Tom Boyd

[TedDougChris]

$900k in total, $800k paid last year and the balance paid in 2017. Did you read the article?

I cannot be 100% sure (as the AFL changes shit every 30 seconds to suit themselves), but the belief is that in these situations, we can only pay a % of someones salary for the duration of the existing contract we would have had with him.

So in Griff's case, with 1 year to run, we could only pay (whatever the amount was) it in the first year he was with GWS - not in subsequent years.

But like I said, this is dependent on the AFL sticking to a ruling for more than 30 seconds...

 

[Marc_Remillard]

I read the article at the time, and it's incorrect.

It would've been outside competition rules to continue paying him beyond the duration of his original contract with us (end of 2015).

The rules of the competition change all the time, especially when an expansion club is involved. That information was reported in several articles, if what you're saying is correct then the other media outlets would have been all over it to prove them wrong.

So feel free to post an article that states that it's wrong.

 

[Bokonon]

There's still some consternation over giving up "your captain and pick 6" for him. Moving the pick looks iffy, but when a guy commits to your club you pay the price. If we leave him in the lurch after requesting a trade, what message does that send to any other players you try to get across in the future?

The contract though, I can understand. It's absurd money for the output we're getting. When he's on $500k at the top of his game in a few years, it will suddenly look pretty good, but too many people don't think he'll get there. He will.

For a player with questions over his mentality, a slipped disc in his back, and coming off his worst season in 7 years? Griffen was washed.

Perhaps with more time we could've banged out a more even trade (reflective of his standing at the time, as you say), but if they get him up there for a medical the trade is probably off.

Looked more like he needed a gap year when he arrived to me, you'd know him better at the dogs but he looked fatigued and over it. Better this year though. The pick we turned into Marchbank though and so could you have.

 

[Mofra]

Looked more like he needed a gap year when he arrived to me, you'd know him better at the dogs but he looked fatigued and over it. Better this year though. The pick we turned into Marchbank though and so could you have.

Given he was a burst midfielder and McCartney's dream was to play 22 inside midfielders every week it wouldn't surprise me if part of his injury woes were simply due to the role change that occurred under B-Mac. He did a lot of heavy lifting and this is a bloke that can play well under duress - he got us over the line in a final against Sydney once by having 40 touches on one leg.

Back issues are often degenerative though and significantly impact on a player. Minson has gone from 2013 AA ruckman to third choice at the Bulldogs due to his limitations due to a back complaint. They are awful injuries.

 

[Bokonon]

Given he was a burst midfielder and McCartney's dream was to play 22 inside midfielders every week it wouldn't surprise me if part of his injury woes were simply due to the role change that occurred under B-Mac. He did a lot of heavy lifting and this is a bloke that can play well under duress - he got us over the line in a final against Sydney once by having 40 touches on one leg.

Back issues are often degenerative though and significantly impact on a player. Minson has gone from 2013 AA ruckman to third choice at the Bulldogs due to his limitations due to a back complaint. They are awful injuries.

I take your point. I recall Minson's game against Mummy last year, In painful detail, and don't doubt his capacity when fit.
He did turn out 5k's lighter rhis year and playing like a leaner meaner version of himself. Might we we're now starting to see what you have seen. Hard to judge injury v mental state, so I may have been unfair.

 

[Mofra]

I take your point. I recall Minson's game against Mummy last year, In painful detail, and don't doubt his capacity when fit.
He did turn out 5k's lighter rhis year and playing like a leaner meaner version of himself. Might we we're now starting to see what you have seen. Hard to judge injury v mental state, so I may have been unfair.

I have little doubt his mental state was in part due to injury - players live and breath the game, so anything that upsets their ability to play can be hard to deal with, especially a long term chronic injury you are forced to play through.

 

[Blackas87]

Griffen and Pick 6 is the equivalent of two top ten picks?

Maybe at the time, but right now Griffen is looking more like a third rounder. We offloaded him at the right time.

The contract was excessive (although Carlton and St Kilda had offered similar), but the trade price looks better by the day.

Trade does not look better, you threw in pick 6 to off load him.

You say he looks like a 3rd rounder. A better trade would of been Griffen for a 3rd rounder. Keep pick 6.

Draft Peter Wright and a 3rd round player > million dollars speant on Boyd.

As Wright is getting better the trade price is looking worse by the day.

 

[_Mike_]

paying pick 6 in hindsight was too much. At best a second round pick, but what is done is done

 

[grouse mate]

I cannot be 100% sure (as the AFL changes shit every 30 seconds to suit themselves), but the belief is that in these situations, we can only pay a % of someones salary for the duration of the existing contract we would have had with him.

So in Griff's case, with 1 year to run, we could only pay (whatever the amount was) it in the first year he was with GWS - not in subsequent years.

But like I said, this is dependent on the AFL sticking to a ruling for more than 30 seconds...

Nope. Collingwood still paying $70k of Heath Shaw's contract, his contract with them expired end of 2014.

 

[grouse mate]

Outside competition rules. We paid it as a lump sum in 2015.

No it isnt. Why do so many Dog's supporters just make stuff up? Its like there is 3 people posting on their board claiming 'inside info' and the rest just echo it everywhere else.

 

[captain cotch 9]

paying pick 6 in hindsight was too much. At best a second round pick, but what is done is done

Paying pick 6 is too much????
WHAT ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!!!


at that stage he was probably worth pick 6 as he was a pick 1.
But he is defiantly not worth the cash that he is on.

 

[Apex36]

Paying pick 6 is too much????
WHAT ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!!!


at that stage he was probably worth pick 6 as he was a pick 1.
But he is defiantly not worth the cash that he is on.

If pick 6 was too much, then pick 6 and Griffen was waaaaaayyyyy too much.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

If pick 6 was too much, then pick 6 and Griffen was waaaaaayyyyy too much.

Throw in paying $900k of Griffen's salary and it becomes ridiculous

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I love the double standards when using hindsight when comparing Griffen and Boyd.

Fans of other clubs saying "well who cares if Griffen has been injury interrupted and average in his two years at GWS, and the time he was a lot more valuable at the trade table and had 2 gun years at the Dogs and was your club captain" - ie using the "at the time"/hindsight logic.

But that logic can be equally applied Boyd. I'm still optimistic about his future, but it's amazing how people don't use the same argument for the same time that the Boyd trade was done.

Boyd has been disappointing in his two years on our list, I'm not denying that. But people are awfully forgetful about just how unanimous he was in being the number 1 selection, and that he was pretty much one of the most "sure thing" talents out of U/118 for some time. In fact, a graphic was posted on our board from the AFL Website which recruiters and journalists, in the midst of his U/18 season, was considered a better draft prospect than Patton, Hogan etc.

Does this mean that in a relative sense, his form has been disappointing? Yes. But it also means that you have to look at the context and timing of the trade and the contract that he was offered, and that the contract and trade was only one year removed from him being such an absurdly good U/18 prospect. One year. It's easy to look at him three years on, but that's a lifetime, not one year.

If there was no such thing as a draft, and just a salary cap, and a player sold himself to the highest bidder as an 18 year old, there is no doubt that Boyd would have been handed a $1 million p/y as an 18 year old. They wouldn't three years on, but they would have at the time he was drafted. And Boyd, for a team that had failed for some time to recruit a top key forward, was offered that merely one year on from him being so dominant.

Which is then it frustrates me that the topic of conversation surrounding Griffen and that others are using the argument of "well he was worth more at the time" don't equally apply the logic to Boyd in that he was, too, also worth more at the time given the proximity of timing to his absolutely dominant U/18 form and potential.

 

[skittlebrew]

Paying pick 6 is too much????
WHAT ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!!!


at that stage he was probably worth pick 6 as he was a pick 1.
But he is defiantly not worth the cash that he is on.

What was the contract $7m?
How did they even come up with that figure? Put $5m on the table and he takes it.

 

[Colonial]

I love the double standards when using hindsight when comparing Griffen and Boyd.

Fans of other clubs saying "well who cares if Griffen has been injury interrupted and average in his two years at GWS, and the time he was a lot more valuable at the trade table and had 2 gun years at the Dogs and was your club captain" - ie using the "at the time"/hindsight logic.

But that logic can be equally applied Boyd. I'm still optimistic about his future, but it's amazing how people don't use the same argument for the same time that the Boyd trade was done.

Boyd has been disappointing in his two years on our list, I'm not denying that. But people are awfully forgetful about just how unanimous he was in being the number 1 selection, and that he was pretty much one of the most "sure thing" talents out of U/118 for some time. In fact, a graphic was posted on our board from the AFL Website which recruiters and journalists, in the midst of his U/18 season, was considered a better draft prospect than Patton, Hogan etc.

Does this mean that in a relative sense, his form has been disappointing? Yes. But it also means that you have to look at the context and timing of the trade and the contract that he was offered, and that the contract and trade was only one year removed from him being such an absurdly good U/18 prospect. One year. It's easy to look at him three years on, but that's a lifetime, not one year.

If there was no such thing as a draft, and just a salary cap, and a player sold himself to the highest bidder as an 18 year old, there is no doubt that Boyd would have been handed a $1 million p/y as an 18 year old. They wouldn't three years on, but they would have at the time he was drafted. And Boyd, for a team that had failed for some time to recruit a top key forward, was offered that merely one year on from him being so dominant.

Which is then it frustrates me that the topic of conversation surrounding Griffen and that others are using the argument of "well he was worth more at the time" don't equally apply the logic to Boyd in that he was, too, also worth more at the time given the proximity of timing to his absolutely dominant U/18 form and potential.

Haha this is an amusing post

 

[Struggle]

What was the contract $7m?
How did they even come up with that figure? Put $5m on the table and he takes it.

We probably did, but from all reports Boyd had large offers on the table from from other clubs to get him in 12 months time. As a club with no captain or coach and disgruntled senior players we had to offer extra to have him even consider coming to us. Probably not the smartest move but I highly doubt 6 million was the opening offer

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

56 pages in and never has so much been written about someone who has done so little.

 

[10571z]

56 pages in and never has so much been written about someone who has done so little.

Because he is getting a million to do so little. If he was on 150k no one would care

 

[10571z]

I love the double standards when using hindsight when comparing Griffen and Boyd.

Fans of other clubs saying "well who cares if Griffen has been injury interrupted and average in his two years at GWS, and the time he was a lot more valuable at the trade table and had 2 gun years at the Dogs and was your club captain" - ie using the "at the time"/hindsight logic.

But that logic can be equally applied Boyd. I'm still optimistic about his future, but it's amazing how people don't use the same argument for the same time that the Boyd trade was done.

Boyd has been disappointing in his two years on our list, I'm not denying that. But people are awfully forgetful about just how unanimous he was in being the number 1 selection, and that he was pretty much one of the most "sure thing" talents out of U/118 for some time. In fact, a graphic was posted on our board from the AFL Website which recruiters and journalists, in the midst of his U/18 season, was considered a better draft prospect than Patton, Hogan etc.

Does this mean that in a relative sense, his form has been disappointing? Yes. But it also means that you have to look at the context and timing of the trade and the contract that he was offered, and that the contract and trade was only one year removed from him being such an absurdly good U/18 prospect. One year. It's easy to look at him three years on, but that's a lifetime, not one year.

If there was no such thing as a draft, and just a salary cap, and a player sold himself to the highest bidder as an 18 year old, there is no doubt that Boyd would have been handed a $1 million p/y as an 18 year old. They wouldn't three years on, but they would have at the time he was drafted. And Boyd, for a team that had failed for some time to recruit a top key forward, was offered that merely one year on from him being so dominant.

Which is then it frustrates me that the topic of conversation surrounding Griffen and that others are using the argument of "well he was worth more at the time" don't equally apply the logic to Boyd in that he was, too, also worth more at the time given the proximity of timing to his absolutely dominant U/18 form and potential.

Highly rated sure thing? Recruiters don't really know how good a kid will respond to afl. Simple as that

jeremey Cameron was barely talked about compared to Patton and Boyd early on and ends up being much better than both (at the moment)

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Highly rated sure thing? Recruiters don't really know how good a kid will respond to afl. Simple as that

jeremey Cameron was barely talked about compared to Patton and Boyd early on and ends up being much better than both (at the moment)

That's completely missing the point.

Of course recruiters don't know how any given kid is going to be. It's a art, not a science.

All I'm saying that there was a consensus in that not only was Boyd a unanimous number 1 selection, he was considered a better prospect at U/18 level compared to every key forward of his generation. Then, extending that point, it's easy to be Harry Hindsight and say the Dogs should not have offered that contract to a player who's been underwhelming in his 3 years in the league, but at the same time I'm just saying you have to put the contract in perspective in that he was just one year removed from such a consensus opinion that he was such a dominant U/18 prospect. I'm further making this point in that fans of other supporters are telling us Dogs supporters to use context when looking at Griffen's trade value at the end of 2014, (it being worth more at the time) rather than the hindsight of two underwhelming years at the Giants, but not equally applying the same logic that I've just explained above (ie assessing Boyd's value at the end of 2014, where he was just one year removed from being such a dominant junior, rather than his value in 2016) to Boyd.

 

[Bald]

That's completely missing the point.

Of course recruiters don't know how any given kid is going to be. It's a art, not a science.

All I'm saying that there was a consensus in that not only was Boyd a unanimous number 1 selection, he was considered a better prospect at U/18 level compared to every key forward of his generation. Then, extending that point, it's easy to be Harry Hindsight and say the Dogs should not have offered that contract to a player who's been underwhelming in his 3 years in the league, but at the same time I'm just saying you have to put the contract in perspective in that he was just one year removed from such a consensus opinion that he was such a dominant U/18 prospect. I'm further making this point in that fans of other supporters are telling us Dogs supporters to use context when looking at Griffen's trade value at the end of 2014, (it being worth more at the time) rather than the hindsight of two underwhelming years at the Giants, but not equally applying the same logic that I've just explained above (ie assessing Boyd's value at the end of 2014, where he was just one year removed from being such a dominant junior, rather than his value in 2016) to Boyd.

Very well said, No one doubts that as it stands now it was overs for Boyd but at the time given the perception around him it made a lot of sense for a club on its knees to offer what we did to him.

 

[_Mike_]

WHAT ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!!!

overs IMO

 

[Ozil]

Looked more like he needed a gap year when he arrived to me, you'd know him better at the dogs but he looked fatigued and over it. Better this year though. The pick we turned into Marchbank though and so could you have.

Agree, but I'm not sure his mental state (when it comes to footy) has improved since the move. I'll take your word for it though, you'd watch him twice as much. He seems to be much happier off the field though, which is excellent news.

As you said, he looked spent. His value to the Dogs going forward was minimal, he was only going to the Giants, and we had an opportunity to move him for Boyd, who was 10 months removed from being selected first in the draft and one of the highest rated juniors ever.

Once he'd committed, we had to get the trade over the line. At the time it looked bloody awful, but now it's looking more like Pick 6 for Boyd, who I personally prefer (and believe we need) more than Marchbank, Lever, Wright etc. The salary, though...

Hopefully Griff can string together some footy in the next couple of years. His best is mind-blowing.

No it isnt. Why do so many Dog's supporters just make stuff up? Its like there is 3 people posting on their board claiming 'inside info' and the rest just echo it everywhere else.

Really, the sources on the Dogs board are no more or less reliable than the media. Probably more, actually, given they're not working to deadlines or grandstanding like your Tom Brownes etc.

It's hysterical, the way people pick and choose what they want to believe when it comes to footy news. Look at Michael Scanlan's Channel 7 report on big bad Boydy's dust-up with Cordy - rife with (almost defamatory) speculation, and largely taken as gospel by the public.

 

[Bokonon]

Agree, but I'm not sure his mental state (when it comes to footy) has improved since the move. I'll take your word for it though, you'd watch him twice as much. He seems to be much happier off the field though, which is excellent news.

As you said, he looked spent. His value to the Dogs going forward was minimal, he was only going to the Giants, and we had an opportunity to move him for Boyd, who was 10 months removed from being selected first in the draft and one of the highest rated juniors ever.

Once he'd committed, we had to get the trade over the line. At the time it looked bloody awful, but now it's looking more like Pick 6 for Boyd, who I personally prefer (and believe we need) more than Marchbank, Lever, Wright etc. The salary, though...

Hopefully Griff can string together some footy in the next couple of years. His best is mind-blowing.

Really, the sources on the Dogs board are no more or less reliable than the media. Probably more, actually, given they're not working to deadlines or grandstanding like your Tom Brownes etc.

It's hysterical, the way people pick and choose what they want to believe when it comes to footy news. Look at Michael Scanlan's Channel 7 report on big bad Boydy's dust-up with Cordy - rife with (almost defamatory) speculation, and largely taken as gospel by the public.

Coach likes him, injuries more the issue this year.
Fair enough, despite all the talk I dont doubt Boyd's talent. I also think some players will work in some clubs systems better than others. I believe yours is holding him back to develop, consciously. Time will tell if it's a good call.