Not sure of your point rjay. Obviously how the team performs is important fans...??

All things are important to the fans 'Nasher' including a players contract value. It all adds up to the team performance.

All things are important to the fans 'Nasher' including a players contract value. It all adds up to the team performance.

I don't think whether Dawes is paid $50,000/year or $5mil/year is going to make a lick of difference to the team performance. To me it's just tedious administrative detail.

I don't think whether Dawes is paid $50,000/year or $5mil/year is going to make a lick of difference to the team performance. To me it's just tedious administrative detail.

If he was paid $5mill it would make more than a bit of difference to team performance.

Contract value or draft position is not my marker either 'Nasher', my point was more a throw away that some seem concerned with it and are not going to just let it sit with Mahoney.

...but personally I'm more concerned with what we pay for the trade.

If he was paid $5mill it would make more than a bit of difference to team performance.

Contract value or draft position is not my marker either 'Nasher', my point was more a throw away that some seem concerned with it and are not going to just let it sit with Mahoney.

...but personally I'm more concerned with what we pay for the trade.

Even if it would make a difference (and I'm still not sure it will, though obviously my $5m example was extreme), I don't know how you can assess it from the outside. 1) we don't actually know how much Dawes is paid, we can only guess, 2) we don't know how much other players are being paid relative to Dawes (which is what matters). So not only is it boring administrative detail, it's boring administrative detail where we don't actually _have_ the detail. It's an exercise in pointlessness.

Even if it would make a difference (and I'm still not sure it will, though obviously my $5m example was extreme), I don't know how you can assess it from the outside. 1) we don't actually know how much Dawes is paid, we can only guess, 2) we don't know how much other players are being paid relative to Dawes (which is what matters). So not only is it boring administrative detail, it's boring administrative detail where we don't actually _have_ the detail. It's an exercise in pointlessness.

Like we can't really assess leaving a spare oppo player in our forward line and many of the things we discuss. It's pretty much always from the outside looking in.

Like we can't really assess leaving a spare oppo player in our forward line and many of the things we discuss. It's pretty much always from the outside looking in.

Righteo. I can't reconcile in my mind how the two are comparable, so we shall agree to disagree.

Like we can't really assess leaving a spare oppo player in our forward line and many of the things we discuss. It's pretty much always from the outside looking in.

We are always on the outside looking in - it's just that some things we can actually see and some we can't.

There is no 'opportunity cost' when it comes the salary cap, so what we have paid this motley crew the last few years is not relevant to me - my tired phrase 'Gotta Pay Somebody' is a truism - clubs must pay their player 95% of the approx. $10m cap.

You are going to get value out of very few when bad teams have to pay like good teams.

The real 'opportunity cost' comes with the pick used or traded for a player and like the discussion on Watts - this can be nauseating.

What I would say to those that wonder whether keeping ND20 for Dawes would be better is to look at the players taken after that pick in that draft (oddly enough I reckon we got the best two players after that pick in Viney and Kent...) and also whether we would still require a replacement for Dawes and whether Pedersen would be that. Because that hypothetical would require us to give something for that too.

We are always on the outside looking in - it's just that some things we can actually see and some we can't.

We might be able to see it but we don't know the reasoning behind it.

There is no 'opportunity cost' when it comes the salary cap, so what we have paid this motley crew the last few years is not relevant to me - my tired phrase 'Gotta Pay Somebody' is a truism - clubs must pay their player 95% of the approx. $10m cap.

You are going to get value out of very few when bad teams have to pay like good teams.

The real 'opportunity cost' comes with the pick used or traded for a player and like the discussion on Watts - this can be nauseating.

What I would say to those that wonder whether keeping ND20 for Dawes would be better is to look at the players taken after that pick in that draft (oddly enough I reckon we got the best two players after that pick in Viney and Kent...) and also whether we would still require a replacement for Dawes and whether Pedersen would be that. Because that hypothetical would require us to give something for that too.

And there lies the problem for weak teams

For the Players Union to get their way on this is ridiculous How can they justify the MFC paying the same amount as Hawthorn and Geelong over the 2008 - 2013 period.

The MFC teams of that period were worth 70% absolute maximum.

What I would say to those that wonder whether keeping ND20 for Dawes would be better is to look at the players taken after that pick in that draft (oddly enough I reckon we got the best two players after that pick in Viney and Kent...) and also whether we would still require a replacement for Dawes and whether Pedersen would be that. Because that hypothetical would require us to give something for that too.

This is how I've reconciled it. For all the good and the bad we've had with Dawesy, there hasn't been too much of a sting in the tail in terms of what we could've gotten for Pick 20. Broomhead, Hrovat and K Mac all look to be handy-ish, but nothing to lose sleep over at this stage.

And there lies the problem for weak teams

For the Players Union to get their way on this is ridiculous How can they justify the MFC paying the same amount as Hawthorn and Geelong over the 2008 - 2013 period.

The MFC teams of that period were worth 70% absolute maximum.

I wonder though if this would lead to a self perpetuating spiral.......pay low, can't attract or retain.....pay even less. Etc.

After all, that is the premiss behind the salary cap as an equalizer of opportunity.

Not sure. Just a thought bubble.

Edited August 14, 201510 yr by monoccular