Trading Players

[GVGjr]

Most sports people might have heard that the Dallas Mavericks just traded their best player Luka Doncic.
At 25 he's right in his prime and regarded as one of the best players in the NBA.

In the AFL it requires the players consent before a trade can be agreed on and the clubs are often having to accept lesser compensation to satisfy the players wishes to join his preferred club.

Is it time that the AFL grew up a little and allowed clubs to make the best deals for themselves or are you largely in agreeance that the AFL has got the balance right?
Could there be a more fair system the AFL could employ?

[angelopetraglia]

Under the current AFL system, the players have too much control. The Bailey Smith situation with the Bulldogs is a case in point. If you can nominate your club and force a club to only trade with one club, what leverage does the club have? Bailey Smith was not a free agent, but acted like he was one. That doesn't make any sense. There needs to be some balance.

However, I would not like to see the ability for clubs to trade players without their consent either, as it would most likely lead to more player movement and further accelrate this move to try replicate what the USA does in regards to sports.

Our game here is unique. The clubs are not for profit. They not some Billionaire's play things. They don't exist to make people wealthier or stroke individual egos. The clubs exist and serve the members.

A key ingredient that also differentiates us is less player movement. We need to facilate some movement, but not at the scale or frequency of leagues like the NBA. Players having strong, long associations with clubs is a key componet that makes our clubs adn game great and I would hate to see us lose it.

[Dogs 24/7]

Under the current AFL system, the players have too much control. The Bailey Smith situation with the Bulldogs is a case in point. If you can nominate your club and force a club to only trade with one club, what leverage does the club have? Bailey Smith was not a free agent, but acted like he was one. That doesn't make any sense. There needs to be some balance.

However, I would not like to see the ability for clubs to trade players without their consent either, as it would most likely lead to more player movement and further accelrate this move to try replicate what the USA does in regards to sports.

Our game here is unique. The clubs are not for profit. They not some Billionaire's play things. They don't exist to make people wealthier or stroke individual egos. The clubs exist and serve the members.

A key ingredient that also differentiates us is less player movement. We need to facilate some movement, but not at the scale or frequency of leagues like the NBA. Players having strong. long associations with clubs is a key componet that makes our club great and I would hate to see us lose it.

That's a more than fair position but we have to be more decisive and restore some balance.
At least half of the clubs in the competition are feeding the other sides and are not being compensated fairly and they need to come up with a better solution.
Could an easy solution be that any contracted player has to nominate two sides rather than one allowing his club to deal with both of them and strike a deal?
It's just not right that a player can nominate one club when there is at least two sides in every state except for Tassie when they come in.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I hate seeing players get traded. Even when it benefits us. I get that there has to be some allowance for player movement, but I do think it already happens too often for my liking. Especially when players are contacted - like what's the use of these multi-year deals when a player can just turn around and say "nope I'm out" at the drop of a hat?
Football is a team sport - if you can't put the team first, find another sport to play.

- BNC

[NAUGHTY100]

I hate seeing players get traded. Even when it benefits us. I get that there has to be some allowance for player movement, but I do think it already happens too often for my liking. Especially when players are contacted - like what's the use of these multi-year deals when a player can just turn around and say "nope I'm out" at the drop of a hat?
Football is a team sport - if you can't put the team first, find another sport to play.

- BNC

Some where along the line the AFL has to respect what number the player that wants to leave was taken in the draft , i mean Smith taken at 7 , becomes a advertising monster and we get what pick 20 , nearly 3 times less his value , smarter minds then mine have to come up with a system thats fair on the club that nurtured and developed the player , and not allow the big clubs to simply get into a players ear , encourage them to let their contract status run out and then swoop and get the player for next to nothing .

[Uninformed]

Players should be able to go wherever they want to play - especially if they don't like where they are, or even when another team is offering better benefits or opportunities.

At the same time the club invests heavily in players and should be able to protect their investment.

So Baz wants to go to Geelong. But, let's say, the club has the right to put him on the open market for best return. Then Geelong have to match, or beat, best offer. Otherwise Baz has the option of going to best offer or staying. If Geelong really valued Baz they would match best offer. If they don't value him that way it will not work out well for him down there. Would give us a bit of leverage and better chance of return on our investment in Baz. You don't want players at your club who don't want to be there.

Clubs should get agreement from players they want to trade. Should be allowed to incentivise a trade by paying destination club a bonus to the player on top of the salary that new club offers the player. Player might see more money and perhaps more opportunity as attractive and decide to go. Could be a way we could pay for the picks or new players we get from the club we trade him to.

Would make compiling and adjusting a list really interesting.

Also clubs don't exist to serve billionaires or members. They exist for one thing only: to win games of football. Loyalty, good servant of the club, money hungry, or other factors are subsidiary. If they help you win games they are useful. If not they are useless.

Situation requires the stone cold Sam Power stare.

In a similarly pragmatic way a player not professional enough to turn up to work fit to play at the elite level should have their pay docked. Especially if the club have invested heavily in him. Club should probably be able to sue for breach of contract. See if that focuses the mind.

[GVGjr]

Players should be able to go wherever they want to play - especially if they don't like where they are, or even when another team is offering better benefits or opportunities.

At the same time the club invests heavily in players and should be able to protect their investment.

So Baz wants to go to Geelong. But, let's say, the club has the right to put him on the open market for best return. Then Geelong have to match, or beat, best offer. Otherwise Baz has the option of going to best offer or staying. If Geelong really valued Baz they would match best offer. If they don't value him that way it will not work out well for him down there. Would give us a bit of leverage and better chance of return on our investment in Baz. You don't want players at your club who don't want to be there.

Clubs should get agreement from players they want to trade. Should be allowed to incentivise a trade by paying destination club a bonus to the player on top of the salary that new club offers the player. Player might see more money and perhaps more opportunity as attractive and decide to go. Could be a way we could pay for the picks or new players we get from the club we trade him to.

Would make compiling and adjusting a list really interesting.

Also clubs don't exist to serve billionaires or members. They exist for one thing only: to win games of football. Loyalty, good servant of the club, money hungry, or other factors are subsidiary. If they help you win games they are useful. If not they are useless.

Situation requires the stone cold Sam Power stare.

In a similarly pragmatic way a player not professional enough to turn up to work fit to play at the elite level should have their pay docked. Especially if the club have invested heavily in him. Club should probably be able to sue for breach of contract. See if that focuses the mind.

Do you think that might be able to be exploited?

I was just reading that Kozzie Picket has been texting Fremantle players that he will be playing there next season

This from John Ralph

Kysaiah Pickett has been texting his mates who play for Fremantle telling them he will be in Dockers colours next year.
That is a fact as he prepares to head west for the frenzy that will be created by his Indigenous All-Stars appearance next week.
To suggest anything more is pure conjecture as multiple clubs try to get to the bottom of the enigma that is the 23-year-old Demons’ matchwinning premiership player.
Fresh from a fourth placing in Melbourne’s best-and-fairest last year, Pickett has been in Darwin in recent days – a city he would ideally call home, if only the city had an AFL team.
Instead, Pickett lives in Melbourne after spending his childhood across two states – an early stint in Western Australia before living with relative Byron Pickett in Adelaide, before being drafted to Victoria.

If all this is true to me Melbourne have a vastly reduced hand to play in any trade.
In 2023 he signed a good contract with Melbourne to the end of 2027 and now he wants to change that significantly.

It's a flawed system because the players have too much control.

[JanLorMill]

It's a flawed system because the players have too much control.

That needs to be highlighted
Players naming teams they want to go to and only allowing that is bs.

[mighty_west]

i don't like the idea of players having zero choice about being traded or destination, they might be settled with a young family and bam, gets traded to the other side of the country, i get it that it's a professional sports environment, it's your job etc however they also have families to consider, i don't have an issue with players choosing the club however i think the real issue with clubs and supporters surrounds the compo more than anything, as far as i'm concerned clubs can tell players they are no longer wanted and the club asks them to basically find another club so therefor players should have rights too, for me it's a 2 way deal.

The compo side, that needs to be fixed and as we experienced with Smith, it all depends on the destination clubs hand to make a deal, had it been Richmond he wanted i have no doubt we would have received a much better and fairer deal, i think there could be some kind of system where perhaps the club (Dogs losing Smith) get nothing from Geelong, they keep their 1st round pick, however the Dogs receive compo from the AFL whether that being some kind of panel to judge a players worth (age, player grading, etc etc), which gives that club a fair pick in the draft, the same as compo for free agents, it would take the fun away from trade radio and all the drama that goes with such deals, mega deals etc but a lot fairer for clubs imo and the player still get's to where he wants to play, win/win.

Buddy Franklin was a top 5 draft pick, ended up being the best player in that draft yet the Hawks (even though they were contending and winning flags) should have been more fairly compensated especially given the contract he signed with Sydney, pick 18 was taking the piss.

[Bulldog Joe]

i don't like the idea of players having zero choice about being traded or destination, they might be settled with a young family and bam, gets traded to the other side of the country, i get it that it's a professional sports environment, it's your job etc however they also have families to consider, i don't have an issue with players choosing the club however i think the real issue with clubs and supporters surrounds the compo more than anything, as far as i'm concerned clubs can tell players they are no longer wanted and the club asks them to basically find another club so therefor players should have rights too, for me it's a 2 way deal.

The compo side, that needs to be fixed and as we experienced with Smith, it all depends on the destination clubs hand to make a deal, had it been Richmond he wanted i have no doubt we would have received a much better and fairer deal, i think there could be some kind of system where perhaps the club (Dogs losing Smith) get nothing from Geelong, they keep their 1st round pick, however the Dogs receive compo from the AFL whether that being some kind of panel to judge a players worth (age, player grading, etc etc), which gives that club a fair pick in the draft, the same as compo for free agents, it would take the fun away from trade radio and all the drama that goes with such deals, mega deals etc but a lot fairer for clubs imo and the player still get's to where he wants to play, win/win.

Buddy Franklin was a top 5 draft pick, ended up being the best player in that draft yet the Hawks (even though they were contending and winning flags) should have been more fairly compensated especially given the contract he signed with Sydney, pick 18 was taking the piss.

The idea of fair compo cannot and should not allow the destination club to get anyone for free.

Compensation should be calculated where there is no agreement between clubs and the Destination Club must pay or forgo the player.

If Bailey Smith had then been assessed as a mid 1st round Geelong should be required to pay that price, or we could trade him to a club who would pay that price.

[GVGjr]

i don't like the idea of players having zero choice about being traded or destination, they might be settled with a young family and bam, gets traded to the other side of the country, i get it that it's a professional sports environment, it's your job etc however they also have families to consider, i don't have an issue with players choosing the club however i think the real issue with clubs and supporters surrounds the compo more than anything, as far as i'm concerned clubs can tell players they are no longer wanted and the club asks them to basically find another club so therefor players should have rights too, for me it's a 2 way deal.

I don't like that notion either but other sports do use that option. Doncic had apparently just purchased a 15M home a week before the trade was made.
If players want maximum value in contracts then surely they need to make some sacrifices as well?

The compo side, that needs to be fixed and as we experienced with Smith, it all depends on the destination clubs hand to make a deal, had it been Richmond he wanted i have no doubt we would have received a much better and fairer deal, i think there could be some kind of system where perhaps the club (Dogs losing Smith) get nothing from Geelong, they keep their 1st round pick, however the Dogs receive compo from the AFL whether that being some kind of panel to judge a players worth (age, player grading, etc etc), which gives that club a fair pick in the draft, the same as compo for free agents, it would take the fun away from trade radio and all the drama that goes with such deals, mega deals etc but a lot fairer for clubs imo and the player still get's to where he wants to play, win/win.

Players demand a long term deal because they want the security but later on if they think they can do better elsewhere ie Kossie then they will play every card to get their way so that can get to the club that will pay them the most. There is no fair compensation for the club that helped them reach their abilities.
I'd consider a financial deal that say's if a player wants to break their contract that the recruiting club needs to pay a 10% fee of the average of the new deal to the club that lost the player. That applies to any new contract they sign as well.

Buddy Franklin was a top 5 draft pick, ended up being the best player in that draft yet the Hawks (even though they were contending and winning flags) should have been more fairly compensated especially given the contract he signed with Sydney, pick 18 was taking the piss.

That was a bad loss for the Hawks.

[Uninformed]

Do you think that might be able to be exploited?

I was just reading that Kozzie Picket has been texting Fremantle players that he will be playing there next season

This from John Ralph

Kysaiah Pickett has been texting his mates who play for Fremantle telling them he will be in Dockers colours next year.
That is a fact as he prepares to head west for the frenzy that will be created by his Indigenous All-Stars appearance next week.
To suggest anything more is pure conjecture as multiple clubs try to get to the bottom of the enigma that is the 23-year-old Demons’ matchwinning premiership player.
Fresh from a fourth placing in Melbourne’s best-and-fairest last year, Pickett has been in Darwin in recent days – a city he would ideally call home, if only the city had an AFL team.
Instead, Pickett lives in Melbourne after spending his childhood across two states – an early stint in Western Australia before living with relative Byron Pickett in Adelaide, before being drafted to Victoria.

If all this is true to me Melbourne have a vastly reduced hand to play in any trade.
In 2023 he signed a good contract with Melbourne to the end of 2027 and now he wants to change that significantly.

It's a flawed system because the players have too much control.

I not sure how it could be exploited. Establishing the open market trade value gives the club fair compensation. In the case of Baz. If Richmond had been prepared to offer two first rounders for Baz then that is the price Geelong must cough up if they want him. if they don't want him that much Baz has a choice of staying, going to Richmond or finding another club he likes more than us who are prepared to match or better Richmond. If, during that negotiation the club decides it is best to get rid of Baz, and Geelong won't cough up, and Baz doesn't like Richmond, the club should be free to tempt him into that with a half million payout, or pay some extra salary at Richmond. If he doesn't want to go we offer him a one year low ball contract to stay. Bye bye Baz. Unless we really want him, of course.

The other possible exploit would be a club offering something ridiculous, say four first rounders, for Baz. to shaft Geelong. The market would stop that as the deal might go through. Much like bidding too high for a father son.

The Pickett scenario should work the same. He obviously wants to go and should be allowed to play wherever he wants. The market will demand good compensation to Melbourne. Many will bid for an in-demand elite small forward and Pickett will have to hope Freo are prepared to cough that up.

As the draft is not based on where draftees want to play, you could protect the value of picks by mandating four years at the club. That's two to train them up and two to produce value. Then they are free to test the market. Gives clubs time to sell and inculcate their culture and methods. The ones that want to leave after that should not be there any more. Gives the players maximum freedom and the clubs an ability to protect their investment.

You do not want the AFL deciding compo. They always f it up. The market should set compo. You want most power in the hands of the players, then the clubs and last, by a country mile, the AFL.

[mjp]

Buddy Franklin was a top 5 draft pick, ended up being the best player in that draft yet the Hawks (even though they were contending and winning flags) should have been more fairly compensated especially given the contract he signed with Sydney, pick 18 was taking the piss.

You aren't wrong. At the same time, remember that the whole idea of the FA compensation was to do a bit of equalisation - and the fear was that good players would move from weak clubs to strong clubs...therefore the compo was tied to the position of the club from where the player is leaving...If Hawthorn had finished last they would have received draft pick 2...I know it was unfair but at the same time it was also consistent.

I don't really have an issue with the idea of FA compensation and they do it in the NFL...what I do object too is the obscure (as in, no-one knows what it is) for working out whether a player should be first round compo, 2nd round etc. Sadly, unless player wages etc are 'known', then it makes it impossible for this to be done.

I think the burden should be on the club where the player is moving TOO to make a FA 'BID' on a player within a 'BAND'.

- $x and y-years = no compensation (this should cover 90% of cases).
- $$x and yy years = 3rd round compo
etc.

If clubs bid OUTSIDE the band on the high side (say $$$$x and > 4 years) they should also need to give up their own 3rd/2nd/1st round pick as part of the deal...but this should only be in the case of super-duper stars (such as Franklin) changing clubs.