19 hours ago, faultydet said:

I'd sign Oliver to a 7yr deal in a heartbeat.

The power really is with the players right now. Good luck to him.

Hope they lose De Goey to a crap club.

He is coming to the Dees?

Sorry the temptation was too great.

Edited January 18, 20205 yr by old dee

21 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

Buddy Franklins 9 year deal looked much worse than this one at the time.

 

 

That is a real bad deal, out of the 9 years they only the first 4 years have been good, last year was a bust, this year is a bust, this should be his last year, his body finished. Bid men his size just don't play much past 32 years old.

57 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

That is a real bad deal, out of the 9 years they only the first 4 years have been good, last year was a bust, this year is a bust, this should be his last year, his body finished. Bid men his size just don't play much past 32 years old.

It's a tricky one, because on the one hand Franklin's presence probably made the difference of -

Two additional finals appearances (2018, 2017)

Two, debatable three, top-four instead of top-8 finishes (2016, 2015 and perhaps 2014)

So in the first five years of the nine year deal he has basically been the difference between Sydney being a genuine premiership contender and having an image as an outstanding, exciting team, or Sydney being just another mid-table better than average team in and out of finals with a few flashy stars and reliable old hands.

On the other hand... what would the salary cap difference have meant?

Players traded out of the Swans in Franklin's time include several handy names; Lewis Jetta, Toby Nankervis, Tom Mitchell(!), Nic Newman, , Dan Hannebury, Gary Rohan and Zak Jones. 

For how many of those losses was Franklin's recruitment and salary space a factor?

As for the future?  No doubt Franklin's athleticism won't be as potent as it has been, but he is still a very smart forward.  You do have to wonder though - ten weeks out of full training for a 'simple' knee arthroscopy does seem like a lot.

Maybe it isn't just the Demons who are a bit shady when it comes to injury reporting?

19 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

It's a tricky one, because on the one hand Franklin's presence probably made the difference of -

Two additional finals appearances (2018, 2017)

Two, debatable three, top-four instead of top-8 finishes (2016, 2015 and perhaps 2014)

So in the first five years of the nine year deal he has basically been the difference between Sydney being a genuine premiership contender and having an image as an outstanding, exciting team, or Sydney being just another mid-table better than average team in and out of finals with a few flashy stars and reliable old hands.

On the other hand... what would the salary cap difference have meant?

Players traded out of the Swans in Franklin's time include several handy names; Lewis Jetta, Toby Nankervis, Tom Mitchell(!), Nic Newman, , Dan Hannebury, Gary Rohan and Zak Jones. 

For how many of those losses was Franklin's recruitment and salary space a factor?

As for the future?  No doubt Franklin's athleticism won't be as potent as it has been, but he is still a very smart forward.  You do have to wonder though - ten weeks out of full training for a 'simple' knee arthroscopy does seem like a lot.

Maybe it isn't just the Demons who are a bit shady when it comes to injury reporting?

yes, but it still wasn't a smart deal either initially or now. It was a big gamble based on very long odds

grundy's deal is much different and better, but still carries a decent risk

On 1/17/2020 at 5:41 AM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I rated Keating as being a solid, robust, reliable ruck option, but I'm not sure that he would have been the best ruck in the league.  Had a pretty decent team around him and did enough to carry his weight and play his role within that team and I think that's really the key.

He was the ultimate finals specialist, definitely owns  a part of those 3 flags. When Everitt left the Saints I always thought that hurt them in the GF. Not having O'Dwyer hurt us in the big dance. Your point about game changing is taken. You can win with out is true, but I always thought a good ruckman is worth double points on grand final day. The teams that have won without have had generationally good players in other positions.

Grundy seems like a really good person and a great cultural influence at the club. Like @DeeSpencer posted, what else are they gonna do?

Edited January 18, 20205 yr by Fifty-5

More importantly, what Pies players other than De Goey can we have a crack at pinching?

59 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

More importantly, what Pies players other than De Goey can we have a crack at pinching?

Difficult. They are very good at getting deals done with their better players.

Maynard and Moore perhaps? Cant realistically see either leaving but would give it a crack.

Elliott would have been nice. At least we drove his price up.

They are paying Grundy for 7 so they can keep him for the 5 when he is top of his game. Yes, a risk, but one worth taking IMO.

That said it will be interesting if it causes apples to shake from the tree

 

On 1/17/2020 at 6:17 PM, faultydet said:

I'd sign Oliver to a 7yr deal in a heartbeat.

The power really is with the players right now. Good luck to him.

Hope they lose De Goey to a crap club.

I'd make it 10 mate. In a heartbeat as you say.

On 1/19/2020 at 2:52 AM, Uncle Fester said:

They are paying Grundy for 7 so they can keep him for the 5 when he is top of his game. Yes, a risk, but one worth taking IMO.

That said it will be interesting if it causes apples to shake from the tree

 

In theory, this sort of contract strategy should be the norm in the coming years. Longer contracts enable clubs to know exactly how much cap they have to play with over a 5 to 10 year period. With more players on these contracts, it will give clubs the flexibility to build a surplus to attract FAs and guns.

On 1/18/2020 at 5:25 PM, daisycutter said:

yes, but it still wasn't a smart deal either initially or now. It was a big gamble based on very long odds

grundy's deal is much different and better, but still carries a decent risk

I always thought the Franklin deal was done by the Swans knowing full well there would be a bite-in-the-arse factor in the back end but the increased flag prospects in the front end made it worthwhile. And I think it was.

2 hours ago, A F said:

In theory, this sort of contract strategy should be the norm in the coming years. Longer contracts enable clubs to know exactly how much cap they have to play with over a 5 to 10 year period. With more players on these contracts, it will give clubs the flexibility to build a surplus to attract FAs and guns.

For your top 15% - 20% of your best/coming their prime players only. The rest of the list (no matter how much we strive for loyalty to the jumper) need to be interchangeable. The top % of players you need to lock down on the best deals for the club, as early as you can, for as long as you can. But it’s all calculated guess work.

I’ve said it before but I’ve dropped into an Ice Hockey rabbit hole and the cut throat nature of it is incredible. Trading your captain/top 3 players mid season. 7 year. $10m a year contract to 30+ year olds. Giving away draft picks for a player for half a season who is going to hit the free agency market no matter if he wins a championship (the cup) or not. 

The clubs who are looking to use data/analytics and hold themselves to a very strict policy on players (only the best and youngest get the long deals, interchangeable pieces etc) will be the most successful. 

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

For your top 15% - 20% of your best/coming their prime players only. The rest of the list (no matter how much we strive for loyalty to the jumper) need to be interchangeable. The top % of players you need to lock down on the best deals for the club, as early as you can, for as long as you can. But it’s all calculated guess work.

I’ve said it before but I’ve dropped into an Ice Hockey rabbit hole and the cut throat nature of it is incredible. Trading your captain/top 3 players mid season. 7 year. $10m a year contract to 30+ year olds. Giving away draft picks for a player for half a season who is going to hit the free agency market no matter if he wins a championship (the cup) or not. 

The clubs who are looking to use data/analytics and hold themselves to a very strict policy on players (only the best and youngest get the long deals, interchangeable pieces etc) will be the most successful. 

definitely worthy of a discussion.

Inter club movement in the AFL is limited relative to many other world sports. Not sure why but I suspect the relatively small salary cap has something to do with it.

On 1/17/2020 at 11:41 AM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I rated Keating as being a solid, robust, reliable ruck option, but I'm not sure that he would have been the best ruck in the league.  Had a pretty decent team around him and did enough to carry his weight and play his role within that team and I think that's really the key.

Keating was a bog standard average ruckman in regular season games but played like a dominant superstar during finals. In the seasons they won their second and third flags he played almost as many seconds games as senior appearances. They alway trotted him out finals time because they knew he would rise to the occasion. In 10 season he averaged only 14 games a seasons and only three season with 20 or more games. There was talk at the time suggesting that he was held back to keep him fresh for playing finals. 

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by america de cali