List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[BRL121]

thats a low benchmark for a 1.4m x 7 year player! surely he needs to jump into our best 5 players (or very close to) and immediately impact. and everything does come down to cost. luckily he is 'free' from a trade collateral perspective (massive adv) but the salary is at the very top end of what most reasonable fans would think he is worth.

like currently in our team would anyone besides dawson (whose salary was moved up when contract extended last year) and maybe tt and rankine be on more than 1m? i cant see it, and even these 3 guys i would think are very close to the 1m mark not 1.2m+

so bailey is going to come in and be by far the highest paid player on the list. just hope it doesnt unsettle things but ive made my point re this so will now zip it

Why "zip it"?

 

[Daniel6]

Double is way too much extra.

Yeah, you are possibly right. The figures were just an example

 

[119others]

Why "zip it"?

I am conscious of making the same point over and over again, so was talking about myself needing to 'zip it' (ie shutting up). Not sure how common this saying is here in Oz but its a 'staple' saying in the UK and has sort of stuck with me

 

[Daniel6]

Have you worked out how much we'd be paying over your suggested "base' wage value over a 7 year contract to convince him to move?
How does $5.25M to convince him to move sound?

Na, leave that stuff to you as you are the grand poobar of all things AFL.

The figures were irrelevant, it was just highlighting the fact you have to pay more to get a player to move clubs.

 

[119others]

Yeah, you are possibly right. The figures were just an example

agree with the concept and am sure you are correct. you do need to pay overs to extract in most cases

but yeah i reckon double is too much. perhaps - just my guess - an extra 20-30% loading so a 1.2m player becomes 1.5m ish after the 'moving tax'

 

[Daniel6]

agree with the concept and am sure you are correct. you do need to pay overs to extract in most cases

but yeah i reckon double is too much. perhaps - just my guess - an extra 20-30% loading so a 1.2m player becomes 1.5m ish after the 'moving tax'

I think it might be a bit more with a player like Zac Bailey. Moving away from from a premiership team would cost more than a bottom side.

 

[GreyCrow]

Bailey is a very good midfielder/forward no doubt but personally I don't see him as a game changer midfielder....does his best work forward of the ball IMO. Is he worth the $1.4M or more the general consensus seems to have him at? I'm not sure he is.

Chicken or egg though?

Looking at this years Lions CBAs he is well behind Neale , Ashcroft , Dunkley and also Fort

If Neale leaves does he move up and get Forts numbers who is still only 49% to Baileys 32%

ie in another side would his CBAs increase?

 

[Mutineer]

Na, leave that stuff to you as you are the grand poobar of all things AFL.

The figures were irrelevant, it was just highlighting the fact you have to pay more to get a player to move clubs.

I'm just putting your figures to the test for everyone to see bud. The reality bites just a tad doesn't it?

Under the new pay scale most wouldn't have too many problems with putting $1M on the table over a 7 year contract but maybe a 5 year contract would be more to most's liking

 

[GreyCrow]

Id also be a bit wary of how he's going to perform in a lesser midfield. Theres no Neale or McCluggage attracting attention, theres no Dunkley or Berry doing the grunt work, and whilst Rachele is warming to that midfield role he's not yet or maybe wont be Will Ashcroft.

Dawson and MAYBE a fit Soligo aside, we are a long way from a proven midfield group that he will walk into, and the pressure of Adelaide is far greater than Brisbane.

Is he a Des Headland then?

 

[Daniel6]

I'm just putting your figures to the test for everyone to see bud. The reality bites just a tad doesn't it?

Under the new pay scale most wouldn't have too many problems with putting $1M on the table over a 7 year contract but maybe a 5 year contract would be more to most's liking

Just using arbitrary figures, should Brisbane put $950,000 on the table and the crows put $950,000 on the table, I’m thinking any player would stay at their original club.

Based on your comment, I’m assuming you would agree with that.

I’m saying it cost more to extract a player out of a stable club and team.

 

[spenze]

I’d rather spend 1.7 million on a new midfield coach

 

[ABAB]

Brisbane reportedly has offered him 6 years at $1M, 7 years at $1.2M is possibly enough for them to not match but it might not be enough for Bailey to consider moving. Dawson, Rankine, Rachele, Curtin, Bailey, Soligo and Peatling with the development of Draper and Edwards will be a very strong midfield and he is in the prime age when we are contending. This will allow a quality forward to be inside 50 when they aren't in the midfield. Just need to find a backup Ruck who isn't RoB.

 

[BRL121]

I am conscious of making the same point over and over again, so was talking about myself needing to 'zip it' (ie shutting up). Not sure how common this saying is here in Oz but its a 'staple' saying in the UK and has sort of stuck with me

Of course, I know the saying well. It can't hurt to express your opinion robustly, many others do.
It seems that there is general agreement on the value of players, but much disagreement on the importance of the long-term effects on the team of vastly overpaying an opportunistic free agent.

Any reasoned argument should now be directed to emotionless discussions on the latter.
I personally don't think "pay the guy anything, and hang the consequences" is a reasoned argument, but I'm happy to listen to one.

 

[Scorpus]

Where would be be rated in our list? Pay him the same rate, plus a trading surcharge, not 1.4m.

That should lead to a discussion here. Where would people rate him in our present list?
Talent, match-winning ability, effort, consistency, all need to be considered, not just Free-agent hype.
Value to the team is the story.

I'd have him at about the Rachele level.

He'd be our third best player. Top 5 at the absolute worst

 

[Cromulant]

Is he a Des Headland then?

In a playing sense..... possibly.

 

[1990crow]

He'd be our third best player. Top 5 at the absolute worst

When a top 5 in your club rankings becomes available you just have to get them.
In terms of Rachele/TT contracts the work we have done to make them central to our future should be enough to keep them - not like they won't get paid handsomely.

 

[Mostyn]

He's not worth it. Also, the effect on team harmony would be a negative.

Getting a fantastic player?

The good players are all on $1m+. They want to win. Who's complaining?

 

[Mostyn]

Paying overs for Bailey could also lead to one or more of our young guns that have the potential to be genuine A graders looking elsewhere for more coin too. Salary cap matters when it comes to retention. Bailey is a very good midfielder/forward no doubt but personally I don't see him as a game changer midfielder....does his best work forward of the ball IMO. Is he worth the $1.4M or more the general consensus seems to have him at? I'm not sure he is.

Who's this player who is going to leave?

Rachele, Dawson, Rankine and Thilthorpe would all be on $1m now, or will be when they extend. That leaves maybe Worrell as the player we need to extend on more cash.

He'd be a top five player, and the other A graders are all getting paid as well.

 

[Mostyn]

not all proven but rachele, rankine, curtin, draper and now even edwards on top of dawson and soligo offers significant potential. IF it comes off we are looking at a top 4 midfield here (based on both exposed form and/or draft position for curtin and draper)

C'mon, Soligo and Edwards?

 

[119others]

He'd be our third best player. Top 5 at the absolute worst

can i assume you rate bailey higher than rankine?

not sure too many decision makers in the industry would agree with that

 

[Mutineer]

Who's this player who is going to leave?

Rachele, Dawson, Rankine and Thilthorpe would all be on $1m now, or will be when they extend. That leaves maybe Worrell as the player we need to extend on more cash.

He'd be a top five player, and the other A graders are all getting paid as well.

So you can see into the future?

We all know what contracts mean in the AFL of recent times if a player really wants to head home....not much at all.

Sure the clubs need to pay up if they want them via draft collateral but that means you're back to square re development with no guarantee the player you gain will be as good as the player you lose.

 

[Cromulant]

He'd be our third best player. Top 5 at the absolute worst

Thilthorpe
Dawson
Worrell
Rankine
Bailey ??

 

[119others]

C'mon, Soligo and Edwards?

i have always thought soli could be a b+ player so agree never an a-grader (elite) player

edwards unknown - as are curtin and draper ultimately - and projecting here but promising signs combined with advantageous physical traits for the youngster

 

[119others]

Thilthorpe
Dawson
Worrell
Rankine
Bailey ??

i can handle 5th or 6th but no way is bailey better than rankine. and thats seeing him 30-40 times in the last handful of years

 

[Cromulant]

i can handle 5th or 6th but no way is bailey better than rankine. and thats seeing him 30-40 times in the last handful of years

It would be line-ball IMO. Rankines best is better but for a variety of reasons we dont see it often enough.

Id argue if Rachele continues in his path he'll be in that list too