Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrisbaneCFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, isn't he contracted to 2019?

If he is, then unless they offer what we're willing to accept for him - and by what occurred concerning his potential trade from last year, we're certainly not going to get worse than what we think he's worth - he's not going anywhere. I don't think there's an issue with that, really; either we trade him and get in two kids of quality, only one of which will truly be AFL ready (draft selections that go round one are intended to play in their draft years, where second round selections are either more limited or are expected to take a bit of development first) or we keep exactly what Gibbs is; a highly durable B+ to A player. What's the bad there?

I'd be fine with keeping him, but if we were to trade him this year would be the time for us to do it without unduly affecting our results whilst still getting quality for him.
 
Metalcrusher said:
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.
Click to expand...

TBF, its not THIS side Hopper would be coming into, its a future team, hopefully with a list turnover almost at its completion after this year trade and draft period. Hopper would be part of a new side all things considered.
 
Cutz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep.

It was pretty clear last year that Adelaide came out with their "Gibbs wants to come back to Adelaide" bullshit largely because they wanted us only to trade with them, and to use that leverage to offer unders. We, obviously, had none of that; we were in full-on diplomatic standoff mode, telling Adelaide that, seeing as they wanted to poach a contracted player, it behooves them to name something that we would accept for him.

If they do that again - which they won't, because last year was a shocking look for them - then we will absolutely see ourselves in the same situation, as Gibbs is still contracted. The way I see it, they'll either still want him, and will come at us more realistically in order to pry him away, or they won't even bother this offseason, and will instead attempt to trade for him when he's uncontracted.

Bear in mind, if he's still here by then, it doesn't cost us as much to lose him by then; the rebuild will be mostly accomplished, and realistically they should be able to compensate for the lack of Gibbs via the draft by then, which reduces their need to trade him in.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BrisbaneCFC said:
TBF, its not THIS side Hopper would be coming into, its a future team, hopefully with a list turnover almost at its completion after this year trade and draft period. Hopper would be part of a new side all things considered.
Click to expand...


All things considered that is exactly the side he would be coming in to.
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
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.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I'm not the one missing the point. To argue that a club should be punished when a different party wants to end the contract makes no sense. If the club is willing to satisfy the contract they signed, why should they be punished? The point is that is a player retires, the club is NOT responsible.

Their punishment comes if/when said player doesn't want to give up the cash and keeps going past their used by date. And in those circumstances I completely understand why the club should be pinged 100% under the TPP
 
Gethelred said:
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.
Click to expand...
i know this will be unpopular but its exactly the reason i'd prefer us to let go of Murph. While he still has some currency.
i'd prefer to keep Gibbs over him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Farktherest said:
Not offering a 26 year old a 9 year contract is what they're supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Serious question, why? They've taken the risk that he'll be a bloated has been playing on the reserves and cashing his checks. But if Buddy retires and forgoes his money, why should they be punished?

If a 28 yo gets a four year deal but retires at year 3 for personal reasons, do we make the club count year 4 under the cap.

If you want to complain about COLA I'll join you. But suggesting that they should be punished for the length of Buddy makes the decision to retire and forgo his money makes no sense
 
Canyouhearthedrums said:
Serious question, why? They've taken the risk that he'll be a bloated has been playing on the reserves and cashing his checks. But if Buddy retires and forgoes his money, why should they be punished?

If a 28 yo gets a four year deal but retires at year 3 for personal reasons, do we make the club count year 4 under the cap.

If you want to complain about COLA I'll join you. But suggesting that they should be punished for the length of Buddy makes the decision to retire and forgo his money makes no sense
Click to expand...

Yes...Doesn't make any sense. But then again alot of the rules the AFL implement dont make sense.

Giving the Northern States COLA and sitting around thinking that Northern states were actually using it for what it was designed for as opposed to attracting more stars from an already thin talent pool in Victoria made no sense.

But the cap rules are the salary for any given contract must be included in TPP over the full length of the contract & not cease to be included when and if the player decides to retire during that contract period.
 
GapInIkonPark said:
Club and player - Don't provide service, don't get paid. Maybe a severance pay.
Club and other clubs / AFL - Offer a 9 year contract and player retires after say 6 years, then Club wears the risk in its salary cap. Can't just get free run at another $1 million per year player. The balance is included in the Club's cap in year 7 of this scenario, and then the Club is good to go again in Year 8.
Click to expand...

We will see if the same rules apply if Ablett retires at seasons end or wants to terminate his contract to get back to Geelong.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ITCHY EYEBALLS said:
i know this will be unpopular but its exactly the reason i'd prefer us to let go of Murph. While he still has some currency.
i'd prefer to keep Gibbs over him.
Click to expand...

Id move both on in a perfect world. Get Gibbs to Adelaide for a first rounder and try to sell Murphy on a Premiership moving to GWS for a couple of years while we bag Hopper in return.
 
Cutz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think port have a 1st round pick
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
Because they took that risk when they signed the player and used a larger riskier contract as a lure. I'm all for the player being looked after but if a club beats out other clubs with a massive (risk filled) contract, they deserve the consequence when that risk is realised.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If a player changes clubs as a restricted free agent the departing club has the chance to match the offer. Clubs cannot simply put forward contracts as a way of putting off the other club to match it. If, say Franklin, does retire before his contact is up he may not get paid it but the Swans have to include this contract in the salary cap for the remainder of the contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top