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

[SBD Gonzalez]

It was a punt.

Personally I was against it at the time but our recruiting staff have certainly pulled off a few brilliant moves over the years so I was willing to trust them on it.

Hasn’t paid off in every respect, but has paid off in most respects. Definitely a win, but not the Coup of the Century.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

Thanks for your input.

 

[QuietB]

$5m to go.

We should wait until it’s over before we judge shouldn’t we

 

[La Dispute]

Nope.

Of the 9 years, has played at a million-dollar standard for only 3-4, Sydney haven’t won a flag in that period and Buddy’s form is rapidly declining to the point he’ll be lucky to get a couple of average-reasonable years at the tail end.

If I was Sydney I’d be looking to move him on in any possible way, as he’s basically a sunk cost, and they’ve got three very capable younger talls in Reid, McCartin and Blakey.

 

[Freomaniac]

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.

I agree with most of the post. You would do the Buddy deal again.

Tippet was worth for 2013-5 alone. Tippett lead the swans goal kicking with 35 goals and he only played 12 games. I loved his 2015 season too: 44 goals from 22 games and still rucked a fair bit. Had the swans won a flag in 2014 or 2016, Swans would of looked at Tippett differently.

Reid has been serviceable. If you wanted him out, 2017 would of been perfect as could of left as a free agent.

 

[demondavey]

It's funny seeing him as a weedy cleanskin with a full head of hair.

Listed as 196cm / 87kg on his draft profile. The Swans website has him at 199 / 105 now. Was always pretty lean for a big forward up until his late 20s but he's massive now. His big strength in marking the ball was always getting separation but good luck wrestling him.

He has a huge backside

 

[Freomaniac]

A question that has been asked many times before, but is now gaining some serious traction. With Buddy's reduced input this year, due to injury, and the subsequent tumble down the ladder of the Swans, did Sydney trade away their future for the 'now'?

While undoubtedly Buddy will go down as one of the all-time greats of the game, the elusive premiership that was promised by his arrival now seems like a distant memory. With his contract increasing every year and his output not improving, in hindsight this seems like a blunder by the club that prides itself on culture - the 'Bloods' culture. Giving all that money to one man (or two if you include Tippett), whilst players like Brownlow Medalist Tom Mitchell, Toby Nankervis (premiership ruckman), Dan Hanneberry, Gary Rohan, Nic Newman and Shane Mumford were pushed out, seems to have created a situation where that once renowned culture is now showing cracks. An inability to attract big name players due to salary cap issues caused by players like Franklin (and previously Tippett), have led to circumstances where players like Mills and Parker are regressing at a steady rate. While I don't think it is solely Franklin and his pay causing this, I do think it plays some part when such a big chunk of the cap is being used for one man.

It can be argued that Franklin's recruitment increased membership, marketing and corporate profitability for the club since his arrival (he really does bring fans through the gates), but for the long-term outlook, where membership sales could drop once the Swans bottom out, has the the short-term gain been worth the possible long-term downturn? I'd argue no, but that remains to be seen.

I think the Swans have been a brilliant club, and Geelong have a good history with them (no bad blood), so this doesn't come from a place of malice. I am genuinely concerned that one of the stalwarts of the competition in terms of competitiveness, is now dropping off due to salary cap mismanagement from those in a position of power, with delusions of grandeur.

I would argue that retaining Mitchell, one of Nank or Mumford, Hanneberry and Rohan, would be preferable to 3-5 years of Franklin, and a now retired Tippett. With players like McVeigh, Kennedy, Jack, Smith, Grundy and of course Franklin coming into the twilight of their careers, it does seem to beg the question - 'where to from here?'

What are other's thoughts?

TheRednWhite Would love to know where you stand?

No disrespect to you. But this is one of the most stupidest posts ever written on BigFooty and here is why....

Did Sydney trade their future away for the now? Debateable.

Its not like freo back in 2000-2006 where freo traded their future away in trading picks 3 and 19 for Des Headland in 2002 and trading picks 11, 27 and 43 for Josh Carr in 2004.

Franklins recruitment changed the swans. Yes it increased memberships and crowds at the SCG. Sponsors were lured in as well. Merchandise would of been sold more off the back of him too.

If Buddy franklin reitred now, the only failure he has got is not Winning a flag at the swans.

I dont know how old you are, But I remember the swans from 1992-4 where they were bottom 3 years in a row. 3 wins in 1992, 1 win in 1993 and 4 wins in 1994. They were garbage and it looked like a bleak future. Around that period they were averaging 8-10,000 a game too.

At the end of 1994, Tony Plugger Lockett went to the swans on a big money deal. He had a similar impact like Buddy franklin. He drew crowds and increased memberships not to mention more sponsorship. I remember the swans averaging 20-25,000 people at swans games in 1996-7

Like Franklin, Lockett didnt win a flag at the swans.


Define failure? Not winning a flag? Low crowds Or members? Lack of Sponsors? Or a mixture of all of them?

 

[J_Moore]

People will reference the close calls and Buddy's popularity but really, that means nothing after his contract runs out. I expect Sydney will be in a worse position when he ends his contract than where they were before and that is the only measuring stick with which to judge the Buddy contract decision by the Sydney Swans.

Mate, with respect, this paragraph makes little sense.

 

[Scotland]

He has a huge backside

My anaconda don't.

 

[jackenny]

Mate, with respect, this paragraph makes little sense.

They would be in a worse situation like the Dogs are with Boyd retiring? With a ton of money freed up?

Agree, makes little sense when scrutinised.

 

[Shadow89]

No disrespect to you. But this is one of the most stupidest posts ever written on BigFooty and here is why....

Did Sydney trade their future away for the now? Debateable.

Its not like freo back in 2000-2006 where freo traded their future away in trading picks 3 and 19 for Des Headland in 2002 and trading picks 11, 27 and 43 for Josh Carr in 2004.

Franklins recruitment changed the swans. Yes it increased memberships and crowds at the SCG. Sponsors were lured in as well. Merchandise would of been sold more off the back of him too.

If Buddy franklin reitred now, the only failure he has got is not Winning a flag at the swans.

I dont know how old you are, But I remember the swans from 1992-4 where they were bottom 3 years in a row. 3 wins in 1992, 1 win in 1993 and 4 wins in 1994. They were garbage and it looked like a bleak future. Around that period they were averaging 8-10,000 a game too.

At the end of 1994, Tony Plugger Lockett went to the swans on a big money deal. He had a similar impact like Buddy franklin. He drew crowds and increased memberships not to mention more sponsorship. I remember the swans averaging 20-25,000 people at swans games in 1996-7

Like Franklin, Lockett didnt win a flag at the swans.


Define failure? Not winning a flag? Low crowds Or members? Lack of Sponsors? Or a mixture of all of them?

If you actually read the whole thread you would see this has already been all discussed and addressed.

Debatable*
Retired*
Don't*
Didn't*
Winning shouldn't be capitalized*

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Also, you absolutely are intending to be disrespectful, so not sure what that backhanded attempt at nicety is for. Don't come in a month after the fact and reignite old arguments when they've already been addressed.

P.S. seeing as you didn't decide to go and find it yourself, here's what I said earlier that addresses the above:

(This part was actually in the post you just referenced, which you clearly didn't read properly)

"It can be argued that Franklin's recruitment increased membership, marketing and corporate profitability for the club since his arrival (he really does bring fans through the gates), but for the long-term outlook, where membership sales could drop once the Swans bottom out, has the the short-term gain been worth the possible long-term downturn? I'd argue no, but that remains to be seen."

(This part was in response to the misinterpretation of my argument)


"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."

 

[Swan4Life]

WTF??

The only signing we truly regret is that of Kurt Tippett.

Buddy has been worth every red cent.

 

[ep2018]

Sydney are unlucky to not have won two flags with him. They came up against a once in a generation Hawks team, and then a Dogs team riding a wave of emotion and favourable umpiring.

 

[Big Blood]

Unquestionably it's been a great era for Sydney on and off the field and Franklin's been at the centre of it.

If the Franklin trade had come before Tippett most likely we would not recruited have Tippett and thus kept Mumford and Membery. But hey, no regrets.

Buddy is slowing down a little but is still just about the most watchable player in the comp. THe next generation of forwards like McCartin, Blakey, Hayward are getting mentored by one of the all-time greats. Can't imagine anyone at the club has any second thoughts about the Franklin trade.

Kudos to Andrew Ireland for doing the deal (he did a similar ten-year deal for Lynch which paid off brilliantly for the Lions). For all the endless chatter about coaches, getting a first-class CEO to your club is equally important. He was one of the best, involved in four premierships at Brisbane and Sydney.

 

[demondavey]

Kurt Tippett was the issue, your CEO recently said that Sydney didn’t see the best of him. You paid an absolute fortune. To make this about Franklin is amateur and comical.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/03/20/swans-ceo-reflects-on-tippett-deal/

 

[Freomaniac]

WTF??

The only signing we truly regret is that of Kurt Tippett.

Buddy has been worth every red cent.

You can debate about Regretting to Recruit Kurt Tippett. Personally it was a good pick up. Having Both caused problems to opposition teams. Even if either Buddy or Tippett was out for a week with an injury or suspension, at least there was one quality tall forward in the forward 50.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Lmao this is nearly as silly as the thread a few weeks back that argued that Tom Boyd was a better acquisition than buddy.

Ahhh yeah nah, Buddy getting smashed HTB dawdling into the centre square in 2016, then Boyd kicking goal-for-the-ages..

You can't erase that 20 seconds.

20 seconds in a 10 year contract, but that 20 seconds contains a brain fart that costs your club a premiership.

And it happened to Buddy, the man who had everything in the footballing sense. The fates are fickle!

 

[99cents]

Ahhh yeah nah, Buddy getting smashed HTB dawdling into the centre square in 2016, then Boyd kicking goal-for-the-ages..

You can't erase that 20 seconds.

20 seconds in a 10 year contract, but that 20 seconds contains a brain fart that costs your club a premiership.

And it happened to Buddy, the man who had everything in the footballing sense. The fates are fickle!

I'm calling beetlejuice on that one!

 

[The King!]

its certainly been tortue having a couple of flags and finals wins over the last 20 years

this one down year has certainly been torture for the fan base

they took a risk why the hell not, better than being a nothing club like many others

 

[The King!]

Nope.

Of the 9 years, has played at a million-dollar standard for only 3-4, Sydney haven’t won a flag in that period and Buddy’s form is rapidly declining to the point he’ll be lucky to get a couple of average-reasonable years at the tail end.

If I was Sydney I’d be looking to move him on in any possible way, as he’s basically a sunk cost, and they’ve got three very capable younger talls in Reid, McCartin and Blakey.

if sydney didnt sign buddy do they win a flag in the 9 years?

 

[The King!]

If you actually read the whole thread you would see this has already been all discussed and addressed.

Debatable*
Retired*
Don't*
Didn't*
Winning shouldn't be capitalized*

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Also, you absolutely are intending to be disrespectful, so not sure what that backhanded attempt at nicety is for. Don't come in a month after the fact and reignite old arguments when they've already been addressed.

P.S. seeing as you didn't decide to go and find it yourself, here's what I said earlier that addresses the above:

(This part was actually in the post you just referenced, which you clearly didn't read properly)

"It can be argued that Franklin's recruitment increased membership, marketing and corporate profitability for the club since his arrival (he really does bring fans through the gates), but for the long-term outlook, where membership sales could drop once the Swans bottom out, has the the short-term gain been worth the possible long-term downturn? I'd argue no, but that remains to be seen."

(This part was in response to the misinterpretation of my argument)


"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."

None of them players you mention are missed except tom mitchell that was awful for the club, but sydney expected hannebery jack to go longer while heeney mills etc develop

rohan being forced out? glad hes started well at geelong but he was pretty lousy at Sydney cmon

 

[Freomaniac]

If you actually read the whole thread you would see this has already been all discussed and addressed.

Debatable*
Retired*
Don't*
Didn't*
Winning shouldn't be capitalized*

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Also, you absolutely are intending to be disrespectful, so not sure what that backhanded attempt at nicety is for. Don't come in a month after the fact and reignite old arguments when they've already been addressed.

P.S. seeing as you didn't decide to go and find it yourself, here's what I said earlier that addresses the above:

(This part was actually in the post you just referenced, which you clearly didn't read properly)

"It can be argued that Franklin's recruitment increased membership, marketing and corporate profitability for the club since his arrival (he really does bring fans through the gates), but for the long-term outlook, where membership sales could drop once the Swans bottom out, has the the short-term gain been worth the possible long-term downturn? I'd argue no, but that remains to be seen."

(This part was in response to the misinterpretation of my argument)


"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."

Whatever.

It would be Like asking freo about the Harley Bennell Trade(s)

Or about Freo trading pick 3 in 2016 for cam mccarthy, pick 8, pick 32 and pick 72

 

[Shadow89]

None of them players you mention are missed except tom mitchell that was awful for the club, but sydney expected hannebery jack to go longer while heeney mills etc develop

rohan being forced out? glad hes started well at geelong but he was pretty lousy at Sydney cmon

You're crying out for a decent ruck at this time. I reckon Nank or Mummy would fill that void pretty well

 

[HotSausage69]

Nup they got some great marketing from him. One of the best players we have seen will always be remembered with the Swans organisation,(obviously Hawthorn too) and if not successful, they've at least had an entertaining player that brought people to the footy in itself. Too early to even make this call until after he's retired, we have no idea if Swans will have another crack at it while he's still in contract.

 

[Freomaniac]

It was a punt.

Personally I was against it at the time but our recruiting staff have certainly pulled off a few brilliant moves over the years so I was willing to trust them on it.

Hasn’t paid off in every respect, but has paid off in most respects. Definitely a win, but not the Coup of the Century.

its certainly been tortue having a couple of flags and finals wins over the last 20 years

this one down year has certainly been torture for the fan base

they took a risk why the hell not, better than being a nothing club like many others

Swans have a history of Getting Marketable Key forwards in Warick Capper, Tony Lockett, Barry Hall and Buddy Franklin.

All four have made a Positive impact.

Tight shorts aside, Capper had a good 5 year run with the swans in the mid 1980s. Included a 90 goal and 102 goal season. Plus Finals in 1986-7. He drew crowds in his peak.

Tony Lockett also had a good run at the Swans from 1995-9. Still remember the day he kicked his 1300th goal vs Collingwood. Another bloke that helped the swans increased memberships, crowds and sponsors.

Barry Hall had a good 7-8 year run at the Swans from 2002-09. Greatest year was 2005: kicked 80 goals and helped the swans to the flag in 2005.

Buddy Franklin, well we are talking about him are we...

All 4 players were good forwards in their Peak. All 4 improved the swans. All 4 drew crowds, memberships, ratings and sponsorship.

If I had to say who had the Biggest impact for the swans in a Positive way, I would say a tie between Capper or Plugger in a tie. Acutally, Maybe Plugger getting the edge and here is why.....


Go look at the swans in 1992-4. 3 wooden spoons in a row. 3 wins in 1992, 1 win in 1993, 4 wins in 1994. Lockett and Roos joined the swans at the end of 1994. 1995, swans had 8 wins, 1996 they made the grand final.

Capper helped turned a bottom 4 side into a finals side under coach Tom Hafey.

Hall and Franklin both Joined the swans when the swans were decent and constantly made finals, Both helped the swans to multiple Grand finals. though.