The Buddy Deal v The Boyd Deal

[ManOfClay]

Boyd might be remembered by Bulldogs supporters but he will quickly be forgotten by most other football supporters while Buddy will be remembered by all supporters for years to come as he has become an icon of the game like Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett and Carey who are still remembered today.

Nobody is going to forget Tom Boyd, whether for good or bad reasons.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'm against long term deals, no matter who the player is. You're only one career ending injury away from disaster. As for big bucks, they should only be paid to proven stars at their peak, a la Buddy. Paying big money for a talented young player who is yet to realise their potential is sheer stupidity in my book.

 

[MF]

Won them a flag.

It's a win no matter which way you look at it.

The umpires would have found a way even without Boyd dominating.

 

[Colonial]

The umpires would have found a way even without Boyd dominating.

I'm not going here or there with the umps over that period

The facts are he helped and was a mainstay in winning them a flag. No fan would think that's an over payment.

 

[Iamspock]

Ultimately you'd have to say the Boyd deal was better, even if it cost them financially.

If the Saints were to pay massive overs for a gun, he helped us win a grand final, but as a result of that we ended up coming last for the next 50 years.... I'd still say that's worth it because it meant I could have seen them winning a flag.

It was estimated that the flag generated 10 million for the club. It eradicated our long term and historical debt, even taking into account Tom 's salary. The repercussions are still going on, continuity of and acquiring new sponsors, a Ballarat base, general stability, etc. I don't believe it has cost us financially. I'm sure the same would happen at the Saints, I hope it does.

 

[Bound For Rory]

Buddy still the better deal.
A certain amount of winning flags comes down to luck.

Sydney were there or there abouts for a few years with a real chance and didnt get one.
Boyd had about 2 good games. one happened to be in a premiership and was one of the most influential performances in the game.

Thats before we even mention the commercial aspect.

 

[DrEvil_]

I understand the "we won a premiership with him" argument. It's an okay rationale for some to consider it a good trade.

I personally am viewing it holistically. The Bulldogs didn't make it to the GF because of Boyd (i.e. he didn't carry the team, in fact he didn't carry the team in the GF either). They made it because of the whole team. If you took out Boyd and say the dogs traded for Charlie Dixon a year later. He'd still be playing for you and would have contributed far more to the team in 2016 and beyond. Whereas with Boyd, you got one good game...

So pick 6, Ryan Griffen and $1,000,000 a year for six years and you get 60 games and 50 goals? Yeah, nah. It's a poor trade.

Mate, Charlie Dixon together with Tom Libertore? That's just a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Joao]

This is easy.

If you know the result of the deals ahead of time it is Boyd. If you don't it is Buddy.

 

[threesixpio]

Dogs got a flag

Swans got salary cap issues

 

[Elite Master]

You could mount an argument there is more to a huge long term contract than purely a premiership, and in that regard the accumulative effect of the Buddy deal has been more successful.

 

[hilly]

It's laughable that some would take the Boyd deal over the buddy deal.

One will have kicked around 1000 goals by the end of it and the other 50....

The Bulldogs didn't make it to the grand final because of Boyd... one good game out of a 6 year deal and giving up your captain and pick 6? That's a one **** house deal.

Franklin actually majorly contributed to getting his team to grand finals and making top 4 year on year. The other doesn't even register on that comparison.

It's old school thinking, like people who claim N.Riewoldt and M.Pavlich failed in their careers because they didn't win a flag.

 

[gordo2016]

Boyd might be remembered by Bulldogs supporters but he will quickly be forgotten by most other football supporters .

Ha Ha Plug. Surely you can up with something better than that.

 

[Bulldog Brent]

Boyd 10 times out of 10. The ultimate aim is premierships.

 

[Anja_Nees]

It's old school thinking, like people who claim N.Riewoldt and M.Pavlich failed in their careers because they didn't win a flag.

I agree measuring greats by the number of flags they won is ridiculous (otherwise there are a lot of Dogs champions with meaningless careers) but the point isn’t that Boyd played in a premiership.

It’s that if you took his contribution out of the prelim and gf we probably wouldn’t have a flag.

Similarly, while I consider Riewoldt to be a great, if he’d done something miraculous near the end of the ‘09 or ‘10 grand finals to tip the Saints over the edge I’d have a slightly more favourable view of him.

No one can say Boyd’s four seasons have been as good as Buddy’s six at the Swans, but in terms of value delivered, most of us think we get a better deal because of this (helped by the fact we aren’t still lumbered with his original deal).

 

[Freshwater]

You could mount an argument there is more to a huge long term contract than purely a premiership, and in that regard the accumulative effect of the Buddy deal has been more successful.

It wasn’t just the flag. It was a line in the sand to the AFL and the Giants that we weren’t their nursery anymore. That bold move gave the whole club hope, relsolve and pride again, and we rose back up the ladder on the back of it.

 

[Ray Donovan]

WB won a flag Boyd played well in those two games instrumental in the grand final. Now he has retired and left a lot of money on the table good bloke i reckon wish him all the best in the next chapter of his life.

Only 23 the door is open like Jonathon marsh to perhaps come back one day who knows. If he mentally and physically wants to return one day