Last week, the AFL announced another major plank in its seemingly insatiable desire to renovate and alter the competition.
A mid-season trade period has long been mooted, but has gained serious traction under Gillon McLachlan’s administration, and seems to be rubber-stamped for 2019 entry.
Clearly, the machinations still need to be worked out, and it will have major implications for list management (the subject of another article – stay tuned).
However, one implication that has not received enough attention is the current level of immaturity from the media, officials and fans when discussing player movement, which will only be exacerbated by a mid-season trade period.
Player movement – such as free agency, contract status, trade period etc – is subject to never-ending speculation, because officials and clubs, in their quest to preserve the semblance of loyalty, treat the public as naive.
Officials are told to toe the official club line, and players and their managers are not willing to publicly discuss any possible moves. This leads to speculation from journalists, which in turn leads to speculation by fans, which leads to McLachlan putting the onus on players to call out ‘fake news’ in the footy media, which he did last week.
I have no issue with the idea of loyalty, as it’s one of the things that makes our game unique in this business-focused world, but using it to shut down all sensible and reasoned discussion of player movement ruins the game’s image.
Case in point is Gold Coast admonishing Damien Hardwick for having the temerity to say that Richmond would be interested in Tom Lynch should he decide to leave the Suns.
Tom Lynch of the Suns (Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
The Tigers coach merely responded in the affirmative to a question, rather than initiating the response, and the answer he gave was honest, refreshing, and very benign. He said nothing to denigrate Gold Coast or imply that Richmond had already spoken to Lynch.
The fact the Suns were so aggrieved about these comments and ordered Hardwick to make a public apology to the club clearly demonstrates just how immature the league is in having these types of conversations.
This may be due to the nature of free agency, which has seen the clubs become over-protective of their intellectual property (in this case, the players), refusing to be drawn into speculation surrounding the future of their free agents.
Fans know that club list managers identify players of interest during the season, and it would be unrealistic to suggest that conversations between interested clubs, player managers and possible trade targets only occur after the grand final is done and dusted.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
Last year, it seemed apparent that Melbourne had approached Jake Lever’s management during the season to discuss what a move to the Demons would look like, and by mid-season it was clear he would be on the move from Adelaide. Yet, we were treated to an entire season of “Jake is certainly a good player, but he’s yet to make his intentions clear” (Melbourne), “As it stands, Jake is a player for the Adelaide Football Club” (manager), and “I’m just trying to focus on playing good footy” (Leaver).
These are obviously not directly attributable quotes, but serve to reinforce the banality of conversation and discussion we are subjected to.
Before a mid-season trade period is introduced, we need to sort out how the league approaches conversations around player movement. I’m not suggesting we go as far as having players definitively state at the beginning of the year that they are leaving their club, but it would be refreshing if out-of-contract players acknowledged that they may wish to explore other options. Likewise, clubs should be free to express their desire for such players to join them.
There would obviously then be more questions regarding loyalty, but we need to realise that footy is a business based on success and money, and players and clubs need to do what is right for themselves financially.
Mid-season trading will increase discussion surrounding the nature of player movement. Players and clubs are within their rights to exercise their options under player movement mechanisms, but we as fans are equally entitled to fair and honest conversations around this issue.
AD
Guest
They don't come up from the state leagues into the AFL mid-season all the time. They get drafted in November and do an AFL preseason and even then most of them don't play AFL football much, if at all, in their first year.
Kane
Roar Rookie
Because of the depth that they already have, if they get an injury then this way they can poach another club's player and still stay on track. Whereas if a fringe player at a stronger club goes to a club down the bottom just how much is he going to improve that team? Bigger all. AFL are trying to bring this in to make the weaker club's stronger but as I've just explained, it's not going to. Especially in the middle of the year.
Kane
Roar Rookie
Definitely don't want to deny them that chance but why should a local club that's busted it's guts to get itself into a position of success have to lose out. If player's are good enough they will get picked up the same way they have for years.
Patrick
Roar Pro
“I’m just trying to focus on playing good footy” (Leaver) Typo or play on words?
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Oooh, mid-season 'trades' involving state level players might be a good idea - and a much more palatable one to me than literal AFL level trades midway through a season. I do agree with the shortened contracts with the ability to draft after the conclusion of their campaign - that'll be a good incentive for the players.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Thanks for the article, Maddy. No. No mid-season trade period. I'll be thoroughly disappointed if the AFL introduces one, because I'm yet to be convinced that there's viable reasons necessitating such a thing. I feel as the concept of player loyalty would be rubbished if you give them a chance to literally change teams half way through a season, plus a player moving from a potential wooden spooner to a team that wins a premiership would be hard for me to swallow. The biggest proponents of a midseason trade period tend to use the "replacing injured players" angle. Sure, it'll work, but as AD says a little above me - what on earth is the point if one team loses a vital player before the trade period and gets to replace them, but another loses one a week afterwards and gets no chance? It's just properly nonsensical. "Change for the sake of change" tends to be a saying thrown around a fair bit, but I think it's entirely relevant in this case.
Cat
Roar Guru
Kids come up from the state leagues all the time. The only difference would be that their name wasn't previously on an AFL list. They'd have been doing the training that any other state league player does.
AD
Guest
My concern with bringing in players from the state leagues midway through the season is that these guys will not have had an AFL preseason. I reckon those players would be at much greater risk of injury coming in without a suitable preseason up against guys who have done several and are match-hardened midway through the season. We'd have teams bringing in players to cover for injuries only to have the replacements getting injured at a much greater rate than the rest of the comp.
AD
Guest
That's why clubs have 40-something players on their lists. If they don't have the depth to cover injuries then that's bad recruiting. And when would this trade period happen? Let's say it's about round 12. Team A loses a player to injury in round 11, then Team B loses a player in round 13. We're going to say that Team A should be allowed to make a deal to bring in a replacement, but tell Team B bad luck, your player got injured after some round we arbitrarily decided is the cut off point for clubs being worthy to bring in new players? You're then actively giving a leg up to clubs who get injuries early in the season over clubs who get them late in the season. Clubs should live or die with the lists they start the season with. Dealing with injuries better than other clubs is part of the competition.
Cat
Roar Guru
Why is it only going to help strong clubs? It hasn't been 'fine'. Lots have been wrong, lots remain wrong. All things change.
Cat
Roar Guru
The whole point of 'grassroots' existing is to give players a chance to play in the AFL. A chance for kids to realise their dreams and you want to deny them that?
Kane
Roar Rookie
But then the clubs that these players come from lose out massively, all the work they've put into this player to achieve the ultimate at the end of the season is gone in the blink of an eye. Why should these club's have to lose because of it. AFL bangs on about grassroots football but all it's doing in this case is taking away from it.
Kane
Roar Rookie
Leave it as it is, might as well get rid of list managers if you're allowed to change it all up mid year. Leave the game alone!!! It's just going to make the strong club's stronger. I don't get why Gill and his mate's want so much player movement, it's been fine for over 100 years so just leave it as it is.
Cat
Roar Guru
Do you think a player like Tim Kelly last year wouldn't have jumped at the chance to get on an AFL list mid-season if it meant moving across the country? After being overlooked in the National Draft for 5 years running, I bet he would have. If traded/signed half way through the year, players do not need to immediately uproot and move their families. Its only a few of months. Then in the off season they can make an informed decision based on who comes calling for their services. I'm sure there are plenty of state level players who have been overlooked that would bend over backwards and deal with whatever short-term hardships it took to have a shot on an AFL list.
Cat
Roar Guru
Imagine your club finally being in a 'flag window' to have it be destroyed by an unfortunate injury (or run of injuries in a specific position). Would you rather your club just shrug its shoulders and say 'stuff happens' or go out and make a deal that plugs a hole and perhaps gives it that chance at an ever elusive flag? Take for instance the Swans right now. As bad as their ruck situation is right now with Tippet pulling the pin late and Naismith out for the year, what happens if Sinclair gets hurt? Their entire legit flag chance could be riding on a single player staying injury free now.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think with the first part player vetos would still apply. Also, the AFL has indicated if they have live trading at the draft it would be picks only, players couldn't be traded at such short notice. Agree though with the second part, although I wouldn't have clubs getting into NEAFL players. I'd rather see AFL clubs able to go out and sign uncontracted players at short notice to plug holes, rather than hollowing out the fabric and support of the competition just to help a handful of AFL players prolong their careers for an extra 6 months
Ryan Geer
Roar Pro
I’m not a big fan of the midseason trade idea. We’re not like the NBA with millions of dollars to buy land and houses so easily. Like on the field it works, you might be in need of a certain type of player. But off the field it doesn’t make sense imagine for example being in Victoria just bought a new house and have a young family, playing decent footy then getting the call you’ve being traded to Western Australia and you need to figure out the logistics of moving you’re entire life and family over to WA. I reckon if the AFL wants to have any such midseason movement it should be from state leagues only. Example the Crows and Power the SANFL, Eagles and Dockers the WAFL. In NSW and Queensland the NEAFL not being as strong as the other state leagues besides just getting state league players these clubs can have the option of using their under 19 academy players. Also contracts should be short in the way of till the end of the season with maybe the bonus of having the opportunity to draft these players the next season if they impress enough.
Cat
Roar Guru
But in baseball a team can be a cellar dweller one year and a contender the next. Unlike AFL which still regularly sees teams going through 5-10 year 'rebuilds' only to have a single shot at a flag – if lucky – then rinse and repeat. Maybe clubs like the Bulldogs and Saints might have more followers if they were relevant more then once every 5 or 6 decades.
AD
Guest
I'm still unconvinced about the benefits of a mid-season trade period simply because there doesn't seem to be any need for it. What, exactly, is the point? Apart from having more player movement, which in itself seems to be a goal that exists just for its own sake. Why do we need more player movement? The only reason we might need or want that is because the AFL likes keeping the media whipped into a frenzy. Look at the amount of coverage that goes on during the current trade period - of course they'd like to have that kind of publicity for more of the year. But if we're going to go down this route then why not do it properly and just eliminate the concept of a trade period altogether and just allow trades to happen any day of the year.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I didn’t say it was the exact same situation I also don’t see why Brisbane are obligated to keep quiet to avoid annoying other clubs, not like anyone has done us any favours whatsoever this past decade. Loads of clubs were talking to Schache right through 2017. For you to complain about this solely because it was made public whilst not having any issues with the tapping up that goes on outside of the media is just another example of the insecurity and double standards Maddy is talking about