Tom Boyd

[Starburns_]

Why? Don't you understand the fact that the market dictates wages in the current environment? It's not the same competition as 5-10 years ago. It's got nothing to do with what a player delivers, just what a club wants to pay to get that player. You should know that what a player delivers is not reflective of his salary.

It has everything to do with what he delivers, you don't pay players with a virtually bottomless pit of money like they do in the EPL. If Boyd doesn't deliver, he's a waste of money.

Start getting your head around a few basic economic principles. Hawkins never left Geelong, therefore his value on the free market was never questioned. Boyd did leave GWS, so when an entity enters the free market all sorts of suitors put up their hands to bid or apply. What he is worth is reflective of the free market purchase price at the time he was purchased, hence setting a precedent for other individuals of his calibre or 'potential' who would enter that market.

If Jesse Hogan put his hand up and said I want to play for anyone but Melbourne, where do you think the limits would cease?

If Jesse Hogan walked onto the open market he'd command a shitload (who is to say if it's the same or more than Boyd), the difference is that Hogan has the past and present performances that actually make paying him that much a much more sensible move.

A more accurate comparison than your Hogan hypothetical is that Buddy Franklin moved a year before Hogan for only 100k a year more, yet the gap in output between the two is even larger than Boyd's salary.

What he delivers on the football field is based upon a vastly different set of criteria. Anyone that says he is 'overpaid' doesn't understand much about trading, value, or how basic economics works.

Anyone who thinks that Tom Boyd's contract is providing 'value' doesn't understand much about football.

But that's only because Hawkins never sold himself to the open market one year out from being a top draft pick prospect.

If Hawkins had, after one year at Geelong, walked out on the club and effectively gone to whatever club would have paid him most, he would have gotten a similar salary at some club.

And by similar salary I mean he would have been paid about 8% of the salary cap across the length of his contract, which is what Boyd's getting paid.

It's the fundamental lack of understanding about how you have to overpay to recruit players from other club that shits me no end. If people going to troll the Dogs about their salary cap management, which is what people are effectively doing, objectively, the decision to pay Minson in his AA year and have him as one of our highest paid players in our reserves this is a much worse list management decision than paying Boyd $1 million per year.

Paying Minson a lot less (for an important role in any football team) based on what his performance has dictated is worse than paying Boyd a shitload to be awful? Seriously?

It's one thing to overpay to pinch a player from elsewhere, it's another to do so based purely on potential, and another thing still when that player does not remotely live up to expectations or salary on-field.

As a Dogs supporter you should know this already considering it's only 10 years since you paid big for Jade Rawlings.

 

[dergert]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[demondavey]

It has everything to do with what he delivers, you don't pay players with a virtually bottomless pit of money like they do in the EPL.



If Jesse Hogan walked onto the open market he'd command a shitload (who is to say if it's the same or more than Boyd), the difference is that Hogan has the past and present performances that actually make paying him that much a much more sensible move.

A more accurate comparison than your Hogan hypothetical is that Buddy Franklin moved a year before Hogan for only 100k a year more, yet the gap in output between the two is even larger than Boyd's salary.



Anyone who thinks that Tom Boyd's contract is providing 'value' doesn't understand much about football.



Paying Minson a lot less (for an important role in any football team) based on what his performance has dictated is worse than paying Boyd a shitload to be awful? Seriously?

It's one thing to overpay to pinch a player from elsewhere, it's another to do so based purely on potential, and another thing still when that player does not remotely live up to expectations or salary on-field.

As a Dogs supporter you should know this already considering it's only 10 years since you paid big for Jade Rawlings.

Thanks for quoting like a QC, but you still don't get it

 

[JeffDunne]

Why do people expect more of Stringer than Boyd?

He's probably on less than half of what Boyd's getting paid yet he's expected to perform at twice the level.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Ugh, you name all the ones that turned out well. Countless duds had similar stats. All those guys showed early glimpses of being something special except maybe Adelaide's Lynch, Boyd's shown us a special falcon, that's it.

The point is its too early to judge, not that his stats mean hes going to be a star.

 

[Starburns_]

I have nothing so I'll try and appear smug to deflect from that.

Fixed for you.

It's not my fault you were dopey enough to use the word 'value' in a defense of Tom Boyd.

Why do people expect more of Stringer than Boyd?

He's probably on less than half of what Boyd's getting paid yet he's expected to perform at twice the level.

Literally because Stringer is good enough that people are allowed to raise their expectations of him, but because Boyd has been shit, we need to find excuses for that.

Also BT hasn't given Boyd a stupid nickname.

 

[compact72]

lol @ everybody jealous about his salary.

Not sure why people are so worried about his income rather than his future.

Funny to see the tigers fan up and about after a win

 

[00Stinger]

Thats BS. There are a lot of shite AFL players that get no mention anywhere, because they are shite and really that bad.

Boyd cops criticism for 2 reasons:

1. He is on more money then most of the best players in the comp
2. He was a no. 1 pick (ala Watts)

Yeah and watts copped 10 times the shit boyd has and he was playing better than him at this stage pf his career, in a much shitter team and not on a million dollar contract

Sent from my SM-P555 using Tapatalk

 

[00Stinger]

It must be pretty embarrasing to try and pick out a couple of things a game like his team mate taking a shot instead of passing or an ump paying a free that denies him a stat. Maybe Boyd can ask the AFL for a new stat column on his sheet that is titled almost touches because it looks like he is little chance of marking the ******* thing or imposing himself on the contest in any meaningful way.

There should be a new stat called a Boyd. Its where you almost get a stat, but either the umps pays a free kick or a teammate chooses to shot for goal rather than pass to you

Sent from my SM-P555 using Tapatalk

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Paying Minson a lot less (for an important role in any football team) based on what his performance has dictated is worse than paying Boyd a shitload to be awful? Seriously?

It's one thing to overpay to pinch a player from elsewhere, it's another to do so based purely on potential, and another thing still when that player does not remotely live up to expectations or salary on-field.

But isn't that's kind of the point... list management is all about manipulating the salary cap into the future, not paying players because of past successes.
We might have done the 'right thing' by Minson by giving him a good contract after his All-Australian year but doing the right thing and prudent list management isn't the same thing.

Contracts should be given out on potential. Of course there's some risk involved - but it's no different to other facts of list management, like drafting.

For example James Aish was clearly the best performed 16 and 17 year old in the country in his respective years. Following your logic, he should have been drafted with the first pick in the draft as a result.

And to suggest that Boyd hasn't "remotely" lived up to expectations? He's tracking ahead of Tippett, probably his most like-for-like comparison as player, at their respective ages. He's still just 20! God forbid a 20 year old key forward doesn't tear up the league.

Good thing we have him locked up for 7 years then. The worst thing that could happen is we sign him for $1 million per year over 5 years and he leaves us just as he's starting to come good.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Thats BS. There are a lot of shite AFL players that get no mention anywhere, because they are shite and really that bad.

Boyd cops criticism for 2 reasons:

1. He is on more money then most of the best players in the comp
2. He was a no. 1 pick (ala Watts)

They're not two separate reasons though.

Boyd was a unanimous number 1 selection.

He left GWS and sold himself to the open market, playing for the club that was going to pay him the most. It was even reported on the article in the HS about him this week.

Therefore the fact that he was an open-market player one year removed from being a unanimous number 1 selection is the reason he's getting paid that much money than he is. It just looks strange because it's atypical for number 1 draft picks to walk out on their clubs after 1 year. Boyd is literally the only one who is doing that.

If there was no such thing as the draft, and all draftees were effectively free agents and the salary cap was the only competitive balance mechanism, all number 1 draft picks quality players would get $1 million over 7 years or thereabouts by bottom teams (like we were in 2014), with salary cap room (like we had in 2014 and still have) by a club who has a position of need from that draftee player (like we did when it was blatantly obvious how we needed a key forward).

Stop and think to yourself logically. If Heeney walked out and all was willing to play for any of all 17 clubs, you don't that at least one would offer him a very large contract like Boyd has?

Is that really that hard to understand?

 

[Iamcarlton]

That's why he probably doesn't give a toss. But yeah, let's pay out on him, but when he starts fulfilling his potential it's going to be great to bump this thread.

What makes you think hes going to fulfill his potential ? Or lack thereof , Because hes young was a number 1 pick or because of the money hes on or both ?

 

[Iamcarlton]

They're not two separate reasons though.

Boyd was a unanimous number 1 selection.

He left GWS and sold himself to the open market, playing for the club that was going to pay him the most. It was even reported on the article in the HS about him this week.

Therefore the fact that he was an open-market player one year removed from being a unanimous number 1 selection is the reason he's getting paid that much money than he is. It just looks strange because it's atypical for number 1 draft picks to walk out on their clubs after 1 year. Boyd is literally the only one who is doing that.

If there was no such thing as the draft, and all draftees were effectively free agents and the salary cap was the only competitive balance mechanism, all number 1 draft picks quality players would get $1 million over 7 years or thereabouts by bottom teams (like we were in 2014), with salary cap room (like we had in 2014 and still have) by a club who has a position of need from that draftee player (like we did when it was blatantly obvious how we needed a key forward).

Stop and think to yourself logically. If Heeney walked out and all was willing to play for any of all 17 clubs, you don't that at least one would offer him a very large contract like Boyd has?

Is that really that hard to understand?

No hes not gary ablett and no i dont think any club would offer heeney anything near boyd money .

 

[doona]

Stop and think to yourself logically. If Heeney walked out and all was willing to play for any of all 17 clubs, you don't that at least one would offer him a very large contract like Boyd has?

Is that really that hard to understand?

1. Heeney was not a number 1 draft pick. History shows that No.1 draft picks get put under a lot of pressure regardless of the salary
2. I think clubs would pay a lot for Heeney. But that is irrelevant. If you are a player getting payed in the elite bracket and not even in your teams best 22, you will be scrutinised. Regardless.

I think you are being very defensive of Boyd. I never criticised him, I just stated fact as to why he is getting attention.

 

[demondavey]

What makes you think hes going to fulfill his potential ? Or lack thereof , Because hes young was a number 1 pick or because of the money hes on or both ?

Neither. And I don't know. I am not a clairvoyant. But what I do know is that unrelenting criticism and unfounded slagging off an unproven kid is pretty uneducated and quite typical of the common poster on big footy. It's a lot easier to level criticism than to put your opinion on the line and get cut down by people like yourself who critique from their armchair.

 

[JeffDunne]

“The earliest I ever heard of Tom was when I was on the magical mystery tour to New York (with league chiefs and other club presidents in 2013) when Andrew Demetriou dropped his name over dinner one night and said this guy is a once-in-generation talent.

“That was before the 2013 draft and so when his name came up and our people were saying it’s going to be difficult to get him but we really need a key forward for the next 10 years and we’re going to need to go out of our way and do something unusual, my confidence in their view was fortified by what I had heard Demetriou say a year earlier.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/5bad3c6c843ad5d38a4d1d07302ee7dd


Peter Gordon making list decisions based on advice from Andrew Demetriou . . . what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Starburns_]

But isn't that's kind of the point... list management is all about manipulating the salary cap into the future, not paying players because of past successes.
We might have done the 'right thing' by Minson by giving him a good contract after his All-Australian year but doing the right thing and prudent list management isn't the same thing.

I don't know exactly what the deal with Minson is that has him so badly out of favour, but I doubt you would have foreseen him declining the way he has.

Contracts should be given out on potential. Of course there's some risk involved - but it's no different to other facts of list management, like drafting.

For example James Aish was clearly the best performed 16 and 17 year old in the country in his respective years. Following your logic, he should have been drafted with the first pick in the draft as a result.

Big contracts, yes. Mammoth ones, no. On what he's currently shown, Boyd's contract is twice as much as what the ceiling should be if you're paying him on 'potential'.

Drafting is a risk, but it's one that everyone takes and at least once you've got them you don't have to pay them those contracts until they show you something. At least then if you get it wrong you haven't put so many of your eggs in one basket.

Plus Boyd is both a draft and a cap risk because you paid pick #5 for him.

And to suggest that Boyd hasn't "remotely" lived up to expectations? He's tracking ahead of Tippett, probably his most like-for-like comparison as player, at their respective ages. He's still just 20! God forbid a 20 year old key forward doesn't tear up the league.

Good thing we have him locked up for 7 years then. The worst thing that could happen is we sign him for $1 million per year over 5 years and he leaves us just as he's starting to come good.

The problem here is that you're setting your sights on a Kurt Tippett, a player who is reasonably overpaid himself. To contextualise that, no one goes to the draft and says "we want to pick the next Kurt Tippett." If I'd spent pick 5 and a million dollars a year for 7 years (including at least 2-3 years of 'growing pains') on a 20 year old, I'd be hoping for more than Kurt Tippett.

Personally, at the time I thought (minus the obscene salary) that the move you made for Boyd was smart, but based on what he's shown, it appears to be tracking the wrong way. He's going to have to improve a significant amount on what he's shown so far (or the Dogs win a flag in spite of his struggles) for this deal to be considered a 'success'.

 

[demondavey]

Have a look at threads like 'most overrated player of all time' getting 117 pages on the main board. Easy to start a thread focused on criticism isn't it? Rank & file love nothing more than to sink the slipper in.

 

[JeffDunne]

Have a look at threads like 'most overrated player of all time' getting 117 pages on the main board. Easy to start a thread focused on criticism isn't it? Rank & file love nothing more than to sink the slipper in.

You're as soft as Jack Watts.

Is it a Melbourne thing?

Of course opposition supporters will criticise for non performance. That's hardly a new phenomenon.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Neither. And I don't know. I am not a clairvoyant. But what I do know is that unrelenting criticism and unfounded slagging off an unproven kid is pretty uneducated and quite typical of the common poster on big footy. It's a lot easier to level criticism than to put your opinion on the line and get cut down by people like yourself who critique from their armchair.

Didnt criticise him asked you a question as to why hes going to fulfill his potential . You made the statement he will so if thats the statement then why ? Personally i dont think he will be any good at all for reasons ive stated elsewhere but as i didnt make the statement you did just asking for your reasons ?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/5bad3c6c843ad5d38a4d1d07302ee7dd


Peter Gordon making list decisions based on advice from Andrew Demetriou . . . what could possibly go wrong?

Yet the very premise of the article you linked to is about how Gordon wasn't involved in the recruitment from a purely list management perspective. The purpose of the section you quoted was for Gordon to emphasise as to that was the first time he even knew of Boyd, therefore showing how little part in the process he could have in making the decision to recruit him, because he simply didn't know enough about Boyd to have an opinion one way or another.

If you're going to troll, at least don't link to the article which directly contradicts what you're saying when you do troll. It makes it much less effective.

 

[demondavey]

You're as soft as Jack Watts.

Is it a Melbourne thing?

Of course opposition supporters will criticise for non performance. That's hardly a new phenomenon.

You're notorious for being a serial pot stirrer so I'll just let that go through to the keeper

 

[Doggy Dan]

It has everything to do with what he delivers, you don't pay players with a virtually bottomless pit of money like they do in the EPL. If Boyd doesn't deliver, he's a waste of money.



If Jesse Hogan walked onto the open market he'd command a shitload (who is to say if it's the same or more than Boyd), the difference is that Hogan has the past and present performances that actually make paying him that much a much more sensible move.

A more accurate comparison than your Hogan hypothetical is that Buddy Franklin moved a year before Hogan for only 100k a year more, yet the gap in output between the two is even larger than Boyd's salary.



Anyone who thinks that Tom Boyd's contract is providing 'value' doesn't understand much about football.



Paying Minson a lot less (for an important role in any football team) based on what his performance has dictated is worse than paying Boyd a shitload to be awful? Seriously?

It's one thing to overpay to pinch a player from elsewhere, it's another to do so based purely on potential, and another thing still when that player does not remotely live up to expectations or salary on-field.

As a Dogs supporter you should know this already considering it's only 10 years since you paid big for Jade Rawlings.

You guys have tried to pay huge dollars and no one will accept your offer.

Lol

 

[JeffDunne]

Yet the very premise of the article you linked to is about how Gordon wasn't involved in the recruitment from a purely list management perspective.

The premise of the article is Peter Gordon trying to convince us that Peter Gordon isn't involved in list management decisions.

Peter Gordon doesn't do a very good job.

But hey, Peter Gordon got his name in the paper again so it's all good.

 

[Tiger_4_Life]

Dogs fans are taking this way too personally... You blokes are doing fine without him, would be better to try and offload him now and free up the significant cap space he's wasting.