These are all interesting points and well worth a discussion. I do believe our pay structure is/has been flawed and have said for a while we need to tailor it to the reality that non SA players will generally take more to lure or keep. I wonder if we had offered Danger $1M x 2 whether he would have stayed? It may have been the difference between a flag and a camp.Hey guys, was listening to your Tuesday show and you talked about the Crows inability to go and get players and I was wondering what your teams thoughts were on why
Not in any order, but some musings of mine and ones I've taken from the broader Board discussion.
1. When we have done it, it's been a disaster for really big names. As you said for bargin players it is still hit and miss - is that a talent ID problem?
2. Our salary structure means we can't afford it
3. Following on from above, we don't trade bottom 8 players out frequently enough ( why leave the Crows when you'll go somewhere that doesn't pay more and you are getting games anyway) getting in cheaper draftees to fill those spots (David Mackay anyone )
4. Our recruiting has been so poor that we can't waste picks multiple picks on 1 player.
5. Because of our desire to have even pay structure As a club we aren't capable of having players with a sense of arrogance/entitlement which is reflected in the players we've lost (Lever, Charlie, McGovern )
6.We all laugh at the ridiculous wages Port paid (and Carlton who are the flip side of the discussion) for many of their recruits, but they are happy to lose from the bottom if it means getting more at the top.
7. We still pay players like Sloane wages they would have got at their peak due to loyalty ,rather than their output. I reckon that's why Talia hasn't gone around again , so maybe we are changing.
Anyway I'm sure you guys will look at these things more in the off season, just thought it was an interesting point to land on.