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

[Plugger35]

After 25 games Boyd had kicked 7 more goals than McCartin (who has played 25 games). In that time he kicked a bag of 4 goals and two games where he kicked 3 (2016 grand final wasn’t in his first 25 games). And he also rucks.

Seven goals doesn’t seem like much but when you factor in McCartin only seems to kick a goal every 3 games and has not kicked more than two in a game, Boyd is ahead of McCartin overall. Which is saying something

Well McCartin is currently playing AFL and Boyd is playing VFL so I wouldn't say he's ahead of him at the moment.

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.

Boyd didn't look like he even had an opponent for most of the game and the Swans only had Naismith/Tippett in the ruck who are hardly great ruckmen.

Compare that to Franklin who would've had 2 or 3 opponents sweating on him as well as playing with an injured ankle for most of the game.

 

[chef]

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.

We had to pay him that to get him to the club, those guys came through the draft so not really the same is it?

He's not worth the money, but he was pivotal in our flag and having such a young list he's not putting salary cap pressure on us. I doubt he'll do anything else meaningful for us but if thats all we get I'll still think it was worth it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

We had to pay him that to get him to the club, those guys came through the draft so not really the same is it?

He's not worth the money, but he was pivotal in our flag and having such a young list he's not putting salary cap pressure on us. I doubt he'll do anything else meaningful for us but if thats all we get I'll still think it was worth it.

The bulldogs 2018-2019 contract scenarios will ultimately decide the outcome.

The club may approach the kid to reduce and extend.

 

[Senor Ed]

Apparently they did that too

And people say we're poor

 

[ThirdLegUp]

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

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?

See above.

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

Yes we Disagree! why do you keep asking the same question when you have been given the answer already?!

Again, if Boyd had kicked 100 goals for every year of his contract and we won no 2nd premiership, you would be posting that we got our money worth, and i would be telling you that it was all worth nothing because i don't give a **** for having a coleman medalist unless it leads to a premiership. Forest from the Trees mate.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

Actually in 2016 Boyd was on peanuts, his initial fixed two years. The big money would have started last year, which may be a coincidence.

 

[Jade]

Wont make it. But contributed massively to something we waited 62 years for. Well worth it for us long suffering. Disappointing it seems we will never get the best out of him bar that glorious day in october 16'

Pretty much this.

His recruitment was over-priced, poor list management.

BUT he helped win a flag.

Worth it IMO.

 

[chef]

The bulldogs 2018-2019 contract scenarios will ultimately decide the outcome.

The club may approach the kid to reduce and extend.

His first year he was on peanuts, but apparently his contract was heavily front loaded for the next 3 or 4 years and tampers down towards the end.

I guess it's lucky we are a team of kids.

 

[chef]

Pretty much this.

His recruitment was over-priced, poor list management.

BUT he helped win a flag.

Worth it IMO.

It was a panic buy from Gordon after our captain dogged us and we were imploding. Shocktober.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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

Again, you could say this about several players. That doesn't mean they should all be getting a million bucks a season.

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

I don't know what this means.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Boyd helped the Dogs win a flag, therefore his salary is justified.

Would it also be justifiable to have paid Hamling, Picken and Johannisen a million bucks a season? Because they also helped the Dogs win a flag.

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

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. And my assessment is that his overall performance hasn't justified his pay packet. He'd be their highest-paid player but isn't even playing senior football. What's the grey area here?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We had to pay him that to get him to the club, those guys came through the draft so not really the same is it?

All these players get slotted in to a pay structure, regardless of how you recruited them.

He's not worth the money, but he was pivotal in our flag and having such a young list he's not putting salary cap pressure on us. I doubt he'll do anything else meaningful for us but if thats all we get I'll still think it was worth it.

OK then.

 

[Senor Ed]

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.

Maybe Jack Darling should start paying his wage back to WCE?

He seems to shit the bed every time he plays a final. Squibbed when the game was on the line in the GF against the Hawks, and shat his pants against us in the EF. Sure he contributes during the year, but disappears quickly when the going gets tough.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes we Disagree! why do you keep asking the same question when you have been given the answer already?!

The post you've quoted was in response to another poster.

Again, if Boyd had kicked 100 goals for every year of his contract and we won no 2nd premiership, you would be posting that we got our money worth

Maybe. It would certainly make more sense based on his overall performance.

and i would be telling you that it was all worth nothing because i don't give a **** for having a coleman medalist unless it leads to a premiership. Forest from the Trees mate.

This is so illogical.

 

[chef]

All these players get slotted in to a pay structure, regardless of how you recruited them.

But you are comparing some guy we had to pay overs for to 'poach' from another list with guys we picked up through the draft. Of course they are not going to be paid the same.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Boyd helped the Dogs win a flag, therefore his salary is justified.

Yeah basically. I honestly don't mean to offend in any way, but a West Coast supporter couldn't comprehend the reality of their situation. You wouldn't know what hard times were. The bulldogs have lived it for most of a century. The Boyd signing is a win.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Actually in 2016 Boyd was on peanuts, his initial fixed two years. The big money would have started last year, which may be a coincidence.

Weren't his first two fixed years 2014-15?

Either way, he's on big money now, despite not playing senior football.

 

[Jade]

It was a panic buy from Gordon after our captain dogged us and we were imploding. Shocktober.

Yeah from the outside was fairly easy to see.

But that in itself is probably hindsight heroism on my part.

Boyd could have turned in to one of the game's elite forwards by now, and we'd be singing the deals praises.

As it is, he hasn't worked, BUT was still part of a flag - which kind of flips that on its head and says it DID work.

A very odd scenario.

 

[chef]

OK then.

Does anyone think he's worth what we are paying?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maybe Jack Darling should start paying his wage back to WCE? He seems to shit the bed every time he plays a final. Squibbed when the game was on the line in the GF against the Hawks, and shat his pants against us in the EF. Sure he contributes during the year, but disappears quickly when the going gets tough.

Let's assume this is 100 per cent accurate and I agree entirely.

How does it advance the case that Boyd has justified his pay packet?

 

[chef]

Yeah from the outside was fairly easy to see.

But that in itself is probably hindsight heroism on my part.

Boyd could have turned in to one of the game's elite forwards by now, and we'd be singing the deals praises.

As it is, he hasn't worked, BUT was still part of a flag - which kind of flips that on its head and says it DID work.

A very odd scenario.

TBH he doesn't have the hands to be an elite forward, everything is two grabs even in that GF and those big marks.

He needs to be played as a ruck/forward or he doesn't have much of a future at AFL level.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Weren't his first two fixed years 2014-15?

Either way, he's on big money now, despite not playing senior football.

Yep you're right, my bad.
I was a year out.

 

[adammania9]

Let's assume this is 100 per cent accurate and I agree entirely.

How does it advance the case that Boyd has justified his pay packet?

Take off your cape


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But you are comparing some guy we had to pay overs for to 'poach' from another list with guys we picked up through the draft.

Yes, because they all sit within one pay structure. That's not an unreasonable basis for comparison.

Of course they are not going to be paid the same.

Maybe not. But you might question whether a guy not even playing seniors should be the highest-paid player at the club. Is there not something obviously incongruous about that?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

And people say we're poor

Which is true.

 

[99cents]

Still time to turn it around