4 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

I'm not disagreeing, but aren't basing that a bit on hindsight? AVB had a brilliant Finals series in 2018, while Kent could barely get on the park for most of that year. The decision was based on output at the time. No one could predict what would happen to AVB afterwards.

You surely don't base a 3 year contract for a role player on a couple of games at the end of a season?

In 2018 Kent played 5 games, had extremely bad luck with collision injuries, vandenBerg played 7. Not much of a difference I would have thought. And tbh, I'm not sure I would call his finals series "brilliant", but it was good.

Don't get me wrong, I really like vB, I would have kept him for sure, it's the contract length I find baffling, particularly in contrast to Kent. It's not about saying one is better than the other etc, I just thought their situations were fairly similar.

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 Don't get me wrong, I really like vB, I would have kept him for sure, it's the contract length I find baffling, particularly in contrast to Kent. It's not about saying one is better than the other etc, I just thought their situations were fairly similar.

VB started waving the ol' "Going to Sydney for family reasons" card and Bang ..... 3yrs.
We're suckers.

Edited March 11, 20205 yr by Fork 'em

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Played 13 more games than vandenBerg managed last year, but sure...

And covered by whom exactly?

And we don't have inside mids like vB covered?

At the end of 2018, both Kent and AVB had played 35 games in their prior four seasons.

Kent played 20 in 2016 but 4, 6 and 5 in 2015, 2017 and 2018. AVB played 14 in each of 2015 and 2016, 0 in 2017 and 57 in 2018.

If Kent wanted more than one year then he wanted at least two. So the difference you've cited is an extra year for AVB in circumstances where, going into 2019, they were essentially equally flaky in getting on the park.

I suggest AVB is, when fit, better than Kent. As such, I don't see any irrationality in picking him over 3 years over Kent at 2 years.

The fact Kent went on to play 13 games in 2019 doesn't mean our decision at the end of 2018 was wrong (hindsight etc.).

18 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

At the end of 2018, both Kent and AVB had played 35 games in their prior four seasons.

Kent played 20 in 2016 but 4, 6 and 5 in 2015, 2017 and 2018. AVB played 14 in each of 2015 and 2016, 0 in 2017 and 57 in 2018.

If Kent wanted more than one year then he wanted at least two. So the difference you've cited is an extra year for AVB in circumstances where, going into 2019, they were essentially equally flaky in getting on the park.

I suggest AVB is, when fit, better than Kent. As such, I don't see any irrationality in picking him over 3 years over Kent at 2 years.

The fact Kent went on to play 13 games in 2019 doesn't mean our decision at the end of 2018 was wrong (hindsight etc.).

Again, it's not a comparison of them as players, I've stated that a few times already.

It's the point that both were at a similar stage from a reliability point of view yet we for some reason gave vB 3 years and Kent 0.

Giving any depth player 3 years is generous at the best of times, let alone one with a massive injury cloud hanging over him.

Pretty clearly it was a poor decision. Staggered that people can argue otherwise (if they don't have their vB goggles on).

 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

You surely don't base a 3 year contract for a role player on a couple of games at the end of a season?

In 2018 Kent played 5 games, had extremely bad luck with collision injuries, vandenBerg played 7. Not much of a difference I would have thought. And tbh, I'm not sure I would call his finals series "brilliant", but it was good.

Don't get me wrong, I really like vB, I would have kept him for sure, it's the contract length I find baffling, particularly in contrast to Kent. It's not about saying one is better than the other etc, I just thought their situations were fairly similar.

 

Maybe they didn't want Kent around for another minute more, hence why they weren't willing to offer him what he wanted (or at the very least compromise with him).  And perhaps AVBs offield qualities far outweigh the weight of carrying him during his new contract.

You need to look at the bigger picture when worrying about who was offered what, which includes onfield, injuries and offield.  From memory, a couple of years ago there were 4 of our boys in Bali on an end-of-season trip when there was a bit of a story going around.  While no names were mentioned in the press, it speaks volumes that 3 of the 4 that were there are no longer on the list, and the 4th one is our captain this year...

9 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Again, it's not a comparison of them as players, I've stated that a few times already.

It's the point that both were at a similar stage from a reliability point of view yet we for some reason gave vB 3 years and Kent 0.

Giving any depth player 3 years is generous at the best of times, let alone one with a massive injury cloud hanging over him.

Pretty clearly it was a poor decision. Staggered that people can argue otherwise (if they don't have their vB goggles on).

 

Yes the FD don't regard AVB as a "depth player", if fit he's guaranteed starting 22, however Kent is a depth player.

10 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Maybe they didn't want Kent around for another minute more, hence why they weren't willing to offer him what he wanted (or at the very least compromise with him).  And perhaps AVBs offield qualities far outweigh the weight of carrying him during his new contract.

You need to look at the bigger picture when worrying about who was offered what, which includes onfield, injuries and offield.  From memory, a couple of years ago there were 4 of our boys in Bali on an end-of-season trip when there was a bit of a story going around.  While no names were mentioned in the press, it speaks volumes that 3 of the 4 that were there are no longer on the list, and the 4th one is our captain this year...

Yep, fair comments. I still maintain that 3 years was over the top, no matter what offield qualities are there. We'd still have Trengove on our list if that was the key criteria.

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes the FD don't regard AVB as a "depth player", if fit he's guaranteed starting 22, however Kent is a depth player.

If they really do regard him as more than depth, then that's a whole separate problem IMO.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Yep, fair comments. I still maintain that 3 years was over the top, no matter what offield qualities are there. We'd still have Trengove on our list if that was the key criteria.

Two years would've been preferable, but I don't think the third year was as poor a decision as you are making it out to be.  One year might have seen him recover then request a trade to Sydney and we get next to nothing for him as he would be out of contract.

That said, giving him the three years allowed him the first year of his new contract (2019) to not over-do it, getting his body right for him to make an impact in his second year (2020), allowing us to then have him locked away for the third year (2021).

I would expect that if he has again broken down, that the club would encourage him to consider retiring, which means it frees up a spot on our list next year, we pay him out (which wouldn't be a significant wage), and we're really in no worse off position than what we would've been had he signed a two year extension (other than the financial side).

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

If they really do regard him as more than depth, then that's a whole separate problem IMO.

 

It's 100% clear that is the case, as soon as he is even near fit he's straight into the team.  The FD highly rate him.

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

We've not made a lot of big list blunders in the last few years, but IMO signing vB for 3 years while simultaneously ditching Dean Kent (who simply wanted more than 1 year) has been one of them.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Missing the point mate.

Signed vB for 3 years. Ditched Kent who simply wanted more than 1 year.

It's at best, inconsistent.

I'm not saying Kent is a gun, I'm talking about the contract decisions based on both players outputs.

 

Dean Kent wasn't exactly injury free and ready to roll, and AVB's upside was far higher than Kent's.

17 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

, as soon as he is even near fit he's straight into the team. 

But that is the problem, he hardly ever is. 

1 hour ago, Fork 'em said:

VB started waving the ol' "Going to Sydney for family reasons" card and Bang ..... 3yrs.
We're suckers.

This is exactly what happened. $2M or thereabouts down the toilet on three year contracts for Vandenberg and Kolodjashnij, plus whatever they are costing in medical expenses. 

As soon as Sydney started the bidding war we should have folded and moved on to which draft pick they were going to give us in return. 

Even without injury Vanders looked very rusty and way off the pace. At his best he would be in the first 22 but he looked as though he needed a lot of Casey time to get to that position.

1 minute ago, poita said:

This is exactly what happened. $2M or thereabouts down the toilet on three year contracts for Vandenberg and Kolodjashnij, plus whatever they are costing in medical expenses. 

As soon as Sydney started the bidding war we should have folded and moved on to which draft pick they were going to give us in return. 

Seriously terrible post.  Bidding war?  Were you in the negotiation room?  Do you know what his contract value is?

What would Sydney offer us?  4th round pick?  Something/one that we would have to give an automatic 2-year contract to anyway?  Yes, it would've been cheaper to spend two years on a late pick, but chances are they would've played as many games as AvB well play in the same time, with a much higher return should AvB actually stay on the park.

Lets be totally honest, KK isn't playing anytime soon more than likely never again, he  should be put on LTI list and get someone on the list quick sticks, in fact there should be a rule that you can replace Long Term Concussion sufferers with another player, take their salary off the books, release the pressure on the player and the club and be able to sign a free agent or another player.

7 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

Lets be totally honest, KK isn't playing anytime soon more than likely never again, he  should be put on LTI list and get someone on the list quick sticks, in fact there should be a rule that you can replace Long Term Concussion sufferers with another player, take their salary off the books, release the pressure on the player and the club and be able to sign a free agent or another player.

Too logical for the AFL to implement but would be a good idea!.

 

with KK and Nietzsche likely LTI what are the options for the club

Do we know for sure AVB is out for the Year! Surely an official comment by the club would have been released by now. 

16 minutes ago, Marco said:

Do we know for sure AVB is out for the Year! Surely an official comment by the club would have been released by now. 

Just wild assumptions as per normal. Stay on line you will read plenty of them.

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

Seriously terrible post. 

'Poita' and 'seriously terrible post' go hand in hand, Chazz. 

Clogged threads up for years under previous Demonland identity

Headed off to Facebook for a while and freed us up for a period of time 

Comes back under another username and history repeats itself 

49 minutes ago, Marco said:

Do we know for sure AVB is out for the Year! Surely an official comment by the club would have been released by now. 

Don't think anyone has said that have they? (Might have missed it if so)

 

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

Dean Kent wasn't exactly injury free and ready to roll

Neither was vB, that's my point.

 

2 hours ago, The Chazz said:

Two years would've been preferable, but I don't think the third year was as poor a decision as you are making it out to be.  One year might have seen him recover then request a trade to Sydney and we get next to nothing for him as he would be out of contract.

That said, giving him the three years allowed him the first year of his new contract (2019) to not over-do it, getting his body right for him to make an impact in his second year (2020), allowing us to then have him locked away for the third year (2021).

I would expect that if he has again broken down, that the club would encourage him to consider retiring, which means it frees up a spot on our list next year, we pay him out (which wouldn't be a significant wage), and we're really in no worse off position than what we would've been had he signed a two year extension (other than the financial side).

I know we all love him as a bloke and the attitude he brings on field, but giving someone 3 years because you think you can get 1 year out of them seems pretty poor management to me.

well is he injured or not.good grief