-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
List Mgmt. TDK - Benchmarks for Success
- Thread starter PJays
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
It's an interesting question. Was Buddy more successful at Sydney or Boyd at the Bulldogs?
We'd obviously all take a single premiership with TDK in the team followed by a decade of struggling due to a completely screwed salary cap. I'll applaud and accept whatever consequences ensue.
Would we consider TDK to be a success if he is very good for us for five years and okay for the last three, but we don't win a flag (knowing that his contract limits recruiting/retention)? I'd say no. If he turns out to be an absolute gun and wins a few B&Fs (but no flag) then there would be a conversation to be had.
I'm concerned that we've just committed to a good but not great ruck (who can't play anywhere else) at more than double his value for a contract beyond his likely career length though.
We'd obviously all take a single premiership with TDK in the team followed by a decade of struggling due to a completely screwed salary cap. I'll applaud and accept whatever consequences ensue.
Would we consider TDK to be a success if he is very good for us for five years and okay for the last three, but we don't win a flag (knowing that his contract limits recruiting/retention)? I'd say no. If he turns out to be an absolute gun and wins a few B&Fs (but no flag) then there would be a conversation to be had.
I'm concerned that we've just committed to a good but not great ruck (who can't play anywhere else) at more than double his value for a contract beyond his likely career length though.
It's fine to think about how the club is putting the list together.
Once the player is on our list though, I don't think it's a good thing to attach expectations based on their reported salary.
Again, let's use Brad Hill as an example. Brad was royally shat on by saints fans (here too) because "I can't believe we're paying this %$# more than *insert player here and he didn't go hard enough at that contest". I didn't like it at the time. I didn't think Brad was anywhere near as bad as he was being made out to be but so much of it centred around him being our highest paid player.
We now look at what Brad has brought to our club. Would Nas still be playing for us without his influence?
Obviously with Hilly what we gave up for him was also a factor and that won't be the case with Tom, but just wait for him to have a few poor games and you know it'll come "we're paying this &^%$ 1.8 and blah blah blah."
When we're talking about trading players in, obviously their wage gets discussed, even though most of the time we don't actually know what it really is. Once that's done though, I tend to try to forget about it. That might make me in the minority but I'd rather put my faith in the club to manage that and get on with enjoying the footy. I want to enjoy watching the big fella tear it up as a Saint without seeing a dollar sign above his head whenever I watch him play.
The other thing is coaching plays such a big part in how a player is going. I have no doubt TDK has a great skillset and will give it everything but how he and our midfield in general go will be heavily affected by the influence and decisions of our coaching group.
IMO It''s more nuanced than we're paying player A X amount of dollars so I expect Y out of him.
Last edited:
Hoping that he becomes a consistent top 5 ruckman in the league for 5+ years, adds to his talent, makes us a better team overall, and plays over 17-18 games a season.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
That is just bonkers.
No one is going to measure TDK success/failure based on those arbitrary measures. It will be based on what he brings to team success. For example, if his ruck work improves players like Box, Windy, Nas, Garcia etc. then it is a win. He may not necessarily get his name up in lights but club supporters will see his value.
This current goup should not be about measuring individual talent, should be about measuring the success of the team. That is how supporters will measure. And when you are a successful team even very ordinary players suddenly become champions.
The other thing about the TDK deal is it will only look expensive in the first couple of years. The rest of the AFL is going to catch up very quickly.
Dr Spaceman
Brownlow Medallist
To date:
0 Kicks
0 Handballs
0 Tackles
0 Hit Outs
0 AA selection
0 Coaches votes
0 Brownlow votes
Lift ya game Tom!
0 Kicks
0 Handballs
0 Tackles
0 Hit Outs
0 AA selection
0 Coaches votes
0 Brownlow votes
Lift ya game Tom!
- Thread starter
- #32
There's a few things about these comments that need unpacking.
AA selections and coaches votes are not "arbitrary". They're the closest thing we have to objective assessment about who's performing at an elite level.
Especially coaches votes. That's the most knowledgeable people in the game, deciding on a game-by-game basis who's having an influence. You couldn't devise a fairer system with better judges. It's literally the least arbitrary measure we have, from those who know footy better than anyone else.
(The only criticism of coaches votes is even they are skewed towards mids and forwards- the great defenders (Rance, Scarlett, Andrews) didn't get as many votes as similarly influential forwards/mids. But that's why I included AA as another benchmark, and secondly, rucks do get coaches votes- Gawn, Grundy, Nic Nat, Sandilands, Goldstein all polled well. Xerri got 72 votes this year).
Or is the complaint that my specific benchmarks are arbitrary? They're really not. If you look at the best players from the last 8 years (2018-2025) they all met my benchmarks:
Gawn, Grundy, Bontempelli, Stewart, Jeremy Cameron, Cripps, Andrews and many others.
From St Kilda:
- Jack Steele met my benchmarks from 2017-2024 and from 2018-2025.
- Jack Sinclair is tracking towards my benchmarks- he needs 38 games over the next 3 years, and either 71 coaches votes or 1 more AA selection.
- Jack Steven missed out by a whisker- 167 games and 285 coaches votes 2011-2018.
- Most of the greats from the previous Lyon era met my benchmarks: Riewoldt, Hayes, Montagna, Dal Santo
Lastly, there's the idea that TDK needs to contribute to team success, not chase individual accolades. But this is a misunderstanding of what those awards represent! AA's and coaches votes go to players from winning teams. Coaches and AA selectors understand that players who are contributing to team success are the most valuable.
This year:
- 16 of 22 AA players were from finals teams. (6 others- Gawn, Pickett, Richards, Bont, NAS, Heeney).
- 19 of 22 AA players were from teams with a winning record. Only 3 players from teams with a losing record (Melbourne and St Kilda).
- 15 of the top 20 in coaches votes were from teams with a winning record. (Exclusions- Gawn, Rozee, Butters, Nas, Xerri).
Last edited:
It's the same as every other player
I think you're conflating too many things in all this.
I think everyone can agree that he's a worthy acquisition, so let's park that and just look at the financial side of it.
Yes, it's a figure beyond his current worth but l don't think that narrative stands up well to critical examination.
Reported as $1.8M* IMO opinion breaks down like so.
$1.8M - performance bonuses (1) - AFL marketing allowance (2) - frontloading from existing SC oversupply (3).
As a guess you could easily attribute $200k to each of those 3 items, bringing his nominal SC draw to approx $1.2M which as it happens is about the figure that Stav threw out a few weeks ago.
I'd say the $1.2M isn't unreasonable. With 2 off the 3 rest of it comming essentially outside the annual SC and one being performance bonuses it all seems to be reasonable to me (based on these assumptions).
I find the notion that our list management have implemented a base rate of $1.8M a bit silly and obviously in opposition to standard practices. It's a narrative that creates panic amongst the supporters but it's less than a 1% chance of being true. The club is wanting publicity so isn't gonna wash it down till years after, but we either have faith in the admin checks and balances or we don't. I say keep the faith, and relax. It'll be fine.
- Thread starter
- #35
How do we know performance bonuses are included? How do we know the marketing allowance is part of this number?
We don't. It's assumptions based on, I'm not sure what.
I love how you've taken these assumptions and now you're off and running with 1.2!
Paying NAS $2million wasn't standard practice either. That's not a reliable guide.
The problem is professional sports clubs constantly get this stuff wrong.
In other sports free agency is more prominent and cap information is more public.
Those of us who follow sports like that are acutely aware of this fact, that clubs often overpay and run into trouble.
So I just find the "she'll be right" and "have faith in the club" views to be downright naive. (Although the recent Collingwood and Carlton examples should also alert us, if you don't follow other sports).
Every year seventeen AFL teams fail.
They are the very definition of arbitrary. They are votes cast by a single person or small number of persons.
Ladder/finals/flag success is not arbitrary - someone has to cross the finish line first and a RESULT is recorded. There is no subjectivity. It is or it isn't. It really is the only thing that matters in football. No one cares if Joe the Goose got one touch in the granny if the team wins.
It will be the same with TDK. Saints spend the next 5 years at the bottom end and the deal will be judged the wrong move no matter his output and vice-versa of course.
- Thread starter
- #38
Only in the sense that they're decided by personal opinion and, in that case, many things in life could be defined as arbitrary.
You got a pay rise? It doesn't mean you're a "good performer", it was merely the "arbitrary" decision of the management team at your workplace.
The definition of arbitrary isn't just personal opinion, it includes randomness and chance or lack of reason. AA and coaches votes are generally supportable by observable statistical measures that demonstrate a players impact.
By these standards, Nathan Buckley and Nick Riewoldt's entire careers were a failure.
Nathan Vardy's career mattered more than Aaron Sandilands.
Nonsense.
If TDK becomes a star player- St Kilda won't necessarily be successful. But if he makes 7 All-Australian teams in the next 8 years (like Gawn has for the last 8), no (rational) person will argue it was the wrong move. Regardless of team results.
Last edited:
Because it's ******* standard.
The media reported figures which are always quoted at the maximum possible to sensationalise it.
Most people understand there is an element of nuance to it, which is why they are less concerned over it than you. You're choo-choo-choosing an extremely unlikely and alarmist view point rooted in your fear of the unknown, which is why you're basically isolated on this subject.
- Thread starter
- #40
Enlighten me- how much performance bonuses are included in standard contracts?
And a 2nd question, how do the good teams manage this, when they're running close to the (hard) cap, and have multiple players potentially earning these bonuses?
If you step outside the bubble that is the Saints sub-forum on BigFooty, you'll find many people questioning the wisdom of giving a relatively unheralded ruckman one of the biggest contracts in AFL history.
Since you're the one with the bee in your bonnet, how about you enlighten the rest of us with your specific knowledge of the subject matter and the justifications for concern. Because right now all you're offering is a big IDK.
That my friend is the definition of arbitrary.
No one is going to argue against TDK getting AAs and coaches votes. What is bonkers is making that the measure of his success. It is like hiring an HR Director so you can win an employee of choice award. That might be nice but you hire them to make the organisation better first and foremost.
If your benchmark is AAs and coaches votes , if that is your KPI, then guess what, you are going to play to target AA and coaches votes. As you rightly point out, there are formulas and paths to those things. That may or may not be what your team needs.
- Thread starter
- #43
That's not how this works
You made a claim, you justify what it's based on
(That performance bonuses are standard and they're likely $200k of TDK's yearly contract)
- Thread starter
- #44
No it isn't. It's part of it- but misses plenty.
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"
"based on chance or personal power rather than reason or rules"
"existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will"
"not based on any principle, plan, or system"
"determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"
"Something that's arbitrary seems like it's chosen at random instead of following a consistent rule. Team members would dislike their coach using a totally arbitrary method to pick starting players."
Those are the top google results
Clearly, suggesting AA and coaches votes are "Arbitrary" entirely ignores key elements of the definition- it's not random or whim or unreasonable, it's the knowledgeable views of the best experts, based on their learned views supported by observable data.
And it's consistent views supported by many people, not the "personal" act of one person's inconsistent "will". Clearly the concept of consensus (amongst say, 18 coaches allocating votes to a player over the course of a season) contradicts the idea that it's based on chance or random whim.
So no, AA and coaches votes are not arbitrary at all.
If you hire someone on $200k a year and most of your employees are on $80k, you expect that new starter to be the a high performer, to make the team better, to meet tougher KPI's. To win employee of the month. To do all of those things.
I don't think you can play to "target AA and coaches votes". That's insulting to the intelligence and understanding of the coaches.
If you kick for goal from outside 50 instead of passing to a better option, you don't think coaches notice?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
No your making the claims, l made a counter argument. Put your money up chum. Tell us why we should be so worried.
Heard from a very good source yesterday that TDK's deal averages out at $1.3m per year over the 8.
Bonuses could bring in up to $400k per year in addition.
Front loaded to give us max. flexibility when the new EBA is agreed to.
JSOS offered the same $ as Pies & Blues but a longer deal (4 v 5 years).
Front loaded too ($850k x 2, $700k x 1, $300k x 2)
So you can see how media types manipulate figures to create drama. "Jack is on $850k and has a 5 year deal!"
Bonuses could bring in up to $400k per year in addition.
Front loaded to give us max. flexibility when the new EBA is agreed to.
JSOS offered the same $ as Pies & Blues but a longer deal (4 v 5 years).
Front loaded too ($850k x 2, $700k x 1, $300k x 2)
So you can see how media types manipulate figures to create drama. "Jack is on $850k and has a 5 year deal!"
- Thread starter
- #47
I must've written 100 or 200 posts about various aspects of the general issue.
You made the specific claim here.
Whats your source for your claim that performance bonuses are standard and they're likely $200k of TDK's yearly contract?
- Apr 26, 2015
- 7,297
- 12,460
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
TDK will be fine if he does what Lyon wants, gets a bit of the ball and beats his opponent
- Thread starter
- #50
Who's your source?
That's more than 2% of the salary cap.
The AFL is a hard cap environment. You can't go over (except in very limited circumstances- which the Saints will utilise in coming years). You can't just exceed the cap and pay luxury tax.
So how do teams plan their cap, when they've got 2%, 4%, 6% or more of their cap allocated to potential bonuses?
Similar threads
