List Mgmt. The Long Term Deal

[It Just Is]

Theme of the week with Petracca (25, 7 year extension to 2029) and Greene (27, extended to 2026) signing monster deals.

Rather than buying stocks at the peak, my question is which of our youngsters would you give a career deal?

For me it’s Mitch Georgiades. Midfielders are replaceable and sometimes convinent to lose (Polec, Wingard) but a gun key forward is priceless. His downside seems low and his upside enormous, he could be worth a mint as a 26yr old free agent.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Generally they dont work out and damage your list long term so shouldnt be considered unless there are extremely special circumstances, which dont exist at Port right now. If a player is good enough to command one then they are good enough to demand sufficient compensation when they go.

From your list I could see Becky, Butters, MG and Hayes potentially getting 4-5 years one day, but not more than that.

 

[backtozero]

MG, but anything more than 5 years is silly.

 

[RangaInTeal]

Give them all 5 years, 2027 is going to be a big year for the club...

 

[davesnothere]

The market determines what's ridiculous long term becomes the norm then it's ridiculous to fight it you simply lose players to better deals.
MG is a professional in his approach to pretty much everything and that's shown up from his attitude and approach towards his career from the time he was injured as a junior onwards.
Butters same you just want them here forever they are no risk. Rozee as well.

 

[snozulu]

Jack Watts

 

[chiwigi]

Butters, Rozee and Georgiadas.
Will be cheaper long term, we can trade them ANd if it doesn’t work out we are screwed anyway.

 

[Killer Power]

Where is the Hinkley option?

 

[GoPorts]

Best part of any long term contract is getting to talk about how said player is having their best pre season ever and about to have a break out season

 

[Adz2332]

i dont think its up to us to offer big contracts. its more another club offers a big contract, $$$, length or both and its up to the current club to counter it

 

[TeeKray]

If they won't sign on for 3 or 4 years at a fair price then they're obviously not the sort of character you want at your club.

We've never had to offer these sort of deals in the past and I doubt we will in the future. To be fair, it does help that we don't generate the hype that the Victorian clubs do so there isn't that 'superstar' factor attached to any of our players.

 

[Andre]

Butters, Rozee and Georgiadas.
Will be cheaper long term, we can trade them ANd if it doesn’t work out we are screwed anyway.

This is it really. You'd only contemplate more than 4 years if you expected the Salary cap to have increased a fair margin from it's current level in 4 or more years. Then what looks big now (say Butters on 6 years @ 600-700k) would turn out to be shrewd. That'd be a pretty ballsy bet to take though. I wouldn't be offering anyone a 7+ year deal though.

Whilst in isolation I'd be happy enough to offer Butters, Rozee and MG 6 years, there's then the effect on the other players not offered the longer contracts. Too much risk of creating a divide IMO. I think offering 4 year deals to them is a good spot that locks them in for quite awhile, but doesn't risk breeding resentment.

 

[davesnothere]

If they won't sign on for 3 or 4 years at a fair price then they're obviously not the sort of character you want at your club.

We've never had to offer these sort of deals in the past and I doubt we will in the future. To be fair, it does help that we don't generate the hype that the Victorian clubs do so there isn't that 'superstar' factor attached to any of our players.

Choosing opportunity to provide security for your family over having supporters think you are one of the cool kids doesn't really reflect that poorly on your character.

 

[Power Raid]

10 years for Hinkley would be good.............at Collingwood

 

[tribey]

To be fair, it does help that we don't generate the hype that the Victorian clubs do so there isn't that 'superstar' factor attached to any of our players.

If he had the exact same career at Carlton, Robbie would be on Messi money

 

[HighBudget]

I’d say Butters or Rozee but I ain’t too worried that they’ll leave so I’d go with Duursma

 

[Mr Experience]

Sign Ken up for 7 years please

 

[tribey]

Sign Ken up for 7 years please

Whether sarcastic or serious, this tickled me. “please”.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Should be allowed to have a dozen or so out clauses if the player doesn't deliver.

 

[Mr Experience]

Sure, we could try emulate the dynasties of Melbourne, Sydney and Western by signing players to such deals...

 

[tribey]

Should be allowed to have a dozen or so out clauses if the player doesn't deliver.

Players rave about wanting all the benefits of the US pro-system (free agency and guaranteed money chief among them), but none of the negatives.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Players rave about wanting all the benefits of the US pro-system (free agency and guaranteed money chief among them), but none of the negatives.

Yep the US private ownership sports industry was built on the history of the nation's slave labour relations and general labour relations where the boss can sack you on a whim, and he pays you bugger all and you stick you hand out for tips.

No wonder Curt Flood accused MLB owners having a plantation mentality when he opposed the reserve clause and being forcibly traded from St Louis Cardinals to Philadelphia Phillies.

Some want all their systems positives and none of their negatives.

Some want the players to be subject to all the negatives, but wouldn't personally subject themselves to all the nuances of a US labour relations system.

Guess there was a reason why Australia was seen as a workers paradise for a big chunk of the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.

 

[shewho]

I actually went all. We are in a unique position to secure a dynasty and should act now to secure the structure that will ensure that. That structure is perfectly set out above. The only question is whether it’s appropriate to include Hayes now or wait until he proves himself at the level.

I am sure Hayes will make it but I have made errors of judgment once before. I’m sure it was only once before but .....

 

[Chewy316]

Yep the US private ownership sports industry was built on the history of the nation's slave labour relations and general labour relations where the boss can sack you on a whim, and he pays you bugger all and you stick you hand out for tips.

No wonder Curt Flood accused MLB owners having a plantation mentality when he opposed the reserve clause and being forcibly traded from St Louis Cardinals to Philadelphia Phillies.

Some want all their systems positives and none of their negatives.

Some want the players to be subject to all the negatives, but wouldn't personally subject themselves to all the nuances of a US labour relations system.

Guess there was a reason why Australia was seen as a workers paradise for a big chunk of the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.

What would your ideal system be?

Right now I think there is too much player power. To me, it is absurd that a player can be drafted and then 1 year later request a trade back to their home state, and 9/10 times they're granted that request. Yet at the same time, players have to consent to any trade going through.

My ideal system would be for all drafted players to be on a 2 year contract with a further two 12 month options in the club's favour. Essentially keeps young players for 4 years in your system. After 4 years they hit restricted free agency. Unrestricted free agency would be after 6 years. There would be no comp picks for either RFA or UFA. When a RFA, if the original club "matches" any signed offer sheet, the player must return to the original club. If the player still wanted a trade they could try to facilitate something between the original club and the club they signed an offer sheet with, but if no deal was agreed upon, the player would have to return to the original club rather than going to the pre-season draft as is the current system.

Players could also be traded without their consent, with the existing terms of their contract simply rolling over to the new club who has traded for the player.

I don't think that system would be perfect by any stretch, but the system right now is so convoluted at best, a bit of a liquorice all-sorts kind of mess whereby they've taken parts of the various US sports models and tried to apply them to an Australian foundation.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What would your ideal system be?

Right now I think there is too much player power. To me, it is absurd that a player can be drafted and then 1 year later request a trade back to their home state, and 9/10 times they're granted that request. Yet at the same time, players have to consent to any trade going through.

My ideal system would be for all drafted players to be on a 2 year contract with a further two 12 month options in the club's favour. Essentially keeps young players for 4 years in your system. After 4 years they hit restricted free agency. Unrestricted free agency would be after 6 years. There would be no comp picks for either RFA or UFA. When a RFA, if the original club "matches" any signed offer sheet, the player must return to the original club. If the player still wanted a trade they could try to facilitate something between the original club and the club they signed an offer sheet with, but if no deal was agreed upon, the player would have to return to the original club rather than going to the pre-season draft as is the current system.

Players could also be traded without their consent, with the existing terms of their contract simply rolling over to the new club who has traded for the player.

I don't think that system would be perfect by any stretch, but the system right now is so convoluted at best, a bit of a liquorice all-sorts kind of mess whereby they've taken parts of the various US sports models and tried to apply them to an Australian foundation.

There is no perfect solution but it has to be like the real world and subject to normal labour laws. The USA has had different court rulings re anti-trust provisions of sports labour contracts compared to those in Oz.

You can't force someone to work for someone else but you have contracts binding them to work for you, or if you leave you can't work for one or more of your employers competitors.

You do have bonded employment in the real world ie apprenticeships, cadetships, scholarships etc, so the draft binding you to an employer for x number of years is consistent with that.