Tom Boyd

[bird_man]

Not melting, just sick of fwits.


You've presented a lot of "facts" here, birdman.

Fact is, if Milne had picked up the ball and goaled instead of letting it bounce through for a point, Saints would have another flag.

Hindsight, but it's still a fact. Whether you like it or not, in fact.

Haha, wow big footy has got the better of you mate, I suggest you take a break....

You are correct though, but this is a Tom Boyd thread not 2010 GF thread.

 

[bird_man]

Overrated season - had some very good games but also some nondescript games. Not the season of player around the $700k a season mark. Is there much scope for improvement in him, seeing as he has been in the system for a number of years now, is a one-paced mid with questionable disposal and decision-making skills, and still sits behind the likes of Kennedy, Hanneberry and Jack as key mids for the Swans? Would he be able to carry his team's midfield (together with Hanneberry) when Kennedy and Jack finish up? Perhaps, but there's a lower ceiling of improvement than there is for Boyd - the challenge for Boyd is to actually improve which is very much yet to be determined, but there's no denying he has the capacity to improve and do so significantly due to his age and body size/position.

Tom Mitchell is on almost half the money Boyd is on (not 700k as you state) and Sydney drafted him, they did not give up 2 high first round picks for him.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Haha, wow big footy has got the better of you mate, I suggest you take a break....

You are correct though, but this is a Tom Boyd thread not 2010 GF thread.

Like I said, only the f***wits bother me. Never let the truth get in the way...




Facts are facts, birdman. Saints shouldn't have lost. I know what he should have done.

Don't you?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Tom Mitchell is on almost half the money Boyd is on (not 700k as you state) and Sydney drafted him, they did not give up 2 high first round picks for him.

What do you think Hawthorn are going to cough up for him?

 

[bird_man]

Like I said, only the f***wits bother me. Never let the truth get in the way...




Facts are facts, birdman. Saints shouldn't have lost. I know what he should have done.

Don't you?

How is truth getting in the way off anything here.

1. You are paying on average $1 million a year for Tom Boyd
2. You gave up your first round pick and your captain for him
3. He is yet to show any signs that he will become an elite forward of the competition
4. Using $1 million a year on one player will make it harder to be able to afford to bring in other highly rated recruits
5. If the Dogs had of taken a first round pick for Griffen, they could have drafted Peter Wright as well as another highly rated kid. Wright has already shown more than Boyd and would be on a significantly lower contract.

Nothing above that I have stated is not the truth is it?

 

[bird_man]

What do you think are Hawthorn going to cough up for him?

If Hawthorn gives up 700k for him and he doesn't perform, I'm sure they will get criticized mate, it's not a whole pick on Bulldogs thing like you seem to think.

You gave up a massive amount for an unproven player and at the moment he doesn't look like earning his money or what you gave up for him trade wise. Get over it.

 

[joop]

Like I said, only the f***wits bother me. Never let the truth get in the way...




Facts are facts, birdman. Saints shouldn't have lost. I know what he should have done.

Don't you?

Why are you bringing up the 2010 grand final in a Tom Boyd thread?
Are you struggling that much?

if you want to play that game we have many photos, videos, gifs from the 2009 prelim that we'd enjoy.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

How is truth getting in the way off anything here.

1. You are paying on average $1 million a year for Tom Boyd
2. You gave up your first round pick and your captain for him
3. He is yet to show any signs that he will become an elite forward of the competition
4. Using $1 million a year on one player will make it harder to be able to afford to bring in other highly rated recruits
5. If the Dogs had of taken a first round pick for Griffen, they could have drafted Peter Wright as well as another highly rated kid. Wright has already shown more than Boyd and would be on a significantly lower contract.

Nothing above that I have stated is not the truth is it?

F*** me, you too?

1. $1m per year if he lives up to all indicators.

2. Captain "requested" a trade, he wasn't given up. His leaving was a shock to all Dogs people. Had to make the best of that very difficult situation.

3. Like most big blokes (not all), he will take time. What's unusual about that?

4. Do you really think they traded and paid big bucks for Boyd without consideration for the future? Boyd's contract is heavily front loaded, so when the current players contracts are due, Boyd will be on the average wage. We are still paying less than 95% of the cap. There is plenty of room to bring someone like Hurley into the club for 2017 and beyond, because of the front loading for Boyd.
This is where my f***wit comment comes in. This has been explained ad infinitum on BF, and still every f***wit makes the same inane comment.
Just gets a bit tiring, in fact...

4. Again, the advantage of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Lots of "what ifs" here, isn't there? For example, if the Saints had taken Petracca instead of McCartin, they would have benefitted immediately on-field. No? Without hindsight, are you in fact certain that McCartin will get beyond his concussions and his diabetes (and I hope he does) to become the player you hope he can be? Hard to say anything factual with foresight, isn't it?

Nothing I've stated here is new, is it?

Like I said, most people don't let the truth get in the way of a good story/whinge/troll.

And that's why f***wits get me going.

 

[Joffaboy]

How is truth getting in the way off anything here.

1. You are paying on average $1 million a year for Tom Boyd
2. You gave up your first round pick and your captain for him
3. He is yet to show any signs that he will become an elite forward of the competition
4. Using $1 million a year on one player will make it harder to be able to afford to bring in other highly rated recruits
5. If the Dogs had of taken a first round pick for Griffen, they could have drafted Peter Wright as well as another highly rated kid. Wright has already shown more than Boyd and would be on a significantly lower contract.

Nothing above that I have stated is not the truth is it?

Anyone posting facts is an f-wit according to getdimmaback. He only listens to fantasy and delusion.
Dont even both trying to rationalise with that poster, as you say BF has got the better of him especially on the Tom Boyd fiasco.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Why are you bringing up the 2010 grand final in a Tom Boyd thread?
Are you struggling that much.

Because it's another example of hindsight, which is what everyone is using to be clever about the Boyd deal.

A good one, too, isn't it?

 

[Joffaboy]

Why are you bringing up the 2010 grand final in a Tom Boyd thread?
Are you struggling that much?

if you want to play that game we have many photos, videos, gifs from the 2009 prelim that we'd enjoy.

Yes he is struggling that much. Quick look over there.

Sad

 

[Mofra]

5. If the Dogs had of taken a first round pick for Griffen, they could have drafted Peter Wright as well as another highly rated kid. Wright has already shown more than Boyd and would be on a significantly lower contract.

This is in hindsight, but the reality at the time was different.

At the time Wright still a potential pick 1 and no guarantee to get past pick 4. We were definitely interested (B-Mac as coach at the time actually talked about it publically) so Wright was the player we wanted however GWS initially said they wouldn't give up much for Griffen who still had 1 year of a large contract to run. The best we could have hoped for was pick 7 (after our first) and we likely would have had to give up sweeteners to get it. We didn't seem to rate Marchbank (who was a regarded as a reach when GWS took him) and Wright aside we seemed to be interested in Ahern as we tend to draft on a "best available" basis in the first two rounds.

We were keen on Tom Boyd for a long time, having scouts at all of his AFL/NEAFL matches in 2014 and Dalrymple was definitely still interested given Boyd was arguably the most consensus no 1 pick for a number of years.

Griffen was our most highly paid player and we were struggling to get to the 95% cap minimum so we needed a big fish and having not had a big KPF for many years, took the best one we could get on the market that circumstances would allow. That included paying a portion of Griff's salary in the first year to get to the 95% minimum.
Since that time we've had predictions of a mass exodus (wrong, we re-signed our young players), then we couldn't attract anyone (wrong, we signed a FA last year) then it was we couldn't even consider anyone else this year (wrong, we're chasing Hurley hard). Our list management appears to be far better than outsiders suggest.


I'm not sure why St Kilda fans seem so upset or drawn to the deal or obsessed with our list management - you've had two genuine KPFs as a constant as far back as I can remember into the 80s with the Plugger/Loewe days right through an era of Gehrig/Hall/Roo/Kosi etc so not sure you'd fully understand what it is like to have virtually no tall talent coming through for years.
By contrast a genuine KPF stopped us from being legitimate flag challengers during the 08-10 prelim years so we can understand the attraction of a highly rated genuine no 1 KPF that, given Griffen was leaving anyway, cost us pick 6.

 

[AFLOnline]

Saints fans tend to stick it to WB and Boyd for a few different reasons. We are and have been for a couple decades in similar positions with our lists, developing a modern day rivalry. Saints were gunning hard for Boyd and were sniped hard by the Bulldogs in the dying minutes of trade week. Truth be told Saints would have been extremely happy to land Boyd and would have given up what WB gave up no questions asked and probably would have come close to matching that contract if push came to shove. Fortunately with hindsight it didn't.

All things said, this doesn't take away from the fact that Boyd is a pretty mediocre player, even for a young KPP, who is on the worst contract in history.

I feel sorry for the WB to the point i try my best not to rub it in because they saved us from being in that exact same position. Other Saints fans should do the same imo.

 

[joop]

Because it's another example of hindsight, which is what everyone is using to be clever about the Boyd deal.

A good one, too, isn't it?

No, it's pathetic.

 

[Mofra]

Saints fans tend to stick it to WB and Boyd for a few different reasons. We are and have been for a couple decades in similar positions with our lists, developing a modern day rivalry. Saints were gunning hard for Boyd and were sniped hard by the Bulldogs in the dying minutes of trade week. Truth be told Saints would have been extremely happy to land Boyd and would have given up what WB gave up no questions asked and probably would have come close to matching that contract if push came to shove. Fortunately with hindsight it didn't.

Carlton fans were adamant that Boyd would come to them 12 months later, when his initial 2 year rookie contract was over. Saints were mentioned as in the hunt but the Bulldogs taking him after one year (again, only due to the Griffen issue) blindsided everyone.

It's interesting to hear Pelchan talking today about Boyd thinking his salary will be barely mentioned in a couple of years time. I'm not so sure (there will always be that chatter) but I think Bulldogs fans as a little frustrated that he's been played in the ruck so much in his senior opportunities this year. I'd prefer him to be the target in the F50 we've lacked for so long, just giving short chop-outs in the ruck.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

No, it's pathetic.

Why?

 

[Ozil]

Saints fans tend to stick it to WB and Boyd for a few different reasons. We are and have been for a couple decades in similar positions with our lists, developing a modern day rivalry. Saints were gunning hard for Boyd and were sniped hard by the Bulldogs in the dying minutes of trade week. Truth be told Saints would have been extremely happy to land Boyd and would have given up what WB gave up no questions asked and probably would have come close to matching that contract if push came to shove. Fortunately with hindsight it didn't.

All things said, this doesn't take away from the fact that Boyd is a pretty mediocre player, even for a young KPP, who is on the worst contract in history.

I feel sorry for the WB to the point i try my best not to rub it in because they saved us from being in that exact same position. Other Saints fans should do the same imo.

Believe it was the Dogs that were gunning for Boyd (and had got him to publicly commit to the club) and it was the Saints that tried to come over the top once he requested a trade. Either way, business is business, no problems there.

Understand the rivalry aspect of it as we've had some brilliant battles over the last few years, but the obsession with a 20 year old kid and the willingness to peddle total garbage in the pursuit of mocking him (i.e. every young key forward that shows even a semblance of good play once > Boyd, the defamatory exaggeration of his dust-up with Cordy, etc) is disgusting.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

They should have just drafted Ben Brown when they had the chance tbf.

 

[bird_man]

F*** me, you too?

1. $1m per year if he lives up to all indicators.

2. Captain "requested" a trade, he wasn't given up. His leaving was a shock to all Dogs people. Had to make the best of that very difficult situation.

3. Like most big blokes (not all), he will take time. What's unusual about that?

4. Do you really think they traded and paid big bucks for Boyd without consideration for the future? Boyd's contract is heavily front loaded, so when the current players contracts are due, Boyd will be on the average wage. We are still paying less than 95% of the cap. There is plenty of room to bring someone like Hurley into the club for 2017 and beyond, because of the front loading for Boyd.
This is where my f***wit comment comes in. This has been explained ad infinitum on BF, and still every f***wit makes the same inane comment.
Just gets a bit tiring, in fact...

4. Again, the advantage of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Lots of "what ifs" here, isn't there? For example, if the Saints had taken Petracca instead of McCartin, they would have benefitted immediately on-field. No? Without hindsight, are you in fact certain that McCartin will get beyond his concussions and his diabetes (and I hope he does) to become the player you hope he can be? Hard to say anything factual with foresight, isn't it?

Nothing I've stated here is new, is it?

Like I said, most people don't let the truth get in the way of a good story/whinge/troll.

And that's why f***wits get me going.

I don't really care that you've front loaded his contract. Every club does this at one time or another. The fact is that on average he's getting over a million a year, which has to affect recruiting, whether you like it or not.

Yes he's is young and big blokes take time. Tom Hawkins is a great example. But Tom showed plenty of signs that he was going to become a good footballer eventually. What signs is Boyd showing? Very little IMO.

I get that your captain requested a trade, and it may be hindsight, but I think you were much better just taking the first round pick for him instead of giving up a ridiculous amount of money and a first round pick along with him for an unproven player.

It was a massive risk at the time and so far I am yet to see any signs it will pay off.

 

[Sedat!]

He's not getting payed 700k?

He'd be wearing the navy blue jumper right now if his contract wasn't so prohibitive from a $$$ perspective.

 

[AFLOnline]

Believe it was the Dogs that were gunning for Boyd (and had got him to publicly commit to the club) and it was the Saints that tried to come over the top once he requested a trade. Either way, business is business, no problems there.

Understand the rivalry aspect of it as we've had some brilliant battles over the last few years, but the obsession with a 20 year old kid and the willingness to peddle total garbage in the pursuit of mocking him (i.e. every young key forward that shows even a semblance of good play once > Boyd, the defamatory exaggeration of his dust-up with Cordy, etc) is disgusting.

I agree to everything you've said. I dont believe it's fair on WB at all. I know Saints would have done the exact same thing given the chance. As for Boyds short playing career, he hasn't shown much so the criticism is probably warranted from opposition fans. McCartin was pretty heavily criticized before this season too. First overall selection, that shows little in their first couple of seasons; it's gonna happen.

As for off-field indiscretions. Don't take what other posters say seriously. It's all hear - say behind closed door stuff. People will say whatever they want to get under the skin of people.

For the record, I don't believe Boyd will be any more than a GOP perhaps a Hawkins, but if that's all the doggies need to get them that elusive flag then getting him is a win. They are well and truly on the right path.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I don't really care that you've front loaded his contract. Every club does this at one time or another. The fact is that on average he's getting over a million a year, which has to affect recruiting, whether you like it or not.

Yes he's is young and big blokes take time. Tom Hawkins is a great example. But Tom showed plenty of signs that he was going to become a good footballer eventually. What signs is Boyd showing? Very little IMO.

I get that your captain requested a trade, and it may be hindsight, but I think you were much better just taking the first round pick for him instead of giving up a ridiculous amount of money and a first round pick along with him for an unproven player.

It was a massive risk at the time and so far I am yet to see any signs it will pay off.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much a given.

Most clubs take recruiting risks, some pay off, some don't.

Not having a go here, but you'll remember the Andrew Lovett trade?

Given his off-field reputation, recruiting him was also a risk. IIRC, most clubs shied away from him.

Same with Jono Hay. North fell for Hawthorn's dirty tricks there.

Don't think any club is immune, actually.

At least Boyd has plenty of time.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

But Tom showed plenty of signs that he was going to become a good footballer eventually. What signs is Boyd showing? Very little IMO.

Watch more. You'll be surprised what you see.

What you argue is inane. It's like Dogs supporters suggesting that all McCartin has shown is an ability to occasionally take a mark, look fat and master concussion.

It's just a stupid, brain dead argument which is untrue. Watch him more, I'm sure you'll like what you see.

 

[bird_man]

Yeah, I think that's pretty much a given.

Most clubs take recruiting risks, some pay off, some don't.

Not having a go here, but you'll remember the Andrew Lovett trade?

Given his off-field reputation, recruiting him was also a risk. IIRC, most clubs shied away from him.

Same with Jono Hay. North fell for Hawthorn's dirty tricks there.

Don't think any club is immune, actually.

At least Boyd has plenty of time.

Couldn't agree more mate. Andrew Lovett was a terrible trade at the time. We've taken risks as have other clubs that haven't paid off.

This is one of those risks that I think won't pay off for you guys.

 

[bird_man]

Watch more. You'll be surprised what you see.

What you argue is inane. It's like Dogs supporters suggesting that all McCartin has shown is an ability to occasionally take a mark, look fat and master concussion.

It's just a stupid, brain dead argument which is untrue. Watch him more, I'm sure you'll like what you see.

I've watched plenty of him. My brother is a Dogs supporter which means I watch them most weeks. He's shown little. Doesn't seem to have the smarts, can't get away from his opponent and rarely takes a strong pack mark. And yet to see what his strengths are.