Opinion Player list management and game plan 2019

[Waspy79]

You're like a dog with a bone on this topic.

Let me say this....WE HAVE THE 4TH MOST CAP SPACE AVAILABLE!

We aren't matching his offer or upping ours not because we cant do it, but because we can. In any way, say we did sign Polec for 4 years or up his offer for 3, and he breaks down, I'd bet London to a brick you would be first on here saying what a list management stuff up it was to sign him on that deal in the first place.

4 years for Polec seems very reasonable to me when you consider we gave the same to a 28 year old banged up Rockliff.
All it tells me (and Polec) is that the club is full of hypocrasy and double standards.
There is absolutely no way the club should avoid the most stringent of scrutiny around this decision - the blow torch should be applied.

 

[Long live PAFC]

What Ford said. Why are you calling the club a liar? They have publicly announced they will not pay what they consider to be overs. Bringing in Rocky has bugger all to do with Polec! They have the cash, they have the cap space, they are just not prepared to match North.

Agree or disagree on its merits, but blaming Rocky is fallacious.

Agreed re the salary cap and reasoning from the club.

The question is why chase a player like Rocky who is injury prone and an inside accumulator, a role that is much more replaceable, than a younger agile outside classy mid, which is much harder to find. Polec is at his prime and in form and wants 4 or 5 years. Rocky was 28 and injury prone. Rocky was an upgrade on what we had but in a role that we have plenty of depth in.

It’s not one or the other but more a question of what is the club thinking in this regard?

 

[Waspy79]

It has been consistently reported that Port are in the top 4 clubs for salary cap room. So no it makes no sense to keep peddling this myth.

And the reality is that if Port are offering Polec $600K a year as reported, it's not that much less than the $750K a year North are reportedly offering, so could be increased if Port wanted. Port's salary cap would not be so precariously balanced.

Port have a limit they are willing to pay Polec. It has nothing to do with Rockliff and everything to do with Port's valuation of Polec.

This is a myth. It would have everything to do with list management strategy, and Rockliff (plus Watts, Motlop and any other number of spuds we have locked away) is chewing up a portion of that cap. Take Rockliff out and we have $750k spare to play with - you think we wouldn't then be making a stronger play to keep Polec? Give me a break.

 

[FishingRick04]

Polec is going to his third club by the age of 25! Perhaps he's not the team player you think he is? The coaches see it and aren't willing to accommodate.

 

[Forzaport]

I am calling the club stupid and negligent. Offer Polec 4 years or increase the value of the 3 year offer. If not, why not? Shiel isn't incoming. If Lycett is taking up all of the cap space Polec vacates... that is the height of mismanagement.

There has been precisely zero evidence that Polec's contract is impacted by any other player at the club or potentially coming to the club. The only evidence we have is that Polec's contact offer from Port is based on Port's internal player payment structure and North's offer far exceeded that.

 

[Waspy79]

There has been precisely zero evidence that Polec's contract is impacted by any other player at the club or potentially coming to the club. The only evidence we have is that Polec's contact offer from Port is based on Port's internal player payment structure and North's offer far exceeded that.

The same type of player structure that got blamed for the Crows low-balling and losing Lever? Does this player payment structure apply to Rockliff?

 

[Waspy79]

Polec is going to his third club by the age of 25! Perhaps he's not the team player you think he is? The coaches see it and aren't willing to accommodate.

You will be right Rick if he finishes outside the top 3 of the B&F.

 

[Forzaport]

So basically, whoever is in charge of "valuing" players on Port's list needs to be sacked?

We just won't know until we can judge Polec's form at North and whether he's worth the large contract.

When Betts moved to Adelaide, the overwhelming criticism was that Adelaide overpaid. That assessment has since been proven wrong, Bets was a great pickup. What is missed though is that it was overpaying relative to Betts's output at Carlton. When he moved to Adelaide, Betts had a notable increase in performance that was sustained, making him look like a good value recruitment. Polec would need to have a similar marked improvement in performance, over multiple seasons, to justify the price tag. I'm not sure he's got it in him.

 

[Forzaport]

The same type of player structure that got blamed for the Crows low-balling and losing Lever? Does this player payment structure apply to Rockliff?

The Crow's low-balling Lever has nothing to do with Port's offer to Polec, it isn't even comparable.

I imagine Rockliff's contract is part of the payment structure.

 

[Malibu#27]

You will be right Rick if he finishes outside the top 3 of the B&F.

A player can be selfish (i.e. not a team player) but also be one of the better players. I've played with plenty of 'star' players willing to get on the end of something, but not push back and defend, not spread or run to create space for others etc.

 

[SgtSchulz]

My head is spinning trying to follow Constanza Davies this off season. I’ll just wait until the draft is done before I read anything now.

 

[Long live PAFC]

Long and short of it, Polec is going.

From what we have heard it has had nothing to do with money but rather length of contract. Both club and player have said this.

Maybe he isn’t the team player we hoped or believed him to be. Regardless he is our best, most skilled outside player. He is still quick and agile with an a great kick. He will finish top 3 at our BnF. For whatever reason the club sees him as a 3 year 600 player whilst North sees him as much more valuable. Why? Typically these players are hard to find.


Also if we are pushing for a flag so why let an in form, 25 year go in an area we don’t have much depth?

The Rocky question is why give an injury prone 28 year old a 4 year deal when he plays in an area where we have lots of depth whilst we let a 25 year old local boy, in form, injury prone outside mid (an area we have and do struggle in and have no depth) go to another club?

 

[Waspy79]

The Crow's low-balling Lever has nothing to do with Port's offer to Polec, it isn't even comparable.

I imagine Rockliff's contract is part of the payment structure.

And that is why the club has failed in it's valuation of Polec. It has valued Rockliff more important, and presumably more durable. Both fundamentally wrong conclusions for the club to be drawing.

 

[Malibu#27]

From what we have heard it has had nothing to do with money but rather length of contract. Both club and player have said this.

Length of contract and $$ are sort of the same thing.
(length of contract) x (dollars per year) = (total player value).

Tell me a player wouldn't chose a shorter contract length if the total financial package ended up equal or greater than the longer contract.
From memory a carlton supporter who was at the Italian night said Polly was telling all and sundry how much North were offering, you aren't doing this is you don't care about money.

 

[Ports1870]

I may be overreacting but it wasn't a good look. Felt bad for Jack.

What game was this in?

 

[OneGreatClub]

A player can be selfish (i.e. not a team player) but also be one of the better players. I've played with plenty of 'star' players willing to get on the end of something, but not push back and defend, not spread or run to create space for others etc.

Mmmmmm

 

[Long live PAFC]

Length of contract and $$ are sort of the same thing.
(length of contract) x (dollars per year) = (total player value).

Tell me a player wouldn't chose a shorter contract length if the total financial package ended up equal or greater than the longer contract.
From memory a carlton supporter who was at the Italian night said Polly was telling all and sundry how much North were offering, you aren't doing this is you don't care about money.

That’s not what I said. Every contract needs a good sum of money, let’s face it this is likely the largest income he will earn during his life. My point was he may have been willing to play for less than he would have got if we offered more years. Surely we could have rolled with 3 years at 600, with a trigger for another year and a trigger in that year for another.

 

[Magus]

What game was this in?

Home game early in the year. Might have been against Freo.

 

[Janus]

A player can be selfish (i.e. not a team player) but also be one of the better players. I've played with plenty of 'star' players willing to get on the end of something, but not push back and defend, not spread or run to create space for others etc.

5-6 weeks puts it around the time of the Fremantle game.

Starting to paint a picture that isn’t good of Jared Polec.

 

[Forzaport]

And that is why the club has failed in it's valuation of Polec. It has valued Rockliff more important, and presumably more durable. Both fundamentally wrong conclusions for the club to be drawing.

You have to keep in mind that the valuation of Rockliff was done in 2017. Up until that point Rockliff was easily the more valuable and durable player.

Polec is coming off a career best year averaging over 20 possessions a game for just the second time. Rockliff has averaged over 20 disposals per game since his second season, it took Polec 7 years to do the same.

 

[Malibu#27]

That’s not what I said. Every contract needs a good sum of money, let’s face it this is likely the largest income he will earn during his life. My point was he may have been willing to play for less than he would have got if we offered more years. Surely we could have rolled with 3 years at 600, with a trigger for another year and a trigger in that year for another.

It sort of is what you said. Offering him more years at 600K increases his overall income over the term of the contract. I agree that he would have stayed for less than what it took for North to get him.

If you could say he would say no to 600K x 3 but he would accept 450 x 4 then I would agree its just about length of contract, but its not.

 

[MrMeaner]

Good to see we are hunting around for new whipping boys with a few of the regulars likely to be off our list next season. Just so I know, have we landed on Rockliff or Watts or is it Rockliff AND Watts?

 

[Waspy79]

You have to keep in mind that the valuation of Rockliff was done in 2017. Up until that point Rockliff was easily the more valuable and durable player.

Polec is coming off a career best year averaging over 20 possessions a game for just the second time. Rockliff has averaged over 20 disposals per game since his second season, it took Polec 7 years to do the same.

I will agree with output but not durability.

Rockliff was definitely a case of buyer-beware - hamstring, knee and shoulder injuries really affected his 2017 season - yet we gave him 4 years at the age of 28.

You have to also keep in mind team balance and needs - we have a lot of unskilled inside mids but very few skilled link players. This in most ways cancels out the statistical disparity.

Polec has surely fallen out with the coaching staff to be in this position, yet if that's the case his performances this season defy that, which is why I put this down to list mismanagement.

 

[RossFC]

How many close wins have we had in recent times where one of our players took a game saving mark down back?

Polec vs Brisbane in round 3 and Hoff vs St Kilda a few years ago only come to mind.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Ah well at this rate we’ll have none of our top five players left lol