Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion

[Cutz]

It's not just the money that stops their original club from matching, it's also the length of contract they have to match. In Buddy's case, Hawthorn would have had to keep paying him until he was 35 to match the offer.

Really though Buddy was going to GWS for the money and Sydney swooped in and turned his head with a 9 year contract that no responsible club would offer someone of his age.

If clubs are going to make ridiculous offers to snare a player and cut others out of the market, they should be made an example of.

Yep. Do folks around here remember the Kouta contract? and subsequent shit storm with Collins asking everyone to take a pay cut.. There are massive risks with these types of contracts..

We offered Kouta some good dough pre his knee injuries that then went on to provide us with issues few years later.. Now I know the Buddy and Sydney situation is different cause of the length of the contract but I think there's learnings there.. Learnings like.. Long, expensive contracts have rarely translated into premierships.. Except for Tom Boyd and the bulldogs of course.. That being said.. The Bulldogs won a flag cause of some sensational Scott Clayton recruitment..

These deals are normally better to sell memberships than delivering flags. Buddy hasnt played in a flag since leaving Hawthorn.. Meanwhile Tom Mitchell needs to look elsewhere cause there's no money left..

Exact opposite of what I want Carlton to do over the next 5-6 years..

On SM-G935F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't understand why they should be made an example of? They've made a choice. Like all choices it comes with risks and benefits. Either it works or it doesn't.

Again, Hawthorn had an option to match but the terms were jacked up to a level beyond their reach, possibly in a cynical fashion not intended to be followed through.

You say choices come with risks but then want to remove that risk by not having them honour the full contract they cynically used to cut Hawthorn and GWS out of the market.

 

[Cripps17]

If the option exists for Sydney to get out of the contract early then the option exists for Hawthorn also.

A commitment of 9 years is still a risk in that the player may choose to see out the contract despite form - they could even play conservatively in their final years to ensure it.

The possibility for a club to get out of a lengthy contact early due to forced retirement etc. does not mitigate the overarching risks, nor do those same possibilities not exist for all clubs involved.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If the option exists for Sydney to get out of the contract early then the option exists for Hawthorn also.

A commitment of 9 years is still a risk in that the player may choose to see out the contract despite form - they could even play conservatively in their final years to ensure it.

The possibility for a club to get out of a lengthy contact early due to forced retirement etc. does not mitigate the overarching risks, nor do those same possibilities not exist for all clubs involved.

Depends whether Buddy and the Swans came to an agreement to stop Hawthorn from matching. Buddy may be happy to walk away early. Swans won't have to pay him but they will have to count the balance under their cap.

 

[F_therest]

Sure and they should be held to the contract as long as the player wants to play. The lure is long term certainty.

But if the player themselves retires, the player has effectively breached the contract. There is no way the clubs should be punished for that. What are they supposed to do? Force the player to keep playing?

Not offering a 26 year old a 9 year contract is what they're supposed to do.

 

[ParapMarkets]

It's not just the money that stops their original club from matching, it's also the length of contract they have to match. In Buddy's case, Hawthorn would have had to keep paying him until he was 35 to match the offer.

Really though Buddy was going to GWS for the money and Sydney swooped in and turned his head with a 9 year contract that no responsible club would offer someone of his age.

If clubs are going to make ridiculous offers to snare a player and cut others out of the market, they should be made an example of.

Listening to Sydney re: Franklin. He approached Sydney directly after the 2012 grand final, Swans kept things quiet for the whole year and only the captains (McVeigh, Goodes) knew about it. Franklin was never going to GWS.

 

[F_therest]

Bulldogs won a premiership despite the Boyd contract, not because of it.

Boyd played like 12 games last year or something and his only good game was the grand final.

Sydney won the premiership the year before buddy got to the club so they were already a powerhouse...haven't won one since, though they've been close.

Sydney arguably lost tom Mitchell because of the buddy contract.

Dogs might lose johanneson and more in future due to Boyd's.

 

[F_therest]

Hypocritical to what I said above, id be ok with us offering Fyfe $1 mill over 5 years if we get him as FA lol...well I guess only 5, not something ridiculous like 9.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Sure and they should be held to the contract as long as the player wants to play. The lure is long term certainty.

But if the player themselves retires, the player has effectively breached the contract. There is no way the clubs should be punished for that. What are they supposed to do? Force the player to keep playing?

You're missing the point entirely. That's irrelevant and comes into the risk of the offer. Life isn't fair. You make a bad investment it's your fault. Not the investments fault for failing. It comes into the initial risk assessment and if a club ****s it up. They are responsible.

 

[Gethelred]

Apparently SOS over rates him like many here. Gibbs is a good midfielder, not a great one.

Gibb's value lies in two things; his consistency and his durability.

Name a poor game he's played; not a poorer game, not an average one, not a game where you think disposal A wasn't up to his regular standards. It just isn't a thing with him; he's very consistently good, with occasional breaks into excellent. He won't win you matches very often, but when he does he'll drag the side along. Add to that his durability, and you've an excellent proposition; you've a player that plays most weeks, whose in the prime of his career, and with his fitness and injury history has the prospect of playing for another 5-8 years.

We'd kill to be able to draft someone with those characteristics with our first round pick.

So while I don't think Adelaide would be willing to trade a first round selection and a second - future or otherwise - for him, I really don't think that's far from his value when he's still contracted.

 

[Metalcrusher]

I wouldn't be upset if we Don't lose Gibbs for exactly the things you mentioned above G man.

 

[Cutz]

Gibb's value lies in two things; his consistency and his durability.

Name a poor game he's played; not a poorer game, not an average one, not a game where you think disposal A wasn't up to his regular standards. It just isn't a thing with him; he's very consistently good, with occasional breaks into excellent. He won't win you matches very often, but when he does he'll drag the side along. Add to that his durability, and you've an excellent proposition; you've a player that plays most weeks, whose in the prime of his career, and with his fitness and injury history has the prospect of playing for another 5-8 years.

We'd kill to be able to draft someone with those characteristics with our first round pick.

So while I don't think Adelaide would be willing to trade a first round selection and a second - future or otherwise - for him, I really don't think that's far from his value when he's still contracted.

Thats the thing isn't it ? What is Adelaide willing to trade for a player with the characteristics you speak of , & in the prime of his career. I would like to think of it more like this !...

1. What would Adelaide be willing to pay if Port were also in the mix ?

2. To Carlton. It shouldn't make a difference because if its about Gibbs going home for family reasons and us getting the best possible deal, then having Port Adelaide in the mix helps us achieve both these objectives.

Help him get home. Get the best possible deal.

 

[Smegger]

I wouldn't be upset if we Don't lose Gibbs for exactly the things you mentioned above G man.

Luckily he's contracted so trade/stay is a win/win situation for us.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Gibb's value lies in two things; his consistency and his durability.

Name a poor game he's played; not a poorer game, not an average one, not a game where you think disposal A wasn't up to his regular standards. It just isn't a thing with him; he's very consistently good, with occasional breaks into excellent. He won't win you matches very often, but when he does he'll drag the side along. Add to that his durability, and you've an excellent proposition; you've a player that plays most weeks, whose in the prime of his career, and with his fitness and injury history has the prospect of playing for another 5-8 years.

We'd kill to be able to draft someone with those characteristics with our first round pick.

So while I don't think Adelaide would be willing to trade a first round selection and a second - future or otherwise - for him, I really don't think that's far from his value when he's still contracted.

If Gibbs decides he wants to go back to Adelaide and we endure the circus again at season's end, all that matters is what Adelaide think he is worth to them. I don't think he will be worth a first and second round pick, and I expect that Adelaide wont view him as worthy of a first and second round pick either. Then we are again at that impasse where we think he is worth X and they think he only worth Y. Same as last year.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Then they can think that whilst walking back to Adelaide.

 

[Soapy V]

If Gibbs decides he wants to go back to Adelaide and we endure the circus again at season's end, all that matters is what Adelaide think he is worth to them. I don't think he will be worth a first and second round pick, and I expect that Adelaide wont view him as worthy of a first and second round pick either. Then we are again at that impasse where we think he is worth X and they think he only worth Y. Same as last year.

If he asks again he has to go. Be hard to walk back in a second time

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Luckily he's contracted so trade/stay is a win/win situation for us.

I disagree. I don't think staying is a win for us.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

If he asks again he has to go. Be hard to walk back in a second time

Agreed mate.

 

[Cutz]

If Gibbs decides he wants to go back to Adelaide and we endure the circus again at season's end, all that matters is what Adelaide think he is worth to them. I don't think he will be worth a first and second round pick, and I expect that Adelaide wont view him as worthy of a first and second round pick either. Then we are again at that impasse where we think he is worth X and they think he only worth Y. Same as last year.

Thats why another bidder might change what Adelaide think his worth and gives us an opportunity to then go in and negotiate the best possible deal.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Hey I don't like living in Kalgoorlie atm either ... I sure as shit didn't move my family here for the ****ing vista or temperate weather conditions. But a contract is a contract.

 

[Smegger]

I disagree. I don't think staying is a win for us.

Sure, that would be the preference in regard to the rebuild. I was referring to the contract part otherwise he could just walk. At least if he stays we get to use his services.

 

[Soapy V]

Hey I don't like living in Kalgoorlie atm either ... I sure as shit didn't move my family here for the ******* vista or temperate weather conditions. But a contract is a contract.

......what if your missus wanted to move and you could get the same or better money plus your employer was adequately compensated?

 

[Metalcrusher]

And are his services right now .... worse than a hopper? See, you can take a punt on (and by no means am I judging hopper on this), a small sample of what said hopper brings (In a very talented side) ... and measure what Gibbs has produced in a less talented side ... can you say that Hopper will give X output without all those guns around him making him look better?

I suggest Gibbs would look A++ in and Adelaide midfield. He is not a Judd never will be ... by sheer force of will ... drag a side over the line like that Sydney final where Judd just said **** this .... I wanna win ....He fell short, however I don't think Hopper OR Gibbs are of that calibre.

Gibbs would value add ... to a more composed/skilled side.

Not sure if Hopper could produce the same output as Gibbs in THIS side.

 

[Smegger]

If he asks again he has to go. Be hard to walk back in a second time

Agree Soapy, Crows know that and use it to their advantage. Hopefully PP will come into the picture.

 

[Metalcrusher]

......what if your missus wanted to move and you could get the same or better money plus your employer was adequately compensated?

And the penalties for breach of contract myself ... and thus my family would incur as a result? No employer is going to cover those unless you are REALLY in demand.