List Mgmt. 2017 Trade & FA Targets Part 1

[VDS66]

Steele went toe to toe with Cripps yesterday. He had 29 disposals, 17 contested & 7 tackles along with a goal. Cripps had 30, 20 & 5. Cripps has had an extra year in the system. Steele will be that contested beast.

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

 

[Glen Buterol]

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

Happy with both but can't beat the gun mid that will give us 10 years service.

 

[Strahany]

I believe Rors is referring to the fact that we've been overpaying our players AND frontloading.

For example, if a fair price for Billings' current contract is 250K per year, then the club might be paying him 350K-ish, under the pretense that this is kept in consideration during his next contract negotiation, such that he will accept ~100K less than he otherwise would have.

 

[hayes]

30 and 5 are Gary Ablett numbers. 500k won't cut it if he's going to start doing that. If we get him at 600k and lock him up for five years that's an absolute steal.

 

[VDS66]

More to do with meeting our cap requirements.

 

[Joffaboy]

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

Steele. But Brown has been effing awesome.

 

[Glen Buterol]

I believe Rors is referring to the fact that we've been overpaying our players AND frontloading.

For example, if a fair price for Billings' current contract is 250K per year, then the club might be paying him 350K-ish, under the pretense that this is kept in consideration during his next contract negotiation, such that he will accept ~100K less than he otherwise would have.

I think it's more the case of paying extra in the initial year/s of the contract & minimal in the latter part of the contract. Eg 400, 400, 200, 200 over a four year deal.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

Pretty sure a few contracts were front loaded to help us pay the salary cap minimum, and create space for a big fish.

When the club says it paid overs on previous contracts what does that actually mean? And why would a player take less money on a new contract.
So what people are saying is eg.
Say Billings signed a 3 year extension at overs for what? Say 350? And now the club are gona say we paid you overs so our offer to you is a little less than market?
Does it really work like that? Doesnt sound right.

 

[Strahany]

I think it's more the case of paying extra in the initial year/s of the contract & minimal in the latter part of the contract. Eg 400, 400, 200, 200 over a four year deal.

No, that was in addition to the overpaying aspect. What you're referring to is frontloading, which has nothing to do with "paying heaps more than he's worth".

It's been mentioned a number of times that we've overpaid the youngsters with "an understanding" carrying through to their future contracts.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

Brown. FB's are hard to replace.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

I think it's more the case of paying extra in the initial year/s of the contract & minimal in the latter part of the contract. Eg 400, 400, 200, 200 over a four year deal.

Thats exactly what i think. Cant see how a player agrees to take less on a future new contract by taking more in the previous.
But maybe im wrong.

 

[saintsrfreak]

No, that was in addition to the overpaying aspect. What you're referring to is frontloading, which has nothing to do with "paying heaps more than he's worth".

It's been mentioned a number of times that we've overpaid the youngsters with "an understanding" carrying through to their future contracts.

There'd be some egg on our faces if we did that and then they thought to themselves "Hold on a minute, understanding? Stuff that, who's stopping me getting more money elsewhere?"

 

[Strahany]

Paying a player in advance can be either a discussed component of the contract, or can be merely a gesture. For example, the negotiation would be along the lines of
"Okay, we've agreed on giving you $1M across 4 years. Due to needing to meet the cap minimum, we'd like to front load your contract so that we pay 400/400/100/100. After doing that, we still have some room in the cap - what if we make it $1.4M over 4 years, and we considering this extra money as part of your next contract, since this will allow us to free room in the future to bring more talent to the club and increase your chances of a premiership".

Any player not entirely driven by money would accept that, as they lose nothing in exchange for improving the quality of the list in the future.

Don't forget that this was done, in reverse with Goddard. Part of the reason why he left was because he was promised a bigger contract in the future, in lieu of adequate payments on the contract he was on, in order to keep the team together. Then, Pelchen came along and decided that this understanding was to be thrown out and the rest is history.

In the case of a gesture, the club may just pay extra as a "favour" and when the day comes, the club will call upon the player to do a service for them....

There'd be some egg on our faces if we did that and then they thought to themselves "Hold on a minute, understanding? Stuff that, who's stopping me getting more money elsewhere?"

Nothing is stopping a player from doing that. One would hope that they're not so greedy that they'd impair their prospects for footballing success for a bit of extra coin. But, if they decided to do it (either by refusing to acknowledge it when re-signing, or by leaving to another team) then the club hasn't really lost anything because the cap space wasn't going to be used, anyway.

 

[BrutThough]

No way Billings signs a contract for $500k a year, and if he did it would only be a very short one. He will wait until the end of the year once his price has risen dramatically and be on much better coin.

 

[Sab22]

I want Kelly.

Imagine:
Kelly - Acres - Billings
Along with Dunstan and Freeman.

On HTC 2PS5200 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Richter]

Curious to get thoughts on this trade....

Saints 2017 and 2018 first for Kelly and our 2017 2nd back (the one we traded for Steele)

Hickey and our 2017 2nd for the dogs 2017 1st

Could see Hickey being a good fit for the dogs.

Nice try. But if Kelly does come to the Saints then we'll have to pay our Hawthorn 1st + IMO.

Doubt Hickey nets us a first rounder... even if only an upgrade. Especially given that the Dogs did us a solid in basically giving us Koby for nix.

 

[Keg on legs]

Nice try. But if Kelly does come to the Saints then we'll have to pay our Hawthorn 1st + IMO.

Doubt Hickey nets us a first rounder... even if only an upgrade. Especially given that the Dogs did us a solid in basically giving us Koby for nix.

So what you're saying is Jelly, long and battle for pick 10 and something extra?


As much as I would love to take the hawks pick to the draft, I guess I could live with that....

 

[Strahany]

I feel that there are only two scenarios in which we give up the Hawthorn pick (if it is top 5)

• Use it with (a lot) more to acquire Kelly
• If a club is able to offer an exceptional deal with young talent involved, preferably multiple kids that are yet to breakout (again, likely to only really be GWS with their excess players)

If neither of those eventuate, then getting in an elite kid would be the way to go. Trading it for someone at their peak age right now feels like we're depriving our future of a quality player, especially if we begin to rise the ladder in the coming seasons.

 

[RoundCubic]

Probably
But still could use an inside beast who consistently wins 15 CP a game like Fyfe and Martin

Got one Steele

 

[Sab22]

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

Brown was a "Steele" in my opinion.

 

[VDS66]

When the club says it paid overs on previous contracts what does that actually mean? And why would a player take less money on a new contract.
So what people are saying is eg.
Say Billings signed a 3 year extension at overs for what? Say 350? And now the club are gona say we paid you overs so our offer to you is a little less than market?
Does it really work like that? Doesnt sound right.

Not saying that at all. My understanding is that each club had to pay a minimum % of their cap each year and we were below that.

So to get us up to the minimum spend, we paid a few players extra.

Thus would have no impact on a new contract, where they would get what they are worth.

 

[gringo2011]

Pound for pound, who is the biggest bargain this year... Steele or Brown?

Steele, he's got scope to be better and 10 years more potentially than Brown.

 

[bird_man]

Steele, he's got scope to be better and 10 years more potentially than Brown.

Definitely Steele. Only in his third year of footy remember, he's on the way to being one of the better mids in the comp.

 

[GTrains Mullet]

Well Nathan was for free and Steele cost us a second round, so if you looking purely from that perspective Brown.

However if you look from the perspective of team structure you would probably go with Brown as we needed a good FB badly and he has delivered.

But if you look at a longer term list perspective then Steele has is hands down as the kid has talent and is already performing well and has plenty of development left in him.

 

[Armoooo]

Steele by a long way. A second rounder for a bloke that will be a part of your starting midfield group for a good 10 years... that is an absolute bargain.

Feel that Steele is hard player to get a read on, his potential could be huge.