Traded Ryan Griffen + Pick 6 traded for Tom Boyd

[fronkalicious]

I think you're both underestimating that the dogs simply weren't going to trade griffen unless Boyd was coming back the other way. It would have been all kinds of ugly for everyone had the deal not gone through. Getting it done was in everyone's best interests, which is why big Dave Matthews (a good Geelong college boy no less), got the tap on the shoulder from his superiors and was politely asked to facilitate the trade.

 

[fronkalicious]

The trade IMO was perfectly fine but the size of the contract is bordering on madness.

Agree the contract is a huge risk. But consider that we have the lowest cap spend of any team in the comp. And a large portion of what we do actually spend is spent on aging players that will retire by the time our kids need to be paid. And that boyds deal is so heavily front loaded that his salary eases back to a very reasonable rate when bonti, Macrae etc need to be paid. And that we also have enough cap space to chase WHE, Carlisle etc next year as well.

A risk?? Most definitely. A well thought out and considered risk? Sure is.

 

[Kram]

Agree the contract is a huge risk. But consider that we have the lowest cap spend of any team in the comp. And a large portion of what we do actually spend is spent on aging players that will retire by the time our kids need to be paid. And that boyds deal is so heavily front loaded that his salary eases back to a very reasonable rate when bonti, Macrae etc need to be paid. And that we also have enough cap space to chase WHE, Carlisle etc next year as well.

A risk?? Most definitely. A well thought out and considered risk? Sure is.

Yeah it's not something I would do but I can understand the thought process behind it.

 

[grouse mate]

Agree the contract is a huge risk. But consider that we have the lowest cap spend of any team in the comp. And a large portion of what we do actually spend is spent on aging players that will retire by the time our kids need to be paid. And that boyds deal is so heavily front loaded that his salary eases back to a very reasonable rate when bonti, Macrae etc need to be paid. And that we also have enough cap space to chase WHE, Carlisle etc next year as well.

A risk?? Most definitely. A well thought out and considered risk? Sure is.

Isn't he still on draftees wages next year?

 

[fronkalicious]

Isn't he still on draftees wages next year?

Yep. Loaded in 2016. Bonti, Libba, Macrae, hrovat etc all contracted for 2016 already, so that's where his cash has been loaded.

 

[TiAn_]

Long story short, take the contract and the captaincy out of it and any Dogs supporter would give up Griffen and pick 6 for Boyd.

Does anyone think if the Dogs had Tom Boyd we would have entertained trading him anywhere for a very good 28 year old mid and pick 6?? Hell no.

No one would. Key forwards are the most valuable currency in the game.

At most, 2-3 teams would have thought twice about it. And even then only ones with established, prime of their career key position players (Gee? Haw? Syd?.. GC?).

 

[TiAn_]

As to the contract, it's a risk. A big one.

But I'd argue less of a risk than the Scully deal, considering Scully at the time was a small mid coming off a disappointing injury impacted second season.

Can't forget how stoked the Dees were at the time with the compensation.

Hopefully Boyd lives up to his potential and it's not the Scully Deal Mk II

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

So you think Griffen will contribute more at 34 years of age compared to Tom Boyd at 24?

I didn't say that .
I said if the bulldogs didn't consider Griffen to be a part of their next premiership team well then what are they playing for?
Basically I'm saying that it's absolute bulshit and they would never have thought such things.
It's just a lazy throw away line people use.

 

[SugarCoat]

It's a ballsy move by WB and anyone who doesn't offer them kudos has sour grapes.
Most of the sour grapes are from GWS or Carlton supporters.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The flip side is if the draft capital and cap room paid to Boyd will prevent the Dogs from immediately rebuilding their KPD stocks and replacing the lost experience in their midfield.

Complete utter bullcrap
We dumped Higgins, Cooney and Griffen's contracts. Even with us paying a portion, that's still over 15% of the salary cap more that we'll have to work with.
Dumping players with the salaries is typical in american sports, where you can make use of that spare salary cap room because player movement is more common.
This offseason we're ahead of the game. Boyd to a 7 year deal, front loaded contracts, making use of the 105% rule of the salary cap, and all that, we're the first team to do innovative, list-management things like that. It's going to be the norm.
Short of immediately rebuilding our lost stocks, much the opposite will happen. I'm putting money of us recruiting two of WHE, Carlisle, Dangerfield or similar players next off-season.

 

[Gigantor]

It's a ballsy move by WB and anyone who doesn't offer them kudos has sour grapes.
Most of the sour grapes are from GWS or Carlton supporters.

some truth there about the sour grapes
from a GWS perspective, we're without the General (again) for a large chunk of next season, so it hurts a fair bit that we enter a fourth season never having come close to having a stable forward line set up

 

[Determinant]

Complete utter bullcrap
We dumped Higgins, Cooney and Griffen's contracts. Even with us paying a portion, that's still over 15% of the salary cap more that we'll have to work with.
Dumping players with the salaries is typical in american sports, where you can make use of that spare salary cap room because player movement is more common.
This offseason we're ahead of the game. Boyd to a 7 year deal, front loaded contracts, making use of the 105% rule of the salary cap, and all that, we're the first team to do innovative, list-management things like that. It's going to be the norm.
Short of immediately rebuilding our lost stocks, much the opposite will happen. I'm putting money of us recruiting two of WHE, Carlisle, Dangerfield or similar players next off-season.

Really?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Really?

Yep. We didn't dump Cooney because we didn't think he could play anymore, we dumped him because he had an over-market contract, same with Higgins.
That's were modern AFL is heading, and the Dogs are ahead of the ball park. Kudos to them.
Considering that we were paying 95% of the cap in 2014, without those three we would have at best paid 80% next year. Boyd being on rookie contract, we would have front-loaded the contracts of Hrovat, Stringer, Macrae, Hunter et al. who all finished their rookie contracts in 2014, in 2015, so we can simply reach the salary floor in 2015 of 95%. The 105% rule means that we would be able to increase our salary by 10% or roughly $1 million, which represents how much Boyd's contract would increase by, in 2016. All good and well, you'd think. His contract downgrading along with others, means that by 2017, we'll be at 100% as per the league rules.
But the thing is, that's if you do not account for the fact that contracts are going to be paid less with front-loading not just from 2015 to 16, but 16 to 17 and so forth.. Our young players, over 10 or 15 of them, we could collectively pay them over $1 million less in 2016 than over 2015 which means that we'd have the room to chase one or two free agents, talking about a WHE, Treloar, Dangerfield or Carlisle, at the end of 2015.

All of that was possible because we lost over 15% of the salary cap with just three players in Cooney, Griffen, Higgins.

 

[Determinant]

Yep. We didn't dump Cooney because we didn't think he could play anymore, we dumped him because he had an over-market contract, same with Higgins.
That's were modern AFL is heading, and the Dogs are ahead of the ball park. Kudos to them.
Considering that we were paying 95% of the cap in 2014, without those three we would have at best paid 80% next year. Boyd being on rookie contract, we would have front-loaded the contracts of Hrovat, Stringer, Macrae, Hunter et al. who all finished their rookie contracts in 2014, in 2015, so we can simply reach the salary floor in 2015 of 95%. The 105% rule means that we would be able to increase our salary by 10% or roughly $1 million, which represents how much Boyd's contract would increase by, in 2016. All good and well, you'd think. His contract downgrading along with others, means that by 2017, we'll be at 100% as per the league rules.
But the thing is, that's if you do not account for the fact that contracts are going to be paid less with front-loading not just from 2015 to 16, but 16 to 17 and so forth.. Our young players, over 10 or 15 of them, we could collectively pay them over $1 million less in 2016 than over 2015 which means that we'd have the room to chase one or two free agents, talking about a WHE, Treloar, Dangerfield or Carlisle, at the end of 2015.

All of that was possible because we lost over 15% of the salary cap with just three players in Cooney, Griffen, Higgins.

I wasn't questioning the strategy, which may or may not work for you, arguably no more or less dumb/bold than Sydney's Franklin contract.
I was questioning the bit I bolded.

 

[SugarCoat]

some truth there about the sour grapes

Think GWS knew he wasn't too attached to the Giants so I don't think you guys are that worried.
You get Griffin & Pick 7 for him. A win/win trade.
In regards to the salary cap, you will find Boyd isn't that much of a big salary cap squeeze with these new rules about equalisation and banking space based on previous year TPP percentages.

 

[Periphery]

we're the first team to do innovative, list-management things like that.

You can't possibly say this unless you have access to every teams TPP info and player contracts.

 

[fronkalicious]

It's a ballsy move by WB and anyone who doesn't offer them kudos has sour grapes.
Most of the sour grapes are from GWS or Carlton supporters.

Sour grapes from blues supporters has been amazing. Suddenly jones and Casboult have become brereton and dunstall.

 

[SugarCoat]

Sour grapes from blues supporters has been amazing. Suddenly jones and Casboult have become brereton and dunstall.

I'm not really concerned about Boyd at Collingwood because we have a top 3 rated KPF coming in the draft this year.
We also have the ability to get Peter Wright at 5 now.
But I'd be spewing if we courted him all year and were beaten to the punch by an opposition club, who played it beautifully.
Many thought WB were into Patton. The whole Boyd move was as secret as Bud at Sydney.

 

[Furn2]

People are way overating the value salary cap space to bottom sides.

To the top 4-5-6 sides yes, it's a precious commodity but to the bottom six or so it's a pain in the ass just to reach the 95% floor.

We're talking about teams that based on output should be paying 70% max. So really throwing a mil at a potential gun like Boyd is a free hit.

At worst he's going to be a target than can make a contest and clunk the odd mark.
If or when the Dogs become a contender most of the contract will be paid.

 

[SugarCoat]

People are way overating the value salary cap space to bottom sides.

There is a new rule with equalisation.
If a team had previously had the inability to pay a full cap in 2012/2013, they are able to bring that space in future years.
WB would be subject to this.

 

[Furn2]

There is a new rule with equalisation.
If a team had previously had the inability to pay a full cap in 2012/2013, they are able to bring that space in future years.
WB would be subject to this.

Still have to pay 95% minimum just means they can pay 105% in the next year. You can do that with front loading doesn't really change anything.

 

[SugarCoat]

Still have to pay 95% minimum just means they can pay 105% in the next year. You can do that with front loading doesn't really change anything.

If the Dogs paid 95 percent both in 2012 & 2013 they can effectively get an extra 10 percent in their salary cap in 2015 if they wish to with this new rule.

 

[Gigantor]

Think GWS knew he wasn't too attached to the Giants so I don't think you guys are that worried.
You get Griffin & Pick 7 for him. A win/win trade.
In regards to the salary cap, you will find Boyd isn't that much of a big salary cap squeeze with these new rules about equalisation and banking space based on previous year TPP percentages.

pick 6 actually, yes, we have done very well out of it, but in a season when the General is broken down with injury again, it does hurt us to not have Boyd, and the trade aside, it would have been very nice to keep the triumvirate together for 10 years

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You can't possibly say this unless you have access to every teams TPP info and player contracts.

I know for a fact we were paying the bare minimum 95% of the cap in 2014.
I know for a fact that Higgins was being paid a lot, hence the fact he was a restricted free agent, not unrestricted.
I can make the very safe and educated guess that Griffen and Cooney were among our highest paid players. Griffen reportedly was on 700k a year with us.
Obviously I can never be certain but these are as safe guesses as you can get without having those direct access to TPP info.

 

[Periphery]

I know for a fact we were paying the bare minimum 95% of the cap in 2014.
I know for a fact that Higgins was being paid a lot, hence the fact he was a restricted free agent, not unrestricted.
I can make the very safe and educated guess that Griffen and Cooney were among our highest paid players. Griffen reportedly was on 700k a year with us.
Obviously I can never be certain but these are as safe guesses as you can get without having those direct access to TPP info.

I wasn't doubting those facts, just that you can't claim that the Dogs are "the first team to do innovative, list-management things like that" when you have no idea about what other teams are doing (or even about the exact details of the Dogs).

Nothing you have described in any of your posts seems particularly innovative. Front loading, prepaying and spreading TPP is pretty basic stuff and offering a player a massive contract isn't exactly ground breaking while having to move players on to help pay for that massive contract isn't a new concept. Using the new salary cap rules for their intended purpose isn't exactly innovation either.

I commend the Doggies for getting Boyd and making the bold decisions they have made to get him, but nothing I have seen indicates that they have innovated the way lists are managed.