Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion Part II

[The Bighouse]

You can wake up now, this will never happen. You keep forgetting, Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide, Adelaide are not chasing him.

Under the collusion from your footy dept/his ex-manager. Let's not forget BG is under contract and your acknowledged underwhelming offer last year.

 

[THE_GUN]

You'd think a few will fall out after
over paying on Martin. Who will be earning 1.3 million at 33 after only one elite season.

I really dont want to go into list and tpp converations with you as it just gets into a pissing contest you you will just deny and ignore what i write but just to clarify some things.

Martin is not on $1.3 its more like $8 million over 7 years, Balme is on record for quoting thats around the mark as well as brendon gale and carr also mentioned that Dusty took 2.5 million less to stay - But i know this will be ignored by you as usual

Cotchin,Rance,Jack, Prestia are all locked away for between $650k-$750k as well as an increase of $2 mil in the cap
But also have Yarran's remaining 2 years written off for a settlement of $100k which allows a $700k extra allowance in 2018 as well as Deledio's salary off the books.

Maric,Hunt,Lennon,Morris,Miles will all be moved on this year and thats over $1.5 mil just there

But im sure your more familiar with Richmonds tpp than me so lets get back to Dusty's just 1 good year now shall we

 

[thylacine60]

No doubt Harks, but I guess what I meant, more specifically is for some of these existing contracts to be reconfigured, bearing in mind our financial situation, post trade/draft 2017. Any excess TPP we have, can be rolled into our players to ensure the money we aren't spending is benefitting the club. If we aren't using TPP on new players, then we are not taking full advantage of the situation.

I like that it has got people talking about it, but rather than banging out 10 year deals, I just meant grabbing someone's contract and tweaking it slightly. For instance, someone has a 2 year deal @ 350k per year or equivalent. So they get called into the office and are offered a new contract for 2 years, but 550k for the first year, and 150k for the 2nd year.

I wouldn't be nervous about them looking for new contracts before the 2nd year (@150k) because they are contracted and we would have to agree. Like this, we aren't overpaying someone, we aren't overextending ourselves, but simply freeing up TPP for next year (in this example, 200k from just 1 player).

If we have a player who is already in the twilight of a previous front-ended contract, then we consider the entire value of the contract to ensure we still benefit from the back-end. We can add an additional year, front load it again, but balance the overall value to factor in our benefits from the previous contract.

Sorry if I've got carried away with the numbers here but while I'm sure this has been considered and implemented to existing contracts I've not seen any renegotiations, other than Daisy removing THAT clause in his.

oh great - intelligence......and an almost perfectly formatted and punctuated five paragraph post - pretty handy for post number four.......ffs........

 

[gandaal]

oh great - intelligence......and an almost perfectly formatted and punctuated five paragraph post - pretty handy for post number four.......ffs........

I remember when I used to do that. Now I'm old, lazy and don't give a stuff.

 

[Aphrodite]

You can wake up now, this will never happen. You keep forgetting, Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide, Adelaide are not chasing him.

Justin Reid says hi .......

Now go back to sleep.

 

[Dr Trade]

You can wake up now, this will never happen. You keep forgetting, Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide, Adelaide are not chasing him.

FAKE NEWS!

 

[thylacine60]

"Bad, very bad. Not good".

 

[Talrahir]

I beg to differ

View attachment 411362

Thanks for replying to my post and happy you beg to differ. Please elaborate. You posted some stats which don't really help me understand your point.

Firstly, I love Murph. Second, I remember some poster here writing that you could turn your mother into your father with stats (made me laugh), so i'm more interested in your opinion.

In my original post, I said he 'seemed' to fall over the line. It was my opinion based on my observation. He looked tired, struggled to hit targets the way he normally does and struggled with his tackles to the point where I thought he might have been playing injured. I have no way of knowing, but its what I thought. Its also about impact too, which is really subjective. There have been a few games I have seen where I've wondered if a player was even on the ground, to later hear that he had 15 possessions...

Anyhow, you highlighted the final four games which showed high possession games. Murph has always been able to consistently gather the ball. I think he would find the pill even if he played with a moon boot on. Its what he does with the ball. I saw him, more than once, get rid of the ball quickly to a player under extreme pressure. I'm not sure there is a stat for that. Tackling seemed to be an issue also.

Using stats alone, in his final 3 games he was below his annual average for contested possessions and tackles. He had more clangers than his average as well.

I'm not trying to crucify him. He had an important role to play again this year and has had to shoulder a huge share of the workload. But my original post still stands.

I am reluctant to rely too heavily on stats though and, as a result, my original post was purely opinion. The stats you quoted, for instance, had Murphy with 6 clangers in the Sydney game while the AFL website says he only had 2. Does Supercoach, Fantasy Football, and the AFL have different interpretations of a clanger?

Where do you think he would be best played next year?

Thanks again for your post. You definitely made me reconsider my view.

 

[thylacine60]

oh great - politeness and respect...........ffs............

 

[HARKER]

No doubt Harks, but I guess what I meant, more specifically is for some of these existing contracts to be reconfigured, bearing in mind our financial situation, post trade/draft 2017. Any excess TPP we have, can be rolled into our players to ensure the money we aren't spending is benefitting the club. If we aren't using TPP on new players, then we are not taking full advantage of the situation.

I like that it has got people talking about it, but rather than banging out 10 year deals, I just meant grabbing someone's contract and tweaking it slightly. For instance, someone has a 2 year deal @ 350k per year or equivalent. So they get called into the office and are offered a new contract for 2 years, but 550k for the first year, and 150k for the 2nd year.

I wouldn't be nervous about them looking for new contracts before the 2nd year (@150k) because they are contracted and we would have to agree. Like this, we aren't overpaying someone, we aren't overextending ourselves, but simply freeing up TPP for next year (in this example, 200k from just 1 player).

If we have a player who is already in the twilight of a previous front-ended contract, then we consider the entire value of the contract to ensure we still benefit from the back-end. We can add an additional year, front load it again, but balance the overall value to factor in our benefits from the previous contract.

Sorry if I've got carried away with the numbers here but while I'm sure this has been considered and implemented to existing contracts I've not seen any renegotiations, other than Daisy removing THAT clause in his.

If we have some key F/A targets lined up for a time we feel would be the right time (possibly '18 & '19) we bottom-out our TPP, in the preceding years.

Again, my understanding is that we've already bottomed out our TPP, utilising only 95% value in the past two years, which would then give us the ability to use the bankings for the next year or two, should we choose to do so.
Given we're not going to indulge any any expensive F/A's this year, some further adjustments to contracts may have had to be made.

I don't think clubs deliberately bottom out just to save money though, but nor should they pay over the rates just to reach minimum TPP, as we and other clubs had previously done. That is poor management, that we can't afford to tolerate any longer.

 

[Govinda blueboy]

oh great - politeness and respect...........ffs............

I just spewed in my mouth

 

[omdd]

Just on the SOS Hawks deal last year, as much as we did well out of it due to SOS being a draft god in my opinion they still owe us. It's different to when the dogs used the early 1st round for the two picks in the 20s because the Hawks NEEDED our second round pick to secure omera the dogs weren't being held by ransom in any trade. Without us the Hawks don't get their man so I wouldn't be surprised if somehow in the future we are repaid

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Iamcarlton]

Probably. Just think SOS will try and get another kid or pick. We need a few more

We will certainly have salary cap room in 2018 to chase some players

Agree soapy i think it would be ideal to get a promising young Adelaide youngster as well as a pick for Gibbs probably their first . But in no way do i see that coming about if we ended up with an early pick from a Lever deal . Of which i doubt the crows would part with that anyway .

 

[HARKER]

Just on the SOS Hawks deal last year, as much as we did well out of it due to SOS being a draft god in my opinion they still owe us. It's different to when the dogs used the early 1st round for the two picks in the 20s because the Hawks NEEDED our second round pick to secure omera the dogs weren't being held by ransom in any trade. Without us the Hawks don't get their man so I wouldn't be surprised if somehow in the future we are repaid

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

My interest in this is; How exactly is this favour constructed?

Any "We owe you a favour" means little on its own and can mostly lead to disappointment, when that favour is called on and weighed up.

Would love to know the exact content and context of this 'favour'

 

[F_therest]

My interest in this is; How exactly is this favour constructed?

Any "We owe you a favour" means little on its own and can mostly lead to disappointment, when that favour is called on and weighed up.

Would love to know the exact content and context of this 'favour'

Easiest way would be to replicate last year's deal...we give up a bunch of late picks and hawthorn give us their second rounder.

This is in the hypothetical that we want a player eg Kennedy, but gws don't want our 2Nd round pick next year they want it this year...hawthorn can help us get one and help us land Kennedy.

 

[Soapy V]

Agree soapy i think it would be ideal to get a promising young Adelaide youngster as well as a pick for Gibbs probably their first . But in no way do i see that coming about if we ended up with an early pick from a Lever deal . Of which i doubt the crows would part with that anyway .

I wonder if getting Gibbs may squeeze their salary cap. Should be fairly full. Maybe another salary cap dump gets us pick 9 and a kid?

 

[Talrahir]

My interest in this is; How exactly is this favour constructed?

Any "We owe you a favour" means little on its own and can mostly lead to disappointment, when that favour is called on and weighed up.

Would love to know the exact content and context of this 'favour'

Perhaps it had something to do with Hawthorn's assistant coach making his way to Carlton in what some are describing as a coup.

Bolt's left Hawthorn with many long time friends and colleagues without any animosity. It could be completely realistic to expect that they will look to each other for mutually beneficial deals over the coming years, from mutual respect. They agree not to shaft each other, speak openly and honestly, and where it doesn't disadvantage one party, you help the other. We helped Hawthorn get JOM, but SOS already knew he could target required players with those picks. WIN/WIN.

If the shoe is on the other foot, they treat us with the same courtesy, providing it doesn't disadvantage them. Its kind of like the opposite of what we have with Richmond...re Grigg, Hampson, Collins, Yarran, or how everyone feels about trading with Essendon.

 

[HARKER]

Easiest way would be to replicate last year's deal...we give up a bunch of late picks and hawthorn give us their second rounder.

This is in the hypothetical that we want a player eg Kennedy, but gws don't want our 2Nd round pick next year they want it this year...hawthorn can help us get one and help us land Kennedy.

It's just not practical to make that sort of deal as there's simply too many unknowns involved to have made that deal in the first place.

It really must have been clear cut as otherwise it will just float and never be realised.

 

[HARKER]

Perhaps it had something to do with Hawthorn's assistant coach making his way to Carlton in what some are describing as a coup.

Bolt's left Hawthorn with many long time friends and colleagues without any animosity. It could be completely realistic to expect that they will look to each other for mutually beneficial deals over the coming years, from mutual respect. They agree not to shaft each other, speak openly and honestly, and where it doesn't disadvantage one party, you help the other. We helped Hawthorn get JOM, but SOS already knew he could target required players with those picks. WIN/WIN.

If the shoe is on the other foot, they treat us with the same courtesy, providing it doesn't disadvantage them. Its kind of like the opposite of what we have with Richmond...re Grigg, Hampson, Collins, Yarran, or how everyone feels about trading with Essendon.

I think we have that understanding with GWS and feel that Hawthorn already had a similar-type arrangement with The Saints, given recent trading history.

I just can't see any offer-up of 'cattle' That whole Sicily rumour just didn't makes sense to me as there are too many parties involved and things can change, as they did for Sicily and Hawthorn.

It may be be a simple "we owe you one" but I wouldn't expect anything favourable to come by way of such a handshake deal.

 

[Iamcarlton]

I wonder if getting Gibbs may squeeze their salary cap. Should be fairly full. Maybe another salary cap dump gets us pick 9 and a kid?

Think after last years standoff highly doubt the crows would cave in that much but you never know

 

[Blueyourmyboy!!]

You can wake up now, this will never happen. You keep forgetting, Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide, Adelaide are not chasing him.

I can't see why after living in Melbourne for 11years it's like moving from Glenelg to Elizabeth. lol.

 

[Weiterbot23]

I really dont want to go into list and tpp converations with you as it just gets into a pissing contest you you will just deny and ignore what i write but just to clarify some things.

Martin is not on $1.3 its more like $8 million over 7 years, Balme is on record for quoting thats around the mark as well as brendon gale and carr also mentioned that Dusty took 2.5 million less to stay - But i know this will be ignored by you as usual

Cotchin,Rance,Jack, Prestia are all locked away for between $650k-$750k as well as an increase of $2 mil in the cap
But also have Yarran's remaining 2 years written off for a settlement of $100k which allows a $700k extra allowance in 2018 as well as Deledio's salary off the books.

Maric,Hunt,Lennon,Morris,Miles will all be moved on this year and thats over $1.5 mil just there

But im sure your more familiar with Richmonds tpp than me so lets get back to Dusty's just 1 good year now shall we

I forgot about Yarran, yeah true, you will be able use the cap space that was alotted for him to pay dusty.

We might have a challenge fitting all our players in down the track, 5 rising stars this year including Cuningham.

 

[Blueyourmyboy!!]

Just on the SOS Hawks deal last year, as much as we did well out of it due to SOS being a draft god in my opinion they still owe us. It's different to when the dogs used the early 1st round for the two picks in the 20s because the Hawks NEEDED our second round pick to secure omera the dogs weren't being held by ransom in any trade. Without us the Hawks don't get their man so I wouldn't be surprised if somehow in the future we are repaid

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Wishful thinking mate but SOS saw value at those picks and I'm pretty sure he orchestraded the deal in our favour at the time.
It would be nice to get something back from the hawks but can't see it happening.

 

[Weiterbot23]

Because these days players just take their front-loaded cash in the early years, then request a trade to get a fresh front-loaded deal elsewhere to avoid the $200k years you describe.

Then we just say no and they have career best years.

 

[Weiterbot23]

You can wake up now, this will never happen. You keep forgetting, Gibbs wants to come to Adelaide, Adelaide are not chasing him.

Not coughing up last year will cost you the flag.