The boost the playing group needed.  Guarantees a win on Friday.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Can you start a post which lists your player assessments? Now tell us again what you thought about Ben Brown before he arrived and T Mac. 

Ah yes, I see @DeeSpencerrivalling @olisik for the bullishness in their next thought without reflecting on their last wrong thought.

Its like a daily amnesia, a ‘50 first dates’ type scenario for boneheaded opinions.

Yee hah !!!! 😊 GO DEES!!!

Gee, and who were worried about him not signing on again  :) 

43 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

👀

 

Is 12 his new number at Fremantle? 

Anyone have any theories why these long contracts are becoming the norm?  In the past the better players were signing for three to four years.

27 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Can you start a post which lists your player assessments? Now tell us again what you thought about Ben Brown before he arrived and T Mac. 

I thought Ben Brown would deliver exactly what he has this year. Cooked knee, battling to play. Credit to Burgo, Ben and the team for getting a very good half a season out of him. Clearly now it’s a gamble that was worth taking. Still not entirely sure why he got 4 years but the draft compensation (swap of Preuss) became far less than initial fears.

I thought Tom was battling too many leg injuries and would struggle to recapture form. He doesn’t play through injuries well. They got him going close to his best last year, we’ll see if he’s got more in him.

I didn’t think ANB would ever find the level of composure and attack on the ball to be useful under pressure. Great defensively but was a liability the other way until he found belief last year.

I loved Spargo in ‘18, he did test the patience in 19-20. I’m sure there’s posts after bad games where I was down on many of our players but I’d say the rest of the premiership 22 I had a good opinion of. 

The drop back wing role was an effective use of Gus. So has been using him as an intercept defender, particularly when Lever was missing. But the clubs been drafting wingers the last two years, and gun halfbacks need speed and/or skills.

I don’t agree with 6 years for a guy who’s plugged gaps but isn’t an ideal fit in any one position.

Thank you MFC and Angus Brayshaw so glad that you have committed to the club and your mates, so critical for our present and future to keep this great core together. Wah bloody hooooo.!!!

go Dees.❤️💙💕

6 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Anyone have any theories why these long contracts are becoming the norm?  In the past the better players were signing for three to four years.

My guess is longer terms is what other clubs are offering to lure them away so we need to meet it. 

Also, a longer term gives us a chance to spread their contract cost while they get security.  However, I would be quite surprised if there aren't caveats in the contracts for both parties.

Excellent news, now if Jackson wants to go home so be it. IMO we have kept the best one. 

1 minute ago, one_demon said:

Anyone have any theories why these long contracts are becoming the norm?  In the past the better players were signing for three to four years.

Free agency.

The clubs offering deals to Gus don’t have to trade anything for him. They would be getting a top 25 pick for free.

So instead of offering a player the 450k  for 3-4 years that they’re worth they’ll offer him 600k for 4 or even 5. 150k per year is nothing when they don’t have enough good players to fill the cap anyway.

We can’t afford 600 x 5. So to make up the difference we offer 500 x 6. Post tax the extra year of work pretty much pays for itself.

There’s actually a fairly limited pool of players who are eligible and can back themselves in with short deals and make it 25/26 whilst having good value. Every player who then gets to free agency (or even pre agency 16 or so months out) then gets a big money deal, whether they’re Clayton Oliver or Adam Tomlinson. It’s either years, dollars or both.

Love Gus and always thought he would stay.  A player does not immerse themselves in a club the way he has and just walk away for cash.  I find the whole narrative about the money he has left on the table a bit of a furphy.  He has not signed on for nothing, he will still be incredibly well paid for a 26 year old and because he is a smart guy I am sure he sees a bright future for himself after the boots have been hung up.

Have to say although we won a flag and he played a key role in that I didn’t see a long term position for him in the team playing off the wing, but this year playing out the back really changed my opinion, I think this role really suits him and you can’t fault his commitment to attacking the ball really raises the bar for everyone else to follow.

7 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

The drop back wing role was an effective use of Gus. So has been using him as an intercept defender, particularly when Lever was missing. But the clubs been drafting wingers the last two years, and gun halfbacks need speed and/or skills.

I don’t agree with 6 years for a guy who’s plugged gaps but isn’t an ideal fit in any one position.

I’d suggest that his 2021 form, partic the finals, showed he was an ideal fit for the wing position. I’d also suggest his 2022 form has shown he is also an ideal fit for our half back role. And, given I think he is a much better player than he was in 2018, I’d also suggest that he would nail a mid position if he was given the opportunity. Not too shabby for a “plugger” I’d say.

13 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Anyone have any theories why these long contracts are becoming the norm?  In the past the better players were signing for three to four years.

It’s security mate. Like most of us these guys are buying homes, settling down, building their incomes. And the club can bank on having those required players long term. It’s win win

6 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

My guess is longer terms is what other clubs are offering to lure them away so we need to meet it. 

Also, a longer term gives us a chance to spread their contract cost while they get security.  However, I would be quite surprised if there aren't caveats in the contracts for both parties.

Your last sentence is the key for me.  Get out clauses both ways if things go pear shaped somehow which drastically reduces the risk of the long term deal.

I think I know why we are handing out long term deals to everyone left right and centre…

Because their premiership players!!!

On 7/22/2022 at 4:12 PM, Redleg said:

 

FWIW I think Jacko is clearly gone and Angus will stay for about a 5 year deal.

Sorry everyone, I should have said 5-6 years instead of about 5 years.

32 minutes ago, one_demon said:

The boost the playing group needed.  Guarantees a win on Friday.

If only

17 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Free agency.

The clubs offering deals to Gus don’t have to trade anything for him. They would be getting a top 25 pick for free.

So instead of offering a player the 450k  for 3-4 years that they’re worth they’ll offer him 600k for 4 or even 5. 150k per year is nothing when they don’t have enough good players to fill the cap anyway.

We can’t afford 600 x 5. So to make up the difference we offer 500 x 6. Post tax the extra year of work pretty much pays for itself.

There’s actually a fairly limited pool of players who are eligible and can back themselves in with short deals and make it 25/26 whilst having good value. Every player who then gets to free agency (or even pre agency 16 or so months out) then gets a big money deal, whether they’re Clayton Oliver or Adam Tomlinson. It’s either years, dollars or both.

Gus was a Restricted Free Agent, and we could have easily matched. His suitors would have had to acquire Gus via a trade.

Edited July 28, 20222 yr by mo64

18 minutes ago, old dee said:

Excellent news, now if Jackson wants to go home so be it. IMO we have kept the best one. 

yes for sure. IMO the dynasty is now intact.

25 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Anyone have any theories why these long contracts are becoming the norm?  In the past the better players were signing for three to four years.

The market.

And professionalism and advancements in injury management reducing risks of non performance in back end of contracts.

And not backloading which makes back end much riskier.

I consider the long contracts a strategic cap approach. Means we can pay under market for prime years, allowing us to maximise the talent on the list during our premiership window. Then at the back end of the deals, player performance might tapper off but realistically we'll be going into rebuild. 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/brayshaw-staying-with-demons-20220728-p5b5a6.html

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

Gus was a Restricted Free Agent, and we could have easily matched. His suitors would have had to acquire Gus via trade.

If the contract only got to 2nd round pick, maybe. If the contract triggered an end of first I don’t think we’d have matched that. That’s big money for a player who wants to be elsewhere. Clubs have also got away with short term big money deals to bump compo brackets and restrict the ability to match too. But that’s hypothetical anyway, the informal offers that shape the market for a player don’t require any thing more than a realistic threat of getting them for free. Teams would’ve floated a lot of cash, we can’t match that per year, so we go with extra years.

Whether it’s Coniglio, Grundy, Brayshaw, Zach Merrett it’s pretty widely done now. And the tighter the cap the more teams will go for years over cash.