List Mgmt. Do we REALLY have a cap problem? Lets (attempt to) figure it out

[Leviathan Pie]

I'm not sure I'd call the likelihood of us losing Aish, Shaz and maybe Cox is our list falling apart.

Losing these guys is only so we can pay the big dollars necessary - we’re still not addressing our lack of a quality KPF. Which has invariably cost us a premiership.

 

[sr36]

Losing these guys is only so we can pay the big dollars necessary - we’re still not addressing our lack of a quality KPF. Which has invariably cost us a premiership.

This is where we differ (and I differ to heaps of posters). I don't think a gun KPF is a necessity. To me, the only area of the ground that it's strictly necessary to have guns is the midfield. Everywhere else can be compensated for by being stronger than the opposition in other areas.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Pop Quiz:

In the five years Darcy Moore has been at our club, how many times has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Never

In the five years Jordan DeGoey has been at our club, how many time has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Once. He finished eighth in 2018

Sure, at their best, these are great players, but so far they’ve failed to consistently realise their potential.

I’m asking a moneyball question here: why are we talking about breaking the bank for these players?

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Pop Quiz:

In the five years Darcy Moore has been at our club, how many times has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Never

In the five years Jordan DeGoey has been at our club, how many time has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Once. He finished eighth in 2018

Sure, at their best, these are great players, but so far they’ve failed to consistently realise their potential.

I’m asking a moneyball question here: why are we talking about breaking the bank for these players?

Great points as always.

However, I can't see us replacing those 2 players.

However, we could replace Grundy. Not at the same level.

 

[wicksy]

Pop Quiz:

In the five years Darcy Moore has been at our club, how many times has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Never

In the five years Jordan DeGoey has been at our club, how many time has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Once. He finished eighth in 2018

Sure, at their best, these are great players, but so far they’ve failed to consistently realise their potential.

I’m asking a moneyball question here: why are we talking about breaking the bank for these players?

If we trail off next year and finish 6th or below, i'd nearly consider trading all three of them and going to next years draft with 8 of the top 15 picks.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Pop Quiz:

In the five years Darcy Moore has been at our club, how many times has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Never

In the five years Jordan DeGoey has been at our club, how many time has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Once. He finished eighth in 2018

Sure, at their best, these are great players, but so far they’ve failed to consistently realise their potential.

I’m asking a moneyball question here: why are we talking about breaking the bank for these players?

That’s all very nice.

But come finals time, if they are playing well and fit, not sure the Copeland Trophy placings are on any ones register. Maybe an occasional pedant.

Get more A grade players, get more elite players, more chance of winning finals and that last big game.

Copeland invariably rewards multiple game players. So it’s a nice little stat above but not the full picture.

 

[76woodenspooners]

That’s all very nice.

But come finals time, if they are playing well and fit, not sure the Copeland Trophy placings are on any ones register. Maybe an occasional pedant.

Get more A grade players, get more elite players, more chance of winning finals and that last big game.

Copeland invariably rewards multiple game players. So it’s a nice little stat above but not the full picture.

Not suggesting we delist them.

I’m just questioning why we would blow our cap on players who the coaches consistently don’t rate within the top 10 players on our list.

Sure, the Copeland rewards players who are consistent - but so it should. And shouldn’t player remuneration also reward players who are consistent?

And yeah, sometimes stuff happens and a player gets injured ...

... but five years should be a sufficient period to assess a player’s value.

(Incidentally, I also reckon it’s nuts that Swans / Essendon are fighting over how many first round draft picks to pay for a bloke whose barely played 11 games in the last 2 season)

If somebody wants to point out that AFL is all about which team has the best highlights reel, then that would then make sense.

 

[Sea fog]

Not suggesting we delist them.

I’m just questioning why we would blow our cap on players who the coaches consistently don’t rate within the top 10 players on our list.

Sure, the Copeland rewards players who are consistent - but so it should. And shouldn’t player remuneration also reward players who are consistent?

And yeah, sometimes stuff happens and a player gets injured ...

... but five years should be a sufficient period to assess a player’s value.

(Incidentally, I also reckon it’s nuts that Swans / Essendon are fighting over how many first round draft picks to pay for a bloke whose barely played 11 games in the last 2 season)

If somebody wants to point out that AFL is all about which team has the best highlights reel, then that would then make sense.

The Copeland rewards consistency but also how many games one has played. It can also be slightly subjective. Jordy and Darcy missed a few games this year but both had high impact in a lot of the games they played. Phillips is a player who is consistently high up in the Copeland, but what influence does he have on matches? When I speak to fans of other clubs, they all rate Moore and Jordy really highly. Moore stepped up majorly in the finals despite being underdone. Other clubs will come for these guys, make no mistake. Anyway, Moore signed for unders according to those in the know. He's on 450k. Phillips is on quite good coin I hear.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The Copeland rewards consistency but also how many games one has played. It can also be slightly subjective. Jordy and Darcy missed a few games this year but both had high impact in a lot of the games they played. Phillips is a player who is consistently high up in the Copeland, but what influence does he have on matches? When I speak to fans of other clubs, they all rate Moore and Jordy really highly. Moore stepped up majorly in the finals despite being underdone. Other clubs will come for these guys, make no mistake. Anyway, Moore signed for unders according to those in the know. He's on 450k. Phillips is on quite good coin I hear.

Picking some conservative numbers to make my point:

Assume Phillips is on $400K, a draftee would be on $100K, and we need to pay DeGoey $900K to keep him ...

... I’d be pretty disappointed if we had to let Phillips go to afford DeGoey (as has been suggested) ...

... I’d rather keep Philips (a reliable player who is consistent), let DeGoey go, and trade in a new mature player on $500K, and a high draftee on $100K.

Yeah, our highlights reel suffers, but we’d be a better team.

Players who struggle to get on the park aren’t worth losing at the expense of players who reliably get on the park.

 

[Nuwanda]

No cap problem. Just a grande sale.

 

[MarkT2]

The Cap issue was identified in the last review to end all reviews. Since then we have re signed a few big names so it's still most likely an issue.

None of us know whop gets what but it's logical that players recruited from GWS in a competitive market got very good contracts to come over and didn't get less to re sign. The Wells and Mayne deals were well publicised. While Wells is gone and Maybe is near the end, other contracts would have been backloaded to accommodate their deals and signings since that time. The composition of our list after the top playe4rs isn't particularly young so isn't on starting salaries. That's a short term consequence of trading out a lot of first round picks. We have salaries bunched up in the middle after the top end talent. That would be why trading Aish, Phillips and Scherenberg would be flagged.

Once you get into cap trouble it's hard to navigate out without letting very highly paid players go and/or slipping down the ladder due to list age/experience.

 

[gerryg400]

The Cap issue was identified in the last review to end all reviews.
Since then we have re signed a few big names so it's still most likely an issue.

How many of the player contracts that were in place at the time of the review are still in place today?

I don’t know the answer to this question but I suspect that there have been enough new contracts written since then to entirely change the shape of our player payments.

Bottom line is that what was written on the whiteboard back then tells us nothing about today’s situation and even less about what might happen in 12 months time.

Every team has a cap limit and some teams have good players. We have a few good players but is there any evidence at all that we have a particular problem?

Anything?

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Picking some conservative numbers to make my point:

Assume Phillips is on $400K, a draftee would be on $100K, and we need to pay DeGoey $900K to keep him ...

... I’d be pretty disappointed if we had to let Phillips go to afford DeGoey (as has been suggested) ...

... I’d rather keep Philips (a reliable player who is consistent), let DeGoey go, and trade in a new mature player on $500K, and a high draftee on $100K.

Yeah, our highlights reel suffers, but we’d be a better team.

Players who struggle to get on the park aren’t worth losing at the expense of players who reliably get on the park.

I guess we are hoping we can get them on the park. Then we have 2 supreme elite talents running around for us rather than Phillips, a draftee (lottery) and another foot soldier.
Moore and Degoey are the types you build your side around.

You are right though. Durability to consistently get on the park is a badly underrated “skill” and should factor more into players $$ value than it does.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

This is the worst cap problem anyone’s had since Andy Walker

 

[partypie]

Pop Quiz:

In the five years Darcy Moore has been at our club, how many times has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Never

In the five years Jordan DeGoey has been at our club, how many time has he placed in the Copeland top 10?

Spoiler

Once. He finished eighth in 2018

Sure, at their best, these are great players, but so far they’ve failed to consistently realise their potential.

I’m asking a moneyball question here: why are we talking about breaking the bank for these players?

A full season from Moore in the form he was in at the back end of the 2019 season would have him very high in the Copeland in any given year.

DeGoey needs to build that tank and become the midfielder / forward that we need him to be in order to start polling well.

Both of them, but especially DeGoey are legitimate potential match winners their their respective areas on of the ground. We need to retain both of them (and preferably Grundy as well) to remain as a contender.

 

[76woodenspooners]

A full season from Moore in the form he was in at the back end of the 2019 season would have him very high in the Copeland in any given year.

Agree 100%

But IMO until he shows that he is capable of that “full season” (like Crisp, Maynard, Phillips, Sidebottom, Pendlebury) then we can’t justify breaking the bank for him.

DeGoey needs to build that tank and become the midfielder / forward that we need him to be in order to start polling well.

+ getting on the park.

The money that is being talked about DeGoey is the kind if money Dustin Martin would be on. Whilst we can happily argue about who is the better player, the fact is that Martin has played 71 games over the last three years and DeGoey has only played 51 over the same period ... Martin has been better value hands down.

Both of them, but especially DeGoey are legitimate potential match winners their their respective areas on of the ground.

That “potential” word is very loaded. Both should be realising that potential more consistently within five years?

We need to retain both of them (and preferably Grundy as well) to remain as a contender.

Re: Grundy ... he has demonstrated that he is durable and IMO has leadership qualities. IMO those traits put his value in a completely different league to DeGoey and Moore.

As I repeat the point many times, plenty of teams offload a great player and yet go on to win a Premiership (GAJ, Griffin, Franklin, Deledio)

Of course I’d rather hang onto these players, but I wouldn’t want to pay overs for any player.

 

[jackcass]

I’m underpaid by 200k.
So Cox has my money.

I think we need to set up a transition plan to ensure it gets back to you. Maybe a year or 2 with me en-route. Will allow you to fully prepare for its arrival.

 

[jackcass]

I understand that. But what if they continue to miss so many games? What if they don't develop like we hope?

Then we set our offers accordingly.

 

[jackcass]

I understand that.

But should be a caveat - how many lists have fallen apart due to having to pay monster dollars for players yet to achieve the ultimate?

I’m afraid these issues might limit from addressing key list needs (KPF etc)

I'll bite, how many?

 

[jackcass]

Not suggesting we delist them.

I’m just questioning why we would blow our cap on players who the coaches consistently don’t rate within the top 10 players on our list.

I'm not sure their Copeland finishing position actually reflects how the coaches rate them. If asked, I'd reckon every coach would have them easily in our top 10 rated players.

Sure, the Copeland rewards players who are consistent - but so it should. And shouldn’t player remuneration also reward players who are consistent?

And yeah, sometimes stuff happens and a player gets injured ...

... but five years should be a sufficient period to assess a player’s value.

(Incidentally, I also reckon it’s nuts that Swans / Essendon are fighting over how many first round draft picks to pay for a bloke whose barely played 11 games in the last 2 season)

If somebody wants to point out that AFL is all about which team has the best highlights reel, then that would then make sense.

Don't we extend contracts for these players? And on good salary. Isn't that their reward? How many leave for more money? Daisy the only who comes to mind. Fas & Brown left for security of tenure. Witts left for opportunity.

 

[jackcass]

The Cap issue was identified in the last review to end all reviews. Since then we have re signed a few big names so it's still most likely an issue.

None of us know whop gets what but it's logical that players recruited from GWS in a competitive market got very good contracts to come over and didn't get less to re sign. The Wells and Mayne deals were well publicised. While Wells is gone and Maybe is near the end, other contracts would have been backloaded to accommodate their deals and signings since that time. The composition of our list after the top playe4rs isn't particularly young so isn't on starting salaries. That's a short term consequence of trading out a lot of first round picks. We have salaries bunched up in the middle after the top end talent. That would be why trading Aish, Phillips and Scherenberg would be flagged.

Once you get into cap trouble it's hard to navigate out without letting very highly paid players go and/or slipping down the ladder due to list age/experience.

A cap issue was identified. Most seem happy to assume that the issue was we were over. I've always leaned to the view that we were under and struggling to meet our 95% minimum spend requirement. We'll never actually know.

 

[jackcass]

The money that is being talked about DeGoey is the kind if money Dustin Martin would be on. Whilst we can happily argue about who is the better player, the fact is that Martin has played 71 games over the last three years and DeGoey has only played 51 over the same period ... Martin has been better value hands down.

Just on salary, Dusty at the same age is probably the more appropriate comparison. He was being suggested at something like a 4 year $650k deal in 2013 but shot himself in the foot with his off-field behaviors and ultimately signed for less than what he was considered worth. I'd have thought that a $650k deal in a $9-10m TPP environment is probably par with what JDG will get ($800-850k ??) in the current TPP regime (both about 6.5% of TPP). Dusty's current deal (2018 and beyond) though is suggested at 7 years at $1.2-1.3m ($10.5m) and I doubt JDG will get offered anything close to that. Dusty will be 33 before that deal expires.

 

[Adz]

A cap issue was identified. Most seem happy to assume that the issue was we were over. I've always leaned to the view that we were under and struggling to meet our 95% minimum spend requirement. We'll never actually know.

We’re probably over the cap if anything. Mayne, Cox and Wells shared 1.8 million between them this year.

 

[Go Woods]

We are purely forward planning our future cap spend, with intent on signing our big three to long term contracts.

 

[jackcass]

We’re probably over the cap if anything. Mayne, Cox and Wells shared 1.8 million between them this year.

Interesting that the "cap issue" caught by the media coincided with us going out and signing Mayne and Wells. And seriously, $1.8m? Just how much embellishment do you need to throw at that. Wells was on base salary and match payment, would have been lucky to hit $300k, even the most outlandish suggestion on Cox salary is $500k, so by your reckoning, Mayne's pulled a $1m in 2019. No wonder you think we're over.