Opinion One Season Wonders or Million Dollar Men?

[MacMace]

With the number of million dollar men in the AFL increasing it got me thinking about the role that the media is playing to inflate an average player’s worth, in some cases after just one good season. How does a club determine whether a player is worth a million a season? It seems to me that the media starts the ground swell, this in turn inflates what a player has been offered and then their price soars.

For example, Dusty is a great player and no doubt has had a breakout season, but has he been consistent enough over his career to warrant such a significant pay packet? Lynch looks like another player that is going to attract huge offers, but has he consistently shown enough to deserve these offers?

What bothers me is that we see very consistent performances (over a number of seasons) from players that are match winners, who wouldn’t be on close to a million, the Hawks have a number of these players past and present.

The notion of paying an individual such a huge sum of money in a team sport has always intrigued and frustrated me. I’m a big fan of the Hawks strategy re not paying enormous money to one player. It would take a lot to convince me otherwise, e.g. at least two to three years of outstanding (match winning) football.

Consider Boyd and Tippett two great examples of players locked into million dollar contracts who have delivered very little for their respective clubs. I wonder how many of the current crop of millionaires will continue to impress and play at a consistent level for the duration of their contracts.

 

[Great 2008]

Buddy and Dangerfield had runs on the board.

A good example would be Ben Brown. Tony Shaw reckons Collingwood should offer $5 million to lure him from North.

(EDIT: That $5 million is based on one season.)

 

[MacMace]

Buddy and Dangerfield had runs on the board.

A good example would be Ben Brown. Tony Shaw reckons Collingwood should offer $5 million to lure him from North.

Agree, and Danger went for unders. Based on todays market he should be on at least $1.1 to $1.2 million per season.

 

[OzJohnnie]

I think come clubs are spending money like teenagers with their first credit cards. They are doing it with seemingly improper regard for the ongoing financial impact.

Sydney lost Mitchell because of Tippet and Buddy getting so much of the Swans's salary pie. Richmond will run into similar problems, paying one man nearly 10% of the available TPP. It will almost certainly breed selfish feelings and resentment. "Why must I take a pay cut so fancy pants can get all that cash? Why doesn't he feel the need to share the pain of TPP limitations?" I don't see how those sorts of questions cannot arise.

The effect of this pattern, despite the "best" efforts of the Players Association, will be to create a large gap between the haves and the have-nots. Super stars, or even middling stars in a lucky position, will hit big pay days at the expense of his teammates.

I hope that Hawthorn's approach to salaries is as moderated as we believe it to be.

 

[Spursfan]

For the right player its worth it. To me its the length of some of these contracts that are the issue not the $. Dusty is the best player in comp ( or in the top 2) he deserves the most coin. In 5 years time most likely he won't be but Richmond will still be paying him like it.

 

[MacMace]

For the right player its worth it. To me its the length of some of these contracts that are the issue not the $. Dusty is the best player in comp ( or in the top 2) he deserves the most coin. In 5 years time most likely he won't be but Richmond will still be paying him like it.

Good point, if contracts were two to three years and then reviewed to see whether the player still warranted the big dollars that would make much more sense to me.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The cap has gone up 20% from this year to next - so basically any value of a player would be at about 80% of what we understand it to be now. That means Dusty is worth about $1,040,000 in current contract terms. Very interesting - that is a huge outlay and will require some savvy cap management from the Tiggers.

There aren't many players I would value at $1M - but Buddy, Danger and Dusty would certainly be 3 of the ones that are.

 

[MacMace]

The cap has gone up 20% from this year to next - so basically any value of a player would be at about 80% of what we understand it to be now. That means Dusty is worth about $1,040,000 in current contract terms. Very interesting - that is a huge outlay and will require some savvy cap management from the Tiggers.

There aren't many players I would value at $1M - but Buddy, Danger and Dusty would certainly be 3 of the ones that are.

Agreed and I suspect many clubs will have the same list management issues as there seems to be a rapid increase in the number of players that are being offered million dollar contracts over long periods.

I wonder what effect it would have if clubs could only sign a player on over a million to no more than a three year contract. This would result in less risk for the club, may benefit clubs that have worked hard to develop young talent, and result in less trades/free agent moves for superstars. For example, if this condition was in when we had Buddy he may well have stayed, we would have offered a million per year over three years, the Swans could only offer three years as well, but perhaps they would have paid $1.4 or $1.5 million per year to get him in the door.

 

[MrPremiership]

Off the back of one decent season, Lever will be demanding upwards of $750-800k a year from Vic clubs.......that's off one season and fewer than 50 career games.
That's astonishing.
He'd be close to the highest paid at Hawthorn on that money surely.

 

[MacMace]

Off the back of one decent season, Lever will be demanding upwards of $750-800k a year from Vic clubs.......that's off one season and fewer than 50 career games.
That's astonishing.
He'd be close to the highest paid at Hawthorn on that money surely.

Exactly, and that’s my point, one season, what a joke!

Imagine if you sign him up on that money for five or six years and then his true form shines through and he is a b-grader, not saying this will happen, but it could. Equal concern is you spend that money over that term on him and he is overtaken by our young developing kids like Burton, Sic or Hardwick and we can’t offer them reasonable remuneration to stay.

 

[Great 2008]

Langford is probably a good example of how this can all go pear shaped. We all remember the finals performances capped off by a brilliant GF against Sydney.

Imagine the HFC overeacting and offering him 5 years at 900k. The 'Where is Will Langford at' thread over the last few seasons would have made interesting reading. As it is there were few eyebrows raised over the 4 year contract he was given. There may have been a few big offers behind the scenes that forced our hand?

 

[tommyk72]

I think the clubs go through phases. I know we certainly did this sort of thing (though not to the same extent) with Nick Holland, and we learnt from getting burnt by that following injury and slow down in the later parts of the contract. I hope we continue to maintain our current approach - much better in the long run!

If we decided to go after a big fish, would people be a fan of offering them BIG money on a one year contract, with KPIs linked to rolling over? E.g - 1 year at 1.7 million. KPIs of 30+ possessions in more than x% of games; TOG of more than 90%, x amount of games played?

 

[cryptor]

It's pretty obvious to say this, but players are worth what clubs are willing to pay them. Media will say what they want but it only comes down to what the player is willing to sign for and what the clubs are willing to offer the player.

 

[Nugett]

I think it comes down to what clubs and players needs and wants are. If it's a need you pay what ever price is demanded. If it's a want you can negotiate the price. Example of needs, the missing piece for a potential premiership Brian Lake, us), the off field marketability to make your club relevant(GaJ and Hunt, Suns) to fill the sarary cap (Scully, Ward GWS).
with Lake to us, we did paid unders for him, as he wanted to win premierships, while at the time we needed a gorilla in the backline. So we were able to negotiate a reasonable price for his services. No different to Dangerfield to Geelong, Danger wanted to be closer to home, Geelong needed another quality midfielder to help Duckwood.
Gold Coast needed GAJ to help masked them relevant both on field as well as offeild, GAJ felt he needed the money. So Gold Coast have paid above market value for little return in both onfeild and off field.
GWS with Scully and Ward, they are now being paid market value as GWS main want now is to retain the vast majority of the talent on their list to make them relevant. While both players main want now is to be successful.
Conclusion:
If a club has a need, and the player has a want you can negotiate below market value. If both club and player(s) have a want, you can negotiate around market value. If a club has a need and the player has a need you pay above market value.

 

[crazywildhorse]

Agree, and Danger went for unders. Based on todays market he should be on at least $1.1 to $1.2 million per season.

Geelong got kissed on the rick with that. The guy was singleminded in his desire to head to them which meant they were not forced to squirm to fit him in.

 

[crazywildhorse]

On Boyd though, he did what he got paid to do. He was massive in getting them their premiership. It was a costly manoeuvre, but it paid off.

Tippitt, and to a lesser extent Buddy, are in the same boat, they were given huge deals because Sydney thought it could get them over the line again. Had they won at least 1 by now, the Tippett-Buddy salary wouldn't be questioned. As it's looking now, the deals could lead them to 10 years of oblivion with nothing to show for it.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Langford is probably a good example of how this can all go pear shaped. We all remember the finals performances capped off by a brilliant GF against Sydney.

Imagine the HFC overeacting and offering him 5 years at 900k. The 'Where is Will Langford at' thread over the last few seasons would have made interesting reading. As it is there were few eyebrows raised over the 4 year contract he was given. There may have been a few big offers behind the scenes that forced our hand?

Langford was a 5 game wonder though not a one season wonder, so yeah that would have been rather stupid.

 

[MacMace]

Langford was a 5 game wonder though not a one season wonder, so yeah that would have been rather stupid.

That's true, but I think it's equally stupid to pay huge money based on one season, which is happening.

On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MacMace]

On Boyd though, he did what he got paid to do. He was massive in getting them their premiership. It was a costly manoeuvre, but it paid off.

Tippitt, and to a lesser extent Buddy, are in the same boat, they were given huge deals because Sydney thought it could get them over the line again. Had they won at least 1 by now, the Tippett-Buddy salary wouldn't be questioned. As it's looking now, the deals could lead them to 10 years of oblivion with nothing to show for it.

I guess it's how you define success, e.g. winning one Premiership or multiples. Also, if you're paying someone huge money you need them to be playing at that elite level most of the time. No one could suggest that Tippett or Boyd have come close to the returns they should have provided based on their wage.

On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HODGEYROAD]

That's true, but I think it's equally stupid to pay huge money based on one season, which is happening.

On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah it does seem to be happening but I wouldn't include Dusty on that list who's been dynamite for 2 full seasons now ( Including being the equal best player in the comp this year) also entering his prime at 26 and incredibly durable all throughout his career.

 

[TallyHawk]

Agree, and Danger went for unders. Based on todays market he should be on at least $1.1 to $1.2 million per season.

Costa is topping that up.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Brant]

That's true, but I think it's equally stupid to pay huge money based on one season, which is happening.

On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or in Tom Boyd's case, huge money based on no season.

He's basically paid for being tall - not for having a dominant season.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Buddy and Dangerfield had runs on the board.

A good example would be Ben Brown. Tony Shaw reckons Collingwood should offer $5 million to lure him from North.

(EDIT: That $5 million is based on one season.)

Shaw did say because they were in desperate need for a big forward, and can’t afford to develop players in that position

 

[Hawks1994]

In defense of Lever his season last year was pretty good too, not the same level as this year, but just didn't get talked about in the media.

The kid is an exceptional talent and with only 50 odd games under his belt looks like he'll set the AFL on fire. For me the talk of big money is warranted off the back of two very impressive seasons. Good luck to the guy should he snag a great contract

 

[HairyO]

The cap has gone up 20% from this year to next - so basically any value of a player would be at about 80% of what we understand it to be now. That means Dusty is worth about $1,040,000 in current contract terms. Very interesting - that is a huge outlay and will require some savvy cap management from the Tiggers.

There aren't many players I would value at $1M - but Buddy, Danger and Dusty would certainly be 3 of the ones that are.

Right, but it only goes up about 1% or 2% each year after this year for the next 4 years. So there will be a LOT of players coming out of contract next year and beyond wanting their 20% increases but some clubs will have already spent it.

Meanwhile Clarko holds true to his belief that no single player is worth being paid massively.