2015 Contracts Thread

[old dee 22,945]

They just have to pay Terlich out. Seriously, we must have so much spare cash. We cannot be paying our list anywhere near what the Hawthorn list is being paid. Surely we are at about 80% of the cap with half our list not up to AFL standard?

Terlich should not be on anymore than $150,000 a season. Just pay it out. If he's on more than that then the bloke that re-signed him should be sacked.

Excuse me but there is serious error in your plan.

The min. an AFL team can pay is 95% of the cap.

So we are not rolling in money.

Paying out Terlich would be a serious hit to the player payments cap.

[rpfc 27,573]

No. EoS 2015

Source?

[poita 3,641]

Surely Jamar & McKenzie are gone. Bail and Riley are in real trouble. Michie very lucky he has a contract for next year.

I like Terlich more than most around here and with a contract for next year you would think he would be around in some form - maybe he will be offered a spot on the rookie list? That said, it would be stupid not to give him a couple of games before the end of the year to see what he can do. He couldn't be any worse than Lumumba on present form.

I would retain King and White on the rookie list. I don't think Harmes is anything special, and certainly would not offer a position on the senior list until after the national draft. Hunt probably gets a one year contract if he remains injury free until the end of the year.

We must keep Pedersen given Dawes' performances this year. I would keep Fitzpatrick as well given his improvement and our lack of key position depth.

No way I would get rid of Toumpas unless something amazing is offered.

Cross is the interesting one. His workrate and consistency is as good as anyone on the list, but his disposal is atrocious and he is awfully slow. Does he get a game next year with Salem, Petracca and some recruits in the team?

Surely we have to sign Gawn before the end of the season. I'd have no issue making him one of our top 5 most highly paid players, as long as the deal is not too long.

[Nasher 33,133]

Source?

Impeccable.

[Ted Lasso 16,923]

Surely cross gets one more year?

[Mach5 4,482]

Terlich was re-signed as a recent top 5 B&F performer, and precious little proven, mature talent on the list as an alternative.

My best guess is that he was a cheap insurance plan.

If we jettisoned him, and were later caught short, we'd be loudly criticised.

We haven't needed him, he is a strong candidate for delisting, but I wouldn't get carried away.

I don't think the opportunity cost has been that great.

[dee-luded 2,958]

If the deal is a better one outside of the MFC for Max then take it.

His body suggests he will not last into his thirties.

In his case this may be his last contract.

Take the best one for you Max

yes, I'd look to trading in another tall from an outside culture. maybe a Nathan Vardy type or other?

If we could get a pick around P10 - P16 for Gawn, I'd seriously look at it.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,944]

Surely cross gets one more year?

I agree, but if he's getting games ahead of Toumpas it's time for someone to go.

[old dee 22,945]

I agree, but if he's getting games ahead of Toumpas it's time for someone to go.

If he is getting games instead of Toumpas then it says a lot more about Toumpas than Cross

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

I'm intrigued by this comment, Nash. Please elaborate. What's changed?

Personally, I'd be delisting/trading/letting FA take its course with Jamar, McKenzie, Terlich, Bail, Matt Jones, Garland and Howe. I'd consider dropping Harmes back to the rookie list, but I guess I'd wait until the end of the season to see what else he can deliver. I'd also put the feelers out for Toumpas in terms of a trade. I wouldn't be adversed to losing Riley either. I prefer Grimes gone, but given he's contracted, he's safe for a year and will provide depth.

For me though, it's really about getting rid of as many of those players who 1) don't know how to win and 2) continue to make the same errors over and over again. Grimes and Garland are in that category, but so is Nathan Jones. He obviously stays, but he desperately needs support in the leadership stakes and in the midfield. Someone like Prestia would fit the bill nicely, despite being younger. He is the VC at the Suns afterall.

I agree with your criteria in the last paragraph but if you have a look at Grimes DE% it is very high. He seems to have cut out a lot of his clangers since he's come back in this year. Mind you I couldn't bring myself to watch on the weekend so hope he didn't prove me wrong.

The art of delisting players is a very easy one. I could name half the players on the list. Probably more. The art of recruiting good players is a very hard one. No point in delisting players unless you have better ones to replace them. Heres hoping and praying we net a couple of big fish this year. Otherwise the wilderness beckons for more years to come and the Roos era will come and go with a wimper.

[daisycutter 28,630]

Surely Jamar & McKenzie are gone. Bail and Riley are in real trouble. Michie very lucky he has a contract for next year.

I like Terlich more than most around here and with a contract for next year you would think he would be around in some form - maybe he will be offered a spot on the rookie list? That said, it would be stupid not to give him a couple of games before the end of the year to see what he can do. He couldn't be any worse than Lumumba on present form.

I would retain King and White on the rookie list. I don't think Harmes is anything special, and certainly would not offer a position on the senior list until after the national draft. Hunt probably gets a one year contract if he remains injury free until the end of the year.

We must keep Pedersen given Dawes' performances this year. I would keep Fitzpatrick as well given his improvement and our lack of key position depth.

No way I would get rid of Toumpas unless something amazing is offered.

Cross is the interesting one. His workrate and consistency is as good as anyone on the list, but his disposal is atrocious and he is awfully slow. Does he get a game next year with Salem, Petracca and some recruits in the team?

Surely we have to sign Gawn before the end of the season. I'd have no issue making him one of our top 5 most highly paid players, as long as the deal is not too long.

whether cross played all games or not he would still be good value, whether playing, as a sub or good depth, plus his experience, leadership and example

we can afford to keep him as long as he stays fit

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,497]

I'm not convinced about retaining Cross. While I thought he was one of our best against St Kilda I've also seen games where he seemed unable to keep up. My view is that the only games in which he can add value to the team are the ugly games we play in where the ball moves slowly. This gives him time to get to the right position, which he does very well. But if we are to get better, we need to be playing a style of game which I don't think he can contribute to.

In short, if our aim is to play a better brand of football, I can't see how Cross can be a part of it. Conversely, if Cross is still in our best 22 next year, then I think we're not moving forward the way we should be.

[Samael 560]

Source?

Him

[daisycutter 28,630]

I'm not convinced about retaining Cross. While I thought he was one of our best against St Kilda I've also seen games where he seemed unable to keep up. My view is that the only games in which he can add value to the team are the ugly games we play in where the ball moves slowly. This gives him time to get to the right position, which he does very well. But if we are to get better, we need to be playing a style of game which I don't think he can contribute to.

In short, if our aim is to play a better brand of football, I can't see how Cross can be a part of it. Conversely, if Cross is still in our best 22 next year, then I think we're not moving forward the way we should be.

well i would only argue that we need to get rid of a lot of players. more than we can realistically achieve this year

in that context cross is one of the least of our problems and at least offers some value even if at worst just good depth

Edited July 29, 2015 by daisycutter

[deanox 8,702]

They just have to pay Terlich out. Seriously, we must have so much spare cash. We cannot be paying our list anywhere near what the Hawthorn list is being paid. Surely we are at about 80% of the cap with half our list not up to AFL standard?

Terlich should not be on anymore than $150,000 a season. Just pay it out. If he's on more than that then the bloke that re-signed him should be sacked.

RE Terlichs's 3 year contract, given that we have to pay 95% of the cap each year, it wouldn't surprise me if his contract was front loaded. We signed him for 3, paid him the majority in his first 2 years to enable us to meet the cap, and could effectively delist him at the end of this year, apying out only a small eprcentage of his contract.

I suspect he will go. If he hasn't had a game all year, why would we keep him?

[praha 10,294]

Terlich was re-signed as a recent top 5 B&F performer, and precious little proven, mature talent on the list as an alternative.

My best guess is that he was a cheap insurance plan.

If we jettisoned him, and were later caught short, we'd be loudly criticised.

We haven't needed him, he is a strong candidate for delisting, but I wouldn't get carried away.

I don't think the opportunity cost has been that great.

Exactly. He's a deep, deep depth player. If we didn't have him, we'd have another spud in his place.

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

Surely cross gets one more year?

Agree,

For a couple reasons

His leadership - and I would love him to get 250 games

Hes a great warrior and the Dees need that experience at the club to bring on the kids - It would be another J Mac error I rekon. Crossy puts it all on the line every game, he's not the best player but gives his all.

Another year for Crossy for me

[Mach5 4,482]

That would actually be SMART list management.

Going to a player like Terlich with such a proposal creates a win-win situation.

He knows he doesn't have a long career ahead of him, might as well cash in while he can, under the proviso he may not play out the entire contract length.

The club maintains list cap flexibility by not having to massively overpay someone like Watts, Dawes or Garland, just to make the minimum overall cap payment.

[deanox 8,702]

That would actually be SMART list management.

Going to a player like Terlich with such a proposal creates a win-win situation.

He knows he doesn't have a long career ahead of him, might as well cash in while he can, under the proviso he may not play out the entire contract length.

The club maintains list cap flexibility by not having to massively overpay someone like Watts, Dawes or Garland, just to make the minimum overall cap payment.

We have to pay someone. It would make sense.

I susect the same could have been the case with Evans (I think?).

Edited July 29, 2015 by deanox

[Mach5 4,482]

I'd have thought so, yes.

[Binmans PA 26,292]

I can't stand Terlich as a player as he's a turnover merchant but if he's going to be around next year, we may as well give him a couple of games in the final weeks of the season. See if his year at Casey has made him a better AFL player.

This post is incongruous. I don't want to play Terlich, because he's a turnover merchant...

They just have to pay Terlich out. Seriously, we must have so much spare cash. We cannot be paying our list anywhere near what the Hawthorn list is being paid. Surely we are at about 80% of the cap with half our list not up to AFL standard?

Terlich should not be on anymore than $150,000 a season. Just pay it out. If he's on more than that then the bloke that re-signed him should be sacked.

Pretty sure we're paying close to the full cap. I believe that it is now mandatory.

[Binmans PA 26,292]

Terlich was re-signed as a recent top 5 B&F performer, and precious little proven, mature talent on the list as an alternative.

My best guess is that he was a cheap insurance plan.

If we jettisoned him, and were later caught short, we'd be loudly criticised.

We haven't needed him, he is a strong candidate for delisting, but I wouldn't get carried away.

I don't think the opportunity cost has been that great.

We have been caught short this year. Matt Jones and Rohan Bail have been getting games. Terlich still hasn't cracked one. I can't believe they re-signed him, particularly given his history at the Swans with Roos.

yes, I'd look to trading in another tall from an outside culture. maybe a Nathan Vardy type or other?

If we could get a pick around P10 - P16 for Gawn, I'd seriously look at it.

I've been a critic of Gawn and still am, but we shouldn't be looking to trade Gawn. He has all the physical attributes and talent required, we just need to get his mental side right. We do that and he'll be a real weapon. He's still young too.

I agree with your criteria in the last paragraph but if you have a look at Grimes DE% it is very high. He seems to have cut out a lot of his clangers since he's come back in this year. Mind you I couldn't bring myself to watch on the weekend so hope he didn't prove me wrong.

The art of delisting players is a very easy one. I could name half the players on the list. Probably more. The art of recruiting good players is a very hard one. No point in delisting players unless you have better ones to replace them. Heres hoping and praying we net a couple of big fish this year. Otherwise the wilderness beckons for more years to come and the Roos era will come and go with a wimper.

I just don't rate the DE stat at all and I know I'm not alone in that one. Grimes is a really poor decision maker. VFL level, IMO. I'll give you an example of the uselessness of the DE stat and the problem with Jack Grimes. There was a moment in the St Kilda game in the centre square. Grimes hand balled straight to a Melbourne player, putting him under great duress. The player subsequently turned it over, Grimes failed to win a one-on-one when the ball spilled and the St Kilda player kicked a goal, leaving Grimes with his head in his hands. Now, his hand pass would have been noted as an efficient disposal, but it resulted in a goal.

I've never understood the love for Grimes anyway. He's a pretty good reader of the player when he doesn't have the ball, but with ball in hand, he is a liability and we already have enough of those, including our best defender in Tom McDonald.

If you don't play key position back at Melbourne and you can't kick or make good decisions, I hope you're not on the list come 2017.

I'm not convinced about retaining Cross. While I thought he was one of our best against St Kilda I've also seen games where he seemed unable to keep up. My view is that the only games in which he can add value to the team are the ugly games we play in where the ball moves slowly. This gives him time to get to the right position, which he does very well. But if we are to get better, we need to be playing a style of game which I don't think he can contribute to.

In short, if our aim is to play a better brand of football, I can't see how Cross can be a part of it. Conversely, if Cross is still in our best 22 next year, then I think we're not moving forward the way we should be.

The Essendon game aside, I reckon Cross has been in our top 5 players every week this season. He is still a gem. If we had two or three more of him, we'd be in a far greater position. The leadership he sets on the training track and on game day is exceptional. Not to mention: he's a beautiful overhead mark, tough at the contest, consistent, about the only Melbourne player that knows how to draw a free kick and he gets into the right positions. Okay, so he's limited by foot and his leg speed is certainly a worry, but he stays another year at least for mine.

We've all been decrying the lack of leadership at Melbourne and almost placed that as the root of our inconsistency this season and our inability to win games that we should. And then people want to delist someone like Daniel Cross? The only bloke that has been in finals and won them, still provides great leadership and is clearly up for going around again. Mind-boggling.

RE Terlichs's 3 year contract, given that we have to pay 95% of the cap each year, it wouldn't surprise me if his contract was front loaded. We signed him for 3, paid him the majority in his first 2 years to enable us to meet the cap, and could effectively delist him at the end of this year, apying out only a small eprcentage of his contract.

I suspect he will go. If he hasn't had a game all year, why would we keep him?

Didn't we sign him for three years at the end of last year? Furthermore, I could buy your explanation if he'd gotten a game or two here or there. He hasn't. You don't keep a player on the list, just so you can meet the cap. You go and draft someone else and give them a go. We know what Terlich offers and it's simply not good enough.

[Mach5 4,482]

I don't think Bail or Matt Jones were contending for the same HBF Terlich has been.

He provides a mature body, that a rookie or late pick likely wouldn't.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,944]

I'm not convinced about retaining Cross. While I thought he was one of our best against St Kilda I've also seen games where he seemed unable to keep up. My view is that the only games in which he can add value to the team are the ugly games we play in where the ball moves slowly. This gives him time to get to the right position, which he does very well. But if we are to get better, we need to be playing a style of game which I don't think he can contribute to.

In short, if our aim is to play a better brand of football, I can't see how Cross can be a part of it. Conversely, if Cross is still in our best 22 next year, then I think we're not moving forward the way we should be.

If we aim to play a better brand of football Cross is the least of our worries. At least he comes to play every week. I'd take Cross ahead of Grimes, Garland,H, Dawes, Bail, M Jones and Riley.

[3183 Dee 2,609]

A few things:

I wonder if Mackenzie will get a contract at Casey next year? According to Justin Plapp's reports, Jordie tears it up almost every week in the VFL, but it seems as though his first team days are through. Might they offer him a contract to help bring the young Melbourne lads on? He's a grafter, great work ethic and puts his balls on the line, if nothing else.

I'd say you definitely re-contract Crossy. I think he's been one of our best free agency/trade gets - essential role model for the young fellas.

Is Pedersen's contract up this year? He's really blossomed under Roos and was proving a great foil for Hogan and Garlett - we've missed him since his injury and I never thought I would say that.