Tom Boyd

[Marc_Remillard]

you're a bitter, bitter man.

Why?

Because I stated that I think the doggies are a genuine chance for a premiership in the next couple of years? Or was it because I think they won't lose any players due to Boyd's salary?

Tell me exactly why you think I'm bitter?

 

[Mofra]

Your question is irrelevant to the discussion. My original post was referring to a couple of years time when in my opinion the doggies are a genuine premiership threat.
What happened last year is irrelevant to my post.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

No, but you are being ridiculous.
Because a team didn't win a final in 2015 they aren't premiership challengers in the next few years. By unintended inference, that is what you are asserting. Do you stand by that?

Your original assertion is already proven false because we signed Suckling the year after Boyd's deal, as well as signing all of our required players. Suckling is on a reported $1m over 3 years which is higher than the average AFL player salary.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

No, but you are being ridiculous.
Because a team didn't win a final in 2015 they aren't premiership challengers in the next few years. By unintended inference, that is what you are asserting. Do you stand by that?

Your original assertion is already proven false because we signed Suckling the year after Boyd's deal, as well as signing all of our required players. Suckling is on a reported $1m over 3 years which is higher than the average AFL player salary.

My original assertion was talking about what may (or may not) take place in a couple of years time. Not now or last year.

There's a specific reason why I picked that time frame.

Rightly or wrongly it's my opinion that the doggies will be a genuine premiership chance in 2 to 3 years, not now.

I also stated that I don't believe they they will lose any players due to Boyd's salary.

Now explain to me why that is such of terrible thing to post, because all these responses are absolutely ridiculous. Why is the fact that I think that your team is a good chance to win a premiership in a couple of years time and not now is so ridiculous and hurtful?

 

[Mofra]

My original assertion was talking about what may (or may not) take place in a couple of years time. Not now or last year.

There's a specific reason why I picked that time frame.

Rightly or wrongly it's my opinion that the doggies will be a genuine premiership chance in 2 to 3 years, not now.

I also stated that I don't believe they they will lose any players due to Boyd's salary.

Now explain to me why that is such of terrible thing to post, because all these responses are absolutely ridiculous. Why is the fact that I think that your team is a good chance to win a premiership in a couple of years time and not now is so ridiculous and hurtful?

You posted that we won't be able to attract players due to Boyd's salary (you've already proven wrong as pointed out multiple times with the Suckling example).
You than said that the Bulldogs aren't challenging this year or the next and your only cited reason is due to a finals loss last year.

It's the most open race for the flag in many years and I'd suggest the top 6 teams can realistically challenge, one you disagree with due to a final loss last year. That is an illogical assertion.

If anything, teams that are a remote chance this year need to take that chance as GWS will only improve and the injury gods can be very cruel, as evidenced by our backline losing 4 of our top 5 players at stages this year (Murphy, Wood, Adams, JJ, thankfully Morris has stayed on the paddock for the most part). I doubt any team could lose their 4 top backmen in September and challenge.
In any case, our system has held up well and our forward line efficiency has been poor, ranked about tenth despite our midfield generating plenty of inside 50s. Boyd missing has been a part of that as when he doesn't mark the ball he ensures we don't get out-marked (our game against North shows we can be destroyed in this area, they killed us with intercept marking).

 

[Marc_Remillard]

You posted that we won't be able to attract players due to Boyd's salary (you've already proven wrong as pointed out multiple times with the Suckling example).

I stated in a couple of years time, not now or last year so I haven't been proved wrong at all. There's a specific reason why I chose that timeframe, I have no idea why you continue to ignore this point.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You than said that the Bulldogs aren't challenging this year or the next and your only cited reason is due to a finals loss last year.

Yes, it's my opinion that the doggies will be a genuine premiership ship threat in 2-3 years time.
It's just my opinion, why does it upset you so much and why do you feel the need to argue it and change my mind?
It's just my opinion dude, don't get so worked up by it.

It's the most open race for the flag in many years and I'd suggest the top 6 teams can realistically challenge, one you disagree with due to a final loss last year. That is an illogical assertion.

Great, we disagree. Why the big deal?

If anything, teams that are a remote chance this year need to take that chance as GWS will only improve and the injury gods can be very cruel, as evidenced by our backline losing 4 of our top 5 players at stages this year (Murphy, Wood, Adams, JJ, thankfully Morris has stayed on the paddock for the most part). I doubt any team could lose their 4 top backmen in September and challenge.
In any case, our system has held up well and our forward line efficiency has been poor, ranked about tenth despite our midfield generating plenty of inside 50s. Boyd missing has been a part of that as when he doesn't mark the ball he ensures we don't get out-marked (our game against North shows we can be destroyed in this area, they killed us with intercept marking).

That's nice, I don't believe Boyd will ever become a great player, once again, it's just my opinion.

I'll ask you again. Why is it so bad that I think the doggies will be a genuine chance in 2-3 years but not now?

 

[Theo X]

And you still find yourself well down the ladder.

Pretty random comment. Nothing to do with the quoted post nor the thread.

 

[Mofra]

I stated in a couple of years time, not now or last year so I haven't been proved wrong at all. There's a specific reason why I chose that timeframe, I have no idea why you continue to ignore this point.

Yes, yes, you have.

You said the Bulldogs wouldn't sign experienced players - and we did sign Suckling. I have little desire to break out the crayons and try and sate your little tiz any further about being called out on it.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Yes, yes, you have.

You said the Bulldogs wouldn't sign experienced players - and we did sign Suckling. I have little desire to break out the crayons and try and sate your little tiz about being called out on it.

No, i haven't. What players have the bulldogs signed in 2-3 years time when I think they will be a premiership threat?

Why are you deliberately being obtuse?

I'll also ask this question again for the third time, why are you so upset that I think your team will be a genuine premiership contender in 2-3 years time but not now?

Interesting comment from a mod about crayons, especially considering that you're deliberately ignoring my posts and refuse to answer my question.

What are you so angry about my opinion? Afterall, it's just an opinion.

 

[Mofra]

No, i haven't. What players have the bulldogs signed in 2-3 years time when I think they will be a premiership threat?

Why are you deliberately being obtuse?

I'll also ask this question again for the third time, why are you so upset that I think your team will be a genuine premiership contender in 2-3 years time but not now?

Interesting comment from a mod about crayons, especially considering that you're deliberately ignoring my posts and refuse to answer my question.

What are you so angry about my opinion? Afterall, it's just an opinion.

You question contains an incorrect inference. I'm not upset at all, I couldn't care less what you think given you can barely construct a coherent argument and can't provide even a basic reason for your opinion. That's not "obtuse", it's just the way it is. I don't get upset by BF, and certainly not by someone who can barely make a coherent point.

I don't proclaim to know the future, unlike yourself. All I have done is point out where you are incorrect (i.e. we have already signed an opposition player when you said that as a result of signing Boyd we won't) yet you still can't grasp it. Your failure to recognize that when it is pointed out is either an inability to understand or a deliberate ploy to play ignorant. I don't really care which one it is TBH, but I am surprised I needed to connect the dots for you.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The assertion that we won't be able to sign anyone in 2-3 years time is even less correct when this year and next year are the most significant of Boyd's contract. This is because we had the cap room to front-load him (and still room to sign players like Suckling). Literally over a million dollars is going to be opened up in the salary cap toward the back end of Boyd's contract. That doesn't factor in our ability to sign free agents?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

You question contains an incorrect inference. I'm not upset at all, I couldn't care less what you think given you can barely construct a coherent argument and can't provide even a basic reason for your opinion. That's not "obtuse", it's just the way it is. I don't get upset by BF, and certainly not by someone who can barely make a coherent point.

I don't proclaim to know the future, unlike yourself. All I have done is point out where you are incorrect (i.e. we have already signed an opposition player when you said that as a result of signing Boyd we won't) yet you still can't grasp it. Your failure to recognize that when it is pointed out is either an inability to understand or a deliberate ploy to play ignorant. I don't really care which one it is TBH, but I am surprised I needed to connect the dots for you.

You're deliberately ignoring my posts. That's the only conclusion after you continue to add Suckling to the discussion.

I'm referring to the doggies ability to attract players in 2-3 years time when I think you're going to be a genuine premiership chance. There's a spefici reason why I chose that time frame, I've stated that 3 times but you continue to ignore that part as well.

In the context of my original post what exactly has 2015 got to do with what I think will occur in 2018 and 2019?

The answer is absolutely nothing. But for some reason you're fixated with 2015. Bizarre.

Let me dumb it down for you, hopefully this will assist your comprehension of what's going on here.

I say: I think it will rain tomorrow

You say: But it was sunny yesterday.

Me: That's nice, but I think it will rain tomorrow.

You: But it was sunny yesterday, I got sun burn.

Me: Well, that's interesting, no, really it is, but I still think that tomorrow, it will rain

You: No, but it was sunny yesterday, there were no clouds.

And so on and so forth

This is you in the picture, isn't it?

 

[SterlingArcher]

The assertion that we won't be able to sign anyone in 2-3 years time is even less correct when this year and next year are the most significant of Boyd's contract. This is because we had the cap room to front-load him (and still room to sign players like Suckling). Literally over a million dollars is going to be opened up in the salary cap toward the back end of Boyd's contract. That doesn't factor in our ability to sign free agents?

On the flip side, you will have still a large Boyd salary to pay (not mammoth like now, but not exactly rookie salary) plus a load of other players in your team will be getting upgrades. Guys like Hunter, Adams, Johannisen, just those 2nd tier players will all be getting decent pay rises in place of Boyds contract downsizing.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

The assertion that we won't be able to sign anyone in 2-3 years time is even less correct when this year and next year are the most significant of Boyd's contract. This is because we had the cap room to front-load him (and still room to sign players like Suckling). Literally over a million dollars is going to be opened up in the salary cap toward the back end of Boyd's contract. That doesn't factor in our ability to sign free agents?

Yeah sure, i may be wrong, it's just an opinion. But Suckling has got nothing to do with what I think will take place in 2-3 years time

 

[Sedat!]

Literally over a million dollars is going to be opened up in the salary cap toward the back end of Boyd's contract.

More like 2 million in light of the impending AFLPA negotiations for the new CBA for the players. If they are successful in getting a percentage cut of the pie, player salaries and salary cap sizes will explode at the same time that Boyd's annual salary starts to contract to 500-700k levels. The fact that some scribes (looking at you Barrett) don't grasp this simple logic never ceases to amuse me. Only a village idiot (or Damian Barrett) would believe that the pursuit of Boyd was a hastily concocted revenge plot hatched together the day after Griffen walked out on the club - it's kind of cute that some people are that gullible.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

More like 2 million in light of the impending AFLPA negotiations for the new CBA for the players. If they are successful in getting a percentage cut of the pie, player salaries and salary cap sizes will explode at the same time that Boyd's annual salary starts to contract to 500-700k levels. The fact that some scribes (looking at you Barrett) don't grasp this simple logic never ceases to amuse me. Only a village idiot (or Damian Barrett) would believe that the pursuit of Boyd was a hastily concocted revenge plot hatched together the day after Griffen walked out on the club - it's kind of cute that some people are that gullible.

What do you call the idiots who believe the village idiot? Or is that where the term "general public" came from?

 

[Mofra]

I'm referring to the doggies ability to attract players in 2-3 years time when I think you're going to be a genuine premiership chance. There's a spefici reason why I chose that time frame, I've stated that 3 times but you continue to ignore that part as well.

I'll help you, because I'm friendly that way.

The Bulldogs make list management decisions based on where they think the list is at. They don't double-check the opinion of someone on BigFooty who can barely construct a coherent thought on whether they are a "genuine challenger" or not. It's our list management opinion that counts, not your unsubstantiated opinion.

We had the chance, as a team, to bring in a player, that helps us on field, after the Boyd deal was in place. You stated we can't bring in a player when we're in a position to challenge, however believing we are in a position to challenge now means we are looking at bringing in players now - of which we've already brought in one (ignoring fringe types we attracted, Hamling, and Biggs who was a Swans rookie but is now firmly in our best 22).

We're also one of the front-runners to bring in Hurley and are actively chasing him - hardly symptomatic of a club that can't bring in players (further invalidating your assertion). We're also linked to Tom Nicholls at the Suns (whom many of us don't want, but the club seem interested).
So yes, we are actively looking to bring in players in the post-Boyd world. Senior players from opposition clubs.

Who would have thought Bulldog fans know our list management better than a Melbourne fan?

Yeah sure, i may be wrong, it's just an opinion. But Suckling has got nothing to do with what I think will take place in 2-3 years time

He'll still be under contract then. He absolutely will have something to do with list management in 2-3 years time, as a contracted player whose contract will count under the salary cap. He'll be turning 31 and given he's not exactly the inside type he would be a chance to play 1 or 2 more years beyond this.

 

[Mofra]

What do you call the idiots who believe the village idiot?

Damien Barratt fans?

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Marc, if, as you assert, we will be a "premiership team" in 2-3 year's time, trust me, at that point that they'll all be clamouring to get on board. Who wouldn't?

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Marc, if, as you assert, we will be a "premiership team" in 2-3 year's time, trust me, at that point that they'll all be clamouring to get on board. Who wouldn't?

Sure it could definitely happen, like at Hawthorn. Although they did have to pay top dollar for Frawley.
On the flip side even though Freo were a genuine contender they've struggled in recent time to attract talent, so it's not guaranteed.

If Boyd fails to live up to expectations and becomes nothing more than a depth, role player, can you see how his large salary (it will still be a large amount in 2-3 years) could have an impact on attracting talent?

But thank you for replying without referring to 2015 like Father Dougal

 

[NathanMX]

If you Dogs can keep the Hawks and Swans from luring any of your better players away in future I think a flag is very much on the cards by 2020. Once the Hawks are old and buried and COLA is totally removed from the Swans it can be anyones flag and I wish you guys every success to do so

I must admit though if I were a Hawks fan I would salivate at the thought of a future forward line of Roughie, Gunston and Stringer

 

[JC100]

Boyds contract will have an effect on list management at the dogs and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. It's simple maths.

When 10-15% of the salary cap is tied up in one player that's less money to spread across the other 38 and it leaves less to attractive opposition players. Well done to the dogs for signing up many players on the cheap but roughly 1/4 of your list will require a new contract every year and there will be less money to resign them.

Also for 10-15% of the salary cap a forward should be kicking 80 goals a year. To not be is like driving with the hand brake on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maddog37]

Boyds contract will have an effect on list management at the dogs and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. It's simple maths.

When 10-15% of the salary cap is tied up in one player that's less money to spread across the other 38 and it leaves less to attractive opposition players. Well done to the dogs for signing up many players on the cheap but roughly 1/4 of your list will require a new contract every year and there will be less money to resign them.

Also for 10-15% of the salary cap a forward should be kicking 80 goals a year. To not be is like driving with the hand brake on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very true. But having said that, if any club is going to have trouble retaining players due to salary cap it is the Giants. Your raft of young stars are worth mega bucks so each club has its own problems.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Boyds contract will have an effect on list management at the dogs and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. It's simple maths.

When 10-15% of the salary cap is tied up in one player that's less money to spread across the other 38 and it leaves less to attractive opposition players. Well done to the dogs for signing up many players on the cheap but roughly 1/4 of your list will require a new contract every year and there will be less money to resign them.

Also for 10-15% of the salary cap a forward should be kicking 80 goals a year. To not be is like driving with the hand brake on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, genius, step away from your computer and ask yourself how has "simple maths" has played out in reality. Which players have left because of "simple maths" that we wanted to keep? Which Free Agency players have we failed to attract because of "simple maths"? How come we're willing to pay Griffen's contract and didn't push harder to pay less if it was because of "simple maths".

You should be a list manager, you seem to have the job down pat.

 

[00Stinger]

How is this kid playing afl? ****ing joke of a player

Sent from my SM-P555 using Tapatalk

 

[kaiserchief13]

How is this kid playing afl? ******* joke of a player

Sent from my SM-P555 using Tapatalk

Paying 1 mill pa for an absolute dud. Simply Bulldogs