The Buddy Deal v The Boyd Deal

[ManOfClay]

Two highly debated deals for key forwards at different ends of the spectrum. One long term deal for a certified gun in his prime who has performed, one for a kid who had junior potential but nothing else save a great performance in a grand final win.

Which was better value for their club?

Years of great performances that bring people through the gate but no flag or one great performance when it mattered but nothing else?

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

TF is this?

 

[Kwality]

Love to watch Buddy.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

This thread makes me sad for Bulldogs fans

 

[Sausages]

Buddy is probably ahead, purely in economic terms. But gee....he's got what.....the rest of this year and another 3 after this?

So about 80 games of footy, not including finals? Hard to see him lasting that long, he's not moving as well as he was - I know his preseason was interrupted, but he doesn't train during the week.

I hope he does play it out, but I'd have concerns were I Sydney right now.

 

[The Gong]

Boyd isn't fit to polish Buddy's footy boots.

You won a flag. Well done. I'm happy for you.

 

[dergert]

Boyd. Clearly.

We smashed Sydney in the grand final, franklin could barely get near it whilst boyd tore it up.

 

[Substance]

The Buddy deal has been great for the swans. Boyd deal was not just about Boyd, but optics aswell. The Dogs could have rolled over and taken a pick for Griffen, but instead chose to make a big statement. I think that, and recruiting Beveridge, were the catalysts for our success.

 

[CH Jazz]

It’s actually an interesting question to consider. Clearly Boyd is a massive failure and Buddy has been elite at the Swans. But what have Syd given up to fit Buddy in, would they have lifted a trophy with a different list strategy?

Would Dogs have won the GF without Boyd? We’ll never know but I think I’d actually take the Boyd deal. I’m sure the GF brought in more than enough extra revenue with sponsors, merchandise, members etc. to offset Boyd’s entire contract plus they have the cup.

 

[Xtreme]

The Boyd deal - snag a premiership and become a cult hero.

Buddy came to Sydney to win flags... he's 0/5 currently.....

 

[Jaeger]

Buddy is probably ahead, purely in economic terms. But gee....he's got what.....the rest of this year and another 3 after this?

Yep

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Yep

Wow wee.

 

[DelRe]

It’s actually an interesting question to consider.

I agree. It’s almost one of those deal with the devil type scenarios. Say you can have a player on a multi million dollar contract and all the risks that come with that (cap limitations, player disharmony etc) but you can only pick either one of the best players in the league but no guarantee of a flag or an unproven player who may end up not playing many games but a guaranteed flag (obviously this is not realistic because no flag can be guaranteed but it’s just a hypothetical).

In foresight I would probably take Franklin and gamble you’ll get the flag anyway. In hindsight, like many Dogs supporters I’d take the Boyd deal because I know in the lead up to actually winning in 2016 many supporters would have willingly done that deal and more just to see a flag in their lifetime.

 

[Tiger2709]

Two highly debated deals for key forwards at different ends of the spectrum. One long term deal for a certified gun in his prime who has performed, one for a kid who had junior potential but nothing else save a great performance in a grand final win.

Which was better value for their club?

Years of great performances that bring people through the gate but no flag or one great performance when it mattered but nothing else?

Would the Dogs have won a flag without Boyd?

 

[ManOfClay]

Would the Dogs have won a flag without Boyd?

Hard to say. We would have probably made the GF without him based on his impact.

But would we have won the grand final?

 

[Tiger2709]

Hard to say. We would have probably made the GF without him based on his impact.

But would we have won the grand final?

If the answer is yes then it's Buddy every day, he generates money for the Swans, if its no then who cares how much Boyd cost a flag is what its all about.

 

[blitzer]

Boyd's a crap player and Bulldogs wasted a ton of cap space and draft picks that could have been used to turn a good year into a good era.
He's basically only played a handful of good games and we are comparing him to one of the all time great's who routinely puts in match winning performances.

Winning a flag is great but there is no evidence that some other tall couldn't have been recruited and done enough for them to win the flag. Its all just theorycrafting. What we know for sure is that Boyd has been one of the most underwhelming trade recruits on massive dollars the game has ever seen and only 2 good games at the right time of year even give Bulldog supporters a leg (a very spurious one) to stand on.

 

[ManOfClay]

If the answer is yes then it's Buddy every day, he generates money for the Swans, if its no then who cares how much Boyd cost a flag is what its all about.

That flag erased a 10 million dollar debt the dogs had too. In financial terms.

But still, it is hard to say whether another player would have produced the same

 

[DrEvil_]

Two highly debated deals for key forwards at different ends of the spectrum. One long term deal for a certified gun in his prime who has performed, one for a kid who had junior potential but nothing else save a great performance in a grand final win.

Which was better value for their club?

Years of great performances that bring people through the gate but no flag or one great performance when it mattered but nothing else?

Dude Shaun Grigg was a better deal than Tom Boyd.

 

[Tiger2709]

Dude Shaun Grigg was a better deal than Tom Boyd.

Premiership ruckmen don't grow on trees.

 

[ManOfClay]

Dude Shaun Grigg was a better deal than Tom Boyd.

And buddy?

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Boyd.

The Dogs were looking in financial trouble, hadn't won a flag in living memory and he was key to doing that.

This has delivered far more value to the Dogs than Buddy has to the Swans, who have won nothing with him - he's just kept them in the finals and people through the gates.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Hard to say. We would have probably made the GF without him based on his impact.

But would we have won the grand final?

I'm not sure you would have won the prelim without him, from memory was very good that night too

 

[Free Agent]

Boyd is a player that drives off the teams confidence. I reckon he is one of those players that are good only when the team is doing well.
Problem for him is confidence drops on how the team is performing.
Bulldogs have been average last few years and Boyds form has reflected that.

I bet you if Bulldogs start becoming good again Boyd will be back and playing good footy again.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[scaryness]

If Boyd can ever break the high threshold of 1 goal per game, we'll talk.

Ridiculous question.