Eagles furious at Selwood compensation

Suckling has been a better player than Selwood over the past 2 years, was in the Hawks best 22 for the past few years. He has an Official AFL player rating of 205 vs Selwood 352. Hawks also got pick 19 for Franklin a couple years ago. Hawks got pick 39 for Suckling who is currently a better player than Selwood. Only the bottom teams got overs for free agents in the past and now it is based on money.

Hawks have the best 22 in the comp, ageing but still the best and Suckling has been good enough to hold his position for years, almost missed 1 game this year for form but was a late reprieve. Selwood was no longer in the Eagles best 22. On top of this in the AFL player ratings Selwood was rated at 352 and also a midfielder which usually helps with more stats etc. Suckling was 205 on Official player rating which would suggest he is a very good player. Hawks got ripped off and should have got around pick 30.

LIKE

Looks like the scenario I painted was correct. here jax, have some humble pie

No one at Geelong has said Danger is 'a saviour'. Geelong has had a major need for a clearance winning mid to complement J. Selwood. Job accomplished. Every player, bar none, will butcher the ball from time to time if they are willing to get in amongst it and try to extract the ball. It's impossible to be clean all the time if the vast majority of your possessions are contested.

I think you will change your mind when you see how much Dangerfield actually butchers the ball, he would be an amazing player but for this one problem........he can't kick, I've seen a lot of him over the past few years (Housemate is a crows fan) and he will hurt you by turning the ball over a lot, needs elite kicks around him. Would have been good at Hawks or Sydney, just can't see him being the saviour at a team like Geelong.

Pick 19 for Buddy under free agency doesn't seem like such a bad deal for Hawthorn now.

No that would be you If the Eagles had played hardball on Selwood, what kind of year would they get from him in 2016? Especially seeing that his intentions were clear at the start of 2015 They did the right thing by a player who had given them meritorious service who wanted to join his brother at Geelong The AFL didn't see past the dollars wrapped up in his contract, because that's their biggest driver and judged the process on purely mercenary terms. Selwood wasn't at his best over the past two seasons, but he's only 25, 130+games, B&F.He'll be really valuable to the Cats I just think the AFL had stars in their eyes about Dangerfield and lost sight of the football value of solid central midfielders, a lot of whom seem to come from the back end of Round 1 picks The Eagles treated Selwood right, Geelong rubbed their hands and the AFL washed theirs.Plenty of slack in the system for Victorian clubs, very little for West Australian sides

Who do you go for George? would you be happy if your best player left and you got absolutely nothing for him? I think Free Agency is a joke and it should just go back to trading.

@jax All the best also buddy for what is left of the year. @Mr !/9 "So you have a gambling problem plus your delusional." You're (BTW that's how you use you're) still upset about the other day aren't you? It's okay, 'your' tipping can really only get better in 2016. @WIG "Haha are you joking Rick? Cats in the top 4?" I'm a Cats fan, I can be as delusional about them as I like in October 2015. :) Doesn't mean I'll put my money where my mouth is come 2016, but I'm pretty confident in my football analysis on this site nonetheless.

quote: There you go. The Cats wouldn’t trade for him so WC did the right thing and let their VC join his brother rather than forcing him into the draft. Wrong. Again. He would not have gone into the draft. If West Coast matched the offer, he would have been a contracted WC player. The reality is West Coast didn't want to be on the hook for the contract if the Cats weren't able/willing to make a trade, so they took the compensation. -------- I agree the system is broke, I have been banging that drum since the AFL announced how it would work. This isn't how free agency works. There should be ZERO compensation.

None of the have had 3 ankle surgery's (as of tomorrow) and missed most of the last two seasons either.

the 'right' system would be no compensation at all. it's supposed to be FREE agency.

You don’t get it jax. The AFL is the governing body. They had a formula in place to determine the composition picks before the free agency period began. The Eagles knew this. It doesn’t matter whether they, or even you or me for that matter agreed with it, they were the rules in place. If they don’t like it why don’t they just disband from the AFL and join the WAFL? And can you please enlighten me what this has got to do with whether I believe something is true or not? Are you trying to say the AFL made this rule up after the fact, then told everyone they didn’t and I believed them? If that’s the case you’re more of a cynic than I had thought. And by the way, I will quite happily keep collecting rain water for the rest of my life, infringement free! You’re a delusional man.

I tend to agree but the Cats have said they wouldn't trade for him and WC would have known that so they didn't have much a choice which is why I think the system failed WC in this case. They were caught between a rock and hard place. Fortunately they have the depth to cover Selwood but that's not the point. We clearly don't have the best possible system and that's what we should be aiming for IMO. No club should receive indequate compensation for any player.

What a childish answer and what absolute nonsense you wrote on the other article. All that I ‘pondered’ was just how cynical you really are.

This is a guess but I think they have now based it on money so as to avoid a repeat of the Buddy compo pick fiasco as he would have fallen within the new money bracket model quite comfortably. That's why I keep saying the AFL lacks vision and that they are always reactive instead of pro-active. They are going to change the compo rules again in the next year or two just you wait and see. I see the holes in it today but the AFL will take a few years to own up its flaws. Now that I think about it they won't own up to it they will just change it like they did this time and say nothing. I've already listed some areas where they could apply some weighting but I'm not about to propose a new model as I don't have all of the facts or the inclination to do so. I am quite sure that given the time and inclination that I could come up with a much better system that would allow for an independent hearing and appeal process if a club or player felt hard done by. I came up with that in 30 seconds yet the bafoons at AFL House have teams of 'qualified' people looking at it all year and this the best they can come up with which says it all really.

I'd say WC let Selwood walk because they hoped they would get a better deal with the compensation pick than they would if they traded for him. Adelaide traded with Geelong because they felt the could get abetter deal for a player that they dearly would've liked to keep than offered by a compo pick.

So what are they supposed to base it on? What measurable can they use? Games per year? Fantasy points? Money is often right up there in the top 2 or 3 drivers. Of course there are other reasons, but a club is also willing to offer what they feel is an honest reflection of the value (or close to) they see for that player.

There you go. The Cats wouldn't trade for him so WC did the right thing and let their VC join his brother rather than forcing him into the draft. The Crows were applauded for treating Danger with similar respect, go figure. Scott has been a very loyal servant and Adam still works for WC so they were always going to facilitate this trade for the good of the Selwoods even it meant taking a haircut on compensation. Once he'd made the decision WC weren't about to make life difficult him and if they did what would the media and public be saying? Damned if you do and damned if you don't is how these this always play out. Under the circumstances WC will take what they were given but that doesn't mean it's adequate. The system has clearly failed in this instance just like it did with Buddy and pick 19. Selwood may have been borderline at WC I agree but that's because of the excessive midfield depth that they have and most of them are still very young. If 8 of WC's midfield get injured like they were in 2013 it may hurt them. He'd be starting 22 in many midfields and some other clubs might have offered him more money and WC might have got a first rounder if he went to another club. The Cats are renowned for not paying overs to any player much like the Hawks and WC. It's done and dusted now and WC will be fine but no-one is going to change my mind on pick 37 being adequate compensation. Something around pick 25 would have been about right but this system doesn't allow for common sense so 37 it is. Hawks should have received a Top 5 pick for Buddy no doubt about it. See, the system is broke.