Salary Cap vs Draft Picks | 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.

Salary Cap vs Draft Picks

B

Bill James

Guest
It is being discussed elsewhere so I thought I would bring it the forum. A strong argument can be made that the introduction of free agency puts more imperative on salary cap space compared to draft picks.

I and many others here have historically valued early draft picks as the way of building a strong list. Now that those draft picks can walk very easily after a couple of years, it is probably just as important to have salary cap flexibility to pick up suitable "walkers". For me what was interesting about Geelong this year was not so much how they picked up good players, but how they prepared for that period by clearing out high salary players from the list to make room.

In that context I think DR's strategy is correct, retaining players requires far more effort than it did. Getting new players in and teaching them the game plan takes time, keeping a player who has two years experience in the club systems has value in this regard. Sam Mitchell commented on how long it took Frawley to learn how Hawthorn played this year, it can't be underestimated. The other part of our strategy has been to keep salary cap space free. I presume this has been done and we still have the capacity to do a Hawthorn and grab a fish if we have to. As to not attracting players, I think when we contend deep into September that will become easier.

It will be interesting to see how Collingwood and Geelong perform this year with all their additions. North made a preliminary final this year picking up old walkers, but arguably their season was no better than last year on a win loss ratio.
 
Bill, if it is so easy for a draftee to walk after two years to a club of his choice - then why have a draft at all?

The club that originally drafts the lad will spend time and money teaching him the game at AFL level only to say goodbye when he walks to the club of his choice.

This will create "feeder" AFL clubs who will always remain at the bottom of the ladder and top AFL clubs who will always be vying for a premiership.

The AFL will be like the English Premier League where "The rich get richer and the poor can go please themselves".

Surely AFL House has to close this loophole and force a draftee to be at the club he is drafted by, for at least 7 years unless the club wishes to release him.
 
7 years won't fly. 4 might if you use the apprenticeship analogy.

Restraint of trade is something he AFL is trying to avoid
 
RemoteTiger said:
Bill, if it is so easy for a draftee to walk after two years to a club of his choice - then why have a draft at all?

The club that originally drafts the lad will spend time and money teaching him the game at AFL level only to say goodbye when he walks to the club of his choice.

This will create "feeder" AFL clubs who will always remain at the bottom of the ladder and top AFL clubs who will always be vying for a premiership.

The AFL will be like the English Premier League where "The rich get richer and the poor can go please themselves".

Youv'e just described the current status quo in a nut shell.





Baloo said:
7 years won't fly. 4 might if you use the apprenticeship analogy.

Restraint of trade is something he AFL is trying to avoid

In a nutshell.
 
4 years for draftees. 7 is a bit like the Army way and a long time.
Geelong were lucky because the high earners were at the end of career.
 
The AFL want a couple of dominant clubs, a massive middle class vying for 5-8 on the ladder and a few clubs down the bottom rebuilding. But the teams competing for 5-8 are largely sold false hope and are nowhere near a flag.
 
Baloo said:
7 years won't fly. 4 might if you use the apprenticeship analogy.

Restraint of trade is something he AFL is trying to avoid

Stuff restraint of trade, they're performers. They should go where the gig is.

I don't think there needs to be a year restriction though. It should be as simple as, if you walk from your club without Free Agency, or being traded, then you should have to sit out for a year before you're allowed to nominate for any draft, or play AFL again. Should make the Lennon's or Carlisle's think twice about threatening to go to the PSD
 
Restraint of trade is interesting can of worms, Im not sure how it can be a restraint of trade if theres a condition in the draft registration that stipulates that to be eligible to be drafted you must sign an agreement that binds you to the club selecting you for the first 4 years if your not willing you cant nominate for the draft - simple
 
St Kevin said:
The AFL want a couple of dominant clubs, a massive middle class vying for 5-8 on the ladder and a few clubs down the bottom rebuilding. But the teams competing for 5-8 are largely sold false hope and are nowhere near a flag.

Why ?