- Joined
- Dec 14, 2002
- Posts
- 38,214
- Reaction score
- 13,242
- Location
- who cares
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sacramento Kings
And here I ask the same question that no one wants to answer!I think Danger comes out of contract at the end of 2012. Some brainiac at the AFc decided to give him a 2 year deal at the end of last year. Surely a 3+year deal is the way to go with a player as talented as Danger.
Is it just me or do the AFC seem to not give out 3 + year contracts or is it the players only wanting short term contracts?
Why would Dangerfield sign on for more than 2 years?!
He is a kid with unlimited potential, that is yet to hit his straps. He is at the age where he is expected to have the greatest development curve of his career so why would he jeapordise his earning potential by signing a long term deal after practically his 2nd year in the competition?!
Why would he sign on for another 3 years at the current price when potentially, he would be worth more on the open market in that 3rd year than he would be at the time of signing a contact.
We are talking potentially earning some $100K+ less in that 3rd year than if he signed for 2 years and renegotiated at the end of that.
Sometimes fans are so blinded by the passion for their club that they are not thinking with a clear head here. If I was Dangerfield's agent, I would be advising him to sign on for 2 years instead of 3 because that would be a smart business decision. If its someone that has already reached his peak and might even be in a bit of a decline, you go for the security of a long term deal (in which case the club is unlikely to offer that) but if I am a young buck that still has a lot of development left in me, I am signing up for 2 years at the time to give myself a chance to maximize my earning potential in what is a short AFL career.




