HollyLovesWCE
Cancelled
- Sep 9, 2009
- 1,786
- 4
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #26
And what if that golfer turns out to be the next Tiger Woods? (An elite sportsman, not a man-whore).
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Naitanui a likely target for GWS
- Thread starter swingdog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
And what if that golfer turns out to be the next Tiger Woods? (An elite sportsman, not a man-whore).
ok firstly we're not discussing Masten or Ebert so why bring them up?
Nic took about 31 marks for the season that's less then 2 a game where as Cox took about 90 which is 4. Granted Cox has more experience but they both played 22 games and if anything Nic had more game time, it brings me back to my initial point he shouldn't get game time on the chance he might take a screamer or kick an awesome goal. He should be getting games because he consistantly plays well, which at the moment in my opinion he isn't.
While he is a promising young talent, he isn't our best.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
He's in our top 5 by the B&F count
- Banned
- #29
I'd consider myself loyal and have my family and friends here but I would struggle to turn down a 600k pay rise and I imagine most 21 years olds here would too.
I'll add - He was being put in at the centre bounce to get the clearance in many games last season. Our set up was two ruckmen for bounces for a lot of periods throughout games. He is becoming more than just a ruckmen but a clearance player. He was being tagged at the centre bounce by midfielders and as soon as the congestion cleared the ruck picked up him. This is why he got so much game time.
Giving a blanket statistic to a second year player doesn't happen unless you are comparing him to other second year players. Sandilands was pathetic for 5 years. Naitanui is already a capable ruckmen but our expectations are that he is going to be a lot more. That's why he is harshly measured.
Giving a blanket statistic to a second year player doesn't happen unless you are comparing him to other second year players. Sandilands was pathetic for 5 years. Naitanui is already a capable ruckmen but our expectations are that he is going to be a lot more. That's why he is harshly measured.
Geoffe_Miles
Team Captain
- Jun 15, 2010
- 496
- 0
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It's staggering that we are in this situation and it is also staggering that they look they haven't been planning or anticipating it. For the record, i doubt that our current cap problems are the result of front loading. It would be nice if they were. But if they have been front loading for a while we would not have been caught in the desperate situation of having to cut Houlihan to stop oursleves from going over last week, as the article suggests. Things would not be a grim and desperate as to warrant last minute panic moves like that if we had been making room for ourselves by front loading for a while.
I think we are a good chance of losing one of the three clear targets on our list that other clubs will want and think they can get success by targeting for a variety of reasons - Le Cras, Natanui and Shuey. The reality of an interstate club is that you will always have to pay more for your interstate players to ward off east coast offers and interest. The reality of a club down the bottom is that you will have to pay yout best young players more to keep them because you can't offer them the possibility of team success and a happy and stable team environment to play in. And the reality of the current times we are in is that you will have to pay the young marquee players, the ones that the expansion clubs will target, more than you would normally have to to ward off those expnasion team offers. The only way you can do that is to be prudent over a long period of time with your contracts for all the other players on your list. Thats the only way you can make sure the money to hang on to these players is going to be there when you need it. You will probably even have to be prepared to make sacrificises and lose a second or middle tier player every now and then if they make salary demands at the upper end of the spectrum and won't budge.
The reality is that it looks like we haven't done our strategic planning and made sure we have the money in the war chest to fight these battles. We have lived in the moment, not thought about the future and refused to accept that the reality that every dollar we waste on overly generous contacts for blokes like Hansen, Nicoski, Embley, Kerr, Cox etc now is one less dollar we will have in our war chest in the future to fight more important battles. Losing one of these young players may be the inevitable price we have to pay for our crap list management and the ridiculous contracts we have been giving to mediocre and old and chronically injuries players. The chickens might be coming home to roost for us.
The question has to be asked, what are we doing resigning players like Rosa and Lynch if it looks like we won't have the money in the pot to keep our quality young players like Natanui? Those two combined would be costing at least $500k a year. How about cutting them, replacing them with draftees on base contracts and there you instantly have probably $300-400k a year extra for other contracts. How about even just trading out one of Kerr or Cox even if it is for unders just so we have the cash to secure the rest of the playing list while we are vulnerable to raids from other clubs while we are at the bottom. I would accept selling one of these players for unders if it meant we could lock up the handful of quality young players we have for the long term.
I can see it now. The club will pretend that this is not a problem untill we lose one of these players. Then Nisbett will roll up the shutters, go and hide under his desk and pretend he isn't there, just like he does every time he f*** ups become publicly obvious and the s*** hits the fan. And Worsfold will do his usual shrug his shoulders with that look on his face full of arrogance and conceit and say that something that was an obvious problem that was easily forseeable and could be seen coming at us for a long period of time before it hapenned was totally unforeseeable and there was nothing the club could do, nobody made any mistakes in list management that led to it and that losing one of the few quality young players we have is not a problem because, in his view the rest of the squad is so good and destined to win a flag in 3 years anyway.
I think we are a good chance of losing one of the three clear targets on our list that other clubs will want and think they can get success by targeting for a variety of reasons - Le Cras, Natanui and Shuey. The reality of an interstate club is that you will always have to pay more for your interstate players to ward off east coast offers and interest. The reality of a club down the bottom is that you will have to pay yout best young players more to keep them because you can't offer them the possibility of team success and a happy and stable team environment to play in. And the reality of the current times we are in is that you will have to pay the young marquee players, the ones that the expansion clubs will target, more than you would normally have to to ward off those expnasion team offers. The only way you can do that is to be prudent over a long period of time with your contracts for all the other players on your list. Thats the only way you can make sure the money to hang on to these players is going to be there when you need it. You will probably even have to be prepared to make sacrificises and lose a second or middle tier player every now and then if they make salary demands at the upper end of the spectrum and won't budge.
The reality is that it looks like we haven't done our strategic planning and made sure we have the money in the war chest to fight these battles. We have lived in the moment, not thought about the future and refused to accept that the reality that every dollar we waste on overly generous contacts for blokes like Hansen, Nicoski, Embley, Kerr, Cox etc now is one less dollar we will have in our war chest in the future to fight more important battles. Losing one of these young players may be the inevitable price we have to pay for our crap list management and the ridiculous contracts we have been giving to mediocre and old and chronically injuries players. The chickens might be coming home to roost for us.
The question has to be asked, what are we doing resigning players like Rosa and Lynch if it looks like we won't have the money in the pot to keep our quality young players like Natanui? Those two combined would be costing at least $500k a year. How about cutting them, replacing them with draftees on base contracts and there you instantly have probably $300-400k a year extra for other contracts. How about even just trading out one of Kerr or Cox even if it is for unders just so we have the cash to secure the rest of the playing list while we are vulnerable to raids from other clubs while we are at the bottom. I would accept selling one of these players for unders if it meant we could lock up the handful of quality young players we have for the long term.
I can see it now. The club will pretend that this is not a problem untill we lose one of these players. Then Nisbett will roll up the shutters, go and hide under his desk and pretend he isn't there, just like he does every time he f*** ups become publicly obvious and the s*** hits the fan. And Worsfold will do his usual shrug his shoulders with that look on his face full of arrogance and conceit and say that something that was an obvious problem that was easily forseeable and could be seen coming at us for a long period of time before it hapenned was totally unforeseeable and there was nothing the club could do, nobody made any mistakes in list management that led to it and that losing one of the few quality young players we have is not a problem because, in his view the rest of the squad is so good and destined to win a flag in 3 years anyway.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
He's not turning down a $600k payrise.
He's supposedly being paid $220k next year - what we don't know is what WC will offer him from 2012 onwards which is what will need to be compared against the $800k
GM - I'm not sure it is bad list management. All those "players" you listed come out of contract next year so we can cut them then and give the money to our promising players. Lecras is already contracted until 2012 so that's a non-event. WC didn't lose any players this year which was the danger year.
Did you see our top 10 it was a joke, you have to award points to someone doesn't mean they would have gotten anywhere near that in another squad. Le Cras deserved the Medal and Waters and Priddis deserved to be up there in the top 5, that's it really.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
So what - he's still in "our" best.
mouldy81;19478773[B said:
1. Kreuz took 13 contested marks in 13 games, Nat 17 in 22, **** all in it considering Kreuz has more than a seasons worth of experience on Nic and is a year older, then their is Nics shoulder problem which makes marking hard. I saw him kick a 55m set shot goal v Sydney. All ruckmen give away shiteloads of frees esp Jolly.
2. I included Kreuz because their statistically very similar from age/experience to output. If you don't know or rate Goldstein and Jordan Roughead, well that would explain quite a bit.
3. Not many young smalls are consistent for four quarters let alone a 20 year old tall with just 30 games experience.
Why would I know why they played him with a ****ed shoulder
Sad times...
Some of our boys may have to do the unselfish thing and agree to take a pay cut.
D.Kerr, i'm looking at YOU.
D.Kerr, i'm looking at YOU.
Matera92
Brownlow Medallist
Alot easier to take a mark when your shoulder isn't busted..
Apart from the ridiculousness of the rest of your post that others have picked to shreds - you just scream of having no idea with this gem ^ ... guess you missed the two goals he slotted straight through from 50m this season...
For those that don't understand the salary cap...
EVERY team has to pay at least 92.5% of the cap.
This means if they are paying 92.5% of the cap exactly, they only have $596,250 in surplus before reaching 100%
However, it would be extremely difficult to sit right on the lower margin.
West Coast had Tyson Stenglein's payout included in the cap this year which was $300,000 as well as paying rookie game fees of about $30,000. So they would only have about $200,000 at most to play with, likely less.
However, West Coast have a number of well paid players coming out of contract next season and likely to be delisted (Hansen, Nicoski, Jones, Lynch) as well as adding two highly paid players in Cox and Glass onto the veterans list.
Additionally, the salary cap increases about $250,000 for next season.
EVERY team has to pay at least 92.5% of the cap.
This means if they are paying 92.5% of the cap exactly, they only have $596,250 in surplus before reaching 100%
However, it would be extremely difficult to sit right on the lower margin.
West Coast had Tyson Stenglein's payout included in the cap this year which was $300,000 as well as paying rookie game fees of about $30,000. So they would only have about $200,000 at most to play with, likely less.
However, West Coast have a number of well paid players coming out of contract next season and likely to be delisted (Hansen, Nicoski, Jones, Lynch) as well as adding two highly paid players in Cox and Glass onto the veterans list.
Additionally, the salary cap increases about $250,000 for next season.
Lynch is so much a required player for 2011, its not funny.
We need experienced backup. No point in putting a new young ruckman in if not ready if Nat of Cox go down.
That sort of thing might need to be done gradually.
So Lynch is needed, and he can also play forward/ruck.
He is a bloo-y good player with one bad season last year. COuld have been the dropping in round 1 that pissed him off.
I agree. I'm no Lynch fan but a 1 year contract to a bloke who's a reliable ruck backup is hardly a great concern.
Brave Sir Robin
Cancelled
- Jun 27, 2008
- 4,277
- 4,985
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Sounds a bit simplistic to me. That just means that there can only be a maximum surplus of 7.5% after all the contracts for this year have been negotiated, but as you mentioned, that doesn't dictate what we can pay someone next year. Once you factor in the retirements, delistings, front- and back-ended contracts, veterans and revised contracts, you can negotiate your way to freeing up as much space as you need.
Sure, but regardless, we are going to have bucketloads of dollars next season.
- Status
