Analysis Critical analysis of our current position.

[Proffessor]

Nobody was expecting Gryphon and his ~800k salary to walk its self off the books. When he does do that and the cap is at the minimum amount, you can't just draw up new contracts over night for x, y, z and offer more money for the following year to get the cap up to the minimum, it just doesn't work like that in a limited time frame. Normally in these situations you get back a player with roughly the same size contract or you take the salary cap relief and get a handy pick back, with Toyd in the mix he is neither a pick or an established player, the money he is forced to be paid as a 2nd year rookie does not help the situation. So Gryphons money stays on the books one more year to clear the cap.

Without knowing the intricacies of the cap or the actual numbers on what players are being paid in the squad, paying a low performing squad the minimum coin seems like a sound idea. The better the team the more you pay and until you're forced to shed players until you get back under the cap which the Hawks and Swans appear to have done over the last couple years.

If Gryphon wants to go up to GWS with his mate Leon you have to deal with GWS, that's been the reality of the last few years when players force trades. Forcing him to stay on the Bullodogs list sounds great in theory but no other club in the last 10 years has ever considered it, clearly the dogs didn't want to be the first to experiment either. Maybe there are other ways you can make the best of the situation...

A pick back for Gyphon would be handy, but its not going to a top 5 pick (maybe if he turned 25 (like Beams) this year instead of 29) let alone the #1. Salary cap relief is of no benefit at the position of the ladder we are on, in fact it hurts us, GWS has no mature age players they would send back to us in a swap. So if the previous years #1 pick puts himself on the table & we just have to give up our pick 6 plus pay a salary we were already locked in to pay to get the #1 in the door, i'm happy to do that.

The unknown is if Boyd doesn't come on or gets injured, that's the roll of the dice the club has gambled and I reckon its worth it.

You are still missing the point.

The point is that we need to do better than take crappy deals and rationalise that we didn't have much choice. There are always other choices.
In terms of negotiation, we try to drive a harder bargain, we look for other options which are more advantageous. We don't simply fall back on excuses, and say that it doesn't matter because we aren't really trying at the moment anyway.

So if we trade Griffen and are happy to give them cash because it suits us to do so, then we strike a deal without pick 6, or we get on to the agents of other players who would love that sort of salary and see if they are interested in coming across to the Dogs. There was still time left in trade week and of course the drafts still to come. $800k is a top of the line salary that many players would be prepared to move for.

We need to stop rolling over in player trades.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You are still missing the point.

The point is that we need to do better than take crappy deals and rationalise that we didn't have much choice. There are always other choices.
In terms of negotiation, we try to drive a harder bargain, we look for other options which are more advantageous. We don't simply fall back on excuses, and say that doesn't matter because we aren't really trying at the moment anyway.

So if we trade Griffen and are happy to give them cash because it suits us to do so, then we strike a deal without pick 6, or we get on to the agents of other players who would love that sort of salary and see if they are interested in coming across to the Dogs. There was still time left in trade week and of course the drafts still to come. $800k is a top of the line salary that many players would be prepared to move for.

We need to stop rolling over in player trades.

Who is to say we didn't try to drive a harder bargain, or look for other options which were more advantageous? It might not have suited us to give Griffen's cash, maybe we did try to strike a deal without pick 6. Maybe dozens of agents of top players were approached, maybe "many" players would have been prepared to move for $800K (name ONE, even Lonergan wasn't).

You can't know what was happening behind the scenes. "Rolling over" is simply your interpretation of a situation that didn't pan out the way you thought it should.

If you can do better, become a list manager and show us how it's done.

 

[Butane]

We would have got at least a 3rd rounder for Lake leaving as a FA a year later. So if you take that as nullifying the 3rd rounder in the deal, all we gained was a 7 pick upgrade in the second round.

And what a predicament we put Hawthorn in - "Hi Hawthorn, would you like the last piece of your premiership puzzle for a price anyone in your situation would pay in an instant"?

Hawthorn - "ummmmm, yes?"

Hi-fives in their footy department, "refreshing to deal with such reasonable people" was the message from Clarkson to the press the next day.

We should have done to them what Sydney did to us with Hall (the first time around), put them to a real decision, and spell out the consequences of them missing out on another premiership because they didn't pay the premium price for the exact player they needed 12 months earlier. But whether it be out of fear, or desperation to get picks to satisfy Collingwood for Dawes as quickly as possible, we gave them what they so desperately needed (and essentially a premiership) on a platter.

Finally somebody gets it!

 

[Butane]

Just as an aside people scoffed when we recruited Crameri @ 450k p/y. For a bloke who led a club (any club's) goalkicking three times in a row for the three years before, that's a bargain.

Compare that to the 750k offered to Henderson or the 700k that Steven got resigned for, and 450k is an amazing deal for a guy like Crameri.

That was ******* stupid by the media/opposition fans. I remmeber Robbo having a crack at Crameri leaving for money and he better be worth it at the time. Crameri is actually on about what a best 22 player should be on. And as I've said before, Crameri is best 22 at just about any club if not all.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

That was a fantastic deal. Prised a valued player out of a club that is notoriously hard to deal with, only gave up a second rounder, and, given his output to date, for money that is looking like unders.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do in the same forward line as Boyd, Redpath & Stringer. Hopefully we won't have to wait long.

 

[Butane]

Also, while this being a contradictory post - How good is this board and it's ability to hold solid discussions. You don't get this on many, if any other teams boards.

 

[lachy]

You keep talking about the AFL funding us. So what?

We get money from distributions like all clubs and get equalisation funding to compensate us for some of the disadvantages that we get in the current AFL arrangements.

Once we get it in we need to spend it wisely, not piss it away and then say 'ah well is wasn't really our money, it was the AFL's'.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that the salary cap for every club is funded by the AFL. Therefore, simply put we must spend it. There is a minimum amount we must spend. Griff doing what he did meant we would be way unders, and only less than $200k can be included for Boyd for this season. Therefore, the cost of paying Griff is irrelevant it is only one year and frees up the cap next year. We did this on a smaller scale for Rawlings in the past. For Boyds second year we pick up the $600k differential, $1mill in extra cap space and $1mil in marketing, therefore, easily fitting in the pay. Again funded by the AFL which MUST be spent under the players collective agreement.

So yes you can argue there is a risk, fully acknowledged, but it not an expense that puts the future of the club in any danger and if managed properly has little impact on list management.

 

[cammo78]

Also, while this being a contradictory post - How good is this board and it's ability to hold solid discussions. You don't get this on many, if any other teams boards.

It is a vast contrast from a number of boards where anyone who dares to deviate from the Kool aid/status quo viewpoint is denigrated and shot down in flames.

 

[Claudonious]

Brilliant post cromag, sums everything up perfectly.

Agreed - sums up the situation perfectly. Given the exodus of high paid players, structuring the deal this way had nothing to do with GWS' negotiating power and us "bending over", and everything to do with
managing our salary cap. Us paying griff's salary next year was for our benefit , nothing more.

Pick 6 versus a later pick is another story, but understandable given the circumstances.

 

[lachy]

Also, while this being a contradictory post - How good is this board and it's ability to hold solid discussions. You don't get this on many, if any other teams boards.

Well put Butane, we are allowed to disagree and for the most part even those who do play nicely

 

[Tommycash]

you don't walk away from an Angus steak because of a missing baked potato.

Yeah. That is a flipping fantastic analogy. I will use that in life.

 

[JJHunter]

You are still missing the point.

The point is that we need to do better than take crappy deals and rationalise that we didn't have much choice. There are always other choices.
In terms of negotiation, we try to drive a harder bargain, we look for other options which are more advantageous. We don't simply fall back on excuses, and say that it doesn't matter because we aren't really trying at the moment anyway.

So if we trade Griffen and are happy to give them cash because it suits us to do so, then we strike a deal without pick 6, or we get on to the agents of other players who would love that sort of salary and see if they are interested in coming across to the Dogs. There was still time left in trade week and of course the drafts still to come. $800k is a top of the line salary that many players would be prepared to move for.

We need to stop rolling over in player trades.

I tend to agree .. One example I'll refer back to is the lake trade done in day 1 of trade fortnight !

Surely we held the cards in that deal and didn't have any need to jump as quick as we did. Why not see whether the hawks got anything better to give us by the end of the trade period and hey if they didn't we wouldn't be any worse off!!

Fyi we got Stevens for lake and a 7 pick advance in the first round. it may turn out alright of course - doesn't mean there was any need to lock it away so quick

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I guess my position is firmly known, and I enjoy reading Lachy's posts as he shares many views that I have. Not saying they're right or wrong ( actually they're right ) but singling out the extraordinary situation Griff and Boyd was, as an example of how we have traditionally dealt with other clubs, is frankly, silly. In my view we have been fair, but strong, in all the dealings we've had over the last 10 years (Crameri a prime example).

I've said this a thousand times, but I'll say it again, as I know the actual story well, to say we had any alternative other than to do what we did, is fanciful. The deal was fair, IMO, Boyd was worth a fortune, and we paid one. "Being willing to walk away" is a great line, but slightly more restricting when the eyes of the football world are fixed on you and how you are going to react to your captain walking out on you.

 

[lachy]

I tend to agree .. One example I'll refer back to is the lake trade done in day 1 of trade fortnight !

Surely we held the cards in that deal and didn't have any need to jump as quick as we did. Why not see whether the hawks got anything better to give us by the end of the trade period and hey if they didn't we wouldn't be any worse off!!

Fyi we got Stevens for lake and a 7 pick advance in the first round. it may turn out alright of course - doesn't mean there was any need to lock it away so quick

Is it the time it took that made it a bad deal? What is the true value of holding out on a deal you are going to make?

The argument you appear to be making here is by holding out we would 'appear' stronger not that we would get a better result.

Hawthorn have traded out Croad, Hay, Thompson all KPP's in their prime. They were all done early. is it purely due to their success as a club these risky trades are judged as good list management whereas if we do it we 'appear' to be weak and soft traders and those who are not stringent critical are not tough enough on the club?

Whether a trade is a success is subjective initially and is proven only in hindsight. It appears some posters/supporters can only view this aspect of football in the paradigm of absolutes which it clearly never has nor never will be

 

[dogwatch]

Another thing we seem to have quickly forgotten is the PR/morale side of it.

Our post-season was in utter ruins until the Boyd option surfaced. How, as President of the WB, would you best go about rescuing the club from despair and give hope to thousands of fans who could be about to throw up their hands and walk away from footy? Getting Tom Boyd was a masterstroke in this regard. Suddenly we went from being a basket case to a serious player. Fans were rejoicing everywhere (just read the BF threads at the time to get a feel for that). Allegorically, countless membership cards were removed from the microwave just moments before the finger hit the "Start" button.

It's obviously hard to assess the value of securing Boyd, but this important aspect should not be forgotten as - months later - we look back and discuss whether it was a fair or a worthwhile deal.

 

[BRWB]

I tend to agree .. One example I'll refer back to is the lake trade done in day 1 of trade fortnight !

Surely we held the cards in that deal and didn't have any need to jump as quick as we did. Why not see whether the hawks got anything better to give us by the end of the trade period and hey if they didn't we wouldn't be any worse off!!

Fyi we got Stevens for lake and a 7 pick advance in the first round. it may turn out alright of course - doesn't mean there was any need to lock it away so quick

My understanding of the rationale behind the speed of the Lake deal was:

1 - Apart from Hawthorn, no other club was interested in Lake (including us)

2 - We were concerned that the longer trade week went on, the closer Hawthorn would be to finding another Lake type (yeah maybe not as good) if we didn't do the deal quick

3 - We didn't want to be stuck with an unhappy demotivated Lake (lets face it, he looks that way even when things are going well) and lose him for potentially zip as a FA next year.

So yeah there very good reasons to the Lake deal quick.

 

[JJHunter]

My understanding of the rationale behind the speed of the Lake deal was:

1 - Apart from Hawthorn, no other club was interested in Lake (including us)

2 - We were concerned that the longer trade week went on, the closer Hawthorn would be to finding another Lake type (yeah maybe not as good) if we didn't do the deal quick

3 - We didn't want to be stuck with an unhappy demotivated Lake (lets face it, he looks that way even when things are going well) and lose him for potentially zip as a FA next year.

So yeah there very good reasons to the Lake deal quick.

Respectfully disagree - thats searching for reasons IMO.

For all the crap Dodoro gets for his trades there are very few he still doesnt get done.
Yeh he is a prick but the man waits till the end of trade period for better offers or to push opposing clubs to get what he wants.
We ultimately are the polar opposite. People may say that we are good to deal with.
id rather been uncompromising and firm in our negotiations.
Recent history has shown we are prone to blink first in trade deals.

 

[100action]

Hi-fives in their footy department, "refreshing to deal with such reasonable people" was the message from Clarkson to the press the next day.

is this actually true, or is it part of your storytelling?

I agree however we got boned on the Lake deal, we have been boned on a few others as well.

 

[Gmod23]

is this actually true, or is it part of your storytelling?

I agree however we got boned on the Lake deal, we have been boned on a few others as well.

The other teams in the AFL allowed us to get boned. Needed competition and no one else was interested. He was the missing piece for 3-4 sides and they all didn't bid on him. Shame on them! (But shame on us too for doing it!)

 

[100action]

My understanding of the rationale behind the speed of the Lake deal was:

...............................

So yeah there very good reasons to the Lake deal quick.

Hawthorn are known to squirm at the hour of death. Lets not forget the Josh Hill debacle were Hawthorn offered pick 37 and 66 at the last hour, only for us to refuse claiming "fire sale tactics". One year later we trade Josh Hill to WC for pick 49.

With those picks Hawthorn drafted Paul Puopolo who became a two time premiership player and Mitch Hallahan who they salvaged for pick 47 and pick 49 in the 2014 draft. (Not that this matters too much because we got little Pearce to show for pick 49).

The astonishing thing is that we didnt not learn from the Josh Hill debacle and fell into the trap of trying sealing the deal as quickly as possible or not all again with the Lake deal.

 

[Bulldog1954]

None of us have any idea how we negotiate or whether we could have got better offers during trade week - it's speculation based on little evidence

 

[Pannalstaroz]

few of us have any idea how we negotiate or whether we could have got better offers during trade week - it's speculation based on little evidence

 

[Bulldog1954]

So people on this board were involved in the negotiations? I'm surprised

 

[Pannalstaroz]

So people on this board were involved in the negotiations? I'm surprised

I doubt it, but that's not what you said.

 

[TBOW]

I can't believe people think we did poorly on the Lake deal!!

We traded a disinterested 30 year old with a body that was breaking down, for a pick upgrade into the first round and the pick we used to grab Koby Stevens.

I would suggest, if anything we pulled the trigger quickly because it was a great deal and we were worried Hawthorn would change their mind.
We only got what we did for Lake because Hawthorn were desperate for a ready to go player of his type. It was the ultimate win/win deal.

On the flipside the Boyd deal in a way ended up being a lose/lose deal. We had already lost our captain and best palyer - it was a massive coup that we were able to inflict some damage to GWS in return by poaching the most sought after young player in the country.


It seems as though some people only think a deal is good if it results in us completely shafting the other club.
I've been pretty happy with our trading over the last couple of years. Before that is a different story...