A.F.L. Thread II

[Spikey]

Free Agency is no doubt a problem, but the idea itself is not the problem. A mixture of not free agents (we started with 53 and how many actually made it to free agency?) and the salary cap is imo the problem. For whatever reason, it seems like in AFL the salary cap doesn't actually force too many people out of their clubs. It's kinda funny that Buddy/COLA turned into such a big deal, but at least they actually lost players when they signed Buddy, which is something of a rarity. It's looking like the Hawks aren't gonna shell anyone. Essendon certainly didn't need to force people out to get Goddard in, same with the Roos/NDS, and so on.

Right now we have the issue of people really only becoming free agents coz their team sucks, and big teams being able to easily sign them

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hawks lost Franklin to free agency. Then won the flag.

Geelong lost Yiabbbblettt to GC. Then won the flag.

lelnotsureifserious.jpg

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Right now we have the issue of people really only becoming free agents coz their team sucks, and big teams being able to easily sign them

This is the issue. No matter how much list building you do, if they all up and leave to Premiership contenders within two-five years what's the point?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why are we even in the comp anymore. Just merge us with someone and be done with it.

Hawks lost Franklin to free agency. Then won the flag.

Geelong lost Yiabbbblettt to GC. Then won the flag.

Melbourne have been given every leg up possible, including the AFL funding friggin' Paul Roos. Sick of him wahhing.

Same goes for Richmond as well by the way, who whinged cos GWS and GC got picks when they were crud.

If you suck, fix your culture like Port did, recruit intelligently, and draft properly.

The thing is that if you are a rebuilding squad, you now need to have a concentration of talent in a certain age group; Port has a big concentration of players between 21-25, and getting somewhere so the older guys want to hang around. One more year of mediocrity and there would have been people piling out.

Put the real heat on drafting, even more than before. Players need to see a future if they are older than the majority of the list.

 

[howardj]

Free agents gravitating towards the top clubs wouldn't be a problem if, like in the US, the top clubs for the season just gone were excluded from recruiting free agents (David King says this rule applies in the NBA or NFL, I forget which)

As he says, the problem with free agency in the AFL is the players only want the good bits (i.e. their ability to get maximum price and their ability to shift clubs). They don't want the other bits of the US system such as where clubs can trade players without their consent

 

[Riggins]

Free agents gravitating towards the top clubs wouldn't be a problem if, like in the US, the top clubs for the season just gone were excluded from recruiting free agents (David King says this rule applies in the NBA or NFL, I forget which)

As far as I know this isn't a thing. The top clubs usually don't get the best free agents though because they don't have any space to sign them in the salary cap because they've spent their money on good players (which is why they win games).

As Spikey said, the problem seems to be in that AFL clubs seem to have no issue fitting free agents in without that meaning they have to get rid of other good players.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Free agents gravitating towards the top clubs wouldn't be a problem if, like in the US, the top clubs for the season just gone were excluded from recruiting free agents (David King says this rule applies in the NBA or NFL, I forget which)

This does not exist, the only thing stopping the best clubs from signing the best FA's is the actual working salary caps.

In the NBA you can really only fit 3 elite players into the cap, and even then unless those three take significant pay cuts to play together then the rest of your squad will be elderly gentlemen and very late round draft picks (in the NBA, if a pick is outside the top 10-15, they're generally gonna be crap. There's always exceptions but the overwhelming majority don't amount to anything).

In the NFL salaries aren't guaranteed and the cap is a bit weird, but the active roster is around 50 players and the cap is around 110mill I think, so when you have an elite QB making 25-30mill a season, good luck spending big on free agents trying to fill in those other 49. In general, the best teams are usually the ones who get lucky a few drafts in a row (Seattle) or ignore certain facets of the squad and double down on their strengths.

The problem with the AFL is as Spikey says, the cap may as well not exist as it very rarely ever stops the best teams who already have the best players from going out and signing the best players from the crap teams. The only way out is to get lucky in the draft for many consecutive years and then hope those young guys don't Scully you.

 

[Spikey]

In the NHL, the teams that have been on top for years like Boston, Chicago and LA basically can't add big stars without losing players 'cause they don't have the cap space, and I know that because everybody's salary gets leaked to the media in the end, and we've ended up with CapGeek.com - The definitive source for NHL salaries, salary cap data and player contracts

Obviously that doesn't happen here, so we don't really have any idea what each team's position is. Even as someone who supports changing it so players can become free agents after 6 years, I'd personally look at the salary cap itself and seeing whether/how it's affecting things before changing anything. ie Are front/back-ended contracts allowing teams to be too flexible?

 

[howardj]

I've been (David) King hit

 

[vic_orthdox]

Free agents gravitating towards the top clubs wouldn't be a problem if, like in the US, the top clubs for the season just gone were excluded from recruiting free agents (David King says this rule applies in the NBA or NFL, I forget which)

As he says, the problem with free agency in the AFL is the players only want the good bits (i.e. their ability to get maximum price and their ability to shift clubs). They don't want the other bits of the US system such as where clubs can trade players without their consent

Hardwick mentioned it first, which King rang with. Think Hardwick said it was from the NFL, which from the above posts indicate is incorrect.

There's still such a big culture of taking a hit to your salary to win a flag, think it will stay like that for the first few years of free agency. It's not until the guys who signed as free agents come to the end of their contracts (i.e. Higgins on $400,000 per year over four) where it starts to put squeeze on. Rapidly increasing salary cap also has relieved the pressure quite regularly too.

 

[Spikey]

oh my god

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Also, there is a system in the NFL where if you and your Free Agent player cannot come to an agreement, you can use the 'Franchise Tag' on them.

From wiki:

The tag binds the player to the team for one year if certain conditions are met. Each team has access each year to only one franchise tag (of either the exclusive or non-exclusive forms) and one transition tag. As a result, each team may only designate one player each year as that team's franchise player. It has been designed to reduce player movement (often to bigger markets) which is often evidenced in other major pro sports leagues.

Usually reserved for players of great skill or of high importance to the team, a franchise tag allows a team's general manager the privilege of strategically retaining valuable free-agent players while seeking talent through the NFL draft or other acquisitions without exceeding the League's salary cap. A team may also franchise tag a player with 2 or more years left on a contract.

The franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.

So each team gets one per year, and if you don't need to use it, you can just franchise tag a lowly player, such as a punter or kicker, and it doesn't cost the team much. Or if you think your Pro-Bowl Elite QB might be walking out, you can Tag him and figure it out later. Also, you CAN use it on the same player multiple years in a row, but their compensation rises exponentially, 120% of the tag for the second year in a row, and 144% for the third, etc. Not saying they should bring it in here or anything, but this is another way that the NFL helps its teams try to stay level and competitive even if they aren't a particularly hot destination.

 

[superkingdave]

North playing a bit of a risky game. Not really sure Higgins and Waite are the answer to bridge the gap. Still I guess the FA means, unless we lose say Greenwood because of the salary cap which we shoudn't, that they are effectively costing us a 4th or 5th round pick and the opportunity cost of playing them instead of a young player - otoh Black should have been dropped this year but wasn't because of lack of options so he'll have to earn his place next year. Waite can't be on that great a contract given Carlton aren't getting any compo at all. Wouldn't be surprised if one of Tarrant or Curran retire/leave through injury tbh

 

[Spikey]

Jesse Hogan ‏@Jesse_Hogan
Intriguing option at local cafe. Barista: "You get it in a syringe, then you become a victim all of a sudden." #whack

amazing

 

[Jono]

!!!

 

[Spikey]

got the feeling the board will probably back down and allow hird to appeal and stay as coach

 

[Jono]

And Bomber?

 

[Spikey]

clearly if that happens he's going to the gold coast.

 

[Jono]

I hope he does and Ablett tells him he's a hypocritical ****tard.

 

[Spikey]

ablett to be played at full back if he does that