Unnecessary Contract Extensions

[Jasper84]

This has been bugging me for a while. Why do we re-sign our injury prone, older players on new deals halfway through the season? Take Varcoe for example. We gave him a two year extension recently despite knowing that he could break down any minute. Same goes with Reid. I can't see these kind of players being aggressively chased by other clubs, so why do we sign them mid year? We also tie others like Crocker, Oxley and Blair up to multiple year deals despite limited output and low level signs of improvement. Can anyone explain what the strategy is behind this?

 

[robertg22]

Take Varcoe for example. We gave him a two year extension recently despite knowing that he could break down any minute.

Not to disagree with your point but have we? I haven't been able to find anything in relation to this. As far as I can see, Varcoe signed a 1 year extension at the end of last year.

 

[spartan-magpie]

This has been bugging me for a while. Why do we re-sign our injury prone, older players on new deals halfway through the season? Take Varcoe for example. We gave him a two year extension recently despite knowing that he could break down any minute. Same goes with Reid. I can't see these kind of players being aggressively chased by other clubs, so why do we sign them mid year? We also tie others like Crocker, Oxley and Blair up to multiple year deals despite limited output and low level signs of improvement. Can anyone explain what the strategy is behind this?

Only a guess, but maybe these guys were signed on very favorable deals. Some of them obviously weren’t signed on talent but maybe more just to keep some room in the cap for our
supposed tilt at a big piece this year.


We could really use like lynch and may moving forward. We’d be almost unstoppable a healthy list.

 

[MagpieBat]

This has been bugging me for a while. Why do we re-sign our injury prone, older players on new deals halfway through the season? Take Varcoe for example. We gave him a two year extension recently despite knowing that he could break down any minute. Same goes with Reid. I can't see these kind of players being aggressively chased by other clubs, so why do we sign them mid year? We also tie others like Crocker, Oxley and Blair up to multiple year deals despite limited output and low level signs of improvement. Can anyone explain what the strategy is behind this?

Not to disagree with your point but have we? I haven't been able to find anything in relation to this. As far as I can see, Varcoe signed a 1 year extension at the end of last year.

We signed him to a new 1 year contract late in season 2016, then signed him to a 1 year extension of that contract in February (IIRC... it was just as the De Goey stuff was blowing up).

It is a fair question, though. Why have we over-rated the capabilities of such mid-to-low range players and signed them to longer contracts than are necessary way ahead of time?

 

[unplugged]

I reckon both would be just about at the "200k or retire" negotiation, where they'll now become depth players who you don't expect to be best 22 for the entire year.

By paying these type of players less than the average wage, you can obviously afford to pay good players more than average.

Yes it might be problematic having injuries and having less fit players to call upon in situations like the one we are in at the moment, but I can only assume that minimum wage would more than pay for itself on the training track, in team meetings, in the weight room, etc.

 

[Gone Critical]

I think the answers are simpler than what you are looking for. Varcoe and Reid have, I believe, been signed on 1 year contracts. Its July and late in the piece to be organising the pieces that will make up next years salary cap. The club have assessed both these senior 22 players as deserving another year. You can't leave these decisions too late and I think the timing is fine here. With Blair et al you will give some lesser players 2 yr contracts. Blair was a senior footballer til this year and is still a good man to have around. Crocker is playing senior 22 currently so the club has seen enough to believe persistence is worth it and Oxley has been cruelled by injury. None of these decisions seem too bad to me.

 

[Alexander323bc]

Its all a strategy to make people think we have no room in salary cap. Then wham get rid of three average players on $400k and hello Lynch.

 

[robertg22]

We signed him to a new 1 year contract late in season 2016, then signed him to a 1 year extension of that contract in February (IIRC... it was just as the De Goey stuff was blowing up).

Varcoe and Reid have, I believe, been signed on 1 year contracts.

We signed Varcoe on a 1 year extension at the end of last season - announced in September (http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2017-09-22/trio-of-pies-resign)

The contract signing frenzy has continued at the Holden Centre, with Travis Varcoe, Tom Phillips and Ben Crocker all inking new deals to remain at Collingwood.

The trio with varying skillsets and levels of experience will all be in Black and White in 2018, with Phillips and Crocker also committing to remain at the club until the end of 2019.

I don't recall seeing anything about Varcoe signing anything for next year & Footywire has him out of contract at the end of this year (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/to-collingwood-magpies)

Happy to be corrected but can't find anything at all on it! (It does list Reid as in contract for next year which is correct).

I would wait on Varcoe and see how his form is for the remainder of the year & most importantly if he stays fit. If he gets back to some of the footy he was playing early in the year and stays on the park, he can be a real asset for us. If not, he may even look to retire.

Reid at this point is a veteran KPP who when fit is decent enough. We aren't blessed with enough KPP depth to let him go unfortunately, just have to hope to get 10-15 games out of him perhaps, provided the $ amount is low enough.

 

[Jasper84]

With Blair et al you will give some lesser players 2 yr contracts. Blair was a senior footballer til this year and is still a good man to have around. Crocker is playing senior 22 currently so the club has seen enough to believe persistence is worth it and Oxley has been cruelled by injury. None of these decisions seem too bad to me.

It still doesn't explain why you would put these players on 2 years instead of 1 and re-evaluate at the end of the year. They're likely to be on minimum deals anyway, so why not leave yourself wiggle room to draft another kid or a Dunn/Mioceck type instead of locking them in a year in advance?

 

[jackcass]

You'd have to have a greater understanding of the clubs view of these players and the clubs recruiting strategies going forward to answer this.

JDG aside though, I don't think we'd be throwing too much money at these guys so at a minimum signing them provides greater surety with the salary cap going into contract negotiations with the JDG and Moore types, and into the trade/draft period.

 

[frizzle]

I think the answers are simpler than what you are looking for. Varcoe and Reid have, I believe, been signed on 1 year contracts. Its July and late in the piece to be organising the pieces that will make up next years salary cap. The club have assessed both these senior 22 players as deserving another year. You can't leave these decisions too late and I think the timing is fine here. With Blair et al you will give some lesser players 2 yr contracts. Blair was a senior footballer til this year and is still a good man to have around. Crocker is playing senior 22 currently so the club has seen enough to believe persistence is worth it and Oxley has been cruelled by injury. None of these decisions seem too bad to me.

I reckon there may be quite a few who disagree with you on the bolded 3. Myself included.

 

[Gone Critical]

It still doesn't explain why you would put these players on 2 years instead of 1 and re-evaluate at the end of the year. They're likely to be on minimum deals anyway, so why not leave yourself wiggle room to draft another kid or a Dunn/Mioceck type instead of locking them in a year in advance?

Balance of showing trust in the playing group. Need some harmony and ongoing chemistry. Not just for those who signed as well as the group

 

[Gone Critical]

I reckon there may be quite a few who disagree with you on the bolded 3. Myself included.

Its easy to cherry pick retrospectively. Simply not everyone on the list can be regular best 22. You are being hard on Blair who has been a senior player for a long time and good depth. Crocker has played enough 1st footy is the 2 seasons he has been available to say he has been worth assessing and may make it yet. List management, especially at the edges, has to involve a lot of misses. Cherry picking after the fact is too easy. You could easily lump Thomas, Phillips, Sier , Cox etc into the same category as many posters were unsure about them a season or two ago.

 

[frizzle]

Its easy to cherry pick retrospectively. Simply not everyone on the list can be regular best 22. You are being hard on Blair who has been a senior player for a long time and good depth. Crocker has played enough 1st footy is the 2 seasons he has been available to say he has been worth assessing and may make it yet. List management, especially at the edges, has to involve a lot of misses. Cherry picking after the fact is too easy. You could easily lump Thomas, Phillips, Sier , Cox etc into the same category as many posters were unsure about them a season or two ago.

Blair has been fantastic for us over a long period of time. I'm no Blair basher like many on here.
Of the 3. he is the best depth easily. The other 2 are struggling big time & I see no need to extend their contracts before earning it.
We will need list spots for potential father sons & NGA players. Crocker is possibly playing under duress with his family issues so I'd be fine with a rookie spot.

As tough as it is most guys only get 2 years to show something, which is why I fear for McLarty's future.
All these injuries to talls & he still hasn't had a look in. Not looking good for him either.
Anyway you look at it we have to turn over some fringe players & try to improve the list. In both class & depth.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Interesting discussion.
As three players mentioned if we only had to keep one, who would you keep?
Assuming lower pay scale.

But if he MUST be kept of Blair, Oxley, Crocker, to me it’s a no brainer.
Crocker every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
He’s the depth player I’d keep at his stage of their careers.

All three aren’t auto 22 best ofcourse.

 

[Scodog10]

I think this is a great discussion to have because year to year most clubs would have at least one do over contract.

The way I approach it though is by asking who are you prepared to lose? and who do you think would be locked away by now if we held back?

IMO, we erred by locking in Reid when we did because I am prepared to lose him. I think that's one that should have been left until year end for the reasons you pointed out Jasper we weren't in any danger of losing him and he wasn't a priority re-signing. The thing is I don't think delaying Reid's contract would have meant WHE, Elliott or Moore would have signed by now. In terms of the thrust of your post more often than not I think the club are very up front with players in this situation. They'd be telling them that the offer won't change come the end of the year so this is the players opportunity to get some security which is important nearing the end. There's also a high likelihood they instigated talks so I think in cases like this it was a goodwill gesture. I guess for me even though I think we jumped the gun in this case I'm ok with that

With Oxley's 2016 extension and the Mayne/ Wells deals the "why" for me is that the club plain old got it wrong. I don't think there's any escaping that! That's fine because they're human. We just need to learn from those errors which I believe we have.

 

[loki04]

Only a guess, but maybe these guys were signed on very favorable deals. Some of them obviously weren’t signed on talent but maybe more just to keep some room in the cap for our
supposed tilt at a big piece this year.


We could really use like lynch and may moving forward. We’d be almost unstoppable a healthy list.

They wouldn't save more space then a draftee who wilould replace them talking about Blair Oxley Gault etc types here, not injured types like Varcoe and Reid can see why they take the risk with genuine AFL quality players.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

It still doesn't explain why you would put these players on 2 years instead of 1 and re-evaluate at the end of the year. They're likely to be on minimum deals anyway, so why not leave yourself wiggle room to draft another kid or a Dunn/Mioceck type instead of locking them in a year in advance?

First thing I will say is that without transperancy of contracts, and salary cap position, it is very hard to know how judge these move.

But below-average deals, for "average" players does create wiggle room.

An AFL list has 40 spots. At the end of FA/trade/draft periods you must have those 40 spots signed up. (+/- room for a rookie who can be elevated- but I'm guessing that has contract/cap implications).

If these guys are on less than we value them at, and less than we would expect to pay for an equivalent replacement - then it can be good business: if you can have players who are capable of playing in your 22, and only be paying the minimum, then that gives you a lot more freedom to chase a FA. It means that you can be sure what sort of depth you have in place before throwing around the money.

I would assume we have an ideal breakdown of our cap, and that we would want a certain number of guys (at a minimum) to be paid the minimum. If we can get as many (AFL quality) players as we can in that group - the better it is for other decisions - you can't pay anybody less than this. The only caveat is whether you could get better players for the minimum (unlikely) or whether these guys might not be able to play on due to fitness/age (thats the concern).

I also assume that the guys who got extended are the guys who agreed to that minimum. Any rotation/depth player that wants to argue for more, would be told to wait until after the big signings are done.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

#SidebySide #FOREVER

 

[cityslick1]

I can at least explain the strategy, though not all of the decision making.

Our club has a long history of re-contracting players when they are injured. They'll say its to give them some support & reassurance, but imo the predominant factor is actually to get the best value. I.e., when they are down - not flying & kicking bags of goals with their agents knocking on the door demanding the big cash.

Go back 15 years or so and you'll see it with Reid, Goldy, Brown, Shaz... plenty of others.

The problem is that players like Varcoe will not be best 22 next year, so you have the risk of shooting yourself in the foot. On his side was the fact that we are still a relatively young side, so his experience was seen as important to us. Though for me he has shown glimpses, but has not had enough impact for quite a while now. So along with Crocker & Ben Reid, is v lucky to be on our list for next year.

It should've been more, but the club needs to bite the bullet this summer and free up some more salary cap space. From Greenwood, Wells - cant have triggered his extension, Goldy, Blair (1 year too late) and maybe Broomhead. Add the players above, and we could've had a good crack at players like Lynch AND May... which may not be possible now.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I can at least explain the strategy, though not all of the decision making.

Our club has a long history of re-contracting players when they are injured. They'll say its to give them some support & reassurance, but imo the predominant factor is actually to get the best value. I.e., when they are down - not flying & kicking bags of goals with their agents knocking on the door demanding the big cash.

Go back 15 years or so and you'll see it with Reid, Goldy, Brown, Shaz... plenty of others.

The problem is that players like Varcoe will not be best 22 next year, so you have the risk of shooting yourself in the foot. On his side was the fact that we are still a relatively young side, so his experience was seen as important to us. Though for me he has shown glimpses, but has not had enough impact for quite a while now. So along with Crocker & Ben Reid, is v lucky to be on our list for next year.

It should've been more, but the club needs to bite the bullet this summer and free up some more salary cap space. From Greenwood, Wells - cant have triggered his extension, Goldy, Blair (1 year too late) and maybe Broomhead. Add the players above, and we could've had a good crack at players like Lynch AND May... which may not be possible now.

But do you know what Varcoe/Reid are getting paid?
Do you know if its above the AFL minimum? If its at the minimum - then there is no possible way to save more money. We need to fill those roster spots, and why not use that minimum on guys who (barring injury/retirement) are, at worst, AFL depth players, rather than round 4/5 draftees, or upgraded rookies?

As i said - we don't have transparency, so its hard to truly judge.

 

[Bored_Pie]

This has been bugging me for a while. Why do we re-sign our injury prone, older players on new deals halfway through the season? Take Varcoe for example. We gave him a two year extension recently despite knowing that he could break down any minute. Same goes with Reid. I can't see these kind of players being aggressively chased by other clubs, so why do we sign them mid year? We also tie others like Crocker, Oxley and Blair up to multiple year deals despite limited output and low level signs of improvement. Can anyone explain what the strategy is behind this?

Varcoe got a 1 year deal
Reid got a 1 year deal.

The reason they are signed early is because they agree to the pay and want to be at the club. Jesus, how dare someone want to stay at the club.. Not that hard to understand.

 

[cityslick1]

But do you know what Varcoe/Reid are getting paid?
Do you know if its above the AFL minimum? If its at the minimum - then there is no possible way to save more money. We need to fill those roster spots, and why not use that minimum on guys who (barring injury/retirement) are, at worst, AFL depth players, rather than round 4/5 draftees, or upgraded rookies?

As i said - we don't have transparency, so its hard to truly judge.

Reid is def be on decent coin ($600k?), and Varcoe would be on much higher than the minimum... mature players get good cash, unless youre 32+ and willing to take a cut to keep your career alive. But I'd still invest in talented rookies, on cheaper coin, that could be here in the next 3 - 5 years... then leaving surplus for strong recruits.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Reid is def be on decent coin ($600k?), and Varcoe would be on much higher than the minimum... mature players get good cash, unless youre 32+ and willing to take a cut to keep your career alive. But I'd still invest in talented rookies, on cheaper coin, that could be here in the next 3 - 5 years... then leaving surplus for strong recruits.

Yeah i would bet a fair amount that neither is on anywhere near that kind of money for their extensions.
Their last contracts may have been in the 4-600 range, but not a chance we would extend them at that level. I would be guessing 300 at the max, and possibly as low as 200. Both are at the end of their careers, and neither are putting in the type of performances that bring in offers from elsewhere.

 

[Jasper84]

Varcoe got a 1 year deal
Reid got a 1 year deal.

The reason they are signed early is because they agree to the pay and want to be at the club. Jesus, how dare someone want to stay at the club.. Not that hard to understand.

The discussion is why the club would sign player's extensions early and for multiple years. Not whether the players themselves want to be at the club. Turns out the topic is hard to understand for some...