Training 2021 Pre-Season Training Discussion

[Thetrader15]

Pretty sure most of those players were 8-year FAs not 10-years like Laird. Giving 5 years to a 25 year old is very different to a 27 year old

Laird's Bday is 29th Dec, so he's 16 days older than Brad who got a 5 years deal.

Lynch will be 34 and Williams will be the same age or older as Laird when their contracts run out

 

[DJ75]

EFA.

Its the price you need to pay if you want to keep your talented players in their prime. They're going to get 5 years elsewhere.

I can understand a 5 year deal for Milera. Yes there is always a risk, but at his age it seemed reasonable.
There has to be an age at which the risk becomes too much though. I'd have thought 26-27 would be right around it.

 

[Thetrader15]

OK, so put your hands up if you wanted us to sign Keath (28, 30 games) and Greenwood (27, 51 games) on 4 (3+1) year deals but don't want to sign Laird on a 5 year deal, remembering all will be the same age when the contracts finish.

 

[Thetrader15]

I can understand a 5 year deal for Milera. Yes there is always a risk, but at his age it seemed reasonable.
There has to be an age at which the risk becomes too much though. I'd have thought 26-27 would be right around it.

I would have thought you aren't going to retain too many decent FAs in that case.

How many AAs have signed 3 year deals as they enter FA?

 

[hey shorty]

sh*t teams can still land marquee trades. Usually because they're sh*t and need to spend the money on somebody.

They can but it usually costs you substantially more than market rate.

 

[JennyTalia]

That's fair. I was thinking more in terms of his age. Under normal circumstances, there's a lot less risk in giving a 5 year contract to a 23yo than a 27yo.

... and then the 23yo gets the type of knee injury which is career terminal more often than not.

I'm not suggesting we should invent a time machine, and prevent Milera's contract from happening. While his contract is likely to hurt us, the reasons for it were completely unforeseeable. In contrast, it's quite obvious that signing a 27yo to a 5-year contract comes with significant risk.

I like your time machine idea. I want to see that raised as a serious suggestion in the next members meeting.

 

[Thetrader15]

Would we be better letting Laird get his 5 years elsewhere while bringing in someone else's player on a 5 year deal?

...plus we would have to pay the guy coming here 25% above market wage to get him across.

 

[Thetrader15]

In contrast, it's quite obvious that signing a 27yo to a 5-year contract comes with significant risk.

So what do you propose we do when our next AA FA comes out of contract at 27 and is being offered 5 and 6 year deals elsewhere?

If Isak Rankine is a 26yo FA and wants a 6 year deal, do you pay up to get him here?

If you don't, you may as well acknowledge that any player on your list above 27 won't be in your top 10 players.

 

[Scorpus]

So what do you propose we do when our next AA FA comes out of contract at 27 and is being offered 5 and 6 year deals elsewhere?

If Isak Rankine is a 26yo FA and wants a 6 year deal, do you pay up to get him here?

If you don't, you may as well acknowledge that any player on your list above 27 won't be in your top 10 players.

Depends on the stage of your team. If you are contending, and those 27-year-olds are vital, then you would want to retain them.

If you are 4-5 years off, there isn't much point a) offering 26-year-old players 6 year deals or b) signing up older players to long contracts

 

[Thetrader15]

Depends on the stage of your team. If you are contending, and those 27-year-olds are vital, then you would want to retain them.

If you are 4-5 years off, there isn't much point a) offering 26-year-old players 6 year deals or b) signing up older players to long contracts

So what you're saying is that the Gibbs offer was the right move?

In the situation of Laird, we either sign for 5, or lose him for a second round pick.

 

[Scorpus]

So what you're saying is that the Gibbs offer was the right move?

In the situation of Laird, we either sign for 5, or lose him for a second round pick.

At the time I was of the opinion the Gibbs offer was the right move, yes

On Laird, if we lost him for pick 20 I'd say that's around fair value

 

[Thetrader15]

At the time I was of the opinion the Gibbs offer was the right move, yes

On Laird, if we lost him for pick 20 I'd say that's around fair value

I agree on the Gibbs. I also felt it was the right move with the information at hand.

Lard for pick 20 - I'd rather keep him for 5, front ended and small salary in the last 2. If it doesn't work out in the last 2, oh well, we aren't losing much.

 

[Scorpus]

I agree on the Gibbs. I also felt it was the right move with the information at hand.

Lard for pick 20 - I'd rather keep him for 5, front ended and small salary in the last 2. If it doesn't work out in the last 2, oh well, we aren't losing much.

My opinion is we should only keep one of Matt Crouch and Laird, and my preference would be to keep Matt Crouch

 

[Vader]

So what you're saying is that the Gibbs offer was the right move?

In the situation of Laird, we either sign for 5, or lose him for a second round pick.

Signing Gibbs was the right move. Giving him a long contract, not so much. If that means we didn't get Gibbs, I would have been perfectly OK with that. As it was, the price we paid for him was far, far, far too high.

 

[Crow till I die]

Signing Gibbs was the right move. Giving him a long contract, not so much. If that means we didn't get Gibbs, I would have been perfectly OK with that. As it was, the price we paid for him was far, far, far too high.

Unfortunately due to the fiasco the year before, the club seemed set on making it happen come hell or high water..and that the side just made a GF, they were hoping for a few years at the top and Gibbs was the 'missing piece'

 

[Vader]

Unfortunately due to the fiasco the year before, the club seemed set on making it happen come hell or high water..and that the side just made a GF, they were hoping for a few years at the top and Gibbs was the 'missing piece'

What's worse, the price we paid in 2017 was higher than the price we refused to pay in 2016... for a player who was another year older. We were right to refuse it in 2016. We should never have agreed to it in 2017.

 

[Dudersaurus]

What's worse, the price we paid in 2017 was higher than the price we refused to pay in 2016... for a player who was another year older. We were right to refuse it in 2016. We should never have agreed to it in 2017.

Yeah, nah. They wanted 2 first in 2016. We had one plus a future. Means 0 picks in 1st round for 2 years.
2017 we had to access to 4 firsts round picks. The deal then was much more affordable.

Like saying spending 2 grand on a TV when unemployed is a better deal than 3 grand when you're making $100k a year.

Still not value, but 2017 imo was not worse.

 

[LC40]

Signing Gibbs was the right move. Giving him a long contract, not so much. If that means we didn't get Gibbs, I would have been perfectly OK with that. As it was, the price we paid for him was far, far, far too high.

If the price for signing Gibbs was far, far, far too high then it was not the right move.

 

[Vader]

If the price for signing Gibbs was far, far, far too high then it was not the right move.

... it wasn't the right move.

 

[Golumless]

Depends on the stage of your team. If you are contending, and those 27-year-olds are vital, then you would want to retain them.

If you are 4-5 years off, there isn't much point a) offering 26-year-old players 6 year deals or b) signing up older players to long contracts

I reckon you've oversimplified this. For a team with a normal profile I'd agree, however we're not normal right now.

I'd be very inclined to say how inexperienced we are as a list has almost necessitated keeping around someone like Laird for 5 years whilst we try to correct that. Especially as we also want to avoid collecting mediocre 50-100 game players to cover that gap.

 

[Carmo]

Long term contracts actually offer more flexibility, if you think the player is going to be on the list in 5 years.

It allows you to shuffle the salary, front end and open up cap space in the later years. For a club, $800k over 5 years offers more flexibility than $1 over 4 years.

I dunno man, 1 dollar over 4 years does open up a lot of salary cap flexibility if you ask me.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Long term contracts actually offer more flexibility, if you think the player is going to be on the list in 5 years.

It allows you to shuffle the salary, front end and open up cap space in the later years. For a club, $800k over 5 years offers more flexibility than $100k over 4 years.

Also, should get a discount for guaranteeing 5 years.

Would think we would be front loading these deals at the moment given we have a young squad.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

My opinion is we should only keep one of Matt Crouch and Laird, and my preference would be to keep Matt Crouch

Why do we need to get rid of either?

Both are quality.

 

[Scorpus]

Why do we need to get rid of either?

Both are quality.

Midfield sucks and we already have Sloane on a massive contract. Need to play kids so one of the "long contract three" need to make way

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Midfield sucks and we already have Sloane on a massive contract. Need to play kids so one of the "long contract three" need to make way

Sloane is who we should be moving out of the middle... not Laird nor Crouch.