Player Watch #4 James Harmes - Contract Extended til 2024

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dylan93

Club Legend
Mar 16, 2011
1,854
1,300
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Good news that he signed up. Not a fan personally of contracts any longer than 5 years though.

Franklin and Boyd clear examples of why ultra long contracts are a silly idea.
 

Topkent

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2010
35,746
44,081
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Good news that he signed up. Not a fan personally of contracts any longer than 5 years though.

Franklin and Boyd clear examples of why ultra long contracts are a silly idea.
Franklin has been more than worth his contract and Boyd didn't work out yet he did play well in the only game that matters.
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
16,178
22,794
AFL Club
Melbourne
Franklin has been more than worth his contract and Boyd didn't work out yet he did play well in the only game that matters.
Has he? He's been good for the first five odd years but is struggling to string games together now and Sydney are a long way from being competitive. The back half of that 9 year contract was always extremely dubious.
 

TheCount

Moderator
Oct 13, 2015
9,108
13,490
Brisbane
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Blackhawks, 76ers
Has he? He's been good for the first five odd years but is struggling to string games together now and Sydney are a long way from being competitive. The back half of that 9 year contract was always extremely dubious.
Fortunately for Sydney, due to the market they're in, they're able to judge the Franklin deal on more than just on field success. Commercially, I'd have thought it was a big success for them, and their desire to continue having a big name key forward to put bums on seats is why they've gone after Daniher, but on field, I'd be very surprised if they'd have been happy with the knowledge that it wouldn't win them a flag when they first signed the deal.
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
16,178
22,794
AFL Club
Melbourne
Fortunately for Sydney, due to the market they're in, they're able to judge the Franklin deal on more than just on field success. Commercially, I'd have thought it was a big success for them, and their desire to continue having a big name key forward to put bums on seats is why they've gone after Daniher, but on field, I'd be very surprised if they'd have been happy with the knowledge that it wouldn't win them a flag when they first signed the deal.
You sign someone like Franklin for 9 years at extravagant cost, you need to win things. Not sure how the deal is structured but I would've thought the latter contract years are going to be a serious impediment to rebuilding the list and/or retaining players. I'm sure having Franklin got them a bit of attention in Sydney, but interest and attendances fluctuate based on performance across most sports. All well and good to have Franklin but if the side are doing badly, people still won't show up. So many options to watch there so Sydney fans are terribly fickle.
 

Gysberts2Bate

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2013
16,705
19,661
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
I think the Swans would be happy with having signed Buddy. He kicked 160 goals across the two seasons they won the minor premiership and 177 goals across 2015, 2017 and 2018 from 60 games. Fair enough if you want to reduce the measure of success of signing stars to a binary of winning flags or not - that's perfectly valid - but also it is a pretty fickle enterprise when there are 17 other clubs in the competition and luck plays such a massive role in winning finals. Almost every team in the comp has stars, they're not all going to win the premiership. But signing someone like Buddy and then being as good as the Swans were between 2014-2018 is a decent outcome even without going all the way. They would have liked him to play finals in 2015 after they finished fourth though. A win off top spot and then got bundled out in straight sets inc. a nine point loss to Fremantle in the first week without him.
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
16,178
22,794
AFL Club
Melbourne
I think the Swans would be happy with having signed Buddy. He kicked 160 goals across the two seasons they won the minor premiership and 177 goals across 2015, 2017 and 2018 from 60 games. Fair enough if you want to reduce the measure of success of signing stars to a binary of winning flags or not - that's perfectly valid - but also it is a pretty fickle enterprise when there are 17 other clubs in the competition and luck plays such a massive role in winning finals. Almost every team in the comp has stars, they're not all going to win the premiership. But signing someone like Buddy and then being as good as the Swans were between 2014-2018 is a decent outcome even without going all the way. They would have liked him to play finals in 2015 after they finished fourth though. A win off top spot and then got bundled out in straight sets inc. a nine point loss to Fremantle in the first week without him.
Sorry, but signing the best forward in the game with the team they had at the time is a statement of intent. It was supposed to weaken the Hawks and give the Swans the edge to win some flags. Getting rid of the one-man show in the forward line didn't prove to be an issue for the Hawks. Bringing in a 60-80 goal a year forward certainly helped the Swans but it didn't prove to be the final piece of the puzzle they were after. Having someone on a monster salary like that is a huge impediment for list-building and divisive for the list.

I recall people arguing that the Tom Boyd move was a success because the Dogs won the 2016 flag - I don't agree, he was bad to mediocre for all but about 10 or 15 games of his short time there. He was supposed to be a 10 year forward. Franklin might have got a 10 year contract but he'll only be in his prime for the first 4 or 5 years of that. The guy is a big athletic unit and is going to come down hard as he gets older. The Swans forked out big for a Premiership winner. Can't afford to pay someone big coin to be a shadow of their former selves. Swans missed finals for the first time in how long this year? Having a marquee key forward isn't much good if he's broken down. They've got another three years to see out yet - I don't see how paying 9 years up front for 5 years of output is a good move for the Swans. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
16,734
27,687
Port Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
You sign someone like Franklin for 9 years at extravagant cost, you need to win things. Not sure how the deal is structured but I would've thought the latter contract years are going to be a serious impediment to rebuilding the list and/or retaining players. I'm sure having Franklin got them a bit of attention in Sydney, but interest and attendances fluctuate based on performance across most sports. All well and good to have Franklin but if the side are doing badly, people still won't show up. So many options to watch there so Sydney fans are terribly fickle.
Definitely true.

I suspect when Sydney finessed the deal at the time, they never once anticipated the AFL’s revenge move to end COLA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gysberts2Bate

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2013
16,705
19,661
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Sorry, but signing the best forward in the game with the team they had at the time is a statement of intent. It was supposed to weaken the Hawks and give the Swans the edge to win some flags. Getting rid of the one-man show in the forward line didn't prove to be an issue for the Hawks. Bringing in a 60-80 goal a year forward certainly helped the Swans but it didn't prove to be the final piece of the puzzle they were after. Having someone on a monster salary like that is a huge impediment for list-building and divisive for the list.

I recall people arguing that the Tom Boyd move was a success because the Dogs won the 2016 flag - I don't agree, he was bad to mediocre for all but about 10 or 15 games of his short time there. He was supposed to be a 10 year forward. Franklin might have got a 10 year contract but he'll only be in his prime for the first 4 or 5 years of that. The guy is a big athletic unit and is going to come down hard as he gets older. The Swans forked out big for a Premiership winner. Can't afford to pay someone big coin to be a shadow of their former selves. Swans missed finals for the first time in how long this year? Having a marquee key forward isn't much good if he's broken down. They've got another three years to see out yet - I don't see how paying 9 years up front for 5 years of output is a good move for the Swans. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.
You can state all the intent you want but by the same logic everything all clubs do is a gamble. Without Franklin the Swans might have been just as good or they might have been mediocre and not even in the frame to win flags 2014-17. Would they have been better off investing the money elsewhere? Maybe. Would it have won them a flag? Maybe. The only thing you can say for sure is that they've been an extremely good team since he came in, and I don't think they'll evaluate the success of the gamble based on their ability to win grand finals so much as their ability to make it to grand finals (and top 6 finishes) which has been extremely good while he's been at the club. It's not like there's any 'piece of the puzzle' that takes you from being an elite side to a grand final winner, it's like 50% a roll of the dice when every year there are like 3-5 sides that would be worth of winning the flag.
 

saj_21

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2007
7,768
4,778
unlisted
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Warney's IPL team!
Premiership >>>> fulfilling your contract

Not to mention in order to get boyd the dogs gave up a player who wanted out (griffen) and pick 6. And boyd won’t be paid out after this year. If you think the dogs lost out then you have rocks in your head.
 

GatesOfHell

Senior List
Oct 19, 2019
157
250
AFL Club
Melbourne
The marketing factor of Buddy to the Swans is worth the extra coin and extra seasons on the contract to them. A premiership or two would’ve been nice but it’s not all about winning flags these days. Bums on seats, eyeballs staring at TV’s - sadly that’s the primary driving force in sport. All about the Benjamin$.
 

Sylvia Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
May 20, 2004
7,435
6,896
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Crusaders
Sorry, but signing the best forward in the game with the team they had at the time is a statement of intent. It was supposed to weaken the Hawks and give the Swans the edge to win some flags. Getting rid of the one-man show in the forward line didn't prove to be an issue for the Hawks. Bringing in a 60-80 goal a year forward certainly helped the Swans but it didn't prove to be the final piece of the puzzle they were after. Having someone on a monster salary like that is a huge impediment for list-building and divisive for the list.

I recall people arguing that the Tom Boyd move was a success because the Dogs won the 2016 flag - I don't agree, he was bad to mediocre for all but about 10 or 15 games of his short time there. He was supposed to be a 10 year forward. Franklin might have got a 10 year contract but he'll only be in his prime for the first 4 or 5 years of that. The guy is a big athletic unit and is going to come down hard as he gets older. The Swans forked out big for a Premiership winner. Can't afford to pay someone big coin to be a shadow of their former selves. Swans missed finals for the first time in how long this year? Having a marquee key forward isn't much good if he's broken down. They've got another three years to see out yet - I don't see how paying 9 years up front for 5 years of output is a good move for the Swans. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.
This a solid post but I disagree about Boyd.

Let me ask you all this, if you had someone from the future come and tell you: You need to sign Paddy McCartin to a 6 year $6 million deal right now. He'll be a spud for the most part and retire before his deal is out, but I guarantee he'll be pivotal in beating Sydney in the 2021 Grand Final. Without him, there's no guarantees you get a flag.

Would you do it? I would without blinking.
 

markm106

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 29, 2006
7,630
5,880
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Great signing. I don’t reckon he’d been holding out for a lot of coin either. Loves the club and probably will be playing for unders given the 5 years. Someone on twitter mentioned this could be also moving money around for Martin.
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
16,178
22,794
AFL Club
Melbourne
You can state all the intent you want but by the same logic everything all clubs do is a gamble. Without Franklin the Swans might have been just as good or they might have been mediocre and not even in the frame to win flags 2014-17. Would they have been better off investing the money elsewhere? Maybe. Would it have won them a flag? Maybe. The only thing you can say for sure is that they've been an extremely good team since he came in, and I don't think they'll evaluate the success of the gamble based on their ability to win grand finals so much as their ability to make it to grand finals (and top 6 finishes) which has been extremely good while he's been at the club. It's not like there's any 'piece of the puzzle' that takes you from being an elite side to a grand final winner, it's like 50% a roll of the dice when every year there are like 3-5 sides that would be worth of winning the flag.
Where are all these other clubs handing out $10M, 9 year contracts to players in their mid 20s? Yes, to a certain degree "everything all clubs do is a gamble", but its quite a stupid and pointless thing to say.

"Should we sign Sam Gray as a delisted free agent?"
"Oooooo, I don't know, its a gamble!"
".... Righto."
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
16,178
22,794
AFL Club
Melbourne
This a solid post but I disagree about Boyd.

Let me ask you all this, if you had someone from the future come and tell you: You need to sign Paddy McCartin to a 6 year $6 million deal right now. He'll be a spud for the most part and retire before his deal is out, but I guarantee he'll be pivotal in beating Sydney in the 2021 Grand Final. Without him, there's no guarantees you get a flag.

Would you do it? I would without blinking.
I'd rather win things the way Geelong / Brisbane / Hawthorn did by building a talented list and then supplementing it with needs / experience for sustained success. Boyd had a very significant contribution towards a Premiership but fu** all overall to the Dogs. Having a hypothetical "Sign a potato to an expensive contract for Premiership success or win nothing" scenario is a silly hindsight exercise to play out.
 

Deelighted

Team Captain
Aug 2, 2009
342
373
AFL Club
Melbourne
Regardless of whether you look at the Boyd deal as a success or not, it's definitely not solid evidence that giving players monster contracts is a good idea.

The guy played out of his skin in the grand final but was below AFL standard in most of his games. What percentage of players play easily their best game in a grand final? Pretty small I would imagine.

Of course almost all of us would give a random spud a huge pay cheque if it meant we'd win a flag, though I wouldn't think many teams are looking at Tom Boyds deal & freak GF performance as a blueprint for success.
 

GatesOfHell

Senior List
Oct 19, 2019
157
250
AFL Club
Melbourne

“I’m a bit staggered by Melbourne to be honest,” Cornes told SEN’s the Captain’s Run.
“I like James Harmes. He comes into the Sunday Footy Show often, he has a laugh, he is a terrific guy, but when we comment in the media, we don’t comment on their personality and their character.
“Melbourne has given Harmes a five-year contract. He’s 24 years old, a good player, plays a role through the midfield, but a five-year deal for James Harmes?”

Don’t always agree with Kane but he’s right. Taking off the red and blue goggles on this one ... it’s friggin’ ridiculous. There is absolutely zero reason to lock away James Harmes for more than a three year period. Absolutely crazy stuff.
 

Topkent

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2010
35,746
44,081
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets

“I’m a bit staggered by Melbourne to be honest,” Cornes told SEN’s the Captain’s Run.
“I like James Harmes. He comes into the Sunday Footy Show often, he has a laugh, he is a terrific guy, but when we comment in the media, we don’t comment on their personality and their character.
“Melbourne has given Harmes a five-year contract. He’s 24 years old, a good player, plays a role through the midfield, but a five-year deal for James Harmes?”

Don’t always agree with Kane but he’s right. Taking off the red and blue goggles on this one ... it’s friggin’ ridiculous. There is absolutely zero reason to lock away James Harmes for more than a three year period. Absolutely crazy stuff.
Eh wrong

If we signed him for 3 and he becomes a gun he could chase a pay rise. This one means he's on a fixed contract for 5 years.
 

Tulip

Hall of Famer
May 3, 2009
32,266
26,105
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Tottenham
I do think it probably shows some fuzzy thinking from the club. Five years to a B grader is unconventional in AFL circles. Having said that, Harmes is a gun and he is durable - so I see no reason to worry about this particular contract.
 

schmuttt

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 12, 2014
20,615
31,811
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
I love how people aren’t actually even reading the fine print on Harmes.

- it was a 4 year extension, he was already contracted for 2020
- he is much better than a ‘good honest toilet’
- he would hardly be getting paid squillions

Also like how Kornes says the Lever and May contracts are failures when they aren’t even halfway through their deal.
 

Top Bottom