List Mgmt. Contract Status

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
FFS people, it is really simple.

We are unlikely to be over the salary cap from 2017 and will have room, what we are trying to do at present is get our TPP down by $1.1m by the end of next year and still pay our top line players what they were getting with the COLA so we don't need to sacrifice a Parker or a Smith/K Jack to do it.

The problem around salary cap is for one year and one year only, we then move onto our restructured pay scale with all of our new deals coming into effect.
 
swansfan51 said:
But we're still over the cap and were so desperate to reduce player payments that we traded our first round pick to get rid of Craig Bird? Concerning if true.
Click to expand...

Why are you harping on about us "trading our first round pick to get rid of Bird"? We traded Bird to split our first round pick into two picks that were cumulatively worth more points, and which gave us the flexibility to perform another pick swap, giving us another 170 points.

We effectively traded Bird for 186 points, which is about what he's worth. The fact our first round pick got split into multiple lower picks in the process means nothing as our first pick is going to Mills. The position of our first pick is completely, entirely irrelevant.
 
DST said:
FFS people, it is really simple.

We are unlikely to be over the salary cap from 2017 and will have room, what we are trying to do at present is get our TPP down by $1.1m by the end of next year and still pay our top line players what they were getting with the COLA so we don't need to sacrifice a Parker or a Smith/K Jack to do it.

The problem around salary cap is for one year and one year only, we then move onto our restructured pay scale with all of our new deals coming into effect.
Click to expand...


Great piss away a year where Tippett is on his final year and Buddy should be peaking, great
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Swansrule100 said:
Great piss away a year where Tippett is on his final year and Buddy should be peaking, great
Click to expand...

Really?

So you are advocating we tell our best 10 players to take a haircut next year and let Parker sit there until the end of next year before putting a new and much improved offer to him.

How do you think that is going to end for us and our list post 2017?
 
DST said:
Really?

So you are advocating we tell our best 10 players to take a haircut next year and let Parker sit there until the end of next year before putting a new and much improved offer to him.

How do you think that is going to end for us and our list post 2017?
Click to expand...

Careful!
You're going down dangerous territory.
Just agree that we have a s**t team, we have no hope, we need to change the coach, it was a poor draft, & most importantly, that you don't know what you are talking about.

Yoy'll get to stay on the thread that way & a "chosen one" badge will be presented to you.
 
DST said:
Really?

So you are advocating we tell our best 10 players to take a haircut next year and let Parker sit there until the end of next year before putting a new and much improved offer to him.

How do you think that is going to end for us and our list post 2017?
Click to expand...


No I believe we messed up our list management, eg Reid 5 years


Sinclair we have signed cheap of course ready for pay rises
 
Last edited:
Swansrule100 said:
No I believe we messed up our list management, eg Reid 5 years
Click to expand...

Reid 5 years actually made sense at the time (pre-Buddy and Tippett, MOL & Bradshaw goneski)

Jesse White's contract not so much. We must have been pretty desperate when Hall and Spida left. :eek:
 
Tuco said:
Reid 5 years actually made sense at the time (pre-Buddy and Tippett, MOL & Bradshaw goneski)

Jesse White's contract not so much. We must have been pretty desperate when Hall and Spida left. :eek:
Click to expand...


I dunno not a fan of 5 year deals for kids even if tall , naismith 3, rampe 4" hanners 5, sinclair 4 buddy 9

Just not a fan of those long contracts, ok 3 isnt long but naismith is unproven

But i wont question the side because that is not allowed and makes one a traitor
 
Tuco said:
Reid 5 years actually made sense at the time (pre-Buddy and Tippett, MOL & Bradshaw goneski)

Jesse White's contract not so much. We must have been pretty desperate when Hall and Spida left. :eek:
Click to expand...
To be fair, at the time GCS were entering the comp and Jesse was showing alot of promise so we signed him up fast before GCS could try to lure him away.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

cadsky said:
To be fair, at the time GCS were entering the comp and Jesse was showing alot of promise so we signed him up fast before GCS could try to lure him away.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. My memory is not too many were upset at the idea at the time.
 
Swansrule100 said:
I dunno not a fan of 5 year deals for kids even if tall , naismith 3, rampe 4" hanners 5, sinclair 4 buddy 9

Just not a fan of those long contracts, ok 3 isnt long but naismith is unproven

But i wont question the side because that is not allowed and makes one a traitor
Click to expand...

Hanners is fine

I still believe we could of gotten Franklin for a lot less but i understand why we did it.
 
Heeney2Franklin said:
Hanners is fine

I still believe we could of gotten Franklin for a lot less but i understand why we did it.
Click to expand...

Yeah i dunno, i wasnt a fan of the deal , but love when he plays


Hanners yeah its not the worst just i think 4 years is an ideal max, you never know what can happen with these guys or who else emerges
 
Swansrule100 said:
I dunno not a fan of 5 year deals for kids even if tall , naismith 3, rampe 4" hanners 5, sinclair 4 buddy 9

Just not a fan of those long contracts, ok 3 isnt long but naismith is unproven

But i wont question the side because that is not allowed and makes one a traitor
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough.

I think the age and/or class profiles of all those players justifies the lengths.

Naismith is an interesting one. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fair amount of performance clauses in there for him. And even if not, he wouldn't be expensive.

Buddy's contract was a case of exceptionalism. That just looked bonkers initially. Until we saw Boyd's, Dangerfield's, Fyfe's next contract etc...
 
Heeney2Franklin said:
Naismith 3 years (why?)
Rampe 4 years is a little excessive.
Click to expand...

Because if in 2 years they're absolutely kicking arse, we don't have to renegotiate their pay for another year or two. Longer contracts at less per year buys us a bit more breathing room around the contracts of Tippett and Franklin, but with the risk of having them clogging up the list for a year or two if they don't come/stay good. It's a roll of the dice.
 
Tuco said:
Naismith would be pretty cheap. Rampe looks AA potential if he maintains his trajectory, though.
Click to expand...


Love rampe, but is not an AA type and would be reasonable easy to replace if he did go (all due respect to him)
 
BarneyBent said:
Because if in 2 years they're absolutely kicking arse, we don't have to renegotiate their pay for another year or two. Longer contracts at less per year buys us a bit more breathing room around the contracts of Tippett and Franklin, but with the risk of having them clogging up the list for a year or two if they don't come/stay good. It's a roll of the dice.
Click to expand...


Fair point
 
Swansrule100 said:
Love rampe, but is not an AA type and would be reasonable easy to replace if he did go (all due respect to him)
Click to expand...

For sure. I should say I don't see him as a perennial AA contender. I see him in a trajectory where one year he gets the nod for being there abouts for a few seasons.

An honorary AA :D
 
And people wonder why stuff gets deleted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top