1 hour ago, poita said:

However I cannot see the wisdom in the deals offered to Langdon, Lever and Viney - they are all terrible contracts for us, particularly given the money they would each be on. I love Gawn, but cannot see him making it to 2027 in decent shape. Salem has done nothing for 3 years.

Salem’s on his original prime years longer deal signed at his peak and is back in decent form now he’s healthy again. Can’t really fault that one.

It’s the extensions to the guys in their back in years which are more questionable. 

The justication for someone like Lever is to smooth out the money. I think that’s reasonable but if he keeps getting injured it could hurt.

Langdon was out of contract last year, given our lack of run and pace it’s a big gamble to say we should’ve let him go.

I was critical of the Max and Viney length of deals. Apparently the justification was they were a sign the club wasn’t falling apart. Personally I think our leaders should’ve trusted the club to go 1-2 years at a time. I guess it’s up to the players to show good faith and retire if they can’t play.

The bigger issue is if we are rebuilding you are wise to give guys up when they have value. Unfortunately Tracc and Clarry had no value last year. And others we could’ve explored (Salem, Langdon) probably weren’t fetching much at all.

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

We seem to have lost our ruthlessness of trimming young guys who don’t seem up to it. Verrall, Sestan, 2 years for Laurie after last preseason, sticking with Hore. Hang it on to guys who clearly aren’t up to it.

Jack Henderson could be our best (only?) state league pick up in years. And even he’s probably a fairly limited depth player. AJ might be ok too. But we couldn’t find anyone in the last few drafts when we needed depth?

Even now we need a good back pocket to free up our talls and flankers.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Salem’s on his original prime years longer deal signed at his peak and is back in decent form now he’s healthy again. Can’t really fault that one.

It’s the extensions to the guys in their back in years which are more questionable. 

The justication for someone like Lever is to smooth out the money. I think that’s reasonable but if he keeps getting injured it could hurt.

Langdon was out of contract last year, given our lack of run and pace it’s a big gamble to say we should’ve let him go.

I was critical of the Max and Viney length of deals. Apparently the justification was they were a sign the club wasn’t falling apart. Personally I think our leaders should’ve trusted the club to go 1-2 years at a time. I guess it’s up to the players to show good faith and retire if they can’t play.

The bigger issue is if we are rebuilding you are wise to give guys up when they have value. Unfortunately Tracc and Clarry had no value last year. And others we could’ve explored (Salem, Langdon) probably weren’t fetching much at all.

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

The only way i can rationalize this is that keeping Gawn and Viney around for an extra 'twilight' year will be significant as our club transitions to a younger side. We see young sides stagnate due to lack of senior leadership, so these players will be helpful if they are not even on the park full time. 

32 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

The only way i can rationalize this is that keeping Gawn and Viney around for an extra 'twilight' year will be significant as our club transitions to a younger side. We see young sides stagnate due to lack of senior leadership, so these players will be helpful if they are not even on the park full time. 

As long as they’re still best 22 it won’t hurt but I just didn’t like the messaging of it.

In general though teams are all paying veterans a lot longer than they used to. North’s desperation for experience and overall shortage of talent seems to have changed the market.

3 hours ago, poita said:

Consider also the following long term contracts that Tim Lamb has agreed to:

• Oliver contracted to age 33 (2030)
• Petracca contracted to age 33 (2029)
• Lever contracted to age 32 (2028)
• Langdon contracted to age 32 (2028)
• Viney contracted to age 34 (2028)
• Gawn contracted to age 36 (2027)

I was concerned with the Gawn, Lever and Viney contracts.  In part because of their injury history albeit they make herculean efforts to play week in and week out.  And the Gawn and Viney contracts looked hasty or a PR exercise as they were both still contracted.

But their bodies have a 'used by date' and likely to be before 2027 and 2028.  None of us want to see their latter years played at Casey.  The alternatives are:

• to retire them early, 
• persevere in the seniors or 
• do a Hawthorn style fire sale of their champions (Hodge, Michell, Lewis) for peanuts and heartbreak for fans.

They then traded Gunston (3 x Flags) and Tom Mitchell (Brownlow) while they had some trade currency.

Can't see Goodwin do anything like that as he loves all players, especially Gawn, Viney and Oliver.  He is not going to trade any of them and he is unlikely to trade Lever or Petracca. 

Nor do I want them traded; just saying some might have to be for the good of the club and growth of young players.

Some people will highlight players can go on to their mid 30's etc but rarely so many in the same team at the same time.

Even while in the premiership window we couldn't attract/keep players (eg ruckmen, mids) as they are down the line behind the above players and have to play at Casey.  Attracting key players won't get any easier in 2, 3, 4 years time.  Meanwhile, how many other players will leave for lack of opportunity...

 

btw, I'm not suggesting Goodwin should go now.  But our GM Football and or our new CEO need to ask some hard questions about list management over the coming years.  Now that I think about it, it won't be the GM Football as he was party to all the contracts.

Edited March 24Mar 24 by Lucifers Hero

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

Scrolling casually down I had mistaken your predominantly white profile image for Ghostwriter's predominantly white image and then when I saw this I almost [censored] on my couch.

Okay. Okay. The world hasn't gone that far inside-out.

Anyway, I think our current list management is aiming to have the swell of young players rise as quickly as possible while looking to get the most of the late career of a few serious champions. 2025 would be a pretty optimistic hope for anything magnificent, I fear, but we can get ourselves back in the conversation and then 2026-28 becomes a potential window for the veterans and youngsters to overlap for a big push.

That's my understanding of the list management as well as the game plan transition. The kids are the heart of the attacking style and will be 'raised' with that even if it hurts like being dragged over barbed wire a few times in 2025.

And yet, I still think we'll make finals in 2025, strangely enough. After all, it was round 2 last year Hawthorn got spanked by about 10 goals on the way to a 0-5 start, before they found the joy and the kids started to click.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

do a Hawthorn style fire sale of their champions (Hodge, Michell, Lewis) for peanuts and heartbreak for fans.

Looking at North on the weekend they had Darling and Parker both 32 playing at new clubs etc. Just because they have a contract doesn't mean they'll end their careers here - we'd love it but its no certainty. 

4 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Looking at North on the weekend they had Darling and Parker both 32 playing at new clubs etc. Just because they have a contract doesn't mean they'll end their careers here - we'd love it but its no certainty. 

I didn't say they would.

My point was I can't see Goodwin willingly trading any of them out.  Can you?

Edited March 24Mar 24 by Lucifers Hero

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I didn't say they would.

My point was I can't see Goodwin willingly trading any of them out.  Can you?

Was speaking in generalities on modern day football contracts, not saying you said anything sorry.

I can't see Goody doing that, but a lot can change in 2 years, even the coach.

Why didn't we go after Caleb Daniel?

42 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Why didn't we go after Caleb Daniel?

Don’t really need experienced players for the rookies in the same way as north