Although it’s copping a bit of stick, no case can be made to get rid of free agency in the AFL.
We’ve already seen some big names test the free agency market.
Of course Buddy Franklin got his nine-year deal with the Swans in 2013, while Brendon Goddard jumped on board the Bombers ship for the ride of his life in 2012. These signings caused controversy but how is this ‘de-equalisation’?
The Saints used their compensation pick to bring in Tom Hickey in from the Gold Coast as well as picks 25 and 46.
Hickey was looking the perfect replacement for big man Ben McEvoy earlier this year before he went down with a hot spot in his foot and later on with knee tendonitis.
Pick 25 was used to pick up Spencer White who hasn’t set the world on fire in his two years at the club, but he did kick three goals on debut in Round 22 this year and is a work in progress.
Pick 46 is where it gets interesting.
In 2012, the Saints traded pick 46 to Sydney in return for Trent Dennis-Lane who, in the opinion of many, has been a waste of time. He has been spending most of his time at Sandringham in the VFL.
But now in an ironic twist the player taken by Sydney at pick 46 in 2012, Tim Membrey, is seeking a trade to St Kilda.
Now bear in mind, free agency and equalisation cannot stop foolish trades or poor list management.
As good as Goddard is, and as bad as St Kilda have been – this is a case of free agency at work.
Goddard gets to chase a premiership at the Bombers, and the Saints should have picked up Membrey in 2012 if it weren’t for sheer stupidity.
Who knows, Membrey might have proved to be the missing piece of the puzzle for the Saints in a year that saw Nick Riewoldt as the lonesome target inside the 50.
Then there is Buddy, one of the most talented footballers of our generation, who chooses to leave the reigning premiers for the Swans at the end of 2013.
Is it equalisation if a fantastic player leaves a dominant club to take up a lucrative contract offer?
Yes.
Especially when now we see a player like Nick Malceski walk away from the Swans in favour of a developing squad in the Suns.
If money is the reason that Malceski walked, good news for everyone but Sydney fans!
Buddy’s contract is back-ended, so we could see a few more blokes leave the Harbour city for clubs that have a bit more in the cap to offer.
Equalisation?
Yep.
But what about James Frawley hightailing it to the Hawks?
For a player that has looked above average at best in a pretty ordinary side for the last eight years, Paul Roos would be over the moon with pick three as compensation.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Frawley held his own at the Hawks, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he spent more time at Box Hill than at Waverley. This will be the third year of free agency and so far no one has been shafted.
And even if they had, haven’t we been whinging about the rules seemingly changing every year?
Give free agency a shot, it’s too early to make a decision either way.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
I thought this was a fair enough assessment of Free Agency. It was always inevitable in some form and although it will be tweaked in future years it is now a permanent part of the footballing landscape. When it comes to equalization and the suggestion it benefits top sides, let's look at Sydney since 2013. Yes, we have gained Franklin and three well credentialed though untested Academy kids and there is a possibility we could gain Lions defender Joel Patfull. In return we have lost both Bolton's, Mattner, Malceski, Lamb, O'Keefe, LRT and Mumford. To afford recruits like McEvoy, O'Rourke and Frawley the Hawks have lost Franklin and had to release a club stalwart in Sewell. These changes come down to excellent recruiting and professional list management. Free agency cannot be blamed when successful sides do these basics more effectively than those less successful.
Declan Byrne
Roar Rookie
Then what claim did you make that I have missed? You said "Any compensation for struggling teams isn’t created out of thin air. All the other clubs who didn’t lose anyone or didn’t gain anyone are expected to contribute to the compensation by getting pushed down the draft order." Then I said "The pushing down the order is a small price to pay for clubs if we achieve equalisation." Seems addressed to me? Then you said "It’s much easier for successful clubs to convince players not to take higher offers from elsewhere: the salary cap alone is not an effective tool for equalisation." And I then provided examples of players who have rejected success in favour of big money, showing its not easier for successful clubs to keep a hold of players who are offered big money by lesser clubs. What am I missing?
TomC
Roar Guru
I've never made that claim! God I hate it when people put words in my mouth! How about just addressing what I say, instead of just making something up? An inability to read and respond to other people's points is not a sign of a brilliant mind.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
The sole purpose of free agency is allowing better player movement. I don't know why people think is part of equalisation measures. The compensation component is a compromise instigated by the AFL to appease some of the dissenting voices from clubland, but again not really intended for equalisation.
Declan Byrne
Roar Rookie
Name a better method where equalisation can be achieved without including every single club? The pushing down the order is a small price to pay for clubs if we achieve equalisation. We have had three years of free agency now, so it is too early to tell if this is causing de-equalisation. Yes Frawley went to Hawthorn, but the Dee's got pick three? I dispute the claim that clubs can keep players based purely on success. Malceski has enjoyed huge success at a strong swans team- gone. Ablett is one of the best players to have played the game in a team that continued sustained success at Geelong- left. In 2012, the Sanits just missed the finals after qualifying for two grand finals in the years before. Goddard wasn't persuaded by the success of the Bombers. They finished 12th and were still reeling after a poor period under Matthew Knights. Money makes the world go round for players, bugger success. Free agency will work, if given the chance!
TomC
Roar Guru
You realise of course that absolutely none of that addresses my point, don't you? All you've done is repeat the same points you've made previously. Any compensation for struggling teams isn't created out of thin air. All the other clubs who didn't lose anyone or didn't gain anyone are expected to contribute to the compensation by getting pushed down the draft order. The salary cap obviously means different things to successful and struggling clubs. It's much easier for successful clubs to convince players not to take higher offers from elsewhere: the salary cap alone is not an effective tool for equalisation.
Declan Byrne
Roar Rookie
The Hawks didn't get a player for nothing. Frawley still falls under the salary cap and from the figures being thrown around, they payed a lot more than what he is worth. I'd be worried if Frawley was a world beater. But he isn't, like I said. I'd argue no smaller clubs miss/will miss players that have left via free agency so far (apart from the Saints, but their recruiting has been hit and miss). Clubs that lose these big stars (maybe Dangerfield next year?) will be fairly compensated according to the age of the player and the contract offered. It'll free up a considerable chunk within the cap and then maybe they go hard during free agency and trade periods? Players get what they want. Media gets what they want and the clubs get to window shop for what they need.
TomC
Roar Guru
Well, this year the reigning premiers got a player for nothing, and every club from 3rd last on had to move one spot down the draft order in order to accommodate that. That seems highly contrary to equalisation. It's not the only example, but it's the most recent.
Bob Gooch
Guest
Free agency is obscene and favours the top clubs who wish to top up their list with a special task player - as a MFC member I don't give a rats about Frawley, but it doesn't change the fact that free agency benefits the strong clubs !
Bob Gooch
Guest
Free agency is obscene and favours the top clubs who wish to top up their list with a special task player - as a MFC member I don't give a rats about Frawley, but it doesn't change the fact that free agency benefits the strong clubs !