No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XL

Remove this Banner Ad

Noidnadroj said:
Cornes harps on about long-term contracts …. so I was wondering if indeed he’s correct. Keeping in mind having a player contracted means the club retains control of any trade / free agency scenario. Rioli and Bolton were signed to long deals …. thank God!

So I’ve reviewed players signed until 2029 or later, so 5+ years remaining. And assessed whether it looks like being a success / fail / too early to tell. Keeping in mind the benefits of paying less per season, keeping them out of oppo clutches, enabling shuffling of the cap etc… and fails are when they are injury riddled, not earning their money, stuck at the club and can’t be gotten rid of etc…

Keep in mind only a tiny percentage of quality players retire before 31yo in modern times. So the chance of a player being ‘cooked’ and retiring before contract end is very minimal.

Curnow : Success
McKay: Success

J Henry: too early
Stengle: success

Cox: too early
Treacy: too early
Amiss: too early
Jackson: success
Darcy: fail

Hardwick: success
Nash: too early
Battle: success

Perryman: too early
Quaynor: success
J Daicos: success
N Daicos: success

Ballard: success
M Andrew: success
Powell: success

McGrath; fail
B McKay: too early

Cumming: too early
Soligo: success
Rachele: too early

Waterman : too early

Zurhaar: too early
Scheezel: success
Simpkin: too early
Larkey: success
Xerri: success

Rozee: success
Powell pepper: too early
Marshall: fail

Mills: too early
Blakey: success
Florent: success
Hayward: success

Naughton: too early
English: success

Petracca: success
Oliver: fail
JVR: too early

Daniels: success
HH: success
Kelly: success
Taylor: success

Hipwood: fail
Andrews: success
Mccluggage: success
Payne: too early
Berry: success

King; too early

Hopper: fail
Balta: too early
TT: success

So 56 x players are currently contracted to 2029 or later. I only rate 6 as being ‘fails’. 19 of them are too early to tell - could go either way depending on form, injury etc…

So I rate 31 as successes, whereby unless something really abnormal happens there’s no reason to think they won’t easily fulfil the full-term of their deal playing quality football. As I said, the benefits of long term deals in regards to keeping control of your player in a trade is
massive.

Look at Bailey Smith. Uncontracted so looking like going for a late first. Rioli is 4-5 years older and looks like going for at least pick-6 as he signed a long-term deal a few years ago.

And taking Balta as an example. If he signs for 5-years we probably pay $5m, or $1m / season. Signs for 7-years we probably pay $5.95m, so $850k / season. And it would be massively front ended. So we pay $3m for first 2-years, then are ‘exposed’ to the tune of only $2.9 for last 5-years of his deal - which is just above average wage.

It keeps him away from free agency, away from Tassie and locks in our only young high quality KPP for his career.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Interested to know why you think hopper is a fail 2 years in with 5 to go. Fail as he hasn’t been able to get consistency in his body? If that’s the reason. Fair enough but I’m still bullish on Hopper. He can play
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DickieKnee said:
It will get there eventually. Watched a women's cricket international the oher night and the standard of the play has improved heaps since women's cricket was introduced.
Click to expand...
you mean professional contracts and the like? cos international women's cricket has been around for nearly a century
 
Noidnadroj said:
Cornes harps on about long-term contracts …. so I was wondering if indeed he’s correct. Keeping in mind having a player contracted means the club retains control of any trade / free agency scenario. Rioli and Bolton were signed to long deals …. thank God!

So I’ve reviewed players signed until 2029 or later, so 5+ years remaining. And assessed whether it looks like being a success / fail / too early to tell. Keeping in mind the benefits of paying less per season, keeping them out of oppo clutches, enabling shuffling of the cap etc… and fails are when they are injury riddled, not earning their money, stuck at the club and can’t be gotten rid of etc…

Keep in mind only a tiny percentage of quality players retire before 31yo in modern times. So the chance of a player being ‘cooked’ and retiring before contract end is very minimal.

Curnow : Success
McKay: Success

J Henry: too early
Stengle: success

Cox: too early
Treacy: too early
Amiss: too early
Jackson: success
Darcy: fail

Hardwick: success
Nash: too early
Battle: success

Perryman: too early
Quaynor: success
J Daicos: success
N Daicos: success

Ballard: success
M Andrew: success
Powell: success

McGrath; fail
B McKay: too early

Cumming: too early
Soligo: success
Rachele: too early

Waterman : too early

Zurhaar: too early
Scheezel: success
Simpkin: too early
Larkey: success
Xerri: success

Rozee: success
Powell pepper: too early
Marshall: fail

Mills: too early
Blakey: success
Florent: success
Hayward: success

Naughton: too early
English: success

Petracca: success
Oliver: fail
JVR: too early

Daniels: success
HH: success
Kelly: success
Taylor: success

Hipwood: fail
Andrews: success
Mccluggage: success
Payne: too early
Berry: success

King; too early

Hopper: fail
Balta: too early
TT: success

So 56 x players are currently contracted to 2029 or later. I only rate 6 as being ‘fails’. 19 of them are too early to tell - could go either way depending on form, injury etc…

So I rate 31 as successes, whereby unless something really abnormal happens there’s no reason to think they won’t easily fulfil the full-term of their deal playing quality football. As I said, the benefits of long term deals in regards to keeping control of your player in a trade is
massive.

Look at Bailey Smith. Uncontracted so looking like going for a late first. Rioli is 4-5 years older and looks like going for at least pick-6 as he signed a long-term deal a few years ago.

And taking Balta as an example. If he signs for 5-years we probably pay $5m, or $1m / season. Signs for 7-years we probably pay $5.95m, so $850k / season. And it would be massively front ended. So we pay $3m for first 2-years, then are ‘exposed’ to the tune of only $2.9 for last 5-years of his deal - which is just above average wage.

It keeps him away from free agency, away from Tassie and locks in our only young high quality KPP for his career.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

Excellent contribution and thanks for doing that.

Absolute devil's task to try to rate each contract as a success or failure, and like most people no doubt I found myself disagreeing with the odd one. But overall the evidence does reinforce your point.

One interesting thing is key position and taller players are over-represented. They make up roughly 30% of each team that takes the field, but 50% of this list. It is probably easy enough to understand why this would be. Most of the best of these guys take about 6 years in the system before they can win their position consistently in matches. And often they don't get paid much in that phase of their careers. So clubs are saying better to wait 5 years, see which talls are looking like being good, and try to entice them with juicy contracts. To head this off, the clubs who have drafted these guys are tying them up long term as soon as they are confident the player has made the grade(which is when the big rival offers come.)

To do this exercise more credibly though of course we would want to go back over the ultimate history of long term deals 5 years+ over say the last 10 years and rate them retrospectively, or at least when the player is deep in the contract. But I am unsure where we would get this data in any sort of useful form.

Blair Hartley's 5 year + deals would make interesting reading. I presume something like Lynch, Dusty, Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt, Hopper, Taranto, Bolton, Rioli.

Not sure if there were any others? Doesn't read like too much of a disaster to me.
 
Boxo004 said:
Interested to know why you think hopper is a fail 2 years in with 5 to go. Fail as he hasn’t been able to get consistency in his body? If that’s the reason. Fair enough but I’m still bullish on Hopper. He can play
Click to expand...

I agree he can play, but I just think you can’t deny it’s a fail given the state of our list build. Which is not to say it can’t become a ‘success’ if he remains fit and is a central member of our B2B flags in 2028-29 .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Excellent contribution and thanks for doing that.

Absolute devil's task to try to rate each contract as a success or failure, and like most people no doubt I found myself disagreeing with the odd one. But overall the evidence does reinforce your point.

One interesting thing is key position and taller players are over-represented. They make up roughly 30% of each team that takes the field, but 50% of this list. It is probably easy enough to understand why this would be. Most of the best of these guys take about 6 years in the system before they can win their position consistently in matches. And often they don't get paid much in that phase of their careers. So clubs are saying better to wait 5 years, see which talls are looking like being good, and try to entice them with juicy contracts. To head this off, the clubs who have drafted these guys are tying them up long term as soon as they are confident the player has made the grade(which is when the big rival offers come.)

To do this exercise more credibly though of course we would want to go back over the ultimate history of long term deals 5 years+ over say the last 10 years and rate them retrospectively, or at least when the player is deep in the contract. But I am unsure where we would get this data in any sort of useful form.

Blair Hartley's 5 year + deals would make interesting reading. I presume something like Lynch, Dusty, Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt, Hopper, Taranto, Bolton, Rioli.

Not sure if there were any others? Doesn't read like too much of a disaster to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly … Cornes only highlights the ‘fails’. Conveniently doesn’t mention how valuable it is that Bolton and Rioli signed big money, long term deals a few years ago that gives Richmond the whip hand in these negotiations.

Also says Richmond should just let Balta go as a free agent as pick-2 is better than Balta. Doesn’t he see the Kangas and how they are tracking 7-years into their rebuild without enough KPP’s?

In a perfect world I agree I’d prefer Balta to be signed until 2030, not 2032. But … I’d also prefer he signed for us until 2032 and doesn’t sign for Sydney or Roos end of 2025 until 2032, because make no mistake they’d offer that tenure given they get him for nothing as a free agent.

Maybe Cornes should take the effort to speak with list managers and ask why they commit to these deals instead of just assuming there have been 56 x ‘big mistakes’ made across the competition ..??


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Noidnadroj said:
Exactly … Cornes only highlights the ‘fails’. Conveniently doesn’t mention how valuable it is that Bolton and Rioli signed big money, long term deals a few years ago that gives Richmond the whip hand in these negotiations.

Also says Richmond should just let Balta go as a free agent as pick-2 is better than Balta. Doesn’t he see the Kangas and how they are tracking 7-years into their rebuild without enough KPP’s?

In a perfect world I agree I’d prefer Balta to be signed until 2030, not 2032. But … I’d also prefer he signed for us until 2032 and doesn’t sign for Sydney or Roos end of 2025 until 2032, because make no mistake they’d offer that tenure given they get him for nothing as a free agent.

Maybe Cornes should take the effort to speak with list managers and ask why they commit to these deals instead of just assuming there have been 56 x ‘big mistakes’ made across the competition ..??


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Get the feeling that it's all about him. He never got the big contract, so nor should anybody else. When they do, its wrong.
For Kane, stability woul be a curse. Primarily because is active (read as paid ro be heard) in an unstable environment.
 
Truetiger said:
You and others might not like it, For those with daughters atleast it gives them a chance to play.
Click to expand...
Nothing against it. More power to them. I only object to the media's insistence on talking about it as if it's an elite level competition. It's nowhere near that.

That's all.
 
Profop said:
I mean by definition it is the elite level AFL women’s competition. There isn’t any other level in existence that’s higher
Click to expand...
So you think the AFL media's hard sell on how exciting and amazing the league is doesn't come across as cringeworthy as I think it does?
 
Hoos said:
So you think the AFL media's hard sell on how exciting and amazing the league is doesn't come across as cringeworthy as I think it does?
Click to expand...
That’s a matter of opinion though right. For you it’s a too hard of a sell but for a ten-sixteen year old girl it’s perhaps empowering

I’d take a stab at suggesting perhaps you’re not in the leading target market the AFLW is aiming themselves at

In any case the standard has clearly increased. I’ve found a majority of our games very watchable this year
 
Profop said:
I’d take a stab at suggesting perhaps you’re not in the leading target market the AFLW is aiming themselves at
Click to expand...
Well, I'm someone they would want to watch the sport and possibly buy a membership though, aren't I? That's where the hard sell doesn't sit well.
Profop said:
In any case the standard has clearly increased. I’ve found a majority of our games very watchable this year
Click to expand...
And I've no doubt it's increased. It will increase. Every year hopefully. And at some stage it will become a watchable football competition. Right now it's only watchable for the people who play it and for the parents of the people who play it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dogs kicked 3 points tonight…only lost by 20 odd points.
I don’t mind it and are rapt the girls have a comp.
For for goodness sake, the media is writing stories about it. It was on C9 news last night for 5 minutes in sport segment…2 goals to 1.
FFS they’re trying to brainwash us.
 
Livonski said:
For for goodness sake, the media is writing stories about it. It was on C9 news last night for 5 minutes in sport segment…2 goals to 1.
FFS they’re trying to brainwash us.
Click to expand...
That's it.
 
Noidnadroj said:
Exactly … Cornes only highlights the ‘fails’. Conveniently doesn’t mention how valuable it is that Bolton and Rioli signed big money, long term deals a few years ago that gives Richmond the whip hand in these negotiations.

Also says Richmond should just let Balta go as a free agent as pick-2 is better than Balta. Doesn’t he see the Kangas and how they are tracking 7-years into their rebuild without enough KPP’s?

In a perfect world I agree I’d prefer Balta to be signed until 2030, not 2032. But … I’d also prefer he signed for us until 2032 and doesn’t sign for Sydney or Roos end of 2025 until 2032, because make no mistake they’d offer that tenure given they get him for nothing as a free agent.

Maybe Cornes should take the effort to speak with list managers and ask why they commit to these deals instead of just assuming there have been 56 x ‘big mistakes’ made across the competition ..??


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Firstly Cornes only looks at a single element not the full picture. If we traded Balta for pick 2 next year and we picked a KPP replacement that player would not be reaching his prime until 2031. The alternative which we have followed is to keep Balta and surround him with smalls who reach their prime much quicker. Similar with Lynch. With him in the side we have a target that allows the kids to develop an attacking game style without the ball rocketing back over their heads. We have the salary space so why would we trade players like Balta and put ourselves down the bottom of the ladder for the next six seasons
 
LTT said:
Firstly Cornes only looks at a single element not the full picture. If we traded Balta for pick 2 next year and we picked a KPP replacement that player would not be reaching his prime until 2031. The alternative which we have followed is to keep Balta and surround him with smalls who reach their prime much quicker. Similar with Lynch. With him in the side we have a target that allows the kids to develop an attacking game style without the ball rocketing back over their heads. We have the salary space so why would we trade players like Balta and put ourselves down the bottom of the ladder for the next six seasons
Click to expand...

I’m just happy we have until 2032 to keep deciding whether to put Balta fwd or back

Legit though. Great move, probably my favourite player currently playing behind Lynch.
 
How’s the culture at Essendon?

IMG_1333.png IMG_1332.png
 
Noidnadroj said:
Exactly … Cornes only highlights the ‘fails’. Conveniently doesn’t mention how valuable it is that Bolton and Rioli signed big money, long term deals a few years ago that gives Richmond the whip hand in these negotiations.

Also says Richmond should just let Balta go as a free agent as pick-2 is better than Balta. Doesn’t he see the Kangas and how they are tracking 7-years into their rebuild without enough KPP’s?

In a perfect world I agree I’d prefer Balta to be signed until 2030, not 2032. But … I’d also prefer he signed for us until 2032 and doesn’t sign for Sydney or Roos end of 2025 until 2032, because make no mistake they’d offer that tenure given they get him for nothing as a free agent.

Maybe Cornes should take the effort to speak with list managers and ask why they commit to these deals instead of just assuming there have been 56 x ‘big mistakes’ made across the competition ..??


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Also lets not sit here and pretend the AFL would give us pick 2 for Balta
 

Remove this Banner Ad

No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XL

Similar threads

Groupie_
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIX
747 748 749 750 751
Replies
19K
Views
366K
lumpinee
lumpinee
lumpinee
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVIII
400 401 402 403 404
Replies
10K
Views
241K
tropicaltiger
tropicaltiger
beema limapep
  • Locked
US Election Day thread - results and mild observational discussion only
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
307
Views
4K
Muddiemoose
Muddiemoose
T
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVII
424 425 426 427 428
Replies
11K
Views
213K
DickieKnee
DickieKnee
Meteoric Rise
Toast New Years AA Observations 2024....
Replies
15
Views
1K
JAKLAUGHING
JAKLAUGHING
Hank Heavenly
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVI
502 503 504 505 506
Replies
13K
Views
302K
tigers12
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top