Buddy's contract killing Sydney's depth?

[Tedeski]

Swans won't have to pay a cent if he is given a ban for something, eg drug strikes. Be fortunate for the swans if buddy was to have a few great years then the AFL became aware of something that voided his contract once his worth to the swans wore out.

This is something Ive heard a well.

As far as his off field rumours go, we have taken no risk at all for the reasons you've explained.

 

[Jewbacca]

If he only plays for 6 years then Sydney will still have to set aside his salary for the remaining 3. If they're happy with it then so be it, I wouldn't be too happy if it was my club but it's not my club.

Yep thats about it I reckon, takes up a list spot while it's paid out too i believe.

 

[Adrian Lieschke]

It definently will


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[alanlau34]

And so the Swans have chosen to strengthen their best 25, rather than worrying about players 26-38. It's definitely a risky strategy. Whilst I don't think depth can win you a flag, it can certainly help you throughout the season to get into a position to win a flag. So we're definitely going to need some younger guys to stand up at different stages throughout the year. But if we can manage to get in the finals with a relatively healthy top 25, we're going to have a better team this year than we did last year. And if we don't have a healthy top 25, we were never going to win the flag no matter how good our depth was.

This is a little naive.

Depth may not win on the big day, but its crucial in getting the best 22 in the best condition if that day comes.

These days older teams (such as Haw and Syd) needs to manage their seasons and rest players at diff stages. A stronger depth increases the chances of winning when those rests/suspensions/niggles affect the team. Which is inevitable.

Look at the cats in 2011. They had decent depth and it allowed them to rest all their old guys and peak at yhe right time.

The teams with the strongest 28-30 players win flags (combined with a little luck).

You must of drifted off towards the end of his post...

Noone is arguing that depth isn't important. we are just refuting the argument that because Buddy came on board, and we lost Everitt, White, Lamb, Mumford, Armstrong (and the retirments of Morton, Bolton and Mattner who were totally unrelated), that the Swans will fall off a cliff.

We addressed needs with Laidler and Derrickx, have plenty of kids that have shown they can perform at the top level, have a couple of ressie players that will get their chance, and our newbies might crack a game or two if they perform well.

Our best 22-25 players are top notch, and we should have enough coverage to allow rest and rotations (although this hasn't been part of the Swans season planning to date).

 

[Demonheart]

Stuart Dew is fine with it

Pay that

 

[swans2014]

Noone is arguing that depth isn't important. we are just refuting the argument that because Buddy came on board, and we lost Everitt, White, Lamb, Mumford, Armstrong (and the retirments of Morton, Bolton and Mattner who were totally unrelated), that the Swans will fall off a cliff.

We addressed needs with Laidler and Derrickx, have plenty of kids that have shown they can perform at the top level, have a couple of ressie players that will get their chance, and our newbies might crack a game or two if they perform well.

Our best 22-25 players are top notch, and we should have enough coverage to allow rest and rotations (although this hasn't been part of the Swans season planning to date).

Not sure what the fuss is here re. Sydney's perceived lack of depth going into 2014.

Of the players who left (not the ones who retired) only Mumford would be a certainty in the Swans best 22 with all players fit. Everitt and White only had extended runs in the seniors in 2013 because of injuries to key players, whilst Lamb and Armstrong were given opportunities but failed to establish themselves. All four will probably do well at their new clubs, and I hope they do, but at the Swans they were likely to struggle for regular senior games in 2014. I think Lamb is the biggest loss of the four, he showed skill and poise in 2013, but in reality Lamb still has a lot of players ahead of him at the Swans and 2014 would probably have been a another frustrating year of wearing vests and being up and down between seniors and reserves, so it's not surprising that he went elsewhere for opportunities.

As for the current health of the list, the Swans will take 38 senior listed players into 2014, 29 of whom have played seniors at an AFL club, plus 2 more on the rookie list who had a taste of seniors in 2013. Of the 9 senior listed players who have never played a senior game at least Membrey and Towers look ready to play seniors if needed, and new draftee Jones also looks physically ready, which takes the Swans up to 34 players who are able to play at senior level.

The Swans' best 25 in 2014 will be as good as any other in the league, and there are plenty of other senior and rookie listed players capable of filling the gaps in the event of injuries or when players need to be rested to ensure that the team is in top shape for finals.

 

[Arwib]

In completely different competitions like baseball who have a 'soft' salary cap. Comparing our competition to others is pointless

NHL has a hard cap.

 

[Demonheart]

NHL has a hard cap.

I can't imagine any club in any league willing to waste 10% of their salary cap for 3-4 years going to a player who retired. If you can provide me an example where that has happened in a league with a hard cap then do it, from the arguments I'm hearing from Sydney fans it happens all the time so you should be able to do it very quickly and easily.

 

[Swansujelly]

I can't imagine any club in any league willing to waste 10% of their salary cap for 3-4 years going to a player who retired. If you can provide me an example where that has happened in a league with a hard cap then do it, from the arguments I'm hearing from Sydney fans it happens all the time so you should be able to do it very quickly and easily.

it won't be 10 % bt then. Closer to 5. Thanks for your concern.

 

[Demonheart]

it won't be 10 % bt then. Closer to 5. Thanks for your concern.

Will it now? Show me a link of evidence that proves that it will happened, otherwise it's just your opinion guess.

Thanks for replying

 

[Swansujelly]

Will it now? Show me a link of evidence that proves that it will happened, otherwise it's just your opinion guess.

Thanks for replying

not doing your legwork. Thanks for coming.

 

[Demonheart]

have no evidence to back up my pathetic attempt at justifying my argument. Thanks for coming.

efa

cheers

 

[Swansujelly]

efa

cheers

lolo. you asked the question and I have to come up with evidence?

 

[Arwib]

I can't imagine any club in any league willing to waste 10% of their salary cap for 3-4 years going to a player who retired. If you can provide me an example where that has happened in a league with a hard cap then do it, from the arguments I'm hearing from Sydney fans it happens all the time so you should be able to do it very quickly and easily.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/847

Expires when he's 35. 11-year deal worth a cap hit of 9.5 million a year.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/476

Expires when he's 37. 122-year deal with a cap hit is about 8.7 million a year

The NHL cap is 60 million currently. Roster is 23 instead of 38, so proportionately these are roughly similar cap hits. The NHL also has a rule that front-loading and back-loading doesnt affect the annual cap hit.

However, the NHL cap and has only risen by about a million or so each year in recent years and it won't rise much past inflation over the next ten years (and actually dropped under the most recent round of bargaining negotiations) because the NHL just isn't a growth sport. Whereas the AFL's cap will rise a fair bit over the next decade as they're still expanding their revenue, and the players will keep demanding and getting more of the pie.

You can carry on believing the Swans administration is stupid if you want, but I guarantee you they've done their homework and research on the balance of risks with this, and unlike many clubs the current Swans administration have a pretty damn good track record at not being stupid.

'Sides which, at the end of the day comparing having Franklin on the list to having Generic Established Player X means having one or two more draftee/rookie contracts and one or two less established players on the list. Hardly the end of the world with a 38-40 person list.

 

[Demonheart]

lolo. you asked the question and I have to come up with evidence?

You said that the cap will definitely be $20m, I merely asked how you know. I presumed that you had read it somewhere or heard it from an AFL official, but if it's just your guess that it will be $20m then that's fine, you're allowed your opinion, i'm not sure why you're getting so uptight about it.

 

[Demonheart]

http://www.capgeek.com/player/847

Expires when he's 35. 11-year deal worth a cap hit of 9.5 million a year.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/476

Expires when he's 37. 122-year deal with a cap hit is about 8.7 million a year

The NHL cap is 60 million currently. Roster is 23 instead of 38, so proportionately these are roughly similar cap hits. The NHL also has a rule that front-loading and back-loading doesnt affect the annual cap hit.

However, the NHL cap and has only risen by about a million or so each year in recent years and it won't rise much past inflation over the next ten years (and actually dropped under the most recent round of bargaining negotiations) because the NHL just isn't a growth sport. Whereas the AFL's cap will rise a fair bit over the next decade as they're still expanding their revenue, and the players will keep demanding and getting more of the pie.

You can carry on believing the Swans administration is stupid if you want, but I guarantee you they've done their homework and research on the balance of risks with this, and unlike many clubs the current Swans administration have a pretty damn good track record at not being stupid.

'Sides which, at the end of the day comparing having Franklin on the list to having Generic Established Player X means having one or two more draftee/rookie contracts and one or two less established players on the list. Hardly the end of the world with a 38-40 person list.

What's the average retirement age in the NHL compared to the AFL.

 

[QuietB]

http://www.capgeek.com/player/847

Expires when he's 35. 11-year deal worth a cap hit of 9.5 million a year.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/476

Expires when he's 37. 122-year deal with a cap hit is about 8.7 million a year

The NHL cap is 60 million currently. Roster is 23 instead of 38, so proportionately these are roughly similar cap hits. The NHL also has a rule that front-loading and back-loading doesnt affect the annual cap hit.

However, the NHL cap and has only risen by about a million or so each year in recent years and it won't rise much past inflation over the next ten years (and actually dropped under the most recent round of bargaining negotiations) because the NHL just isn't a growth sport. Whereas the AFL's cap will rise a fair bit over the next decade as they're still expanding their revenue, and the players will keep demanding and getting more of the pie.

You can carry on believing the Swans administration is stupid if you want, but I guarantee you they've done their homework and research on the balance of risks with this, and unlike many clubs the current Swans administration have a pretty damn good track record at not being stupid.

'Sides which, at the end of the day comparing having Franklin on the list to having Generic Established Player X means having one or two more draftee/rookie contracts and one or two less established players on the list. Hardly the end of the world with a 38-40 person list.

6 players on the ice at any one time though in ice hockey. That is almost the same as basketball where you can build an entire team around a single star. The cap hit of one Ice Hockey player taking 10% is very different to one AFL player doing the same with 18 on the field.

And I would be happy to bet that Lebron takes at least 10% of the money at the Heat, he might take 20-30%, him Bosh and Wade probably take up way over 60% of the payments on their own.

 

[Swansujelly]

You said that the cap will definitely be $20m, I merely asked how you know. I presumed that you had read it somewhere or heard it from an AFL official, but if it's just your guess that it will be $20m then that's fine, you're allowed your opinion, i'm not sure why you're getting so uptight about it.

never said that, said closer to 5%, that's al, the cap wi;; go up, and Buddy's contract will be coming down.l. Anyhoo, when your rabble of a club get's it's act together, you have my permission to judge other clubs.

 

[Sanecow]

6 players on the ice at any one time though in ice hockey. The cap hit of one Ice Hockey player taking 10% is very different to one AFL player doing the same with 18 on the field.

Not really, there are 18 players per team each game and most players spend twice as long on the bench as they do on the ice. You'd have a point if the examples were goalies but they aren't.

 

[Arwib]

6 players on the ice at any one time though in ice hockey. That is almost the same as basketball where you can build an entire team around a single star. The cap hit of one Ice Hockey player taking 10% is very different to one AFL player doing the same with 18 on the field.

And I would be happy to bet that Lebron takes at least 10% of the money at the Heat, he might take 20-30%, him Bosh and Wade probably take up way over 60% of the payments on their own.

I did not say the NHL and AFL are identical. Give me some credit instead of explaining the stupidly obvious.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I did not say the NHL and AFL are identical. Give me some credit instead of explaining the stupidly obvious.

Foreign leagues with little in common with the AFL are only applicable when trying to chip at Sydney's cap, apparently.

 

[QuietB]

I did not say the NHL and AFL are identical. Give me some credit instead of explaining the stupidly obvious.

Fair enough. The only real precedent for this is the Lynch deal at Brisbane. That was not a stupid contract sum though, just a stupid contract length which he fulfilled easily and they ended up renegotiating because the pay was too low towards the end That did coincide with big leaps in player payments though, and it also coincided with Brisbane getting both an expanded list (merger) and an expanded cap (merger and their version of CoLA).

It will be interesting to see how this deal pans out.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

Foreign leagues with little in common with the AFL are only applicable when trying to chip at Sydney's cap, apparently.

Or when Sydney fans are trying to justify the Franklin deal...

Two way street

 

[Demonheart]

never said that, said closer to 5%, that's al, the cap wi;; go up, and Buddy's contract will be coming down.l. Anyhoo, when your rabble of a club get's it's act together, you have my permission to judge other clubs.

So, you're making stuff up to improve your argument and now you're trying to bring the MFC into it.

Classy and completely irrelevant.

 

[Swansujelly]

So, you're making stuff up to improve your argument and now you're trying to bring the MFC into it.

Classy and completely irrelevant.

I like you, your amusing.