Leigh Matthews on Tom Boyd and the Bulldogs

[Scotland]

The only real issue was Boyd walking out with years left to run on his deal, right?

Which only happened because Griffen walked out with years left to run on his deal...

People got miffed because Boyd was traded before his initial 2 year contract played out and he signed for more money than his performances to date at AFL level warrant. If the AFL don't want players traded within 2 years then introduce a rule saying they can't be traded within 2 years. Simple.

 

[J_Moore]

...he signed for more money than his performances to date at AFL level warrant.

This is the bit I don't understand at all. Is there some magical objective formula I don't know about for determining the dollar value of players?

Clubs have been paying people based on potential for a long time. And assuming the risk that goes with it.

 

[Scotland]

This is the bit I don't understand at all. Is there some magical objective formula I don't know about for determining the dollar value of players?

Clubs have been paying people based on potential for a long time. And assuming the risk that goes with it.

It's a funny one. A year earlier people were suggesting Carlton give up Bryce Gibbs or whoever, their first draft pick etc. in an attempt to get pick 1 to draft Tom Boyd. It was suggested the Dogs trade Griffen etc., St Kilda whoever at the time also. Apparently it's fine to give up senior, proven players for potential but not money.

 

[Zeno The Great]

Other clubs would have been lining up to throw big money at the kid if he stayed one more year at GWS, so given the shit storm created by Griffen when he left, it was the right play.

Whilst i agree the amount seems extremely high (almost crazy) for someone who had only played 9 games, KPF don't grow on trees, and long term high value contracts are becoming the norm, a lot of it based on potential.

 

[Gmod23]

I'll play.

Option 1, don't trade Griffen.

Option 2, trade Griffen for picks and sign and use the cap space to sign an established player.

Option 3, trade Griffen for picks and sign and use the cap space to front load existing contracts to go after Tom Boyd (or someone else) at a later date.

Option 4, trade Griffen for picks and sign and simply pay Stringer, Bontempelli etc. a bit more each than they're worth as a gesture of good will.

Option 5, trade Griffen for picks and sign and somehow bank the cap space to use at a later date.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make any sense but neither are without risk. No decent key forwards moved clubs in the 2014 trade period, and the only FA/traded players worth throwing money wanted to be in Brisbane. Even front loading contracts to go poaching next year or the year after only makes sense if you have a target lined up, and if that target is Tom Boyd you'd look pretty silly not being able to match an offer from GWS when you could've traded for him a year earlier.

Dogs made the most of shit circumstances, people need to suck it up.

Must remember that this happened late in trade period after all FA were signed.
Most of these options require renegotiating contracts during trade period for a player who isn't changing clubs. This is against afl rules. The offer from GWS was only pick 7 (from gullible Carlton for a guy who isn't ready for afl, yet no headlines about that?).
Dogs offered big money to every free agent who was good plus a KPP from almost every other team in the afl. ALL turned them down. Dogs had to pay Griffen's bag of silver for the final year of his existing contract or break minimum player payment rules.
Swans were mysteriously banned from taking on any experienced players..... So, no one else to trade with in Sydney but GWS.

Let's talk Boyd contract. Dogs weren't the highest bidder and also not the only bidder from melbourne. at least 5 clubs had big offers on the table. He chose dogs due to close friends playing there, money (of course), potential of list and because he would move a year earlier. It was going to be a Boyd frenzy next trade period which the dogs probably wouldn't win..... (Carlton favorites!)
Same people who put the boot in now always bagged the club for never having a true KPF.
Why this much fuss for a young player. Best young KPF I & many others have seen at underage level since J Brown. Boyd better set shot & ground level, while J Brown was stronger and better in marking contests. Any who question why Boyd never watched him before he was drafted. If you did, then you would never question it.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Hoping a kid fails to prove a point. About as classy a comment as you would expect from.a man with his history

 

[Struggle]

Didn't ch7 cut this bloke?

 

[the dog's kennel]

It's a funny one. A year earlier people were suggesting Carlton give up Bryce Gibbs or whoever, their first draft pick etc. in an attempt to get pick 1 to draft Tom Boyd. It was suggested the Dogs trade Griffen etc., St Kilda whoever at the time also. Apparently it's fine to give up senior, proven players for potential but not money.

This 1000 times. Every single year pundits love speculating about wild trades involving franchise players for the Number 1 draft pick. And apparently this is fine. And this is when the Number 1 draft pick has shown absolutely ZERO in the system. But gamble a bit with salary cap shenanigans a year later on, and apparently it's an awful sin.

I would argue that the Dogs in 2014 had precious few stars they could afford to give up for a potential gun tall forward (other than Griffen who was gone anyway.) But what we had loads of to gamble with is salary cap space. And we will continue to have loads of space for at least 2 more years after this one. Frontload the sh!t out of Boyd's contract, as I believe they have, and his salary won't hurt us at all.

Why is this so hard to understand? Assuming Boyd ends up at least decent, paying him $700,000 a year in 2020 is not going to break the bank! Obviously if he isn't decent that is a big loss. But the bar is pretty low for him to end up a worthwhile investment, as far as I'm concerned. I would argue some of the league's free agents (such as Dale Thomas for example - even without the new injury) were bigger risks than Boyd is likely to be.

As I have already said, I hate the Boyd move from a competition integrity stand-point. But I don't think it is nearly as risky as people make out.

 

[SizeMatters]

How can Boyd even get to the Dogs in the first place? Isn't there a contract by the AFL that has him see out his initial 2 years upon getting drafted? He is still on draftee wages for crying out loud. Which means he would be earning over 1.1m a year as of next season. I hope the Dogs know what they are doing with the well-being of Boyd... former number 1 draft pick, left his original club after requesting a trade whilst still contracted, and finally earning stupid cash after essentially playing NEAFL for most of his draft year. This is a disaster waiting to happen not only for the Dogs but also for the well-being of Boyd. Imagine the pressure this young kid is experiencing after accepting a deal to good to refuse.

 

[BorisDawg]

How can Boyd even get to the Dogs in the first place? Isn't there a contract by the AFL that has him see out his initial 2 years upon getting drafted? He is still on draftee wages for crying out loud. Which means he would be earning over 1.1m a year as of next season. I hope the Dogs know what they are doing with the well-being of Boyd... former number 1 draft pick, left his original club after requesting a trade whilst still contracted, and finally earning stupid cash after essentially playing NEAFL for most of his draft year. This is a disaster waiting to happen not only for the Dogs but also for the well-being of Boyd. Imagine the pressure this young kid is experiencing after accepting a deal to good to refuse.

The initial draftee contract has no limitations on player movement, simply on how much they're able to be paid. Tom was drafted in 2013, which according to the CBA, limits his base salary to this year at $72,970 + match payments.

From the CBA:

24.5 First Year Player (a) When a first year Player is first drafted by an AFL Club, that Player and the AFL Club shall enter into a Standard Playing Contract for a minimum term of two years except in the case of a Player who has previously been drafted as a Rookie or where the Player is over 23 years of age by 31 December in the year in which he is selected by a Club.

There's no restriction there at all about player movement, just that they are to enter a two year contract upon drafting.

As for his well-being, I don't think he'll be requesting a trade anywhere considering he wanted out of GWS to get back to Melbourne and I have to say, from hearing him speak through the media, at club functions and so forth that I don't see him being someone that will be troubled by external expectations.

EDIT - fixed numbers.

 

[DrEvil_]

nice blokes don't root their players partners.....just saying

What has bomber got to do with this?

 

[MightyHawks]

Matthews might have been a gun footballer but that's where it ends doesn't have a clue

Agreed. Matthews couldn't coach

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I can't believe this continuing fuss about Boyd.

1. We didn't have much choice Griffen walked out on us leaving little room to negotiate.
2. Boyd wanted to come to us because heis friends with some of our players and knows the rest. He also rated our young list as a go to destination.
3. He was leaving GWS at the end of this year anyway, it would have been an auction scenario and another club ie Brisbane, Carlton etc would be paying the same salary. We got him earlier because of the unique Griffen situation.
4. We have signed him up for 7 years, what will the average salary be for an AFL player in five years? How about seven? By the time Boysd comes out of contract he will be underpaid.
5. Who said anything about $7mil? The actual amount is confidential and from the bits we have heard is closer to $6mil.
6. I don't care that we are paying him that much money, other sports especially soccer sign players to big contracts all the time based on potential. Anyone here want to say he doesn't have potential?
7. As others have said the Bulldogs have challenged the status quo of AFL, and members of the old regime don't like it.
8. As others have said on here if it fails that's our problem but I back the club on this move. Can we move on now?

 

[Bulldog1954]

number 1 draft pick, left his original club after requesting a trade whilst still contracted.

Didn't request a trade - if Griffen hadn't have walked out on us Boyd would still be at GWS. He was happy to go but didn't request the trade initially

 

[nineteen eighty]

I hope it works out, it was a gutsy move by the Bulldogs and they turned a negative into a positive.

I'd rather see more of this from bottom clubs than the standard complaining that everything favours the big/top clubs.

Mate I agree. Their hand was largely forced on them and rather than cop a shit sandwich, they turned it into an enourmous positive for the club. Not without its risks but fantastic effort to do what they did.

Boyd still has a lot of learning to do but in 3-4 years time when he is one of the dominant KPF's in the game, all the hater will be coming onto BF saying how they always thought this was a great move by the Doggies.

Great move by the Dogs and look forward to seeing him develop into a gun KPF over the next few years. And it will take a few years so be patient. Along with your young gun midfield, look forward to watching the Dogs be more than competitive again in years to come.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Lets hope more clubs can raid GWS's top end talent.

Good to see them already lose two jets in Boyd and Tyson, but they will bleed more even with the AFL throwing $$$ at their players and trying to make this stupid idea for a franchise a success.

You bastards have picked up a ripper in O'Rourke as well.

Hoping the Tigers pick up one of their gun young mids end of this year.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Perfect timing to take the chance.

Boyd at 19 will be growing with the likes of Stringer, Bont, Libba, Wallis, Smith, Hrovat all in that <22 age bracket.

That looks a deadly core for 4 or 5 years time and one that I can genuinely see rivalling GC and GWS at their peak. Some more smart recruiting and the right coaching (which it seems they have) could really see this group go a long way.

At 1mil a year (or whatever it was) it might be a bit of a risk, but that's one a smaller club like the doggies have to take to compete with the likes of Hawthorn and the Swans.

Good post. They have some serious top end young mids and need to ensure they have a KPF who they can build some structure around. They got that in Boyd.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I just can't comprehend the sheer stupidity of this post, it's truly mind-boggling.

I don't even know why you bother. Some posts / posters just aren't worth it. They will beat you with stupidity every time.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Giants went after Scully a no. 1 pick with a million.dollar plus offer after just his first season.

Lions poached Dayne Beams from the Pies while he was still under contract.

Why is this any different?

 

[ManOfClay]

I'm interested to see whether his salary affects the Dogs when the likes of Bontempelli, Macrae, Stringer and the other young guns start deserving $500k+.

All of those guys are signed up for the next few years anyway. The way it appears to be set to play out is Boyd will get more next year and in 2017, then less after that when guys like the bont need resigning.

Bontempelli's latest comments on his future don't give us any reason to doubt him either. Nothing like that age rumour that he was thinking about thinking to ask his manager for more money or a trade

 

[reincarnated]

Very knowledgeable man is Leigh. What he is saying is that Boyd has looked very average so far. It is a big risk to take. Hope it doesn't work out so it is not a trend where millions are set aside for undeserved players.

I totally agree on that point. However, I can see how it could be perceived as a nasty comment.

 

[Doggies_13]

Pretty d***head comment but don't expect much else from a channel 7 commentator

If he meant he hopes this doesn't become the norm then say that but the key thing here is this wasn't a normal situation and unless teams poach an oppositions contracted captain i can't see it becoming the norm. It was a rare and unusual situation they we are unlikely to see again for a long time.

I do love the opposition supporters that point out we offered big money to a contracted player but forget that GWS offered a contract and had discussions with a contracted captain, both dogs fans and Gws fans seem to have moved on from it, don't see why other people can't

 

[TedDougChris]

I'll play.

Option 1, don't trade Griffen.

Option 2, trade Griffen for picks and sign and use the cap space to sign an established player.

Option 3, trade Griffen for picks and sign and use the cap space to front load existing contracts to go after Tom Boyd (or someone else) at a later date.

Option 4, trade Griffen for picks and sign and simply pay Stringer, Bontempelli etc. a bit more each than they're worth as a gesture of good will.

Option 5, trade Griffen for picks and sign and somehow bank the cap space to use at a later date.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make any sense but neither are without risk. No decent key forwards moved clubs in the 2014 trade period, and the only FA/traded players worth throwing money wanted to be in Brisbane. Even front loading contracts to go poaching next year or the year after only makes sense if you have a target lined up, and if that target is Tom Boyd you'd look pretty silly not being able to match an offer from GWS when you could've traded for him a year earlier.

Dogs made the most of shit circumstances, people need to suck it up.

Thanks for playing, Player #1 - what prizes do we have for our fantastic first contestant Rebecca ? A signed commerative plaque containing Ryan Griffen's integrity, honesty, leadership and ethics - fantastic... Er, where is it.... What I need to use this large telescope, with 'Hubble' written on it... What's that first thing - oh, that's James Hird's remorse.... The prize is the smaller one just to the left.... And that's it ?? That's the best we could do... Oh well.... On with the show.....

Good answer mate, you've at least put some thought in (have you considered a career as a leading 'expert' in the media) - but some clarification and a copy of what I posted last year (during trade period) just to refresh people on the situation we were in.

Option 1 - Griffen had threatened to retire if not traded to the club of his choice. So we would have got nothing.

Option 2 - best deal on offer was Pick 7 - no guarantees also of attracting a quality replacement in a position we needed reinforcement in.

Option 3 - allows us to be in a bidding war for Boyd, not as preferable as the situation we then found ourselves in as the front runner for his services.

Option 4 - while we could pay Stringer, Macrae more (and others) - Bontempelli is on standard 2nd wages (as is Boyd this year) - while the others are already on extended contracts past this year. Reeks a little of do-nothing, not good in our membership and profile position.

Option 5 - we would have still been under the minimum level of the salary cap.

This is what I posted previously....

Start at the beginning.

Griffen is gone - refuses to even speak to anyone at the club.
GWS are initially offering Pick 7 and a player.

Neither Pick 4 or 7 is guaranteed to get a KPF. Pick 3 isn't even guaranteed to get one, should the Saints and Dees go McCartin/Wright.

Also - Griff goes after Cooney, Jones and Higgins have all said they are going. So we now have an extra 1.6M available to us (lets say 600, 400, 300, 300).

Who could we have chased in the FA/trade period (I'll exclude the Dogs players here and just list the others): Frawley, Ryder, O'Rourke, Membrey, Cheney, Lowden, Beams, Christensen, Jaksch, Whiley, Crisp, Varcoe, Greenwood, Lumumba, Giles, Gwilt, Clark, Stanley, Hallahan, Malceski, Waite.

If you eliminate the FA's: Ryder, O'Rourke, Membrey, Cheney, Lowden, Beams, Christensen, Jaksch, Whiley, Crisp, Varcoe, Greenwood, Lumumba, Giles, Clark, Stanley, Hallahan.

If you eliminate those who nominated a specific club: O'Rourke, Membrey, Cheney, Lowden, Jaksch, Whiley, Crisp, Varcoe, Greenwood, Lumumba, Giles, Clark, Stanley, Hallahan.

We chased Greenwood and offered a better deal according to his manager. We also chased a KPD in Lonergan. The others are a mix of meh and maybes. Many are midfielders (which we don't really need) - the only key position players are: Membrey, Clark and Stanley.

Do any of the players above significantly improve on what we had this year ?? Don't forget, they aren't all GWS players - so they weren't going to end up part of the Griffen deal.

We've been denied access to the best talent due to GCS and GWS, who have hoarded all the KPP's. So we've targeted one (Boyd) and landed him. Are we paying a massive amount of coin ? You bloody bet we are. Is he a potential superstar ? - yes, he is. Compared to the final list above - who has the most potential upside to them ? It's Boyd by a fair margin. Forget the cash, because we can pay it and then some.

So while we clearly haven't won the trade period, we've turned a really shitty period into one of hope. Given the starting point or even midway point in the trade period, we've clearly turned the corner and accelerated upwards at a fantastic rate.

We've potentially fixed a massive structural weakness - albeit at a high price. It will take the pressure of Crameri - 30 - 40 goals per year and Stringer - who could reach that. If Boyd peaks at around 50 per year, that'll be 110 - 130 goals per year through our three main forwards. Add in some midfield goals and Dahlhaus/Hunter - that's not a bad scoring potential there..

If we'd lost Griffen and ended up with Cheney, Stanley and Lumumba - that'd be dark and desperate times. This way, there is a little bit of hope. Next year will be painful though I suspect.

If we'd known Griff wanted to leave when he was first asked - and told Chris Grant it was all ok - then we may have kept Higgins - both for salary cap and experience reasons. If Griff had been open to moving elsewhere, we could have at least discussed Griffen for Dangerfield (not a straight swap, but the discussion could have been had).

But our hands were largely tied (as you've said above) - so what else could we do ?

While I agree that the contract is long and risky, when you have AFL sanctioned bias (TV schedule, fixture, salary cap concessions, startup raiding of other players, no ability to trade contracted players, academies) in favour of certain teams - the smaller clubs are just left to wither and die - and we're just meant to take it ??

Bollocks. As others have said, if this was a Collingwood/Richmond type club, the media would be lauding their bravery and willingness to take a risk....

So I agree with you, there were other options, but I think we've taken the best available one and hopefully it brings us closer to our elusive 2nd flag......

 

[tige19]

Market value in 7 years is going to be vastly different than today, it's likely in 5-6 years the 40-60 goal a year forwards will be on a mill a season. I think it's good business by the Dogs, the kid is a baby, he will be a very good footballer and is a sound investment.

 

[hench]

It's funny how people always criticize the blokey bloke nature of former players in the commentary box saying every player is a gun yet when someone has a differing point of view (Leigh with Sandilands and now Boyd) or tries using stats (King) they get howled down.