Player Watch Darcy Fogarty - Re-Signed to End of 2031

[Kane McGoodwin]

Happy to have Fog locked away. I feel like he is ready to really break out next year and end up with 50-60 goals by the end of the year.

Nice to have Fog and Thilthorpe locked and loaded as our key forward now for a while. Both will keep getting better, especially once Tex has moved on and they get more forward 50 entries directed to them.

Just need Nick Murray re-signed & we have a good looking spine for sometime.

Fog overtook Tex this season.

I suspect Thilthorpe would have to if not for injury.

 

[Slime Roy]

Happy with the news, if only to f####g FINALLY see what he will become without Tex in the team.
Seems like the eternal debate.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

Long live The Fog

 

[Soggy2112]

He would absolutely explore his options if we offered 3 years, that would be an insult. Brisbane, Collingwood, Melbourne and Port would all go super hard with massive offers if they got wind the Crows were trying to offer only a 3 year extension.

He's a KPF in a prime age that appears to be very close to a major breakout, that will always net you 5+ years and rightfully so. He would be taking less money to stay, so gotta meet in the middle somewhere.

I do get that the league is now at a point where if you don’t offer a really long deal you risk pissing off a player. I just think we’ve already seen so many long term contracts that clubs regret. I think we’re about 3-4 years from seeing NBA style salary dump trades become common.

Yeah but a different perspective. We sign him on for 3 years and then another 3 years later on? Why? He’s poised to be a really good player for years to come. There are not many forwards like him in the modern game

I just think there’s so many variables that mean locking in a bunch of players to long term deals. Its probably a moot point as given the climate I doubt a manager of a player like Fog would accept any less but it just doesn’t seem smart for clubs.

 

[Bovo]

I do get that the league is now at a point where if you don’t offer a really long deal you risk pissing off a player. I just think we’ve already seen so many long term contracts that clubs regret. I think we’re about 3-4 years from seeing NBA style salary dump trades become common.

I just think there’s so many variables that mean locking in a bunch of players to long term deals. It’s probably a moot point as given the climate I doubt a manager of a player like Fog would accept any less but it just doesn’t seem smart for clubs.

Yeah i don’t know. I’m not sure what his annual salary will be, but let’s go with $500,000 per year. Unless his contract takes into consideration inflation he’s earning $3 mil over 6 years.
Now suppose it’s only 3 years now but in 3yearstime he’s going to be worth an extra $120,000 per year for 3 years so breaking that down it becomes $1.5 mil for first 3 years +$1.85 mil for next 3 years which is about $3.36 mil over the six years. A saving of about $360,000 by just one 6 year contract at $500,000. Of course I have absolutely no idea how contracts are orchestrated, nor their worth so this was simply a scenario I came up with.

 

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

He would absolutely explore his options if we offered 3 years, that would be an insult. Brisbane, Collingwood, Melbourne and Port would all go super hard with massive offers if they got wind the Crows were trying to offer only a 3 year extension.

He's a KPF in a prime age that appears to be very close to a major breakout, that will always net you 5+ years and rightfully so. He would be taking less money to stay, so gotta meet in the middle somewhere.

Everyone knows tho that years are the last thing a club wants to give usually, so we didn't really meet him in the middle you'd have to say, gave the full quota

 

[cmndstab]

Let's face it, there isn't really much to lose by offering a vital player like Fogarty a long-term contract. The reality is, we need him. If his form dips a little, we're going to be playing him anyway, to try and get him back into form.

If his form turns to utter garbage over the next few years, then we're not going to be contending anyway. We don't have another key forward coming up through the ranks like him.

If he cops a career-ending injury along the way, the AFL has introduced new salary cap relief rules this year in the wake of the Brayshaw situation. Admittedly those new rules only apply once he is in the final four years of his contract.

And if he finally turns into the undisputed gun he's threatened to over the last couple of seasons, then we've got him locked away with no danger of losing him to some monster free agency deal.

 

[1970crow]

Happy to see he's locked in, but from a wider club perspective, why so long? It's not like he was a big risk of leaving.
I can inly assume it was to help us smooth his overall payments out over a longer period.

All we've done is guarantee him a medium level wage long term. If he turns into Wayne Carey next year then the contract gets renegotiated. All we've done is purchase veto rights. There's no way to accurately predict genuine contract value that far ahead.

 

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

All we've done is guarantee him a medium level wage long term. If he turns into Wayne Carey next year then the contract gets renegotiated. All we've done is purchase veto rights. There's no way to accurately predict genuine contract value that far ahead.

Money is the thing clubs give away first isn't it? As clubs hate giving away years and we gave them away, you'd think the money is good. I think as stabby said not the end of the world either at least we're keeping a player for once

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Let's face it, there isn't really much to lose by offering a vital player like Fogarty a long-term contract. The reality is, we need him. If his form dips a little, we're going to be playing him anyway, to try and get him back into form.

If his form turns to utter garbage over the next few years, then we're not going to be contending anyway. We don't have another key forward coming up through the ranks like him.

If he cops a career-ending injury along the way, the AFL has introduced new salary cap relief rules this year in the wake of the Brayshaw situation. Admittedly those new rules only apply once he is in the final four years of his contract.

And if he finally turns into the undisputed gun he's threatened to over the last couple of seasons, then we've got him locked away with no danger of losing him to some monster free agency deal.

Good post that covers all angles. I will also remind myself this is not the same as the other long term deals that backfired on us. Those were mostly older players and failing to spot when a guy has peaked and trading proactively. Apples and oranges.

 

[MrBarry]

If Fogarty started next year really quickly and he hadn't been signed, clubs would be circling with monster offers almost immediatley imo. He's a 25 year old key forward, ready to break out, who has had 7 years of development in the system.... They don't grow on trees.

 

[adelaidecrows]

If Fogarty started next year really quickly and he hadn't been signed, clubs would be circling with monster offers almost immediatley imo. He's a 25 year old key forward, ready to break out, who has had 7 years of development in the system.... They don't grow on trees.

He is played continuously in the wrong position. Which the clubs over reliance on Tex is holding him back. Tex should be moved to FF and Fog tasked with roaming the top of the 50. He has the smarts of a very strong midfielder. Showed what a weapon he is when Tex was out injured this year when doing Tex role. Id go so far as to suggest he will be better.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

It’s quite annoying we keep signing players into their early 30s. Is this what it takes to get their signature? Sloane, Laird and Smith all deadweight towards the end of their deals, with years to run.

 

[adelaidecrows]

It’s quite annoying we keep signing players into their early 30s. Is this what it takes to get their signature? Sloane, Laird and Smith all deadweight towards the end of their deals, with years to run.

Its a hard one because the club used to get criticized for having the attitude of only signing players until they are 30 and then only offering them one year deals. I can only assume our attitude changed when we we went through that era of losing good players all the time. But Sloane was by far a horrendous decision. No doubt out of fear of a public backlash if they didnt sign him. We should have delisted Smith. Paid out his contract. His pay would have been minimal anyway. We could have afforded it. But again, I fear its a let them retire under their own esteem attitude now.

 

[Pugsley]

Whats he on $400k?

Luko on $1.2M per year in his last two with the Suns (meaning that will be incorporated into his new contract with Port).

I would all day, every day sign Fog for 6+ then pay $1.6M for Rat and Luko in 2025.

They thought they were getting kogan but bought temu.

 

[MrBarry]

It’s quite annoying we keep signing players into their early 30s. Is this what it takes to get their signature? Sloane, Laird and Smith all deadweight towards the end of their deals, with years to run.

Sloane signed his contract when he was 28, Fogarty is only 25.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Good post that covers all angles. I will also remind myself this is not the same as the other long term deals that backfired on us. Those were mostly older players and failing to spot when a guy has peaked and trading proactively. Apples and oranges.

I've posted this Champion data article a few times, but the data plays out that this contract covers what are likely the optimal years, and will end around the peak.

The Deep Dive: When do AFL players reach their peak performance?

It's a general belief that if you're in your late 20s, you're in your athletic peak, so we've put it to the test and measured the output of every 100-game AFL player since 2001 to determine when the 'peak' age really is.

www.espn.com

Optimal range: 25-31 (average rating points: 10.21)

Peak year: 31 (11.21)

 

[Southerntakeover]

It’s quite annoying we keep signing players into their early 30s. Is this what it takes to get their signature? Sloane, Laird and Smith all deadweight towards the end of their deals, with years to run.

This isn't the same...

 

[DJ75]

Sloane signed his contract when he was 28, Fogarty is only 25.

Sloane was also a player we had seen have multiple injuries. We had to know that the wear and tear on his body was going to limit his longevity.

 

[Jarman3]

Its a hard one because the club used to get criticized for having the attitude of only signing players until they are 30 and then only offering them one year deals. I can only assume our attitude changed when we we went through that era of losing good players all the time. But Sloane was by far a horrendous decision. No doubt out of fear of a public backlash if they didnt sign him. We should have delisted Smith. Paid out his contract. His pay would have been minimal anyway. We could have afforded it. But again, I fear its a let them retire under their own esteem attitude now.

I think it's actually free agency that changed it. Now you have a guy coming up to free agency, clubs that come after him will be offering a MINIMUM of 5 years, probably more, on big $$. If you want to keep them, you have to at least match the years if not the full amount of money.

Before free agency, Fog coming out of contract next year would be just like any other contract year. We'd offer him a deal, other clubs would offer a deal, if he took ours, great, if he didn't then we would be able to negotiate a trade. Now, if we don't give him a deal he's happy with he just walks and we get the compensation which would likely be less than his worth unless we finished bottom 4 again and he got band 1.

 

[Coopers]

He is played continuously in the wrong position. Which the clubs over reliance on Tex is holding him back. Tex should be moved to FF and Fog tasked with roaming the top of the 50. He has the smarts of a very strong midfielder. Showed what a weapon he is when Tex was out injured this year when doing Tex role. Id go so far as to suggest he will be better.

Better than now Tex you mean.

Better than Tex in general is a big call. He'd have to start winning colemans.

 

[Coopers]

I've posted this Champion data article a few times, but the data plays out that this contract covers what are likely the optimal years, and will end around the peak.

The Deep Dive: When do AFL players reach their peak performance?

It's a general belief that if you're in your late 20s, you're in your athletic peak, so we've put it to the test and measured the output of every 100-game AFL player since 2001 to determine when the 'peak' age really is.

www.espn.com

Optimal range: 25-31 (average rating points: 10.21)

Peak year: 31 (11.21)

Good article.

Weird conclusions about the older players though. I guess it means: If you're 35+ and you're still playing its because you're a gun. Data goes all over the place around 32, 33 years of age as it seems lots of players fall of, but the guns are still guns.

Because of that I think the most useful part of the analysis is the 18-32 range, which more or less confirms what we know.

The wingers data is interesting, with a peak at 22. I guess you're young, fast, not being tagged, not being moved to a more contested role just yet. Possibly a position the up and comers are being blooded in.

 

[MsTopG]

Hopefully Fogary is on no more than 500k a year. Signing a player past 30 on a long term deal is fraught with danger. Would have offered him a 5 year deal to 2029.

 

[baldandbroke]

Hopefully Fogary is on no more than 500k a year. Signing a player past 30 on a long term deal is fraught with danger. Would have offered him a 5 year deal to 2029.

$500k seems very low to me.

 

[DJ75]

$500k seems very low to me.

$500k wouldn't be that much above league average in a year or two.
He'd have to be $800k.