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

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks. I'll come over later to collect. Might just help myself to your fridge too. You can just watch while I eat your food and mistreat your cat. Maybe use your bathroom and wash my balls with your toothbrush while I'm there.

 

[Bald]

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



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.

Probably says more about the standards at St Kilda as opposed to those at the Dogs..

 

[Snake_Baker]

Thanks. I'll come over later to collect. Might just help myself to your fridge too. You can just watch while I eat your food and mistreat your cat. Maybe use your bathroom and wash my balls with your toothbrush while I'm there.

Geez, I already told you that you won champ.

Have a little grace in victory.

 

[Mofra]

Any realistic chance of renegotiating down with him?

Or perhaps doing a salary dump by trading him?

His salary now reduces year on year as we had a terrible list and had heavily front loaded contracts to meet the 95% TPP floor.

The irony is by the time Boyd is likely to be playing regular senior football he would have already received most of his contractual payments.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The sum of your multiple posts is you would not pay $1m for a player not currently in the team.

The sum of my posts is that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. He'd be the Dogs' highest-paid player but isn't even playing senior football. That is my contention.

It’s not answering the OP though because it’s a foresight question. Was he ‘worth the risk’? You can only answer by evaluating the decision made at the time.

That is, was it worth agreeing to pay $1m a year when we recruited him not whether we’d pay it right now. This is the point you’re completely missing.

As I set out, I agree with the decision at the time. What we’re paying now is just the outcome of that.

See above.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No you are being pig headed for the sake of arguing.

By pointing out that you're being illogical? OK, then.

Everyone has been quite clear with their reasoning why it was worth it.

Many of those explanations make no sense.

There were 3 million dollar men in the 2016 Grand Final. Only one earned his contract to date.

Who were they?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Geez, I already told you that you won champ.

Have a little grace in victory.

I'll have a foot rub too, thanks. I have some lavender oil that I'd like you to use.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Bontempelli is playing seniors.

Sure - what kind of scratch is he on? About the same as Boyd, no?

 

[Mofra]

Nonsense. You quoted the premise while ignoring the question. That's dishonest.

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.

A DFA (Hamling) and two rookies (Picken and JJ) are far easier to attract to a club than a no 1 pick who is one year into a contract.

If you want to attract a big fish the costs are high, both at the trade table and in contract.
We've had a woeful history of developing KPFs and we had a rare opportunity to snag a highly touted junior KPF so we took it. I would have been upset if we had avoided taking the risk because let's face it - we're a smaller club and we need to operate a little differently if we're going to be successful.

It was a risk that paid off in 2016 and right now Boyd isn't playing well enough o justify a senior AFL spot. He's still only 22 so we're not shutting the door on his career just yet.

 

[Mofra]

Sure - what kind of scratch is he on? About the same as Boyd, no?

Less up until this year I'm led to believe, more from this year - Boyd is heavily front loaded except for the first year at the Bulldogs where he was on base salary for a no 1 pick (AFL mandated salaries are in force for the first two years of a draftee's career).

I'm not 100% sure if that is just contract or includes club marketing allowance - Bonti is easily our most marketable player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A DFA (Hamling) and two rookies (Picken and JJ) are far easier to attract to a club than a no 1 pick who is one year into a contract.

That's not the point I was making.

The other poster was saying that a million-dollar annual salary is justified provided the player helped the club win a flag.

My point was that this applies to several players, not just Boyd. But you obviously can't pay them all seven figures.

If you want to attract a big fish the costs are high, both at the trade table and in contract.
We've had a woeful history of developing KPFs and we had a rare opportunity to snag a highly touted junior KPF so we took it. I would have been upset if we had avoided taking the risk because let's face it - we're a smaller club and we need to operate a little differently if we're going to be successful.

It was a risk that paid off in 2016 and right now Boyd isn't playing well enough o justify a senior AFL spot. He's still only 22 so we're not shutting the door on his career just yet.

That's fair enough.

However, I think I am making a fairly uncontroversial point. Boyd's overall performance to date has not justified his pay packet. Do you disagree?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Abject surrender.

Better luck next time, big guy.

You're trying to argue rationally against emotional reactions. You're right, but you'll never convince anyone determined not to hear it.

 

[Mofra]

However, I think I am making a fairly uncontroversial point. Boyd's overall performance to date has not justified his pay packet. Do you disagree?

On the surface no he doesn't deserve it.

In terms of what he provided to the club from the dark days of October 2014 and the fact some still argue he should have won the Norm Smith - there's not a Bulldog supporter in the land that would change the way his contract played out.

Simple fact is we were an absolute basketcase at the end of 2014 - no coach, captain had just walked out, no CEO and the 'Bulldog Hilton' disaster was hanging over the head of the club. There's no way anyone with market value would have joined us unless we paid over the odds.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You're trying to argue rationally against emotional reactions.

That's right.

You're right, but you'll never convince anyone determined not to hear it.

I know which side of that equation I'd prefer to be on.

The rational, clear-eyed empiricist vs the deluded, emotional muppet.

 

[Jade]

On the surface no he doesn't deserve it.

In terms of what he provided to the club from the dark days of October 2014 and the fact some still argue he should have won the Norm Smith - there's not a Bulldog supporter in the land that would change the way his contract played out.

Simple fact is we were an absolute basketcase at the end of 2014 - no coach, captain had just walked out, no CEO and the 'Bulldog Hilton' disaster was hanging over the head of the club. There's no way anyone with market value would have joined us unless we paid over the odds.

You have to deal in absolutes though.

It's either very good, or very bad.

Don't come here with your well thought out list of logical pros and cons...

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

That's right.

I know which side of that equation I'd prefer to be on.

The sane, clear-eyed empiricist vs the deluded, emotional muppet.

And me. In fact without rational voices prepared to be unpopular really stupid things happen. But don't expect to be thanked for it.

 

[Bald]

The sum of my posts is that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. He'd be the Dogs' highest-paid player but isn't even playing senior football. That is my contention.

See above.

My view is a little bit different. Should other players be paid similar or more money than Boyd if we are basing it off the premiership as a whole? Sure.

It's impossible to say whether or not we would've won the flag without Boyd, but the fact is, he was in the top 3 players on the ground and suggesting that we had another player that could've filled his role is just not right.

But back to my overall view. St. Kilda are getting very disappointing crowds at the moment to their games, I know quite a few Saints supporters who honestly don't even want to support their club at the moment. They don't want to go to games. It's similar to a point how a lot of Bulldogs fans felt at the end of 2014 after everything that happened. My view is that had they won a flag during their time of success in 2009/2010 I don't believe this attitude would exist. They'd have a high to look back on and as such would have a bit more forgiveness when it comes to the club not performing as expected.

Tom Boyd was an integral part of something that allows the Bulldogs fans to have faith that there's always a reason to go to the Footy, and for that I believe the contract has paid itself off.

Now, if we look at it from a standpoint of games vs contracts and then compare that with other players, then sure, it's easy to say it's not worth it and I'd agree with that. But you need to take a step back and realise there are more variables involved. Yes, this is a "No Boyd = No Flag" argument which you're heavily against, but I truly don't see a scenario where we win that game if he does not play.

 

[Snake_Baker]

....there's not a Bulldog supporter in the land that would change the way his contract played out.

...and this is all that matters.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On the surface no he doesn't deserve it.

Or at any level. Come on, let's just call a spade a spade. No hedging.

In terms of what he provided to the club from the dark days of October 2014 and the fact some still argue he should have won the Norm Smith - there's not a Bulldog supporter in the land that would change the way his contract played out.

That's because they draw an erroneous causal link between Boyd and the flag.

Simple fact is we were an absolute basketcase at the end of 2014 - no coach, captain had just walked out, no CEO and the 'Bulldog Hilton' disaster was hanging over the head of the club. There's no way anyone with market value would have joined us unless we paid over the odds.

That may be the case. But it doesn't alter my point that his performance to date hasn't justified his pay packet.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And me. In fact without rational voices prepared to be unpopular really stupid things happen. But don't expect to be thanked for it.

No, I definitely expect to be thanked for it.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

No, I definitely expect to be thanked for it.

Maybe I'm older and a bit more cynical, if the world was fair you would be, but it isn't.

 

[DelRe]

The sum of my posts is that Boyd's overall performance has not justified his pay packet. He'd be the Dogs' highest-paid player but isn't even playing senior football. That is my contention.

All you’re really doing is making a very narrow point based on a flawed assumption that somehow performance can be translated into some unit of currency so that all players are paid according to performance. That is just not how salaries are set. As very well put by Mofra there are a number of factors that pushed up his salary.

The question you’re avoiding - which again is the actual OP question - is was it worth the risk. You can look and say you regret a decision but that is fundamentally different to whether the decision to pay the amount was justified.

To take an analogy it would be a sensible decision to fly from Melbourne to Perth rather than drive. If the plane crashed I would very much regret it but the decision to fly remains a sensible one unless I knew there was something wrong with the plane before I got on.

 

[Aeglos]

Comments like this are completely misguided. Was tracking well (his stats as a ruck were on par with Grundy at the same age) before being out with mental illness. He strained his glute towards the end of the preseason which put him slightly behind. Being out of the best 22 in a team that plays one KPF and one Ruck at the moment, while having not played for almost 12 months, is hardly reason to change his approach to life in general. He's played 10 full games since being deserving of a Norm Smith medal....

Are they?
I know quite a few people who knew him throughout his pre-draft years and they all say basically the same thing as jiphoc

 

[Jade]

That's because they draw an erroneous causal link between Boyd and the flag.

I don't think it's erroneous.

Boyd undoubtedly played well in the GF, and was a big part of the reason the Dogs were able to get the win.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My view is a little bit different. Should other players be paid similar or more money than Boyd if we are basing it off the premiership as a whole? Sure.

But that's impractical because you can't pay all these guys seven figures. That's the point.

It's impossible to say whether or not we would've won the flag without Boyd, but the fact is, he was in the top 3 players on the ground and suggesting that we had another player that could've filled his role is just not right.

Still, his overall performance has not justified his pay packet.

But back to my overall view. St. Kilda are getting very disappointing crowds at the moment to their games, I know quite a few Saints supporters who honestly don't even want to support their club at the moment. They don't want to go to games. It's similar to a point how a lot of Bulldogs fans felt at the end of 2014 after everything that happened. My view is that had they won a flag during their time of success in 2009/2010 I don't believe this attitude would exist. They'd have a high to look back on and as such would have a bit more forgiveness when it comes to the club not performing as expected.

Tom Boyd was an integral part of something that allows the Bulldogs fans to have faith that there's always a reason to go to the Footy, and for that I believe the contract has paid itself off.

Well, that's an irrational argument based on your feelings.

Now, if we look at it from a standpoint of games vs contracts and then compare that with other players, then sure, it's easy to say it's not worth it and I'd agree with that.

OK, then. That's all I've been saying.

But you need to take a step back and realise there are more variables involved. Yes, this is a "No Boyd = No Flag" argument which you're heavily against, but I truly don't see a scenario where we win that game if he does not play.

Still, his overall performance has not justified his pay packet. It's that simple.