Tom Boyd 'not in the best 22', admits skipper

[PP34]

Haha

3 goals and 8 marks isn’t an amazing grand final performance.

It was a good game that has been talked up because of how shit Boyd was almost that entire year.

Regardless, it’s ridiculous that Dogs fans are just going to continue to defend Boyd because he helped them win a grand final. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a shockingly bad contract that will continue to impact the Bulldogs.

 

[ManOfClay]

3 goals and 8 marks isn’t an amazing grand final performance.

It was a good game that has been talked up because of how shit Boyd was almost that entire year.

Look beyond the stats. How many talls have been that influential in a grand final win? 6 of those marks were big contested grabs in a very contested grand final while the three goals came at vital times. Especially the fourth quarter one.

Boyd was arguably the best big man on the ground in a game that had Buddy Franklin at the other end.

Because there was a small chance an error could have been made when we were reducing our list, in which tall forwards to lose.

This is 2018 and we'd be over the moon to play your lot in finals this year, as we would have been last year.
We're resigned to having to play good teams though

How is any of that relevant to what I asked about why you resent Boyd so much? Have another go without playing the man

 

[Farm Boy]

3 goals and 8 marks isn’t an amazing grand final performance.

It was a good game that has been talked up because of how shit Boyd was almost that entire year.

Regardless, it’s ridiculous that Dogs fans are just going to continue to defend Boyd because he helped them win a grand final. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a shockingly bad contract that will continue to impact the Bulldogs.

It was a good grand finals performance. The thing is, he didn't do much before that, and hasn't done anything after that. So basically the only argument is that the Bullies are stoked because he won them a flag, and nothing else really matters. Currently he is a VFL level player and they are ok with that. I can't argue against the joy of Boyd helping them to a premiership (he played a pivotal role), but that is in the past, and we are now in the present. In there here and now of today Tom Boyd is stinking it up in the VFL.

 

[BarryMorgan]

McCartin is quite comfortably miles infront of both Boyd and Weitering in the underwhelming and bust high pick stakes...

I went through the full spectrum of emotions reading that sentence.

 

[ManOfClay]

I’ll wait for a more measured response rather than playing the man

 

[chef]

I wouldn't swap McCartin for Boyd even if they were on the same money and I certainly wouldn't be swapping them when Boyd is paid a million per year.

I doubt either supporter base would(swap players).

Both look huge busts, 2016 GF looks like all we'll get out of Boyd.

 

[ManOfClay]

He left but hasn’t trashed the club in the media (like certain gws players were happy to do for him, yet they’ve been much quieter on that after 2016), or acted like a flog when playing you (again unlike certain gws players who in hindsight looked rather silly for doing it).

Still waiting for a serious response.

Boyd left GWS but it’s not like he’s publicly bagged the club or anything. And if he’s as bad as GWS supporters say why is he resented so much?

He didn’t sit out a year while contracted, and certainly hasn’t acted like a dick to gws or it’s players on the field.

Contrast that with the message from gws players in their comments about him chasing money rather than success, and not being popular with the group. And how he was attacked on field by cocky gws players after his opponent goaled in the 2016 finals

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

3 goals and 8 marks isn’t an amazing grand final performance.

It was a good game that has been talked up because of how shit Boyd was almost that entire year.

Regardless, it’s ridiculous that Dogs fans are just going to continue to defend Boyd because he helped them win a grand final. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a shockingly bad contract that will continue to impact the Bulldogs.

Completely disagree.

1) 3 goals is a very good haul in a GF. Don't think Buddy has even out done that.

2) If Boyd's contract screws the Dogs for another handful of years, it does not matter. The AFL is about winning flags and he helped a team that had not won a flag in something like 50 years to win one. If Buddy doesn't win a flag at the Swans, the Boyd deal will have been better than the Franklin one.

 

[Dez!]

Adding due to lack of form to the title like it says in the article would make it less click bait so I understand why it was left out.

 

[Damon_3388]

(his stats as a ruck were on par with Grundy at the same age)

When?

Remember Grundy is only one year older.

 

[Colonial]

Still waiting for a serious response.

You wouldnt know the meaning of the word.

Boyd left GWS but it’s not like he’s publicly bagged the club or anything. And if he’s as bad as GWS supporters say why is he resented so much?

No one resents him. Dogs fans are just really really really protective of him. They don take discussion on him well. Yours and your fellows responses show this.
Have a look at my posts. Ive never said he wont become a good or even great player and worth the cap space over the years.

He didn’t sit out a year while contracted, and certainly hasn’t acted like a dick to gws or it’s players on the field.

No he didnt. Millions prooved that.

He hasnt? You know this how?

Contrast that with the message from gws players in their comments about him chasing money rather than success, and not being popular with the group. And how he was attacked on field by cocky gws players after his opponent goaled in the 2016 finals

He wasnt popular in any way. People complain about robots for players and when they are honest they get told to stop.
They obviously were on to something since the glassings and now an obvious internal issue that is happening at the Dogs.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Damon_3388]

Adding due to lack of form to the title like it says in the article would make it less click bait so I understand why it was left out.

The article doesn't have "lack of form" in the title. Apart from adding Boyd's first name, I quoted it as it was written.

 

[Damon_3388]

I don't have to "discredit his performance" in the GF to make the case that he hasn't justified his high price tag. That was one big game where he was very good.

Liam Picken was probably their best player throughout that finals series. Should they be paying him $1 million a year as well?

Playing in a premiership – even if you're a key player – doesn't suddenly mean no price is disproportionately high.

This completely contradicts your past arguments (in the Luke Dahlhaus thread on the Draft & Trade board) about a player's worth being whatever a club is willing to pay. Perhaps you're learning?

 

[ashep]

His grand final performance wasn’t all that amazing.

He tore us a new one.

Every time the momentum seemed to shift, he'd clunk a big mark or kick a goal.

As a Swans fan, he was the most influential player on the ground.

 

[Anja_Nees]

He spent half a season out of the game for mental health reasons and had a set back in the preseason. All Wood is saying is that right now his form doesn’t warrant inclusion.

It’s not great having a bloke on a big contract in the VFL but he will eventually work his way back in.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Because everyone else was either drafted in or rookied in or traded in. Boyd was the only one who would not have been there had we not pulled the hail mary shit we did and paid somebody something to get him there. From that victory we have cleared our debts and for the first time in eons our club looks like it has a future. We paid Boyd 7 million over 7 years. he cleared our 10 million dollar debt. We are in the plus.

Boyd was traded in. And to say he alone cleared your debt is absurd. It is this fallacy that Boyd = premiership. This is the delusion.

That is not how things work and you know it, stop being silly. no one gets paid on a game by game basis.

I wasn't suggesting anyone be paid on a game by game basis.

But Hamling was also a vital part of your flag, particularly in the finals. Should he have been paid $1 million a year too? You probably wouldn't have won a flag without him. Does your logic for justifying Boyd's pay packet apply to Hamling as well? Or are you just picking and choosing?

Possibly the Bont, no one else. Boyd got what he got Because that is how the fates lined up. Do i have to explain to you that life isn't fair?

The fates? What is this horseshit?

If the rationale for paying Boyd that money is that "we won a flag and nothing else matters", then why not Hamling? Why not Picken?

Gordon pretty much said it was paid off, the contract was a success. He was brought in for a premiership, and he helped deliver it. That premierhsip has had great knock on effects for the whole club.

But you are continuing to pay Boyd despite him not playing senior football.

Are you an accountant by occupation? you show a great deal of concern for numbers but very little understanding of success.

You leave your career and have nothing to fall back on, you are in the shit so to speak. So you start your own business. You charge half the going rate to get customers and get your name out there and have to make up for losses out of your own dwindling savings, you lose money for the first 12 months. Are you getting ripped off?

After 16 months you start turning a profit and after 24 months you have customers paying double the going rate and waiting in a 14 month cue for your services. Are they getting ripped off?

After 10 years you are a millionaire, so you sell the business for 10 million. The bloke you sold it too after 10 years sells it for 100 million. Did you get ripped off? Did you fail or succeed?

Think it over.

What a pointless analogy.

It's really not that complicated. Has Boyd's overall performance justified his annual salary?

Of course it hasn't. It's not even close.

Look at the knots you have to tie yourself in to try to justify it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On the Hamling point there will always be cases or over and underpaid players relative to performance so I don’t think that’s the right comparison. In an ideal world we’d obviously always take the best player at their cheapest price.

Sure. And Boyd is an example of an overpaid player. Agreed?

Would he still be the club's highest-paid player? Or Bontempelli?

Overall though you’re trying to take a hindsight view by saying why would you pay lots for not much return in performance - but no one did that.

What is a "hindsight view"? I am assessing what's happened. Does that make it "a hindsight view"?

Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. Do you disagree?

What was paid was for an expected level of performance - you need to challenge whether it was right in foresight - I.e. as the OP asks what is worth the risk. Obviously it looks worse when the performance doesn’t eventuate but that can’t change whethe the right decision was made.

See above.

Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. Do you disagree?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This completely contradicts your past arguments (in the Luke Dahlhaus thread on the Draft & Trade board) about a player's worth being whatever a club is willing to pay. Perhaps you're learning?

Not at all. The Dogs were willing to pay Boyd $1 million a year. That's what he was able to command at the time he signed the contract. That was, according to the market, what he was worth. Good for him.

The question is whether his performance has justified that price tag. I think it's pretty clear it hasn't, given he's not even playing senior football. Within clubs there also has to be some sense of scale. The salary cap is $12.45 million, so you can't pay everyone a million bucks a year.

But nice try.

 

[Dez!]

The article doesn't have "lack of form" in the title. Apart from adding Boyd's first name, I quoted it as it was written.

Where did I mention you?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

2) If Boyd's contract screws the Dogs for another handful of years, it does not matter. The AFL is about winning flags and he helped a team that had not won a flag in something like 50 years to win one. If Buddy doesn't win a flag at the Swans, the Boyd deal will have been better than the Franklin one.

Should every player who helped the Dogs win a flag be getting paid $1 million a year? Or just Boyd?

Why not Hamling? Why not Picken? Why not Johannisen?

You can't pay them all a million bucks a year so there has to be some sense of scale.

 

[master bate]

Schache and McCartin are 20 and 21. Boyd, for what it's worth, is still only 22.

I don't know what you mean by "non-athletic". I wouldn't describe Boyd that way necessarily. Is Walker "non-athletic"? Hawkins isn't necessarily a big endurance athlete but he's plenty explosive and pretty powerful.

Speed and agility to win the ball when it's on the ground and chase, tackle, pressure etc.

Tex gets by on smarts and skills but since his knee and other injuries he's most running in straight lines.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not at all. The Dogs were willing to pay Boyd $1 million a year. That's what he was able to command at the time he signed the contract. That was, according to the market, what he was worth.

The question is whether his performance has justified that price tag. I think it's pretty clear it hasn't.

But nice try.

I reckon he was pivotal in the premiership win and that justifies his contract for a club that has struggled for 60 years to win one. Not the smartest trade ever attempted, but it worked out fortuitously.

If the kid is a good clubman, he might consider a reduction in place of an extension. The cap pressure on the dogs hasn't seen too much fallout at the trade table since the 2016 flag, so not a big issue at this point. We'll have to wait and see what the next 3 years brings.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Speed and agility to win the ball when it's on the ground and chase, tackle, pressure etc.

Tex gets by on smarts and skills but since his knee and other injuries he's most running in straight lines.

That's a narrow definition of athleticism. I'm not sure it's very instructive for how key forwards play.

Nick Riewoldt was among the most athletic key forwards of the modern era in terms of his endurance and repeat effort. But did he have "speed and agility to win the ball when it's on the ground and chase, tackle, pressure"? Those weren't really hallmarks of his game.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I reckon he was pivotal in the premiership win and that justifies his contract for a club that has struggled for 60 years to win one. Not the smartest trade ever attempted, but it worked out fortuitously.

This rationale keeps resurfacing.

Yes, Boyd was a big part of the Dogs winning a flag. But does that automatically mean that no price would be exorbitant?

What about Hamling, Picken and Johannisen? They also helped the Dogs win a flag. So the Dogs should have paid them a million bucks a year too. Right?

Or do you acknowledge that, flag or no flag, you can't pay everyone a million bucks a season? There has to be a sense of scale. And Boyd's overall performance hasn't justified his position at the top of the Dog's pay structure.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This rationale keeps resurfacing.

Yes, Boyd was a big part of the Dogs winning a flag. But does that automatically mean that no price would be exorbitant?

No, but would they have that flag if he wasn't there? I don't think so.

What about Hamling, Picken and Johannisen? They also helped the Dogs win a flag. So the Dogs should have paid them a million bucks a year too. Right?

Their placement on the list has little correlation with the attainment of Boyd and the factors that surrounded him at the time.

Or do you acknowledge that, flag or no flag, you can't pay everyone a million bucks a season? There has to be a sense of scale. And Boyd's overall performance hasn't justified his position at the top of the Dog's pay structure.

Of course, but that horse has bolted and the facts now need to be weighed up.