now, Port previously, Gold Coast now, GWS now, etc). IN other words, if a player wants to go to WA or SA, for example, the likes of Freo (WC up until the last season or 2) have a VERY high likelihood of getting that player (AND can offer less as their is only 1 struggling alternative). If a player wants to 'go home' to Victoria, you always have several other top 4 and top 8 clubs who can attract his signature just as easily. Look at North, how many big name recruits have they attracted over the years? Barely any.

This whole idea that non-Victorian clubs deserve advantages to compensate for the 'leg up' that Victorian teams get from the "go-home" factor is a myth. Non Victorian clubs are advantaged as much, if not more so, than their individual Victorian counterparts. Looking at the raw numbers of players traded back to their home state and dividing by the number of clubs in that state confirms that (without even factoring in that players typically move for reasons other than 'going home' anyway).

You're looking at it completely wrong.

The non-Vic clubs are clearly at a disadvantage when the majority of players, in any given trade period, move back to Vic (ie, go home). Irrespective of the club they land at, to deny that most players return "home" in some way, when players do in fact move, is a complete mis-read on things. If it wasn't about "going home", players would be moving in all directions (ie, more or less random), when in fact there is a clear trend, each and every trade period. It's undeniable, and we can revisit again once this trade period is over.

Clearly, there are players that buck the common trend (ie, move away) - this is where better contracts/role, etc kick in as a selling point. In a number of cases, the players are "damaged goods" that just want/need a fresh start. You see far more players in their prime move "back home". Already, we've had Taranto, McStay, Amon confirmed, with Hopper, JHF, Jackson, Rankine and a host of others to follow this trade period. It's been a trend ever since the competition has been national, and the (Vic) clubs know and play on this - hence why they (interstaters) have to pay overs to retain talent.

The "non-football" states are even more exposed. GWS (as an example) - Hopper, Taranto, Bruhn and Hill (this being a neutral move) gone this year, after Cameron, Corr, Langdon and Caldwell 2 years ago (Williams bucked the trend). Just because not every Vic club gained equally from each movement, doesn't mean GWS (and the others) aren't disadvantaged proportionally.

Separate issue, but this is why the academies are so important, longer term. Eventually, hopefully all clubs can trade for players coming home. It's not really a card the NSW/QLD teams can play at the moment.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

You're looking at it completely wrong.

The non-Vic clubs are clearly at a disadvantage when the majority of players, in any given trade period, move back to Vic (ie, go home). Irrespective of the club they land at, to deny that most players return "home" in some way, when players do in fact move, is a complete mis-read on things. If it wasn't about "going home", players would be moving in all directions (ie, more or less random), when in fact there is a clear trend, each and every trade period. It's undeniable, and we can revisit again once this trade period is over.

Clearly, there are players that buck the common trend (ie, move away) - this is where better contracts/role, etc kick in as a selling point. In a number of cases, the players are "damaged goods" that just want/need a fresh start. You see far more players in their prime move "back home". Already, we've had Taranto, McStay, Amon confirmed, with Hopper, JHF, Jackson, Rankine and a host of others to follow this trade period. It's been a trend ever since the competition has been national, and the (Vic) clubs know and play on this - hence why they (interstaters) have to pay overs to retain talent.

The "non-football" states are even more exposed. GWS (as an example) - Hopper, Taranto, Bruhn and Hill (this being a neutral move) gone this year, after Cameron, Corr, Langdon and Caldwell 2 years ago (Williams bucked the trend). Just because not every Vic club gained equally from each movement, doesn't mean GWS (and the others) aren't disadvantaged proportionally.

Separate issue, but this is why the academies are so important, longer term. Eventually, hopefully all clubs can trade for players coming home. It's not really a card the NSW/QLD teams can play at the moment.

I know this is what some complain of but is it actually true? The advantage to Vic clubs is not evident from the numbers - but is the disadvantage to Non-Vic Clubs evident?

It's a time consuming process so I only looked at last year and excluding delisted free agents for obvious reasons (i.e. it's not a disadvantage to lose an already delisted player) this is how many players were lost to free agency and trades last year:

Free agents leaving a Victorian club (regardless of destination): 3
Free agents leaving a non-Vic club: 2

Players traded from a Vic club: 11
Players traded from a non-Vic club: 5

It's just one years example, but this doesn't confirm the "every year" trend you mentioned at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Even of the 5 players traded out of non Victorian clubs, this is where they ended up:

1 - Fremantle (Will Brodie)
1 - Adelaide (Jordan Dawson)
1- Port Adelaide (Finlayson)
1- Sydney (Ladhams)
1- Carlton (Cerra)

So Victorian teams lost twice as many players as non Victorian teams last year and of all the players to be traded from non-Victorian teams, only 1 went to Victoria (interestingly, this one player also elicited the most grievances about seeking a trade).

I'm not saying you're wrong and it isn't a trend (I've only looked at 1 year out of many) but in so many instances the claims of significant Victorian advantages have proven to be false with further research and I'm yet to see any evidence that confirms that Victorian clubs are significantly more advantaged and non Vic clubs are significantly more disadvantaged (certainly nothing that compares to the advantage that the Swans academy provides - with this "go home" factor the main argument for it).

 

[Guardian Hawk]

You're looking at it completely wrong.

The non-Vic clubs are clearly at a disadvantage when the majority of players, in any given trade period, move back to Vic (ie, go home). Irrespective of the club they land at, to deny that most players return "home" in some way, when players do in fact move, is a complete mis-read on things. If it wasn't about "going home", players would be moving in all directions (ie, more or less random), when in fact there is a clear trend, each and every trade period. It's undeniable, and we can revisit again once this trade period is over.

Clearly, there are players that buck the common trend (ie, move away) - this is where better contracts/role, etc kick in as a selling point. In a number of cases, the players are "damaged goods" that just want/need a fresh start. You see far more players in their prime move "back home". Already, we've had Taranto, McStay, Amon confirmed, with Hopper, JHF, Jackson, Rankine and a host of others to follow this trade period. It's been a trend ever since the competition has been national, and the (Vic) clubs know and play on this - hence why they (interstaters) have to pay overs to retain talent.

The "non-football" states are even more exposed. GWS (as an example) - Hopper, Taranto, Bruhn and Hill (this being a neutral move) gone this year, after Cameron, Corr, Langdon and Caldwell 2 years ago (Williams bucked the trend). Just because not every Vic club gained equally from each movement, doesn't mean GWS (and the others) aren't disadvantaged proportionally.

Separate issue, but this is why the academies are so important, longer term. Eventually, hopefully all clubs can trade for players coming home. It's not really a card the NSW/QLD teams can play at the moment.

Decided to do 2020 as well:

Free agents exiting Vic Club: 3
Free agents exiting Non Vic: 4

Players traded from Vic clubs: 16
Players traded from non Vic Clubs: 10 (again, with most going to other non Vic clubs)

So, I've checked 2 years now and in both cases, Vic clubs lost considerably more players than non Vic clubs. The "every year trend" of the opposite has not yet emerged.