Protecting Draft Picks

[e25 5]

That article was March 23rd. We're up to week 11 of Whiteboard Wednesday's. Schwabby may have produced alot of those prior to March 23rd. But hey, I'm just guessing. He may well have been on the money at that particular time.

Summary of all the Whiteboard Wed's up to and incl. Week 10. - thanks to CIP from O'logy.

Click on forum, you will see it as a "sticky" third from top.

Schwabby clearly films them week to week, or close enough to, because if you pay attention he sometimes references the game we've just played in the previous round.

[H_T 3,043]

Schwabby clearly films them week to week, or close enough to, because if you pay attention he sometimes references the game we've just played in the previous round.

Yes, good pick up.

[Sir Why You Little 36,972]

Schwabby clearly films them week to week, or close enough to, because if you pay attention he sometimes references the game we've just played in the previous round.

My bet is he shoots them on Monday-The piece is edited Tuesday (quick Job) uploaded Tuesday night.

Does a dam fine job for a busy man to do that powerpoint for us-would take a bit of time to rehearse that so it flows the right way.

[Inner Demon 1]

Just to clear up a few things:

Firstly, we are indeed paying 100% of the cap this year. We've frontloaded contracts of senior players so we have masses of space in the cap in 2-3 years time when we have to compete with GWS to keep our recent draftees. Now, this doesn't mean we're paying Aaron Davey $1 million or anything silly like that. That $8 million sounds like an enormous sum, but remember we have 46 players on the list. This averages out at a under $175K per player. As for over-inflating the value of these players for future contracts, it's not that their full contract is a long way above the odds, it's that they're getting paid a disproportionate amount of it this year, so in the 2nd/3rd years of their contract they will be earning far less than their 'market value'. For example, let's just hypothesise that Davey is on a $1.8mil contract for his 4 years, a $450K/year player. What's happening here is that he might be on $750K/$650K/$300K/$100K. Obviously there's no fact behind these number so don't quibble on the specifics, but while Aaron isn't a $750K or $650K player on the market he's getting that this and next year so in 4 years time we have $350K to spread around rewarding the young stars. Multiply this by a few senior players and that's a heap of cash. Aaron isn't coming back at the end of the 4 years and demanding $750K/year because he had one year on that amount.

On the draft pick compensation, at this stage they are looking at using adjusted Champion Data player rankings rather than ranking players based on their position in the salary pecking order, because that is too easily manipulated and not necessarily reflective of a player's importance to a team. So no worry with front-loading hurting us down the track on that score.

Further, there's a myth floating around that GC & GWS have inflated salary caps in their early years. They do not. What they have is a much higher number of draftees on standardised draftee contracts than all the other clubs which just means they have more money to spend on the senior players on their list.

The cold, hard facts of the expansion is we're going to lose a couple of players in the process. The system is designed so that no one club can be crippled by half a dozen players jumping ship, the pain is to be spread around as thinly as possible. We just have to hope that whoever we lose isn't in our Top 5 players.

[H_T 3,043]

Just to clear up a few things:

Further, there's a myth floating around that GC & GWS have inflated salary caps in their early years. They do not. What they have is a much higher number of draftees on standardised draftee contracts than all the other clubs which just means they have more money to spend on the senior players on their list.

Thanks ID. That explains ^ for me clearly. From that, year by year they must trim their players from the list over x amount of years (3-4 yr period?), until they've reached the same amount of players on the current clubs lists, hence their salary cap comes on line with that of the other AFL clubs.

[rpfc 28,262]

As for over-inflating the value of these players for future contracts, it's not that their full contract is a long way above the odds, it's that they're getting paid a disproportionate amount of it this year, so in the 2nd/3rd years of their contract they will be earning far less than their 'market value'. For example, let's just hypothesise that Davey is on a $1.8mil contract for his 4 years, a $450K/year player. What's happening here is that he might be on $750K/$650K/$300K/$100K. Obviously there's no fact behind these number so don't quibble on the specifics, but while Aaron isn't a $750K or $650K player on the market he's getting that this and next year so in 4 years time we have $350K to spread around rewarding the young stars. Multiply this by a few senior players and that's a heap of cash. Aaron isn't coming back at the end of the 4 years and demanding $750K/year because he had one year on that amount.

Aaron wouldn't.

His agent might.

Moving on.

My problem, and you all will have to bear with me because it is involved, surrounds what might happen in two years/three years time when our best players are on their small-back contracts and we have to find homes for $8.5m (or even 92.5% of $8.5m) that we will pay our young talent over the odds to reach the minimum as our senior players are taking so little of the cap.

Have a think about it.

I'm sure Harrington will be grappling with it very soon.

[e25 5]

I think our player contracts will be spaced so they expire in alternating years, meaning there will always be someone coming out of contract that deserves a big pay day.

I honestly don't see how this will be a major problem.

Maybe a little hypothetical situation might help...

[rpfc 28,262]

I think our player contracts will be spaced so they expire in alternating years, meaning there will always be someone coming out of contract that deserves a big pay day.

I honestly don't see how this will be a major problem.

Maybe a little hypothetical situation might help...

The problem comes with giving those major pay days and having to give some players more than they should get. If 8 players get $50k more than they should, that is one very good player that will be forced out in a later year.

Let's say we are paying $7.95m as people are claiming and we are paying about 85-90% of that in real terms (the p.a. average of a contract) then we are taking $1.2 to $800k out of a future cap and putting it into 2010. I'm worried that this hole a couple of years down the track will inflate a few contracts, only slightly, but enough to have an impact.

Remember, you have to pay someone, and if our senior players are on a pittance than our talented youth will be on marquee wages.

[Inner Demon 1]

The problem comes with giving those major pay days and having to give some players more than they should get. If 8 players get $50k more than they should, that is one very good player that will be forced out in a later year.

Let's say we are paying $7.95m as people are claiming and we are paying about 85-90% of that in real terms (the p.a. average of a contract) then we are taking $1.2 to $800k out of a future cap and putting it into 2010. I'm worried that this hole a couple of years down the track will inflate a few contracts, only slightly, but enough to have an impact.

Remember, you have to pay someone, and if our senior players are on a pittance than our talented youth will be on marquee wages.

Remember we are dealing with the exceptional circumstances of expansion clubs during this time. The realities are that a lot of players are probably going to wind up with contracts above what the market would pay in normal circumstances. We've already seen this with the D Martin situation. That kid isn't worth $800K/year, but if Richmond want to keep him, they might have to pay him pretty close to that. We will have to do the same thing to keep a number of our elite kids.

[e25 5]

If you're worried about us paying an extra 50k here and there, why wouldn't we just not pay that extra unearned amount?

If we are now paying 100% of the cap there is nothing stopping us in future years paying less, we just need to make sure we reach the minimum.

I think there is enough room to play with to make this not a problem.

[GOLF 13]

The problem comes with giving those major pay days and having to give some players more than they should get. If 8 players get $50k more than they should, that is one very good player that will be forced out in a later year.

Let's say we are paying $7.95m as people are claiming and we are paying about 85-90% of that in real terms (the p.a. average of a contract) then we are taking $1.2 to $800k out of a future cap and putting it into 2010. I'm worried that this hole a couple of years down the track will inflate a few contracts, only slightly, but enough to have an impact.

Remember, you have to pay someone, and if our senior players are on a pittance than our talented youth will be on marquee wages.

Remember also that some of those senior players will be coming to the end of their careers in 2-3 years and will be "making room in the salary cap" in the more traditional way. Junior turns 34 this year. Do you still see him running around in the ones at 37? Bruce will be 34, Green will be 32, Rivers, Moloney and Warnock will be 30. Even if (and I hope some of them are) they are still playijng at seniors level, they will not be at the height of their careers and will not be commanding huge wages.

The current youngsters, on the other hand, will have 50-100 games up, will be 21 - 25, and (after 2013) will all have a premiership medal round their necks. That is when we will really need room in the cap.

[rpfc 28,262]

What I am saying is that if enough players get paid $50k more than they should then that will push out a very good player.

[Sir Why You Little 36,972]

What I am saying is that if enough players get paid $50k more than they should then that will push out a very good player.

This will Happen, it is what the AFL want. Let's include Free Agency here, We must manage our list very carefully.

But each year 1 maybe 2 of our Fringe to good players will get squeezed out-That will happen at all clubs.

Those players must be replaced with Bargains or Draft Picks.

[e25 5]

What I am saying is that if enough players get paid $50k more than they should then that will push out a very good player.

Why would that happen? We won't NEED to pay players over the odds.

And if he situation you're talking about arises we could even heavily back end a contract if need be (unadvisable & we'd have to pay over the odds to get a player to agree, but still an option)

[Guest DeesPower]

I'm also not worried but I just want to clarify something.

We are frontloading contracts to make the 92.5% minimum of the cap, we are not paying the full $7.5m cap or whatever it is.

It means we have even more room to move in a few years time but can also mean that are youngsters will be on inflated contracts which might be an issue down the track.

I undertood they were paying 100% but frontloading them. In other words paying them more than they are worth this year with the players' agreement so that when their market price goes up next year they will have already paid the increase, or somethingapproximating it anyway.

Sensible, sound management practice I'd say. We have now put ourselves at a relative competitive advantage against other clubs who have not done this as it obviously inflates our salary cap relative to the likes of Richmond next year. No wonder they are screaming.

[Guest DeesPower]

What I am saying is that if enough players get paid $50k more than they should then that will push out a very good player.

this is a misunderstanding of "front loading". See my previous thread