Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Adelaide' started by Crow-eater, Jan 18, 2017.
I wouldn't be surprised if Eddie took a pay-cut, either.
Which I'd be extremely happy with
(Log in to remove this ad.)
Form is temporary, class is permanent. Eddie is that good, should he slow down considerably he'll still be a very handy player. I wouldn't get my hopes up about him playing beyond 2020 though - reckon he will hang up the boots at the end of this contract. Hopefully he'll be wearing a premiership medallion by then.
Dustin Fletcher & Brent Harvey played on into their late 30s... every player is different. There is a trend towards players playing on a bit longer, due to better training programs and medical treatments, but there's no guarantee that Betts will be one of these players (and no guarantees that he won't).
Four years is a long time, particularly for a player who is already in his 30s. It's a fairly low risk option for a younger player, like Talia, but for a player of Betts' age it's risky.
The club has decided to roll the dice. The risk may pay off, or it may backfire. Only time will tell.
In his final year I can guarantee he will still take the heat off the next up and coming small forwards in the forward line and demand a quality small defender on him. It should allow CC and Jarman (if he makes it) the freedom to deliver.
CC is not ready yet to command the best small defender of the opposition and tear him apart.
He could roll out in a wheelchair and Rance would still go to him
Why would Eddie complain? Your question should have been, why isn't it good enough for our Contract people now?
I really hope he kicks 50 goals plus this year... last thing we need is the haters and flogs at port talking smack if Eddie has an off year
Because we are in the time of free agency and if clubs like Collingwood are willing to give a player like Wells 3 years at 550k when he is 32, then I can guarantee that someone would be willing to offer Eddie a contract like we have just given him. Times have changed and if older players that are still performing want some security we are going to have to give it to them otherwise someone else will. Simple!
Just on the length and in regards to Daniel Wells. There well may be a clause that his payments reduce if he cant fulfill his contract , either through breaking down or lost desire.
I would think any long term contract has KPIs and clauses
These performanced based contracts intrigue me, if you are at your salary cap limit you would have to allow for each and every player blitzing and meeting all of these KPI's or you will go over your cap. Which means at the end of the year if a lot have craop years you are miles under your cap which could have allowd you to pick up a better quality player.
I am not saying thats not how they set it up, but you wouldnt want to many on that type of contract to allow for peak performance
Know doubt he probably does, highly likely Eddie has some triggers in his contract as well.
I think they would mainly only be in place for older and injury prone players.
Its part of the gamble. I think KPI contracts are more the long term ones ie games played targets matched etc. They are worked out by both the player manager and list manager. As an example when Eddie came to us and got his 4 year contract I argued it should have been a 3. At best a 3+1 if he meets certain KPI. Well he blew the games played apart and my fantasy figure of at least 37 goals per season or 110 over the 3 to get the 1.
This kind of contract wont affect salary cap % as the benefit is an extra year which will fall into that years cap.
JJ should be the same. Not an unachievable target but one that keeps him slightly hungry. I would want to see a games played component with JJ plus a certain goal level. For example with JJ I think the 37+ a season is achievable for someone of his size.
But that's me.
Not necessarily. They're often defined in terms of games played. No matter how well the team is performing, there is still a maximum of 26 games and 22 positions per season.
Ricky Henderson is one example, having failed to reach the trigger point for the last year of his contract. He's now Hawthorn's problem.
Totally agree they stop complacency. Or the Hamish Hartlett effect from happening.
ahh who cares what they think. 16 other clubs to worry about.
Has eddie been with us long enough to qualify for free agency again?
Technically perhaps. However in common use people just round down ages to an integer number of years. Hence in common usage "over 30" means 31 years or older.
what if they dont get injuried or older players pull it out of their bum, like we are all hoping thommo does this year, do we believe he is on a performnce based deal? if he plays 3 games he gets bugger all if he plays ever game he cleans up?
He doesn't have to qualify if he is out of contract and wants to go somewhere else we have no real choice than to trade him.
Base payment plus match payments would be my guess.
I think it's more about playing enough games to trigger getting an extra year added to your contract than getting more money. Thommo is probably on $200-$250k and knows this is his last year regardless. A good example is Jimmy Bartel he played enough last year to trigger an extra year but ended up retiring because he was told he would be playing mainly in the VFL unless there were injury problems.
Or this maybe.
I don't think it's a silly policy. The majority of 30+ players don't fare well, and the detioration is rapid. Just look at Thommo. Eddie and Harvey are the exception rather than the rule.