Opinion Is Buddy's nine year contract finally coming back to haunt the Swans?

[theyellowsash]

Surely there's a get out clause of some kind, with a contract that stupidly long?

i think the point of the afl making it count towards the cap regardless was to avoid get out clauses. or else every club would sign a player to some stupid contract that their original club wouldnt match, and then wipe it out with a getout clause.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Was worth the money
Hurts with the swans banking on a salary cap explosion. The opposite has happened

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well they've lost start-up best 22 players in Tom Mitchell (Brownlow medallist) and Zak Jones. Almost lost Tom Papley in the off season, possibly homesickness a component, but also due to be offered substantially better pay elsewhere.

Were these direct results of Franklin's contract?

They still had the cash spare to consider Joe Daniher so it can't be that tight.

The Swans clearly got it wrong letting Tom Mitchell go. But at the time it was more to do with a lack of opportunity and them feeling he wasn't a top-line midfielder in his own right. They made the wrong call but I don't think it was because they simply didn't have the money to pay him due to Franklin's deal.

As for Papley, if a top 10 pick was on the table, you'd pack his bags for him and drive him to the airport. Wouldn't be surprised if someone like Luke Parker gets offered up as well.

Trade targets on the swans list, due to not receiving salary market value via the Franklin salary commitment, could be Jordan Dawson, Will Hayward, Oliver Florent and Tom McCartin.

You're just listing players without demonstrating any effect of the Franklin contract. Where is the indication that these guys would command big money elsewhere and therefore leave because the Swans can't afford to keep them? These guys are young players on a young list. By the time they are established guns trying to command 700k-800k, Franklin's deal will be over.

 

[ImCheatingToWin]

most overrated power forward of all time.

Guess it's lucky he never played basketball then

 

[Franc de Borges]

What’s haunting them is their performances in the 2014 and 2016 GFs. If they’d won those two games then these questions wouldn’t be asked.

 

[My Tilly]

What’s haunting them is their performances in the 2014 and 2016 GFs. If they’d won those two games then these questions wouldn’t be asked.

Should have beaten the Dogs.

2014 they ran into one of the most dominant teams of the past 20+ years.

 

[Sir_Loin]

It put the Swans all over the papers and got them to the big dance in 2016.
If having the best player of his generation on their list for 6 years cost them 9 years of salary (and no draft picks) - for everything he's brought the Swans, they just might do the deal again even with the value of hindsight.

not his fault the bulldogs got fluffed by the umps in the 2016 GF. You do the deal every time.

 

[MrWoollie]

Nine years ago I said it was justified to put him on the $ they were offering, but not for the time they were doing it. Far too much risk.

And yes it is now coming back to bite the Swans. But it could have been so much worse. Imagine if he'd broken his pelvis (or any career ending injury) back in 2014 or 2015.

So now a lot of us can run around with our big ego heads on shouting 'I told you so'.

 

[The King!]

it was a risk, if its done it probably hasnt paid off enough but whatever. most teams would still take the equivalent risk now

is it haunting us? kids look good, players we need have contracts, guess if he sits for 2 years worse case its dead cap costing you another player, but oh well

 

[Damon_3388]

With the structure of their list currently - 25 of their 46 listed players are 23 or under, and senior players are a mix of solid role players, second-chancers, state-league back-ups and a few stars - the Swans can afford to "carry" Buddy's contract for a couple of years. These were always going to be the "bonus" years of the contract and of Buddy's career. He is and should be expected to be past his prime at age 32-33. I know they're still paying him premium money, but the acquisition was always more about getting the most out of Buddy's remaining prime years (2014-2017), than what he did after the age of 30.

If we're going to wring hands over "wastage", I'd look moreso at that "lost" 2015 season (17 games, 83 marks 49 goals), right in the middle of his prime. To his credit, Buddy managed to follow with one of his best all-round seasons in 2016 (26 game, 155 marks, 81 goals, GF appearance), but I think Sydney would have hoped for more of the same the year prior too.

By the end of 2022, 8 of Sydney's current listed players will be over 30, and a few of those would either be retired or on their last legs, and they'll likely have had a lot more turnover and salary come off the books as well. Interestingly, according to FootyWire, only Oliver Florent, Tom Papley, Callum Mills, and Wll Hayward are currently contracted beyond 2022, so there's scope for a big post-Buddy signing and salary boost.

Get experience into the younger players and experiment now, give the older guys a worthy send-off, and make a major push from 2023 onwards. Coincidentally, when the GWS window should begin to close

 

[bluespooner]

You're just listing players without demonstrating any effect of the Franklin contract. Where is the indication that these guys would command big money elsewhere and therefore leave because the Swans can't afford to keep them? These guys are young players on a young list. By the time they are established guns trying to command 700k-800k, Franklin's deal will be over.

I didn't demonstrate the effect of the Franklin contract because it's axiomatic. The more you offer one player in a finite salary cap the less you have to spend elsewhere on other listed players; it's not rocket science.

All of those young players potentially would make more at other clubs, of course they may be just as happy playing for the swans for less. You would also think the swans will struggle to extract Joe Daniher as a free agent as they're unlikely to have the space in the salary cap - leastwise, you would have to think essendon will have the ability to match the swans offer.

 

[lumpinee]

ITS LOOKING LIKE A 'YES' at the moment

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't demonstrate the effect of the Franklin contract because it's axiomatic. The more you offer one player in a finite salary cap the less you have to spend elsewhere on other listed players; it's not rocket science.

Like I said, they had enough room to consider adding Daniher at the end of 2019, so I'm not sure the effects are as acute as you're suggesting.

If you're saying Franklin's deal is "haunting" the Swans, surely you have to show how, specifically. Not just "axiomatically". Otherwise it's not clear how it's hurt them.

All of those young players potentially would make more at other clubs, of course they may be just as happy playing for the swans for less.

Potentially? You could say that about any young player at any club in the comp, maybe with the exception of recent draftees to GC.

The fact is none of them are in a position to demand big bucks at this stage. In two years, maybe. But the Franklin deal will be done by then.

You would also think the swans will struggle to extract Joe Daniher as a free agent as they're unlikely to have the space in the salary cap - leastwise, you would have to think essendon will have the ability to match the swans offer.

They were in a position to add him at the end of 2019. Whether they add him as a FA or not isn't really the point. They clearly had enough room to accommodate Daniher who would presumably have been on at least 600k. So this purported squeeze can't have been that bad.

 

[Upgrayedd]

What’s haunting them is their performances in the 2014 and 2016 GFs. If they’d won those two games then these questions wouldn’t be asked.

We would of murdered God if he took the field in 2014, Sydney were a great outfit and we dismantled them.

2016 was gettable.

 

[WWSD]

No.

Franklin is worth every dollar as he was the best player in the competition when Sydney signed him.

The mistake was signing Tippett. That’s what ****ed the Swans up. They didn’t really need him after winning a Premiership with a small forward-line.

 

[Franc de Borges]

We would of murdered God if he took the field in 2014, Sydney were a great outfit and we dismantled them.

2016 was gettable.

2014 is the best performance I’ve ever seen from a team in a GF. That’s all hindsight though, Sydney would’ve been full of confidence beforehand.

 

[bluespooner]

Like I said, they had enough room to consider adding Daniher at the end of 2019, so I'm not sure the effects are as acute as you're suggesting.

If you're saying Franklin's deal is "haunting" the Swans, surely you have to show how, specifically. Not just "axiomatically". Otherwise it's not clear how it's hurt them.

They've moved on players in the last few years for unders in trades due to their salary cap situation i.e. Hanneberry, Jones and Mitchell. The biggest component putting pressure on the swans salary cap is Franklin's contract that was backended

So, I don't think it is too much of a leap to say Franklin's contract has constrained them. The only way I see that they could have afforded Joe Daniher was to do a similar deal to the Franklin one, and backend the contract as the big commitment years.

Potentially? You could say that about any young player at any club in the comp, maybe with the exception of recent draftees to GC.

The fact is none of them are in a position to demand big bucks at this stage. In two years, maybe. But the Franklin deal will be done by then.

As, I'm not a football insider I don't know how much the swans young players earn and or how they're rated by clubs outside of the swans. I listed those four players because there good young players that have shown a bit but perhaps not highest the priority which you would have to think would be Heeney, Mills and Blakey. Fringe young players will always be vulnerable under a tight salary cap; in much the same way that the swans targeted Hawthorn's list back in 2009 offering Kennedy and McGlynn longer and more lucrative contracts.

They were in a position to add him at the end of 2019. Whether they add him as a FA or not isn't really the point. They clearly had enough room to accommodate Daniher who would presumably have been on at least 600k. So this purported squeeze can't been that bad.

You would also have to think essendon's salary cap is not as tight as the swans, so they will be able to match. Of course, they could offer another Franklin type contract but after being haunted by the current one, I doubt it.

 

[Red Bull]

most overrated power forward of all time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They've moved on players in the last few years for unders in trades due to their salary cap situation i.e. Hanneberry, Jones and Mitchell.

I'm not sure that's true.

So, I don't think it is too much of a leap to say Franklin's contract has constrained them. The only way I see that they could have afforded Joe Daniher was to do a similar deal to the Franklin one, and backend the contract as the big commitment years.

Maybe. But if they have the flexibility to add Daniher, that still suggests they're not actually that constrained.

As, I'm not a football insider I don't know how much the swans young players earn and or how they're rated by clubs outside of the swans. I listed those four players because there good young players that have shown a bit but perhaps not highest the priority which you would have to think would be Heeney, Mills and Blakey. Fringe young players will always be vulnerable under a tight salary cap; in much the same way that the swans targeted Hawthorn's list back in 2009 offering Kennedy and McGlynn longer and more lucrative contracts.

I mentioned Heeney and Mills as the two guys who'd be in a position to earn big money elsewhere. Provided the Swans can keep them happy, I don't see too many other problems for them. The other younger guys aren't in a position to command big money yet. In two years, maybe. But the Swans will have Franklin's salary off the books by then.

Nick Blakey is 20 and has played 1 season. He's also from the Swans' backyard. I don't think they're going to need to throw too much extra cash at him before Franklin's contract expires.

As for "fringe players", they get poached from every club. I wouldn't be holding that up as an example of Franklin's deal backfiring. I thought we were talking about required players being lost to the club because the Swans simply can't afford to keep them. Now we're talking about the 30th player on the list looking elsewhere? Surely that's just business as usual at every club in the comp.

It would be different if the Swans were in position to contend now or next year and were being forced to shed required players because of Franklin's salary. But I look at their list overall and they're clearly in a transition period. As such, I expect they can bear the burden of the last seasons of Franklin's deal without it actually causing them too much pain, provided they prioritise the best young talent (Heeney, Mills) who could be there as senior players in their next push into contention. People want the more dramatic takeaway that "OMG the pain has finally come for the Swans because of the Franklin deal". But I don't think that's necessarily the case, given how they're positioned.

You would also have to think essendon's salary cap is not as tight as the swans, so they will be able to match.

This is pie in the sky stuff. And it misses the point: the Swans have enough flexibility in their cap to puruse someone like Daniher, so they can't actually be that constrained.

 

[dean33]

I genuinely think Sydney has got their money's worth so far. Maybe not a flag, but the exposure he's brought to them is great and he's still up there as one of the top KPFs in the comp. When fit, he always has an argument to the #1 spot.

The next 3 seasons will be interesting, with 40% of his contract still to be paid out. Franklin would be absolutely laughing though.

Have to disagree unless you value marketing more than premierships? Has also cost them Mumford and Mitchell and probably some others that were either squeezed out or they couldn’t recruit due to buddy’s contract. When he was first recruited to the swans the talk was how many premierships were needed for the trade to be deemed a success and most people said at least 2. To come away with most likely (barring a miracle) 0 is a failure in all regards.

 

[HairyO]

View attachment 883145

Who rated him ?

 

[Engimal v3]

Have to disagree unless you value marketing more than premierships? Has also cost them Mumford and Mitchell and probably some others that were either squeezed out or they couldn’t recruit due to buddy’s contract. When he was first recruited to the swans the talk was how many premierships were needed for the trade to be deemed a success and most people said at least 2. To come away with most likely (barring a miracle) 0 is a failure in all regards.

2 flags to justify a player? Pull the other one you pelican

 

[Red Bull]

Who rated him ?

The club and the coach who brought him across from the tigers ...

 

[Marmozet]

Everyone said at the time in 2013 that he's not going to be any good by the time he's 36.

 

[doppleganger]

It might not really ‘hurt’ Sydney.

2020 will just be written off anyway, out of sight out of mind.

2021-22 the final swan song and the chase for 1000 goals! The additional publicity and revenue opportunities that will bring for Sydney will be enormous.

So even if they are rubbish, the crowd and focus will be just on Buddy...so if they finish bottom 4 and develop kids in a way they are helping fast track post Buddy era too, when they will have cash to splash relative to other clubs!!