News GWS grab for Jimmy Bartel

[Pure_Ownage]

This article is also relevant to our signing up of Jimmy and other players in a similar age bracket.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ore-finals-money/story-e6frg7mf-1226026369060

Instead of players having to be 30 years of age and with at least 10 years of service to one club, players will become eligible once they play for 10 years with the same club. Clubs will have an unlimited number of players who can qualify to be (10-year) veterans, with a yet-to-be determined amount of each player's salary paid outside the cap.


Presently, a club can nominate two veterans and 50 per cent of their salaries are not included in the cap. With three veterans, 33.3 per cent is excluded from the cap, and so on.

 

[Hinkley29]

I agree with everything you say both on the return needed to justify the investment, and the risk.

Ling is a poor example because he's outside our best dozen players, and guys in that bracket should never get long term deals due to the risk of them ending up outside your best 22.

A better comparison would be Chapman, SJ, Kelly etc etc.

My point is simply that of the players inside our top dozen, Bartel has the greatest durability and therefore represents the least risk on a long term deal. Now yes, it could still blow up in our face, sometimes awful things happen injury wise as we know. But as we stand here now the level of risk is not unacceptable. The only justifiable reason not to do it is if you're implementing a philosophical policy that no one over 25 will get long term contracts, which is a different conversation, and in that case be prepared to lose players, because your top players want the security of long term deals. But if you are accepting older players getting contracts long term (which I think we clearly do, based on the offer to Ablett, and Chapman getting 4 years in 08) then Bartel is the most justifiable candidate for such a contract, and carries much less risk than an SJ for example.

I disagree that Ling is a poor comparison. It all comes down to how much money is being offered. If we leave the captaincy issue aside, Ling would never be offered the same money as Jimmy, so giving Jimmy a 4 or 5 year deal carries the same risks.

Put bluntly, if we are giving a player 4 or 5 years on elite money, then we need 80-120 games of elite production to make the deal worthwhile. From a starting point of 200+ games played and at 28 years of age (where Jimmy will be at the start of 2012), then it is foolhardy to predict 80+ more elite quality games from Jimmy.

In the same way, if Ling was offered a 4 or 5 year deal at the start of last year on above average money, we needed 80-120 above average games from him after that point. That is also highly unlikely.

I am also not sure how you come to the conclusion that Bartel is the most durable of our elite players and is less likely to break down. My point is that you simply don't know how durable a player is going to be from this point on.

Case in point - Joel Corey was considered super durable and consistent up until the end of 2009. At the time he was 27 years old (as Bartel is right now) and had played 199 games (Bartel is currently on 181), averaging 19.9 games per season over his career (Bartel averages 20.1). Corey's 2009 stats were almost identical to his 2008 stats, he was essentially performing in line with the best output of his career. As Jimmy is right now.

1 season on, Joel Corey after playing 213 games is considered by many to be on his last legs as a player, and is not considered to be a player on which we can rely for more than 1 more year. The moral of the story - once you hit the 200 game mark, you just don't know how quickly a player will age, and the brick wall could be far closer than you would think.

I guess I am coming to the conclusion that if Jimmy wants big money, then he needs to accept a 2 or 3 year deal. If he wants a longer term deal, he needs to take less money per year. If GWS are prepared to offer a high annual salary and 4 or 5 years (which I think is doubtful, but if other younger options dry up then he may be last man standing), then I don't think we should match it.

 

[pessimiser]

I agree with everything you say both on the return needed to justify the investment, and the risk.

Ling is a poor example because he's outside our best dozen players, and guys in that bracket should never get long term deals due to the risk of them ending up outside your best 22.

A better comparison would be Chapman, SJ, Kelly etc etc.

My point is simply that of the players inside our top dozen, Bartel has the greatest durability and therefore represents the least risk on a long term deal. Now yes, it could still blow up in our face, sometimes awful things happen injury wise as we know. But as we stand here now the level of risk is not unacceptable. The only justifiable reason not to do it is if you're implementing a philosophical policy that no one over 25 will get long term contracts, which is a different conversation, and in that case be prepared to lose players, because your top players want the security of long term deals. But if you are accepting older players getting contracts long term (which I think we clearly do, based on the offer to Ablett, and Chapman getting 4 years in 08) then Bartel is the most justifiable candidate for such a contract, and carries much less risk than an SJ for example.

well mister opinion, ling was in our best 10 the year before, dropped off last year, that's how fast it can happen, as bartel, dog, chapman can all discover, so what you say applies now but hardly justifies a long term contract for anyone at that stage of their careers, and bartel will be what 27 or 28 by that stage? no way

hinkley 29's point about j corey is exactly that point and look what happens in 12 months, poor practice dishing out long term contracts to anyone except maybe ablett or judd at a cerftain critical age which chapman had reached and bartel will.

 

[Vdubs]

I disagree that Ling is a poor comparison. It all comes down to how much money is being offered. If we leave the captaincy issue aside, Ling would never be offered the same money as Jimmy, so giving Jimmy a 4 or 5 year deal carries the same risks.

Put bluntly, if we are giving a player 4 or 5 years on elite money, then we need 80-120 games of elite production to make the deal worthwhile. From a starting point of 200+ games played and at 28 years of age (where Jimmy will be at the start of 2012), then it is foolhardy to predict 80+ more elite quality games from Jimmy.

In the same way, if Ling was offered a 4 or 5 year deal at the start of last year on above average money, we needed 80-120 above average games from him after that point. That is also highly unlikely.

I am also not sure how you come to the conclusion that Bartel is the most durable of our elite players and is less likely to break down. My point is that you simply don't know how durable a player is going to be from this point on.

Case in point - Joel Corey was considered super durable and consistent up until the end of 2009. At the time he was 27 years old (as Bartel is right now) and had played 199 games (Bartel is currently on 181), averaging 19.9 games per season over his career (Bartel averages 20.1). Corey's 2009 stats were almost identical to his 2008 stats, he was essentially performing in line with the best output of his career. As Jimmy is right now.

1 season on, Joel Corey after playing 213 games is considered by many to be on his last legs as a player, and is not considered to be a player on which we can rely for more than 1 more year. The moral of the story - once you hit the 200 game mark, you just don't know how quickly a player will age, and the brick wall could be far closer than you would think.

I guess I am coming to the conclusion that if Jimmy wants big money, then he needs to accept a 2 or 3 year deal. If he wants a longer term deal, he needs to take less money per year. If GWS are prepared to offer a high annual salary and 4 or 5 years (which I think is doubtful, but if other younger options dry up then he may be last man standing), then I don't think we should match it.

Agree with your points. Sorry, didn't need to quote it all though

 

[Vdubs]

well mister opinion, ling was in our best 10 the year before, dropped off last year, that's how fast it can happen, as bartel, dog, chapman can all discover, so what you say applies now but hardly justifies a long term contract for anyone at that stage of their careers, and bartel will be what 27 or 28 by that stage? no way

hinkley 29's point about j corey is exactly that point and look what happens in 12 months, poor practice dishing out long term contracts to anyone except maybe ablett or judd at a cerftain critical age which chapman had reached and bartel will.

I tend to agreewith a lot of that, but hope you are not having a go at PO for having strong opinions, that is what this is all about, n'est ce pas?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I disagree that Ling is a poor comparison. It all comes down to how much money is being offered. If we leave the captaincy issue aside, Ling would never be offered the same money as Jimmy, so giving Jimmy a 4 or 5 year deal carries the same risks.

Put bluntly, if we are giving a player 4 or 5 years on elite money, then we need 80-120 games of elite production to make the deal worthwhile. From a starting point of 200+ games played and at 28 years of age (where Jimmy will be at the start of 2012), then it is foolhardy to predict 80+ more elite quality games from Jimmy.

In the same way, if Ling was offered a 4 or 5 year deal at the start of last year on above average money, we needed 80-120 above average games from him after that point. That is also highly unlikely.

I am also not sure how you come to the conclusion that Bartel is the most durable of our elite players and is less likely to break down. My point is that you simply don't know how durable a player is going to be from this point on.

Case in point - Joel Corey was considered super durable and consistent up until the end of 2009. At the time he was 27 years old (as Bartel is right now) and had played 199 games (Bartel is currently on 181), averaging 19.9 games per season over his career (Bartel averages 20.1). Corey's 2009 stats were almost identical to his 2008 stats, he was essentially performing in line with the best output of his career. As Jimmy is right now.

1 season on, Joel Corey after playing 213 games is considered by many to be on his last legs as a player, and is not considered to be a player on which we can rely for more than 1 more year. The moral of the story - once you hit the 200 game mark, you just don't know how quickly a player will age, and the brick wall could be far closer than you would think.

I guess I am coming to the conclusion that if Jimmy wants big money, then he needs to accept a 2 or 3 year deal. If he wants a longer term deal, he needs to take less money per year. If GWS are prepared to offer a high annual salary and 4 or 5 years (which I think is doubtful, but if other younger options dry up then he may be last man standing), then I don't think we should match it.

Then we will have to agree to disagree somewhat. While yes money is a factor in terms of risk (because it could end up costing you more in the case of injury than if it was a cheaper player) it's not the only factor...patently ageing to the point where you end up outside the 22 and/or not worth the money you were signed on is another key risk with long term contracts, and in that sense giving a long term contract to a mid tier player like Ling carries inherently more risk than giving one to a top player like Bartel or Chapman or SJ etc. At the end of the day the risk comes down to the percentage likelihood that something will go wrong rather than the $ value. The $ value is more the scale of severity of penalty if something goes wrong. In that sense I'd still feel giving a Ling LTC for example carries a greater percentage risk than a Bartel LTC.

In relation to my conclusion about Bartel's durability, it's based on the number of games he's missed (not many) over the last few years and he doesn't have a history of injury issues (i.e. Chapman or SJ). Now yes you are right we don't know how durable a player is going to be, but that's precisely the point. Unless you do away with long term contracts altogether, then you therefore must only give long term contracts to the players who have shown the greatest evidence of durability up until now. Fair, no? This is the best you can do in terms of risk mitigation, there are no certainties. But I do find it funny that no one thought it a great risk giving Chapman a 4 year deal at 27 with his injury issues, yet we are all worried about giving Bartel a similar deal at a similar age. On the basis of the information we have, he's about the least risky player on a long term contract. Doesn't mean it won't go wrong, but it does mean it isn't a wrong decision IMO.

I see where you're coming from on JC, but I disagree. Let's be honest, up until this year, JC was durable for a reason...because he doesn't have on going chronic issues. He copped a collision injury in a NAB game, which was exacerbated by his and the club's desire to get back too quick, which required a second op and ruined the year. Maybe you and I see it differently, but this doesn't mean JC is 'ageing' in the falling off sense (I would say Ling is) it simply means it was a bad year. He may well come back well phsyically, time will tell. I do agree that the wall can be closer than we think, but like I said, we can't be super paranoid about what may or may not happen, we make the best calls we can with the data we have. Let's say JC had been on a contract til the end of 2013, it would be a problem now, but would it mean we made the wrong call? No. Because at the end of 2010 when the decision was made, on the data we had up until then, it was the right call. The circumstances changing afterwards doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

Similarly giving Bartel a long term deal may or may not backfire, we don't know, and there isn't much point crystal balling it. But on the data we have up until this point, both form and fitness, it's a reasonable call IMO. I'd certainly be more comfortable giving him a 4 year deal, than guys who have chronic injury histories. To me, that's the right risk assessment. But I can understand where you're coming from, and your point about the very real risks and us needing to have our eyes wide open I completely and totally agree with. It's a difficult situation, maybe they will meet on the middle with Bartel getting more money than the club wanted, but less years than he wanted, as you suggest. But historically players around his age will want long term security and will push for it. For what it's worth, I can't see GWS offering the sort of money that would be needed to get Bartel to shift, unless literally everyone else says no, so I doubt he'll move even for an extra year or two's contract security.

 

[AM]

You just don't let top players who are the heart and soul of your club go. Apart from losing their experience and playing skills it has the potential to have a demoralising affect on the playing group. Jimmeh will play out his days with us and I'd expect this contract to be for three years.

 

[bobbycatsfanme]

if Gazza's mrs happens to pop out a boy in the coming years any chance we could snap him up after the father son Ablett=football type of situation???

Or has the father son rule been abolished there's just something about the Ablett genes that has them established ready-made superstars

 

[Pure_Ownage]

if Gazza's mrs happens to pop out a boy in the coming years any chance we could snap him up after the father son Ablett=football type of situation???

Or has the father son rule been abolished there's just something about the Ablett genes that has them established ready-made superstars

Assuming Ablett plays 100 games for GC before he retires, any boy will be eligible to play for both us and them and hence will have to choose which club he wishes to go to, just as the latest Daniher boy had to choose between Essendon and Sydney.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

You just don't let top players who are the heart and soul of your club go. Apart from losing their experience and playing skills it has the potential to have a demoralising affect on the playing group. Jimmeh will play out his days with us and I'd expect this contract to be for three years.

It would be demoralising for the supporters as well. I understand that in the long run, the compensation we receive may provide more on the field than Bartel can provide over the last four-odd years of his career (factoring a probable decline over the last year and a half). But to see Gaz and Jimmy running around in those jumpers instead of the hoops would be absolutely devastating.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Assuming Ablett plays 100 games for GC before he retires, any boy will be eligible to play for both us and them and hence will have to choose which club he wishes to go to, just as the latest Daniher boy had to choose between Essendon and Sydney.

Yep, it comes down to the player's choice (and obviously the parents would have some say in that). Assuming he does make it to 100 games with GC (likely, but not a certainty - it's five very healthy seasons in a row, or more likely six seasons with the odd niggle here and there and maybe one big injury), I'd say wherever the family settles after his career is over would have the inside track and a half lap head-start (which is how it ended up going with Cousins - even though he was a Geelong fan - and Daniher).

 

[vinum coupe]

It's 18 - 20 years away. Maybe longer.

There will probably be 20 teams in the comp, and father son will have been declared as unfair and won't exist.

No point worrying about it.
Gee I hope I'm still kicking then.

 

[Mooney_d'King]

I don't think it's been posted yet: http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/03/18/248921_gfc.html.

Good news:

BROWNLOW medallist Jimmy Bartel yesterday declared he would love to remain at Geelong beyond this year and has not even entertained the thought of leaving his beloved Cats.

Bartel yesterday said he was baffled by the constant speculation surrounding his playing future, given he had not even received an offer from cashed-up Greater Western Sydney.

The 27-year-old, who is out of contract at season's end, said he was in no rush to ink a new deal at the Cats but his preference is to remain a one-club player.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Very encouraging words, but I will feel secure when he signs. Do it Jimmy son!

 

[Copernicus]

For some reason I just don't feel the same qualms about Jimmy that I did with Gaz. I just couldn't see him lining up elsewhere. I am quite certain that with Gaz gone, the Club will be well set up to look after Jimmy, but GWS would have to dangle massive money to lure him away, and I just don't think they're going to offer it to a bloke who isn't in quite the same league as Gaz.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

For some reason I just don't feel the same qualms about Jimmy that I did with Gaz. I just couldn't see him lining up elsewhere. I am quite certain that with Gaz gone, the Club will be well set up to look after Jimmy, but GWS would have to dangle massive money to lure him away, and I just don't think they're going to offer it to a bloke who isn't in quite the same league as Gaz.

Fair point. I'm probably the same, but still just want to see him sign on the dotted line. If GWS signs another player over the age of about 26, I seriously doubt they will get into a bidding war with Geelong for a (by Rd 1 2012) 28 year old Jimmy Bartel.

 

[AM]

GEELONG champion Jimmy Bartel has launched contract talks which could keep him a Cat and quash lures from new AFL club Greater Western Sydney.

“We’re in discussions and it is fair to say that those talks are progressing well,” Mills said.

Never in doubt.

http://bit.ly/ecp3vI

 

[The rabbi]

Never in doubt.

http://bit.ly/ecp3vI

The fat lady has not stepped up to the microphone yet.

 

[AM]

The fat lady has not stepped up to the microphone yet.

If you read anything but positivity in that statement you're stranger than I thought, Rabbi.

 

[bulletproof]

Never in doubt.

http://bit.ly/ecp3vI

I am looking forward to Wish Wellington's response to this bit of news and Jimmy's early season form. He really does love that man.

 

[vinum coupe]

A positive thread? Hmmm, best I skip back over to the Varcoe thread and defend my turf.

Jimmy should hold off until he gets the 2nd brownlow.

 

[AM]

A positive thread? Hmmm, best I skip back over to the Varcoe thread and defend my turf.

Jimmy should hold off until he gets the 2nd brownlow.

He's not bald and greedy.

 

[Geelong Fella]

That special at half time was good to see. Seems to love the club and would never leave

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Never in doubt.

http://bit.ly/ecp3vI

Good news.

Can't wait for the day when he-signs.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

He's not bald and greedy.

He hair is lush and his heart is pure.