Motown said:
My problem with that is that it makes the draft too important with virtually one path to success. The only scope to improve chances for success in the draft, all other things being equal, is improving your position in the draft by either trading for extra picks or moving up the draft order. The first method is and will become largely fruitless as the value of picks, real and perceived, will rise while the second leads to dark places.
I agree entirely that the MLB and soccer models are not for us, where success is intimately tied to cheque books. By the same token, though, a system where the only method of improvement is inversely proportional to performance is an undesirable extreme as well.
It is not incumbent upon us to follow any particular FA model, nor FA at all, truth be told, but there has to be another viable method for a club to improve it's playing stocks and, as a consequence, fortunes. I'm happy to entertain other options as long as they achieve the outcome of more player movement. My particular preference would be for a system of FA, reducing the value of draft picks and, as a consequence, freeing up player trading. Yes, it is reducing the importance of the draft. Unlike you, though, I see that as a good thing. Free agency is not incompatible with an "important" draft. See the NFL for a working example (FA, draft and salary cap).
This league is supposed to be about competition, each team striving for success every year for their club and members. A draft monoculture is incompatible with that, at least for those clubs with no chance of finals success.
Excellent Post! :clap
I very much appreciate your thoughts. As I said I am keeping a open mind and I respect where others with different views to mine are coming from.
At the risk of being repetitive, you make some very good points. I still have to beg to differ with you though. I cannot argue with your logic, it is very sound. It merely comes down to different preferences/perceptions. To answer your questions...
Motown said:
Are you happy with the current rate of player movement or do you think that's about right, or maybe even too much?
I think it is almost about right. If anything it should be a little more to accomodate peripheral, young delisted/opportunity starved or veteran players.
My big problem with free agency is the large migration of players of strong value in their prime.
Motown said:
Player rights issues asides, you're basically positing that the current situation approaches your ideal where all success or failure is to be determined by the draft and the development of those player thereafter. Is that correct?
I realise you brushed over it, but I'd like to elaborate slightly on players rights, the issue is a tricky one. Believe you me I am not insensitive to players rights. However I do not agree players should be treated the same as normal employees. That's a topic for another thread/time, I'm just elaborating a little to ensure no one thinks I believe players should be treated like cattle.
To a degree, yes the rest of your summation of my views is in essence correct. I wouldn't put it as rigid but to be fair that is in essence as what I am saying with the above mentioned taken into account (greater movement for delisted or young players not given game time, veterans etc)
Motown said:
My problem with that is that it makes the draft too important with virtually one path to success. The only scope to improve chances for success in the draft, all other things being equal, is improving your position in the draft by either trading for extra picks or moving up the draft order. The first method is and will become largely fruitless as the value of picks, real and perceived, will rise while the second leads to dark places.
I see your point and it is something I struggle with a little. However it must be said there are clubs that tend to rise to the top more than others by good list management. Adelaide, West Coast, Sydney, North etc have had a good record in the last 10 years of staying in finals and barely bottoming out.
Most, nearly every club will eventually fall/slip....see Brisbane/Essendon/Geelong but if managed well they bounce back quick.
My theory on effective list management is you don't need to bottom out for more than a year or two when you do slip (by slip i mean appear no chance to be effective in finals, not be a premiership threat, I actually put St Kilda and Bulldogs in this bracket, have since they re-entered finals footy). Clubs that perpetually fail to be competitive tend to have the worst list management rather than any other factor.
Clubs like Sydney, North, Adelaide, West Coast are rarely out of finals and can more often than not be viable threats.
I certainly wouldn't be definite in stating your view, but I do see where you are coming from.
All that aside, for the good of the game overall, let's say things were perfectly cyclical in terms with clubs ups and downs. Is that so bad a thing looking at the big picture?. Nothing is ever perfect, just like asking a human to draw a perfect circle. It won't happen. You will always get divergences.
Motown said:
I agree entirely that the MLB and soccer models are not for us, where success is intimately tied to cheque books. By the same token, though, a system where the only method of improvement is inversely proportional to performance is an undesirable extreme as well.
It is not incumbent upon us to follow any particular FA model, nor FA at all, truth be told, but there has to be another viable method for a club to improve it's playing stocks and, as a consequence, fortunes. I'm happy to entertain other options as long as they achieve the outcome of more player movement. My particular preference would be for a system of FA, reducing the value of draft picks and, as a consequence, freeing up player trading. Yes, it is reducing the importance of the draft. Unlike you, though, I see that as a good thing. Free agency is not incompatible with an "important" draft. See the NFL for a working example (FA, draft and salary cap).
We are not so different here. It is for the reasons/line of thinking you state that I am keeping a open mind and in these discussions rather than stamping my foot and saying, absolutely no free agency, don't even talk about it.
I can see a need for greater movement in a small way, and always believe things can be improved. There are two many players who get a raw deal, as there are clubs, of late.
That said, no system is perfect. So in terms of judging the worth of something I tend to hone in on what it will cost more than what it will offer. If you can accept the cost, you entertain the benefits. If you can't, it has to be dismissed.
If you can bring Free Agency in, without it..
1) Encouraging official player movements/discussion in season...
2) If you can ensure there will not be a change of players within a season (which i AM fiercely against and am very unlikely to be made accepting of)...
3) If you can ensure there is not a mass movement (by mass i mean, off the top of my head, more than X2 we have now, or of prime value and/or star players each season...generally players who are important to their sides, between 24-28 who can really hurt/help sides they go to/leave)
I'm all for it.
I could live with 1) as it is slowly evolving that way anyway with media coverage and pressure on clubs heightening.
The game will get it's first "taint" in my eyes if we have midseason drafts/player movements. So could never live with 2). I am so against it, despite regretting the game has gotten as soft as it is, I'm not disillusioned with it and still think it is the best game in the world, bring in a mid season draft and that, to me personally, would be the worst thing that ever happened to AFL. Just my view/perspective, nothing more obviously.
I don't think it will kill the game, it's merely about all the things i loathe in modern day / sports.
3) That is my impression, considered but not educated thought. I hear too much extreme good and bad about free agency on this point to have a passionate view, but am inclined to say we should not have this. I see more potential for bad than good.
Motown said:
This league is supposed to be about competition, each team striving for success every year for their club and members. A draft monoculture is incompatible with that, at least for those clubs with no chance of finals success.
Yes, I agree with you here. This is the strongest of your well made points. Once again, it's something I struggle with. It's for this reason i realise a open mind has to be kept and all avenues explored.
I do think every club should do it's earnest to get the most wins it can each year. I don't like the stigma of tanking and I don't like the reality we have now of some clubs having "right off" seasons. Every club/supporter base should be able to go into each year expecting some success.
Only the most optimistic of supporters these days would expect a side that finishes on the bottom of the ladder with less than 4.5 wins to be able to make finals the next year.
I concede this is tough, but it comes down to the devil you know, or the devil you don't for me. That is not to say i fear the unknown in free agency, what I mean is, I see this cost as less than the dark side of free agency.
As you have made the point though, there is nothing to say we have to follow other systems. It would be my hope we can develop a highly effective system that satisfies all parties to most degrees. (No system will be perfect).
However we have to be super wary and not throw open loving arms to Free Agency as a sure better way. If we got it wrong, I feel the effects would be massive on our game and affect it negatively far more than anything anyone who feels something has in the past.
