Free agency | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Free agency

FitenFitenWin said:
Your argument has merit.
Click to expand...

What makes sense to me is that whichever club the Free Agent picks, should give up one of their picks in the National Draft as compensation. The AFL rates the player either a first rounder, second rounder or whatever. The receiving club then passes that pick on to the club the free agent leaves. Under the current system the receiving club is actually only giving up its last selection in the draft as a consequence of the current model as they still get all their early picks. This is because the AFL picks the compensation on what it perceives as value. Every other club in the draft actually pays equally for, in this case Melbournes selection number 3 by dropping down the pecking order in the draft. At least the new way would have Hawthorn in this case have to actually make a decision, do they want a new young gun at pick 18 / 19 or a free agent? This changes the equation completely, the two clubs involved get reasonable compensation and the rest of the clubs do not pay a price for the transaction. makes perfect sense really.
 
TigerMasochist said:
Simplest of all solutions free agency is exactly that FREE. No compensation no bonus no extra nothing. You lose a player you instantly have extra cap space go steal some other bastards player, or better yet. Manage your club properly in the first place, so that your players are happy being there and get an honest chance at playing finals.

NRL doesn't have any major issues with players swapping clubs and there's a reasonable rotation of finals chances for all but a couple of extremely poorly run clubs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It is grossly unfair that other clubs that are not involved in free agency dealings have to wear the costs.
 
Free agency is ridiculous here. How many players are there ever going to be in the FA pool? We're not a big enough competition, nor do we have enough talent to have a viable FA model. And the compensation is such a ridiculous system. I don't think anyone aside from the AFL think otherwise.

All it's going to do is create destination and feeder clubs. The cycle will always be that a player leaves for success and the struggling club will pick more youth only to develop them and have them poached again. It's stupid.
 
taraba said:
Free agency is ridiculous here. How many players are there ever going to be in the FA pool? We're not a big enough competition, nor do we have enough talent to have a viable FA model. And the compensation is such a ridiculous system. I don't think anyone aside from the AFL think otherwise.

All it's going to do is create destination and feeder clubs. The cycle will always be that a player leaves for success and the struggling club will pick more youth only to develop them and have them poached again. It's stupid.
Click to expand...

Have to agree. Can't stand it.
 
I agree with those that don't like FA and the lopsided way compensation is handed out, but there's no way that it's going anywhere now. The players love it and it was the AFLPA that lobbied hard to bring it in, they won't be letting it go now they've had a taste if it. If they had their way I think they'd like to remove restricted free agency and lower the period a player has to be at a club before being allowed to become a free agent.
 
The problem with free agency is every club pays the price for Melbournes inability to hold on to Frawley by moving down the draft order. Secondly Hawthorn pick him up without loosing a sausage. IT cost them a few dollars and a place on the list, which is equal to their last selection in this years draft. If we changed the composition method and have the AFL ratemthe player in terms of a first rounder, second rounder third rounder in the draft rather than a specific number. Hawthorn should then have to had over their equivalent pick to Melbourne. In this case pick 18 would pass to Melbourne as compensation. This way no other club pays the price for a free agency movement, it's just between the two clubs. Hawthorn then have to make a decision, do we pick up Frawley and loose their pick 18? Or do they keep pick 18 for a new young gun?
If this was the valuation method free agents could be valued early on Melbourne would want Frawley to go to a lower ranked club so they could get an earlier pick or they may even decide more often than not to trade him the year before. Never the less the outcome is the deal is done between the two clubs, doesn't affect the draft position of all clubs and makes Hawthorn think about whether making an offer for the player is the right thing to do rather than just a budget decision as it is today.
 
It should be called "Flee Agency" as it helps fairly good players in fairly crap teams to flee to a (potential) contender

Perhaps a player shouldn't be allowed to go to a finalist from the previous season? I'm guessing the complaints from the AFLPA and the finalists would be too severe
 
Mappa said:
The problem with free agency is every club pays the price for Melbournes inability to hold on to Frawley by moving down the draft order. Secondly Hawthorn pick him up without loosing a sausage. IT cost them a few dollars and a place on the list, which is equal to their last selection in this years draft. If we changed the composition method and have the AFL ratemthe player in terms of a first rounder, second rounder third rounder in the draft rather than a specific number. Hawthorn should then have to had over their equivalent pick to Melbourne. In this case pick 18 would pass to Melbourne as compensation. This way no other club pays the price for a free agency movement, it's just between the two clubs. Hawthorn then have to make a decision, do we pick up Frawley and loose their pick 18? Or do they keep pick 18 for a new young gun?
If this was the valuation method free agents could be valued early on Melbourne would want Frawley to go to a lower ranked club so they could get an earlier pick or they may even decide more often than not to trade him the year before. Never the less the outcome is the deal is done between the two clubs, doesn't affect the draft position of all clubs and makes Hawthorn think about whether making an offer for the player is the right thing to do rather than just a budget decision as it is today.
Click to expand...

kind of like a trade you mean? as opposed to 'free' agency.
 
Barring the years Top 4 from free agency might be a good way to stop the top teams staying on top.

But other than those fleeing MFC, I don't see much exodus from weaker teams. The MFC escape is as much for how badly they ruined the club during the tanking years as much as where they are on the ladder now, if not more so.
 
Baloo said:
Barring the years Top 4 from free agency might be a good way to stop the top teams staying on top.

But other than those fleeing MFC, I don't see much exodus from weaker teams. The MFC escape is as much for how badly they ruined the club during the tanking years as much as where they are on the ladder now, if not more so.
Click to expand...

if only we had of tanked too as some wise heads on here suggested. we then could also be now reaping the benefits of more extra early picks as those we picked originally now walk out on us.
 
Brodders17 said:
if only we had of tanked too as some wise heads on here suggested. we then could also be now reaping the benefits of more extra early picks as those we picked originally now walk out on us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, opportunity missed by us again. We suck.
 
Brodders17 said:
kind of like a trade you mean? as opposed to 'free' agency.
Click to expand...

It's a refined trade if you like, the only difference is the afl determines the value of the free agent. Secondly when trades are made every other club in the league doesn't pay the price for that trade as in free agency. Where every team pays except the two clubs involved which to me is completely wrong.
 
Mappa said:
It's a refined trade if you like, the only difference is the afl determines the value of the free agent. Secondly when trades are made every other club in the league doesn't pay the price for that trade as in free agency. Where every team pays except the two clubs involved which to me is completely wrong.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately because that would involve the club being able to block the player by refusing to give up the pick for the privilege of selecting them the AFLPA would look to block a move like this because it removes some of the 'freedom' from free agency.
 
Surely the point is that the receiving club must pay a price for the free agent. They both get to choose if they want the deal and it eliminates the win win a club like Hawthorn gets by recruiting free agents for no draft cost. Also stops ever other club having to pay for the deal. Yeah I know dumb idea why should the system be fair.
 
'Yes I have a contract but I'm unhappy and want to go elsewhere. What are you going to do? Force me to stay against my will?'

The game has change with the Griffen, Beams and Boyd trades. Players hold the whip.

Good luck AFL list managers everywhere....
 
Must be some kind of record, three years in and GWS have already had five top 15 picks walk out on them, Tyson, Adams, Boyd, Jaksch and O'Rourke. Most teams haven't had that many high picks in the last decade.

Oh well, plenty more where that came from.
 
Mr Magic said:
Yep and how many of them have we got again
Click to expand...

You do realise that they have traded each of them for similar picks, along with Griffin and Heath Shaw.

What did Miles cost again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Help the AFL Monitor Supporters - Caption This | Best side to the bye >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom