Demons ask for priority pick - any other woofers outraged?

[Topdog]

It is the same compensation though - immediately after the first round pick. Melbourne's is earlier as they are utterly shite.

That actually shows a flaw though as it means Frawley = Buddy

[lemmon]

That actually shows a flaw though as it means Frawley = Buddy

Or it means a bottom club deserves greater compensation for losing a marquee player than a top team does

[azabob]

Or it means a bottom club deserves greater compensation for losing a marquee player than a top team does

But then other bottom clubs are also punished, like we are in this situation.

[lemmon]

But then other bottom clubs are also punished, like we are in this situation.

By that logic Carlton are disadvantaged because we got pick 26 pushing them back to 27 for Higgins.

The compensation has been built to ensure lowly ranked clubs are overcompensated for losing the relatively few gun players they've got and have a way to rebuild. I'd prefer to see a system similar to that of the NFL in which top clubs are simply unable to pick up free agents but I can see why the AFL compensation works in the way it does. It's all well and good to argue for equality when it suits us but I find it hypocritical when the shoe is on the other foot, if we were in the Dees situation I'm sure we'd feel far better about it all.

[bornadog]

By that logic Carlton are disadvantaged because we got pick 26 pushing them back to 27 for Higgins.

The compensation has been built to ensure lowly ranked clubs are overcompensated for losing the relatively few gun players they've got and have a way to rebuild. I'd prefer to see a system similar to that of the NFL in which top clubs are simply unable to pick up free agents but I can see why the AFL compensation works in the way it does. It's all well and good to argue for equality when it suits us but I find it hypocritical when the shoe is on the other foot, if we were in the Dees situation I'm sure we'd feel far better about it all.

Do you think the club receiving the player should also give up a draft pick. So in Hawthorns case they lose round 1 pick.

[lemmon]

Do you think the club receiving the player should also give up a draft pick. So in Hawthorns case they lose round 1 pick.

I think free agency is inherently anti-equalisation anyway but now that it's here, it's here to stay so we'd better figure out how to make ourselves an attractive destination. I don't think having clubs give up draft picks is the answer because it will simply make them less inclined to sign older players who should be the beneficiary. Would the Dees have picked up Crossy if it cost them a third or fourth rounder? Probably not and in an ideal world Daniel should be the poster boy for what free agency provides.

If I were to redesign the system I would publicise the compensation bands so there is no speculation that the system is being manipulated, I would put in place a rule in which top 4 clubs aren't able to pick up free agents BUT I would keep the current compensation system in which lowly clubs are more heavily compensated then top clubs for losing free agents

[LostDoggy]

Do you think the club receiving the player should also give up a draft pick. So in Hawthorns case they lose round 1 pick.

I definitely think this should be the case. Scrap the nett result business for +/- results in a particular year and consider each trade on its own merit. Hawthorn losing their first pick for Frawley would have been completely justified, the current system basically let them net Frawley and O'rourke for pick 19 or something.

In saying this, it would affect the offers that are made for FA so would not be seen kindly by the AFLPA.

Only way to make it a fair system though IMO.