Was the recruitment of Lance 'Buddy' Franklin, the undoing of the Swans?

[Yojimbo]

Why can’t he go on? Does not in any way look like slowing down. Training loads are minimal, still fast, agile, strong and kicking goals.

Still could of gone on after he finished his initial five year deal and they are not locked into hoping he lasts
until his late thirties. I disagree with anything over five years because as we have witnessed multiple
times things go wrong with injuries and concussions and the like. Imagine if Carlton had signed Sam
Docherty on a nine year deal heavily front ended.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Yes it does, because part of the argument is about Sydney's salary cap and how much of a % Buddy takes. Which for some reason implies we lost Mitchell, Hannebery, Mumford etc because of Buddy. I'm saying if we went back in time I'd happily offer Buddy the same contract because his output so far has been good value. However I wouldn't offer Tippett a contract and I would have traded Reid rather than keep him on big coin (with the benefit of hindsight). Had we not made those two decisions then we'd probably still have Mumford and Mitchell to play alongside Franklin. I'd also argue Hannebery wasn't good value for money based on the large contract he signed a few years ago. Which is why he was traded as a salary dump and not Franklin.

Franklin has been worth it financially and I don't see any issues with a top 5 players in the comp across 2014-2018 being paid a crap load of money.

However, as I've always said we can't really judge this deal until he retires.

Is it possible Sydney is still paying some of hanneberrys wage. I whisper said Rohan is in the same boat.

Heeney signed a long deal to stay for 5 years that must of been back ended nicely because he was offered a lot of money in victoria.

Regardless I think considering Sydney has made two grand finals it's a win. Nearly any club in league will make the franklin deal I see josh Kelly has contract clauses to earn a boatload if he stays play until he is 34 if he signs on. If your in a window where you could win and Sydney were why not go all out.

It's unfortunate from a Sydney perspective the dogs where hot one year.

All decisions look good in retrospect.

At the end of the day as well sydney's last flag was 2012 the OP is basing the list management mainly on 6 games this season. Geelong in that period has sustained consistency prelims but never been able to get over the final hump. It's hard playing moneyball you need all your mature age and rookies to fire and ride you superstars into the ground with nothing left to give. Your looking to pinch a flag and then you are allowed to go back to the draft and recoup.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Hannebery is done and will take a bucketload of work to come back. Plenty of word around that his summer was a bit too enjoyable.

Mumford isn’t bad but he doesn’t do a lot else than at a stoppage or contest, I’ve never rated him that high. Sinclair is a very good player.

Mitchell couldn’t break in due to the inside mid numbers at the club and Hannebery wasn’t expected to drop off as he did.

Florent, Heeney, Mills, Jones, Hewett, Lloyd, Ronke, McCartin, Blakey and Papley form a more than decent young brigade.

Mitchell played in the 2016 gf and was one of their best players.

 

[Zevon]

Ask most Swans supporters and very few of us would say signing Buddy was a bad decision. Ask us about signing Tippett and we'll give you a very different answer. Buddy has been awesome for us and for footy in Sydney and I think we'd go back and do it all again if we had the chance.

No issue at all with the thread though Shadow89 , it's always an interesting discussion.

 

[Freomaniac]

Still could of gone on after he finished his initial five year deal and they are not locked into hoping he lasts
until his late thirties. I disagree with anything over five years because as we have witnessed multiple
times things go wrong with injuries and concussions and the like. Imagine if Carlton had signed Sam
Docherty on a nine year deal heavily front ended.

good point

 

[Shadow89]

Ask most Swans supporters and very few of us would say signing Buddy was a bad decision. Ask us about signing Tippett and we'll give you a very different answer. Buddy has been awesome for us and for footy in Sydney and I think we'd go back and do it all again if we had the chance.

No issue at all with the thread though Shadow89 , it's always an interesting discussion.

Always my lovely fantasy crew that provide the most cordial discussion. Cheers Zevon

 

[Zevon]

Always my lovely fantasy crew that provide the most cordial discussion. Cheers Zevon

Yeah we're well mannered over on the fantasy board aren't we my friend... still it's always fun venturing out into the deep waters of the main board sometimes

 

[Shadow89]

Yeah we're well mannered over on the fantasy board aren't we my friend... still it's always fun venturing out into the deep waters of the main board sometimes

It's always a breath of fresh air after navigating the choppy seas out here. I usually return to the 'oasis' of bigfooty that is our fantasy hub, after a short period of braving the treacherous unknown that is the main board (and the bay), haha

 

[barry fu]

Yes they thought Buddy was going to bring premierships

But the Buddy deal is only going to bring long term pain and suffering for the Swans and Swans supporters.

All player recruitment is for the flag. This is not a Buddycentric condition.

 

[Xtreme]

All player recruitment is for the flag. This is not a Buddycentric condition.

It was used as a selling point, particularly because they were hopefully he'd help the Swans win a premiership (hopefully multiple) within the first 3 years. Turns out they won a big fat zero flags.

 

[gavaniacono]

I'd like to know what the real internal expectations were. I suspect a flag was the main motivation, amongst other important brand/revenue considerations. If they knew at the time he would not help bring a flag but bring a windfall, would they still make the deal? I have no idea but can only speculate the answer would be no.

 

[barry fu]

It was used as a selling point, particularly because they were hopefully he'd help the Swans win a premiership (hopefully multiple) within the first 3 years. Turns out they won a big fat zero flags.

The Swans and others have been doing this for quite some time, recruiting for the cup. This is not a recent phenomena.

 

[barry fu]

Yes it does, because part of the argument is about Sydney's salary cap and how much of a % Buddy takes. Which for some reason implies we lost Mitchell, Hannebery, Mumford etc because of Buddy. I'm saying if we went back in time I'd happily offer Buddy the same contract because his output so far has been good value. However I wouldn't offer Tippett a contract and I would have traded Reid rather than keep him on big coin (with the benefit of hindsight). Had we not made those two decisions then we'd probably still have Mumford and Mitchell to play alongside Franklin. I'd also argue Hannebery wasn't good value for money based on the large contract he signed a few years ago. Which is why he was traded as a salary dump and not Franklin.

Franklin has been worth it financially and I don't see any issues with a top 5 players in the comp across 2014-2018 being paid a crap load of money.

However, as I've always said we can't really judge this deal until he retires.

Bang on AG.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think the question is legitimate. I am certainly glad the Hawks didn't agree to that contract... and it has years to run while Buddy ages.

Yes, the Swans made two GF's. But they were thereabouts anyway and have turned over a lot of talent, some priced out. I think depth on the list wins you flags.

Still, I would have loved to have seen him play live every week, and it was good for growing football in the northern states.

Two years to run isnt alot when you look back at what they acheived bar winning a flag.

This is panning out pretty close to how you would have expected. Winning one out of the two grand finals would have totally justified the strategy.

I bloody well hope this BS talk about bringing back COLA to 'help the Swans' through a lean patch doesnt happen. Cartlon and Melbourne have been rebuilding for how long?

 

[Surely Paul]

Most overrated player of the last 30 years. Can't mark overhead. Goes missing when the heat's on. The deal has been a disaster.
Sorry, but I speak the truth. And you know it. Next.

 

[Wolfgang West]

Ask most Swans supporters and very few of us would say signing Buddy was a bad decision. Ask us about signing Tippett and we'll give you a very different answer. Buddy has been awesome for us and for footy in Sydney and I think we'd go back and do it all again if we had the chance.

No issue at all with the thread though Shadow89 , it's always an interesting discussion.

Certainly Is. More so when imbeciles don't partake.

 

[Wolfgang West]

Most overrated player of the last 30 years. Can't mark overhead. Goes missing when the heat's on. The deal has been a disaster.
Sorry, but I speak the truth. And you know it. Next.

Take A Bow.

 

[RW]

If Buddy Franklin wants to play for your club, you don’t say no.

We’ve made a few interesting list management decisions over the last few years which have resulted in our list profile becoming unbalanced as we’ve had to rely more on the draft, but we should recover. Eventually.

 

[Shadow89]

Most overrated player of the last 30 years. Can't mark overhead. Goes missing when the heat's on. The deal has been a disaster.
Sorry, but I speak the truth. And you know it. Next.

The bay is thataway my friend >>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[F_therest]

Yes but $$$ and contract length weren't the main factors, the removal of COLA is.

It was widely noted in the media that Sydney landing Buddy was a complete surprise to pretty much everybody in the industry and that GWS and the AFL were pissed off as they had been taken for a ride and essentially lied to throughout the year...they were convinced he was going to GWS.

After winning a premiership, Sydney landed Tippett and Franklin on huge deals in consecutive years.

VIC clubs had been complaining to the AFL about COLA for years, but the AFL resisted them. This brought an avalanche of public spotlight and complaints about COLA though, about how this team could land these players on huge contracts and that it was unfair. Even if Sydney defend that it's not how COLA works, it was pissing the general public off and people in high places.

The Buddy deal convinced the AFL to take action and i think was the catalyst for COLA being removed. That and the trade ban seemed like a bit of a 'FU' from the AFL to Sydney for lying to them, and they have hurt Sydney.

 

[PP34]

I’d argue that Buddy made them an elite team for longer than they would have been without him.

Arguing that he pushed out the likes of Hannebery and Rohan is deadset laughable. Hannebery was playing awful footy and looks like his body might be shot. I’m sure they could really do with him sitting on the sidelines this season! Rohan was a mediocre footballer up there and has played a few good games with the Cats. He has never been a consistent footballer so cool your jets.

Nic Newman too? Really? He was basically tossed aside. They didn’t want him. Watching the Swans they certainly don’t miss a running defender like Newman. It’s the least of their concerns.
Nankervis wanted senior footy so not sure how that’s on Buddy either.

Sometimes teams just can’t be good forever. Why are Bigfooty posters so obsessed with there being a contract to blame or a certain coach?

They’ve basically been in the 8 since their first flag. They haven’t bottomed out. Eventually players are going to get older and not be as good anymore.

They lost Adam Goodes. Josh Kennedy is getting older. Hannebery was one of their best midfielders before his body started failing him, McVeigh is nearly cooked. Sam Reid has been a shocking contract and never been able to play consistent footy. Heeney hasn’t developed into an absolute jet like many thought he would (he still has time though). I know I’m missing a few other players too that have left or retired.

 

[PP34]

It was about who he pushed out. Mitchell was a huge loss, along with Mumford to the Giants. It was also about their inability to recruit elite talent during that timeframe, given their cap was at bursting point due to Tippett and Buddy. Nowhere did I say that his lack of bringing them a flag, was the reasoning for this debate. I said their culture changing, as a result, was. If you actually read what I said instead of reaching your own conclusions, you (and others) would have realized that.

From memory Mitchell was in and out of the team and yet to win Longmire’s full trust. Hawks came with a lucrative offer and he decided to leave for better opportunity. I don’t see how that’s on Buddy. When Mitchell left the Swans midfield was fairly deep. Hannebery was still an elite player and there wasn’t an indication that he’d just suddenly stop being elite and end up an injury problem.

Are you seriously going to try and argue Mumford has been a big loss? They made two grand finals without him. In 2014 they were a great side all year, they just collectively didn’t show up on grand final day. In 2016 they were in the game until the 4th. Hannebery also injured his knee early which hurt them big time. It’s funny you mention Rohan as some sort of loss for them in your initial post. From memory he had 4 disposals in that grand final.

If they don’t have Buddy there, who kicks the goals for them in those years? Yes they might have been able to throw cash at some other players but their forward line wouldn’t be nearly the same.

Buddy is a major reason they stayed an elite team from 2014-2017. He wasn’t some cherry on the top player in a stacked side. They genuinely have relied on his ability to win a lot of games.

 

[Fire]

People forget that Syndey would have won the 2016 grand final had the umpiring been impartial.

That's not their miscalculation.

 

[jackenny]

Ask most Swans supporters and very few of us would say signing Buddy was a bad decision. Ask us about signing Tippett and we'll give you a very different answer. Buddy has been awesome for us and for footy in Sydney and I think we'd go back and do it all again if we had the chance.

No issue at all with the thread though Shadow89 , it's always an interesting discussion.

The reality is that Buddy is part of a short list of players to win multiple Coleman Medals, too. He won two with Sydney and has won four in total over his career (to put this into perspective, he's won more Coleman Medals than Jason Dunstall, Gary Ablett Snr, and Matthew Lloyd, and an equal amount to venerable stars like Doug Wade, Tony Lockett, and Peter Hudson). He's a modern legend. There's a handful of other players on similar coin to him, anyway - so it's not like he's being paid an ungodly amount compared to anybody else, especially considering he's a player that'll be mentioned in the same breath as Doug Wade one day.

The only foreseeable loss Sydney had (due to salary cap tightness) was Tom Mitchell, because he played a standout game in the 2016 Grand Final and was on a pretty clear upward trajectory (remembering, of course, he was twenty-two years old at the time). I can't be overly critical about them losing Mumford, because at the time Pyke's output was great and he was a lot cheaper. By memory, he was one of the better performing players in Sydney's 2012 premiership, too. I don't think anybody at Sydney misses Dan Hannebery. I guess Gary Rohan could be seen as a bit of a blunder, but he was playing pretty poorly at the time he left Sydney.

Yes but $$$ and contract length weren't the main factors, the removal of COLA is.

It was widely noted in the media that Sydney landing Buddy was a complete surprise to pretty much everybody in the industry and that GWS and the AFL were pissed off as they had been taken for a ride and essentially lied to throughout the year...they were convinced he was going to GWS.

After winning a premiership, Sydney landed Tippett and Franklin on huge deals in consecutive years.

VIC clubs had been complaining to the AFL about COLA for years, but the AFL resisted them. This brought an avalanche of public spotlight and complaints about COLA though, about how this team could land these players on huge contracts and that it was unfair. Even if Sydney defend that it's not how COLA works, it was pissing the general public off and people in high places.

The Buddy deal convinced the AFL to take action and i think was the catalyst for COLA being removed. That and the trade ban seemed like a bit of a 'FU' from the AFL to Sydney for lying to them, and they have hurt Sydney.

The trade ban was incredibly unfair, honestly.

I didn't mind the idea of phasing out COLA, but the AFL were incredibly heavy-handed in the way they went about it. One thing people often overlook is that COLA wasn't an option for Sydney, and they were obligated by the AFL to pay COLA to begin with - which made the expectation that they could phase out COLA within two years unreasonable, compounded by the trade ban that seemed more like a punitive measure.

 

[Shadow89]

From memory Mitchell was in and out of the team and yet to win Longmire’s full trust. Hawks came with a lucrative offer and he decided to leave for better opportunity. I don’t see how that’s on Buddy. When Mitchell left the Swans midfield was fairly deep. Hannebery was still an elite player and there wasn’t an indication that he’d just suddenly stop being elite and end up an injury problem.

Are you seriously going to try and argue Mumford has been a big loss? They made two grand finals without him. In 2014 they were a great side all year, they just collectively didn’t show up on grand final day. In 2016 they were in the game until the 4th. Hannebery also injured his knee early which hurt them big time. It’s funny you mention Rohan as some sort of loss for them in your initial post. From memory he had 4 disposals in that grand final.

If they don’t have Buddy there, who kicks the goals for them in those years? Yes they might have been able to throw cash at some other players but their forward line wouldn’t be nearly the same.

Buddy is a major reason they stayed an elite team from 2014-2017. He wasn’t some cherry on the top player in a stacked side. They genuinely have relied on his ability to win a lot of games.

I’d argue that Buddy made them an elite team for longer than they would have been without him.

Arguing that he pushed out the likes of Hannebery and Rohan is deadset laughable. Hannebery was playing awful footy and looks like his body might be shot. I’m sure they could really do with him sitting on the sidelines this season! Rohan was a mediocre footballer up there and has played a few good games with the Cats. He has never been a consistent footballer so cool your jets.

Nic Newman too? Really? He was basically tossed aside. They didn’t want him. Watching the Swans they certainly don’t miss a running defender like Newman. It’s the least of their concerns.
Nankervis wanted senior footy so not sure how that’s on Buddy either.

Sometimes teams just can’t be good forever. Why are Bigfooty posters so obsessed with there being a contract to blame or a certain coach?

They’ve basically been in the 8 since their first flag. They haven’t bottomed out. Eventually players are going to get older and not be as good anymore.

They lost Adam Goodes. Josh Kennedy is getting older. Hannebery was one of their best midfielders before his body started failing him, McVeigh is nearly cooked. Sam Reid has been a shocking contract and never been able to play consistent footy. Heeney hasn’t developed into an absolute jet like many thought he would (he still has time though). I know I’m missing a few other players too that have left or retired.

I'm getting sick of having to repeat myself, lol. This is not just about Buddy. This conversation is about his lucrative recruitment that pushed others out, which may have changed the culture. I'm not saying it has, I'm saying that it's something to consider.

This is also not about who performed in Grand Finals, it's about how their list has performed AFTER the exodus of players. Yes they had Pyke, but the loss of Nankervis and Mumford meant they had no depth. When Naismith got injured, all they had left was Sinclair, as the result of losing Jetta back to West Coast.

Rohan was pushed out, even though he didn't want to leave. He was apparently very disgruntled about this. Wasn't a choice to just come back to Geelong. This is the point that I'm making. Mitchell was offered unders at the time, and the Hawks offered him more, so he left. He wouldn't have been offered unders, had the contracts of Buddy and Tippett not been taking up so much of the cap. Malceski was also pushed out early on in the piece, with other fringe players losing out too.

It's a question of culture, compromised by focusing salary cap on a finite amount of players. By the way, Mitchell was well entrenched by the time he left. Played 22 games in 2016, and 17 games in 2015. Was already an integral part of their midfield. The club just didn't see him as important enough to retain. Hawthorn needed a ready-made midfielder, which gave him the opportunity. Was always a gun player.

I don't care about the 3 years from 2014-2016 where he was still in his prime and all of the aforementioned were still on the list. I care about what happened following the fallout from the 2016 Grand Final. Even if they won in 2016, I'd still be asking the same question.

It's a discussion, but people seem to be misinterpreting and getting all up in arms, about the wrong thing. Buddy has been a fantastic player, there is no doubt about that, but did the Swans' short term outlook compromise their long term vision for the club? That is what I'm arguing.