Crows plan Walker talks!

[cmndstab]

Putting all your Taylor-Walker-fanboi-Crowcoloured-glasses aside, based on his current output do you think he really deserves a 'large contract?'

I personally think he does, based on what I have seen and what he is capable of, but there have been a lot of teenagers show potential over the journey whereby they drop off and turn out to be average players.

I think Tex will be a ten-year player and has the potential for awesomeness, but even the most one-eyed fanboi would think he deserves $800K over five years.... (for example).

Just out of interest what do you think the Club would have offered so far, and what do you think he deserves (without taking into account salary caps etc)?

I assume you mean $800K over five years (ie $160K/year), but that's way below what Walker will be able to command.

Not that I really know what he's worth, but I'm sure it would be more than that. I also don't think number of years is that much of a concern to Walker. I don't think he would be worried his contract might not be renewed, and assuming he doesn't peak this year, his next contract might be even higher.

If I was Walker I'd be looking for something like $300K-$400K over two or three years but that's just me plucking a figure out of the air.


CM - if you're right, and we're trying to play hardball with Walker by offering him a low price and hoping he folds, while shortstacked on the same table with GWS, then there's something wrong. Assuming you're correct then I completely agree with you, it's dumb business practice.

 

[Crow-mo]

CM - if you're right, and we're trying to play hardball with Walker by offering him a low price and hoping he folds, while shortstacked on the same table with GWS, then there's something wrong. Assuming you're correct then I completely agree with you, it's dumb business practice.

I don't think we're playing hard ball, I really don't.

but we have taken a insular, regressive pride in paying less than market in the past. So I just don't think its in our nature to pay any more than we think we can get away with.

rather playing hard ball, my feeling is that we are unlikely to pony up unless forced too. its our innate corporate nature I suspect. but those times have gone, the unfair, unjust and inequitable amount of power that clubs have over player movements is over.

at the moment GWS have the system busting leverage, GC before that, but by the time GWS' window is over we will have limited free agency. because that's what this is, a form of modified unilateral free agency.

the days of not paying players market worth is over, and I say good. I just hope we as a club, appreciate that sooner rather than later.

Free Agency will mean that clubs can either be poacher or game keeper, and that enduring truth will still be the case whether we accept it or not. Market value will be paid, by someone.

 

[WALL-e]

The initial FA system is a bit of a half assed one, but should prepare everyone for the onslaught coming.

I think it's 9 years service you have to provide to be eligible, there may also be a clause of not being in the clubs 10 protected players. So that would mean you'd have a player who's 27 and not in a clubs best 10.

Still, the winds changing and FA will come in fully eventually, and market value will be spread. Also, a lot of players will receive over the market price depending on who's available that year etc.

Will be interesting if clubs will have to stay above 92.5% of cap as well as that may mean signing players in a lean year of talent to big contracts etc.

 

[Allefgib]

I think it's 9 years service you have to provide to be eligible, there may also be a clause of not being in the clubs 10 protected players. So that would mean you'd have a player who's 27 and not in a clubs best 10.

If there is a concept of protected players I assume that applies to FA.

Therefore it would be over 27 and not in the clubs best 10... over 27.

Farcical if true. Small steps I guess the ALFPA is looking for.

 

[WALL-e]

If there is a concept of protected players I assume that applies to FA.

Therefore it would be over 27 and not in the clubs best 10... over 27.

Farcical if true. Small steps I guess the ALFPA is looking for.

There's definitely a service qualification (pretty sure it's 9 years), and there's something about a protected group, may not be 10 players, but something rings a bell.

 

[Allefgib]

I recall the service qualitifation - but not a protected player concept.

I've not been looking at it too closely though in all honesty. But to have 10 protected players and a service qualification = no free agency in my books.

 

[relapse]

I don't think we're playing hard ball, I really don't.

but we have taken a insular, regressive pride in paying less than market in the past. So I just don't think its in our nature to pay any more than we think we can get away with.

rather playing hard ball, my feeling is that we are unlikely to pony up unless forced too. its our innate corporate nature I suspect. but those times have gone, the unfair, unjust and inequitable amount of power that clubs have over player movements is over.

at the moment GWS have the system busting leverage, GC before that, but by the time GWS' window is over we will have limited free agency. because that's what this is, a form of modified unilateral free agency.

the days of not paying players market worth is over, and I say good. I just hope we as a club, appreciate that sooner rather than later.

Free Agency will mean that clubs can either be poacher or game keeper, and that enduring truth will still be the case whether we accept it or not. Market value will be paid, by someone.

I agree with this 100%

I think our approach to this highlights once again how the club continues down the path of being reactive rather than proactive.

St Kilda to their credit were proactive with Reiwoldt, who everyone thought was going to be the Gold Coast's number 1 target, they locked him down early to a good contract that he was satisfied with. While obviously Walker is not the same calibre of player the club could still be proactive and get the deal done now, but once again the club would rather be reactive and hope to get away with signing Walker for as low as possible, which I feel is a very dangerous tactic.

 

[macca23]

I don't think for one moment that the club is trying to short change Tex.

What they have offered him at the moment would be a reflection on what he has given them up until now with some margin added for expected improvement.

Not full potential as Crow-mo was suggesting they should but an allowance for steady improvement.

If Walker has a big break-out year I'm very confident that Adelaide will give him an acceptable contract to retain him, as he is an important part of our future.

Bock was slightly different, in the sense that while the Crows would have liked to keep him, he wasn't a must keep given his age, his injuries, his decline in form and that there were other players waiting to take his place.

IMO not offering Bock a large contract was a good thing as it allows this team to evolve as well as allowing the club to trade in other needs, such as Tambling.

Walker is a different kettle of fish, as was Tippett.

Just like they did with Tippett I expect the club to come up with the right dollars for Walker at the end of the year - whatever that figure might be.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I agree with this 100%

I think our approach to this highlights once again how the club continues down the path of being reactive rather than proactive.

St Kilda to their credit were proactive with Reiwoldt, who everyone thought was going to be the Gold Coast's number 1 target, they locked him down early to a good contract that he was satisfied with. While obviously Walker is not the same calibre of player the club could still be proactive and get the deal done now, but once again the club would rather be reactive and hope to get away with signing Walker for as low as possible, which I feel is a very dangerous tactic.

c'mon relapse, on one hand you compare the Walker situation to Reiwoldt's however then you go on and say Walker is not the same calibre player, with this in mind how can you compare the two situations

please at the time Reiwoldt was a proven star of the game, captain of his club, multiple B&F winner and multiple AA, subsequently there was no doubt of his stature in the game and his currency was absolutely clear and this made it very much easier for the Saints to pitch their best and final offers, however for obvious reasons Walker's stature and currency at this point of time has a fair element of grey

so other than making some EASY ASSUMPTIONS do you have any first hand information or facts at all to back up your what your position on this matter or is this just another opportunity to throw stones at the AFC with absolutely no basis at all

For what it is worth, common sense suggest

the crows would have offered Walker a contract which should have been baselined against his current value to the side and expected improvement over the term of his new agreement

rightly so Tex's manager would have said that 1) Tex you have had a very good pre-season, 2) we expecting significant improvement in your game in 2011 and 3) we have the unique GWS situation to leverage so why rush and sign now...... there is no downside for Tex not to sign now

Walker has received very good advice from his Manager, this is what his Manager gets paid to do however it amazes me how some folks on this board want to turn good player management into poor AFC management, please lets stop jumping at shadows

I'm not sensitive at all about folks on this board being critical of the club when its based on facts, like you I too have been critical of our list management and our training and recovery approach, however this was based on evidence and facts, while your criticism of this matter is based on assumptions and unfortunately comes across as throwing stones........

can't wait for the games to start, can't believe some of the posts this pre-season

 

[StickerMan]

c'mon relapse, on one hand you compare the Walker situation to Reiwoldt's however then you go on and say Walker is not the same calibre player, with this in mind how can you compare the two situations

please at the time Reiwoldt was a proven star of the game, captain of his club, multiple B&F winner and multiple AA, subsequently there was no doubt of his stature in the game and his currency was absolutely clear and this made it very much easier for the Saints to pitch their best and final offers, however for obvious reasons Walker's stature and currency at this point of time has a fair element of grey

so other than making some EASY ASSUMPTIONS do you have any first hand information or facts at all to back up your what your position on this matter or is this just another opportunity to throw stones at the AFC with absolutely no basis at all

For what it is worth, common sense suggest

the crows would have offered Walker a contract which should have been baselined against his current value to the side and expected improvement over the term of his new agreement

rightly so Tex's manager would have said that 1) Tex you have had a very good pre-season, 2) we expecting significant improvement in your game in 2011 and 3) we have the unique GWS situation to leverage so why rush and sign now...... there is no downside for Tex not to sign now

Walker has received very good advice from his Manager, this is what his Manager gets paid to do however it amazes me how some folks on this board want to turn good player management into poor AFC management, please lets stop jumping at shadows

I'm not sensitive at all about folks on this board being critical of the club when its based on facts, like you I too have been critical of our list management and our training and recovery approach, however this was based on evidence and facts, while your criticism of this matter is based on assumptions and unfortunately comes across as throwing stones........

can't wait for the games to start, can't believe some of the posts this pre-season

What he said.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think it's 9 years service you have to provide to be eligible, there may also be a clause of not being in the clubs 10 protected players. So that would mean you'd have a player who's 27 and not in a clubs best 10.

huh? its been announced, we know what the terms are at this stage. nothing to do with top 10's etc.

its 8 years, for limited and 10 years for unrestricted.

after 8, your current team can match your offer based on football related components. if it remains under the salary cap sufficiently to do so.

not sure where some of that other stuff came from.

 

[Crow-mo]

If there is a concept of protected players I assume that applies to FA.

there is no concept of protected players. none.

 

[Allefgib]

there is no concept of protected players. none.

Good - the sound of the concept seemed to defeat the whole purpose of free agency anyway. Years of service to a club being so high kinda impedes the full benefits as well.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't think for one moment that the club is trying to short change Tex.

I don't think for one second they think they are, but as they have proudly short changed nearly every front line players we've ever had...

What they have offered him at the moment would be a reflection on what he has given them up until now with some margin added for expected improvement.

that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. except if someone else sees it differently. you have to remember these are subjective concepts, and not everyone has to agree with the outcomes.

Not full potential as Crow-mo was suggesting they should but an allowance for steady improvement.

Steady... I have not for one second said anything about full potential. But what I do say, is that you will need to pay something for potential - and that it might not be what's convenient to the club.

full potential is the analogue for performance.

If Walker has a big break-out year I'm very confident that Adelaide will give him an acceptable contract to retain him, as he is an important part of our future.

what I do say, is that unless something remarkable happens (+/-) then the contract should not be significantly different at the end of these season, to what's being offered now.

if it is, we are not offering enough now. I get the club's position that they want more certainty, they want to know. you can't always wait until the last minute until you know.

the days of waiting until you know are over, you need to start backing your judgment.

Bock was slightly different, in the sense that while the Crows would have liked to keep him, he wasn't a must keep given his age, his injuries, his decline in form and that there were other players waiting to take his place.

i doubt we could have afforded that contract if we wanted to. something I am not unhappy about. though I am sure part of that decision was a projection of what the next couple of years looked like.

IMO not offering Bock a large contract was a good thing as it allows this team to evolve as well as allowing the club to trade in other needs, such as Tambling.

I think you're selling it short, it was a great decision. unlike the camp hissy fit, and touching our toes prison exercise we indulged in over the compensation.

Walker is a different kettle of fish, as was Tippett.

Just like they did with Tippett I expect the club to come up with the right dollars for Walker at the end of the year - whatever that figure might be.

I think you're probably/possibly right. but as I said, the closer you get to giving a player options, the closer he gets to considering them.

Relapse is right, guys on the GC hit list like Buddy, Riewoldt, Michael Hurley... there is something to be said for sorting it now if you can. Hurley hadn't done more or shown more than Walker...

I can't decide what I think is the bigger issue, the actual wait n see approach, or that this already an outdated concept. FA, whether unilateral with GC/GWS, or in the league generally means that wait n see is already out of place.

if we have learnt anything from the major professional sports in America, is that when it comes to free agency its this: you don't pay players a nickel for what they have done in the past, you pay them for what you believe they will deliver over the lifetime of the contract. and that is inherently uncertain.

 

[Crow-mo]

c'mon relapse, on one hand you compare the Walker situation to Reiwoldt's however then you go on and say Walker is not the same calibre player, with this in mind how can you compare the two situations

you make an irrelevant distinction without a difference. it doesn't matter the calibre of player. we can substitute Michael Hurley if you like.

please at the time Reiwoldt was a proven star of the game, captain of his club, multiple B&F winner and multiple AA, subsequently there was no doubt of his stature in the game and his currency was absolutely clear and this made it very much easier for the Saints to pitch their best and final offers, however for obvious reasons Walker's stature and currency at this point of time has a fair element of grey

the only thing that matters is the saints pitched their best offer.

what I say, is that if we haven't pitched our best offer, then I think that's a risky move.

so other than making some EASY ASSUMPTIONS do you have any first hand information or facts at all to back up your what your position on this matter or is this just another opportunity to throw stones at the AFC with absolutely no basis at all

For what it is worth, common sense suggest

the crows would have offered Walker a contract which should have been baselined against his current value to the side and expected improvement over the term of his new agreement

rightly so Tex's manager would have said that 1) Tex you have had a very good pre-season, 2) we expecting significant improvement in your game in 2011 and 3) we have the unique GWS situation to leverage so why rush and sign now...... there is no downside for Tex not to sign now

Walker has received very good advice from his Manager, this is what his Manager gets paid to do however it amazes me how some folks on this board want to turn good player management into poor AFC management, please lets stop jumping at shadows

I'm not sensitive at all about folks on this board being critical of the club when its based on facts, like you I too have been critical of our list management and our training and recovery approach, however this was based on evidence and facts, while your criticism of this matter is based on assumptions and unfortunately comes across as throwing stones........

can't wait for the games to start, can't believe some of the posts this pre-season

I don't agree that that premise here has been very well thought through.

the bit in bold is all that matters, all that's true.

 

[Crow-mo]

Good - the sound of the concept seemed to defeat the whole purpose of free agency anyway. Years of service to a club being so high kinda impedes the full benefits as well.

where Wall E may have gotten confused, is that there has been loose speculation that the clubs may try and negotiate for a franchise tag in the next collective bargaining agreement.

its no more than idle chatter, but the way that would work is that a club can tag 1 player, who is then ineligible for free agency. so if we tagged Walker, he has to stay with the crows for another year.

but he would say, be paid, the average of the top 3 players in his position say. so if he were a key forward, they'd average Jono Brown, Riewoldt, Buddy etc. and say that's what he has to be paid.

that's the concept anyway, but that is not here, and is years away even if the AFLPA were to agree it, or the clubs would want it.

 

[Vader]

huh? its been announced, we know what the terms are at this stage. nothing to do with top 10's etc.

its 8 years, for limited and 10 years for unrestricted.

after 8, your current team can match your offer based on football related components. if it remains under the salary cap sufficiently to do so.

not sure where some of that other stuff came from.

Bolded bit is wrong. Here's the AFL's media release which explains how free agency will work:
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89809

Specifically:

3. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.

The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.

If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.

His club has the right to match the presented offer.

If the club matches the offer, he may choose to remain with his original club, seek a trade or enter the Draft.

If the club does not or can not match the offer, the player can move to the new club of his choice.

His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula to apply where clubs lose more free agents than they gain in any single transfer period.

4. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is NOT one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.

The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.

If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.

His club does NOT have the right to match the presented offer, and the player can move AUTOMATICALLY to the new club of his choice.

His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula.

In short, players outside the top-10 are eligible for full free-agency after 8 years. Players inside the top-10 are eligible for partial free-agency after 8 years and full free-agency after 10 years.

 

[Crow-mo]

so you agree that there is no concept of protected players.

nothing to see here.

 

[Vader]

The term "protected players" is not used. However, the top-10 salary earners are definitely treated differently to everyone else on the list. Whether you wish to refer to them as "protected players" or not is up to you (though it's not an official term).

Note that the bit I said you had wrong was the "nothing to do with top 10s" comment, which is clearly incorrect.

 

[Allefgib]

cheers for the extra info vader.

not sure how I feel about it tbh. If a player has been at a club 8 years AND is offered the same as another club can offer AND still doesnt want to stay... well something is seriously wrong with that players relationship with his club OR he has a hell of a good reason to move (running from a mother who sells drugs for instance).

Why force people to stay, just feels so ****ed up.

 

[Crow-mo]

cheers for the extra info vader.

not sure how I feel about it tbh. If a player has been at a club 8 years AND is offered the same as another club can offer AND still doesnt want to stay... well something is seriously wrong with that players relationship with his club OR he has a hell of a good reason to move (running from a mother who sells drugs for instance).

Why force people to stay, just feels so ****ed up.

2 things I'd add to that:

1. it won't be a case of Knights getting offered 500k by us, and electing to join essendon for 500. the way it tends to work is that we'd have offered 400 over 2 say, then essendon says 500 over 3. he signs a tender form to go to essendon, and we have 7 days to match those terms.

2. many teams in the US examples do not match for just those reasons. if he really really wants to go, and you don't like the contract you let them walk. because using the knights scenario, it means you will lose someone elsewhere.

the other main difference from the NBA where this is most common is that we will have a hard cap. which means if we do not have cap room we cannot match.

this is the reason why middle tier players will get ****ed like an unemployed actress on rent day.

 

[Allefgib]

From vader's post I was aware of the ability to match. Appreciate the example though as it helps show scenarios where players could leave for a slightly longer career but not just for money where the club chooses not to match. Cheers for that.

 

[fabs33]

I'm starting to dislike the words "AFL-Determined Formula".

 

[Baron Winds]

this is the reason why middle tier players will get ****ed like an unemployed actress on rent day.

Quote of the day

 

[adelaidecrows]

Eddie says Tex is as good as gone

Well i hope it is not true but you do have to start wondering when rumblings of tex moving to GWS move from local to national rumours. Going on the history of the Gold Coast Rumours I think he has signed or has committed to sign with GWS. If he is genuinly committed to the crows I beleive like Tippett he would have signed an extension last season. Players seldom wait these days to sign a new contract at the end of the old one unless they are over 30 or have had a long term injury and want to build their value up.

I know it is his right to not sign until the end of the year, and I have no problem with that at all. I just think it is highly suspicious that he has chosen not too at this time. Normally a club makes announcements that negotiations are underway but it has been deadset silence from the crows which to me is not a good sign at all.

I am sure that Craigy will or already has eye balled Walker and given him the same deal as he gave Bock.