Originally Posted by
liz
The problem there is how to determine what fair value is.
One of my other draft/trade reform ideas is to give clubs who lose an out-of-contract but non-free agent player the option of sending them to the draft if they can't negotiate what they think is fair value. But the releasing club then gets to use whatever pick they are taken at in the draft.
For example, say in two years time, 2019 RS winner Lukosis say he wants to leave Gold Coast and nominates Adelaide as the club he wants to join. Adelaide finishes runner-up that year so their first draft pick is around 17, and they're unwilling to give up any players to get a better pick. They say to Gold Coast, "take it or leave it, it's the best offer we're can make". Under the present system Gold Coast can refuse to trade and Lukosis can walk out and nominate for the draft (knowing he probably won't get to Adelaide). Gold Coast can do that but they probably won't because they get zilch back. So they're between a rock and a hard place.
Under my idea they can let him walk to the draft. Suppose St Kilda choose him at pick 3. Then that pick reverts to Gold Coast and they have the next choice in the draft. It may seem as if draft picks are being created from nowhere, like the FA compensation system, but it really doesn't disadvantage the other clubs in the same way. After all, had Gold Coast traded him to St Kilda for pick 3 during trade week, they would have had that pick anyway. It's just that Lukosis would never have been in the draft pool.
What this system would do is let the draft market decide what a fair value is for the player and also protected clubs against effectively being coerced into trading their brightest young players for well under value. It might also make players think twice about leaving their club before they are a free agent as it takes away some of their power to nominate a single club. And it would persuade clubs who want to trade for non-free agents to actually come up with the trade currency to make a proper offer, knowing that if they don't, they likely won't get that player.
To further facilitate the draft process, I'd put a cap on the contract size a player can put on their head in the National Draft. At the moment, any player who has completed two years on a list (and maybe some older players who've yet to be on a list - I'm not entirely sure) are allowed to nominate their contract terms. Clearly this would affect which other clubs might take them in the draft and could push their draft position down. The club losing the player would still get some compensation but maybe not as much as they ought. So the contract could be capped based on a range of factors, including years served, games played, possibly with adjustments for high B&F finishes, AA selections, RS winners etc. For the young stars, this would limit their contract earning potential with their new club and might further persuade them to rethink their desire to leave. Of course, once they're at their new club, if they do go through the draft, they can always negotiate a higher amount if the club is willing. But there will be no obligation on the club who drafted them to do so.
I'd also get rid of the PSD. It served its purpose before free agency but is almost never used now, and removing it would take away a potential loop hole to my proposed scheme. Indeed, I wish the AFL would just get rid of it anyway (as I know they'll never actually adopt anything along the lines of what I've suggested).
The main weakness with the proposal is that it doesn't work particularly well for the very best players where multiple high draft picks are often traded. The highest compensation a club could receive is draft pick 1. But those trades are relatively few and far between, and my proposal doesn't preclude the two clubs negotiating a trade that does involve multiple picks. It just gives the club on the losing end a better BATNA.
Bookmarks