Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[FoochPackage]

If tassie are truly in his ear they'll want him OOC which makes them able to get him as a free agent. They wouldn't give anything but cash to sign him and we'd get a compensation pick (likely after our first rounder if the money spoken of is accurate).

I dont care what Tasmania want. Sanders may be happy to lock in some guaranteed cash.

 

[JohnnySteel]

Bergman just makes sense for us. Can play all over the ground, at an age where he is impacting games now but is also young enough to still have 10 years in him. We have the cash - Hope we go hard. Understanding he wants more midfield minutes in the future but I can’t see how we couldn’t provide some opportunity with Treloar / Libba aging & others able to play minutes in other roles as well, we have quite a flexible midfield brigade and adding Bergman would make us even more versatile & hard to contain.

 

[Mojorisin]

I dont care what Tasmania want. Sanders may be happy to lock in some guaranteed cash.

I don't care what Tasmania want either but a new employee likely would.

 

[Mojorisin]

Bergman just makes sense for us. Can play all over the ground, at an age where he is impacting games now but is also young enough to still have 10 years in him. We have the cash - Hope we go hard. Understanding he wants more midfield minutes in the future but I can’t see how we couldn’t provide some opportunity with Treloar / Libba aging & others able to play minutes in other roles as well, we have quite a flexible midfield brigade and adding Bergman would make us even more versatile & hard to contain.

Happy for him to be on more then Richards?

 

[JohnnySteel]

Happy for him to be on more then Richards?

He shouldn’t be on more than Richards but what do you do? You Have to pay to get high calibre players in. Bergman is on the upward trajectory, he isn’t on Richards level just yet but he’s also only just entered the midfield rotations so there’s huge scope there as well. Richards seemed to sign for unders considering what some players are getting on the market. Which is a credit to him. If the acquisition of Bergman doesn’t rock the boat then I’m happy with it.

 

[dogwatch]

Happy for him to be on more then Richards?

He shouldn’t be on more than Richards but what do you do? You Have to pay to get high calibre players in. Bergman is on the upward trajectory, he isn’t on Richards level just yet but he’s also only just entered the midfield rotations so there’s huge scope there as well. Richards seemed to sign for unders considering what some players are getting on the market. Which is a credit to him. If the acquisition of Bergman doesn’t rock the boat then I’m happy with it.

So here's a dilemma, both in terms of morals and list management.

If Richards has signed a long term deal and it turns out that his subsequent form is consistently way better than what he signed for (like, say, Champion Data "immortal" level) do we gratuitously offer him a salary upgrade? Especially when - bizarrely - we might be paying the likes of Bergman more than we are paying Ed.

The simple moral answer would be yes.
The hard-nosed pragmatist answer would be no. He only gets what he signed up for.

But there is a middle ground that is both morally sound and pragmatic.
If we fail to pay his true worth he may lose his respect and love of the club. He may simply say I want out (with various clubs whispering in his ear about the countless millions he could earn). We know how hard it is to stop a player leaving if he has made up his mind. Players hold all the Aces these days.

The smart move would be to get in first and make an upgrade offer. That would:

• demonstrate proactive goodwill toward the player
• pre-empt other clubs trying to white-ant us
• send a reassuring message to other up and comers on our list (and even at other clubs) that we are a fair-dealing club
• potentially head off an ambit claim from Richards' management which might end up being far in excess of what we are comfortable paying

 

[weltschmerz]

thank you for that, Reddit user who joined three hours ago

 

[RWnBluey]

So here's a dilemma, both in terms of morals and list management.

If Richards has signed a long term deal and it turns out that his subsequent form is consistently way better than what he signed for (like, say, Champion Data "immortal" level) do we gratuitously offer him a salary upgrade? Especially when - bizarrely - we might be paying the likes of Bergman more than we are paying Ed.

The simple moral answer would be yes.
The hard-nosed pragmatist answer would be no. He only gets what he signed up for.

But there is a middle ground that is both morally sound and pragmatic.
If we fail to pay his true worth he may lose his respect and love of the club. He may simply say I want out (with various clubs whispering in his ear about the countless millions he could earn). We know how hard it is to stop a player leaving if he has made up his mind. Players hold all the Aces these days.

The smart move would be to get in first and make an upgrade offer. That would:

• demonstrate proactive goodwill toward the player
• pre-empt other clubs trying to white-ant us
• send a reassuring message to other up and comers on our list (and even at other clubs) that we are a fair-dealing club
• potentially head off an ambit claim from Richards' management which might end up being far in excess of what we are comfortable paying

I understand your point and wouldn’t necessarily be against it, but it’s worth noting that we don’t see players voluntarily taking pay cuts when their performance falls short of their lucrative contracts. If we’re talking about renegotiating in good faith, it should be a reciprocal process

 

[Mojorisin]

View attachment 2345684

thank you for that, Reddit user who joined three hours ago

Can't see any red flags there.

 

[adogsfan5]

View attachment 2345684

thank you for that, Reddit user who joined three hours ago

The grammar and spelling is hurting my eyes.

 

[Mojorisin]

So here's a dilemma, both in terms of morals and list management.

If Richards has signed a long term deal and it turns out that his subsequent form is consistently way better than what he signed for (like, say, Champion Data "immortal" level) do we gratuitously offer him a salary upgrade? Especially when - bizarrely - we might be paying the likes of Bergman more than we are paying Ed.

The simple moral answer would be yes.
The hard-nosed pragmatist answer would be no. He only gets what he signed up for.

But there is a middle ground that is both morally sound and pragmatic.
If we fail to pay his true worth he may lose his respect and love of the club. He may simply say I want out (with various clubs whispering in his ear about the countless millions he could earn). We know how hard it is to stop a player leaving if he has made up his mind. Players hold all the Aces these days.

The smart move would be to get in first and make an upgrade offer. That would:

• demonstrate proactive goodwill toward the player
• pre-empt other clubs trying to white-ant us
• send a reassuring message to other up and comers on our list (and even at other clubs) that we are a fair-dealing club
• potentially head off an ambit claim from Richards' management which might end up being far in excess of what we are comfortable paying

It may likely make us miss out on big names (not that we have gotten them in the past) but I'd rather offer lower wages to potential trade targets with the carrot of success rather then then the promise of filling up their retirement fund, starting in a midfield with no other competent assistance and constant finishes between 10-16.
To do that we'd need to either finish top four or make a grand final, I feel. If we can pair that with evidence of guys taking unders to stick around we will hopefully be headed in the right direction.

On top of that I'd personally steer clear of anyone leaving with the main intention of playing in a specific position. I wouldn't panda to that in sales pitches instead leaning into the importance of playing any position the team needs any given week. It is extremely idealistic, but my personal feel is we have/had too many guys who sulk/seek trades if they aren't getting minutes in a preferred position regardless of what's best for the team.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Bergman just makes sense for us. Can play all over the ground, at an age where he is impacting games now but is also young enough to still have 10 years in him. We have the cash - Hope we go hard. Understanding he wants more midfield minutes in the future but I can’t see how we couldn’t provide some opportunity with Treloar / Libba aging & others able to play minutes in other roles as well, we have quite a flexible midfield brigade and adding Bergman would make us even more versatile & hard to contain.

He can look towards what we have done with Richards and take confidence that he’ll be given every chance to establish himself.

 

[flipper83]

View attachment 2345684

thank you for that, Reddit user who joined three hours ago

From Reddit user Kon Hunkley

 

[doggiesin08]

I understand your point and wouldn’t necessarily be against it, but it’s worth noting that we don’t see players voluntarily taking pay cuts when their performance falls short of their lucrative contracts. If we’re talking about renegotiating in good faith, it should be a reciprocal process

If we were to do it I'm sure it would be structured through different incentives beyond what he currently has structured, e.g. $[X] / $[X] for All Australian team / squad, $[Y] for certain B&F placing, etc. I'm not opposed to the idea if it stops other clubs getting in his ear or the risk that he then really looks for a big pay-day on his next deal to make up for what he feels was left on the table this time around.

 

[doggiesin08]

It may likely make us miss out on big names (not that we have gotten them in the past) but I'd rather offer lower wages to potential trade targets with the carrot of success rather then then the promise of filling up their retirement fund, starting in a midfield with no other competent assistance and constant finishes between 10-16.
To do that we'd need to either finish top four or make a grand final, I feel. If we can pair that with evidence of guys taking unders to stick around we will hopefully be headed in the right direction.

On top of that I'd personally steer clear of anyone leaving with the main intention of playing in a specific position. I wouldn't panda to that in sales pitches instead leaning into the importance of playing any position the team needs any given week. It is extremely idealistic, but my personal feel is we have/had too many guys who sulk/seek trades if they aren't getting minutes in a preferred position regardless of what's best for the team.

Completely agree, I'd be sending Bergman the following package:

• Contract offer with a side-by-side comparison to what Richards has just committed to;
• A picture of the scores for our 71 point and 72 point wins against the Saints
• A picture of the scores for our 91 point win against Essendon

If he wants to take the extra money to play at one of those two clubs then he should go for it.

 

[grassman75]

Happy for him to be on more then Richards?

If only there was a way we could get players to sign for big unders to keep the team together

 

[grassman75]

View attachment 2345684

thank you for that, Reddit user who joined three hours ago

Kenny needs to stop signing up for alt accounts on Reddit

 

[Doggy]

If only there was a way we could get players to sign for big unders to keep the team together

I think we all know the answer to this one. Lots and lots of Tortillas

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I don’t reckon Libba is getting paid what he is worth, and Bont took unders in his last contract to keep some players didn’t he?

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

I don’t reckon Libba is getting paid what he is worth, and Bont took unders in his last contract to keep some players didn’t he?

in the current market anything below 2.5m a year for Bont is unders

 

[Mofra]

So here's a dilemma, both in terms of morals and list management.

If Richards has signed a long term deal and it turns out that his subsequent form is consistently way better than what he signed for (like, say, Champion Data "immortal" level) do we gratuitously offer him a salary upgrade? Especially when - bizarrely - we might be paying the likes of Bergman more than we are paying Ed.

The simple moral answer would be yes.
The hard-nosed pragmatist answer would be no. He only gets what he signed up for.

But there is a middle ground that is both morally sound and pragmatic.
If we fail to pay his true worth he may lose his respect and love of the club. He may simply say I want out (with various clubs whispering in his ear about the countless millions he could earn). We know how hard it is to stop a player leaving if he has made up his mind. Players hold all the Aces these days.

We actually have done this for players in the past, although it also helped us teach the 95% TPP floor in one instance.

Players can also be pushed into a little more promo work too so the club can pay them under a separate promotional allowance (used to be a total of $500k pa, it's gone up since?) - as a reward for form.

 

[Thunderoad]

We need an enterprising Big Footyer to covertly erect a webcam pointed squarely at the entrance to the Whitten Oval to allow us to identify the facilities tourists.

Any volunteers for the covert erection?

 

[Norm De Guerre]

We need an enterprising Big Footyer to covertly erect a webcam pointed squarely at the entrance to the Whitten Oval to allow us to identify the facilities tourists.

Any volunteers for the covert erection?

Our man Damo is on the job. But being an analogue kinda guy he chose to take out a long term lease on new digs out front of Whitten Oval.




Unfortunately for Tom Morris he had to settle for the second best option.

 

[Thunderoad]

Our man Damo is on the job. But being an analogue kinda guy he chose to take out a long term lease on new digs out front of Whitten Oval.

View attachment 2346077


Unfortunately for Tom Morris he had to settle for the second best option.

View attachment 2346084

You sure that's not Elvis Costello in the bin?

Preferable to Barrett.

 

[bobs head soup]

Our man Damo is on the job. But being an analogue kinda guy he chose to take out a long term lease on new digs out front of Whitten Oval.

View attachment 2346077


Unfortunately for Tom Morris he had to settle for the second best option.

View attachment 2346084

Everytime I see Tom Morris' head these days, in my mind I hear Warwick Capper crying out Cyappp-perrr.