The future first rounder of Melbourne for Dawson was unders - we knew it then and so did Adelaide. The reason the deal happened for that exchange was that we had zero bargaining power - he was out of contract and Adelaide were very early in the draft selection order. So comparisons of what we received for Dawson to current potential trades need to be adjusted to reflect not only the player's talent and potential, but also relative bargaining strength.
Where did all the Zurhaar talk come from? Genuinely curious. Are we after him?Originally Posted by Maltopia
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If "we" means some contributors to RWO, then the answer would be yes. Surely trading a player to North would involve
infringing a number of basic human rights. I'm not sure the club would want to have to front up to the court in The Hague.
No player is wanting to go to Norf unless they are getting a significant amount more in dollars and years in their contract. It shows the stupidity of the AFLPA's insistence that clubs must pay 95% of salary cap as Norf are collectively paying that grab bag of spuds very close to what the lists of the best teams get paid! Just like when Melbourne was a basket case, almost as much collectively as the three peat Hawks.
Cerra for pick 6, Dawson for pick as late as 19 shows the bargaining position of OOC players and clubs lack of bargaining position when your player wants to go to a bottom team. We would be so much closer to a flag with Dawson in our side and I don't begrudge Dawson going home but I am death riding the Crows even more while he's there :-)
I think Cam Zurhaar talk is just RWO'ers firing arrows in the dark.
The Crows certainly had us over a barrel with Dawso. In the EPL for example, when a player enters the last year of his contract, the club has some choices. Either enter into a new one (or extend) or trade the player. If they don’t do this then they run the risk of running down the contract and then the player can leave for free.
We have this situation at the moment with Liverpool: top scorer Mo Salah has 1 year left and negotiations have stalled over money and terms. Currently he is worth say £80 Million if sold. If they can’t come to terms he can walk next June for free, so the club has to make a decision now.
Therefore we can’t allow our players to run down their contracts unless we want to trade them. Leaving it to their final year is too late in many instances- however we had it tough due to Covid issues as I’m sure the club was trying its best with Dawso. So we need to renew contracts in the second last year to make sure we have bargaining power if the player hesitates to re-sign.
Good post RoadRunner. My understanding with Dawson is that he was committed to re-signing (even saying so himself publicly) and his late change of heart caught the club out. Lessons learnt maybe in player trust which can of course work the other way.
I am guilty of wallowing how much better we'd be now with Dawson and had we drafted Serong over Stephens, but keep things in perspective club has mainly got our list management right. Good fortune getting our hands on McDonald as a result of North's oversight and quality of our Academy output (Mills, Heeney, Gulden, Campbell and Wicks?). Plus unearthing gems like Papley, Chad, Rampe, the McCartins etc....
Hope we get maximum outcome out of Melbourne's 1st rounder for Dawson.
On another note, I'm not in favour of mid season trade period that is being floated about in the media. IMO it would result mainly in players from bottom teams wanting to go to top teams as it has with FA (or raise contract $$$$), which was intended for fringe players to able to seek more opportunity, same as this proposal.
I can see top teams getting into trade wars to match their rivals in the race for finals creating a bigger gulf in the competition and increasing the number of non competitive games in back half of the year. This in turn could have flown on affect in fan engagement and broadcasters not getting ratings outcome from their investments.
I'm firmly in the camp that you manage the hand you dealt yourself with for the entire year. Mid season draft is enough to cover unforeseen long term injuries etc...
P.S. I do recall in the old VFL days in the 70's and 80's the odd player moving clubs mid season. Recall Russell Greene playing for St Kilda on a Saturday and then for Hawthorn the following Saturday! Wasn't good for the competition as the big clubs were continually dominant.
Last edited by KSAS; 8th June 2022 at 10:40 AM.
Me, I think. He’s OOC this year and has “put his contract discussions on hold” thought he’d be worth targeting. Likewise Taranto
Good points there, RR. Certainly, its ideal to re-sign topline players one year out to avoid the potential of the Dawson nightmare scenario. However, what appears to be happening is that player management is advising their clients to avoid this in order to maximise their bargaining power.
Of course, this tactic is only going to work for players who have strong currency in the trade market due to prior good performances or great potential. For example, Mills and Papley are coming out of contract at the end of next season. I'm sure we would want to lock them in over the coming 6 months. On the other hand, fringe players like Sinclair and Fox are coming out of contract at the end of this season. I doubt the Club is any hurry to expedite their re-signing till the end of the season, if at all!
I fully agree with this thought
Yep. Mark, Ludwig, and myself have all got on board the Zurhaar train as soon as he said that he had out contract discussions on hold. Absolutely nothing more than a RWO hypothetical.
I forgot Jacob Hopper when I made my Santa wish list earlier too (only because I think he’s just as good as Taranto but cheaper).
Yes teams do have to pay 95%, but I believe that they can bring payments to players forward thereby pumping up their TPP for the currnt year and making room for new recruits or salary growth in the next year/years.
That said, when a team is as deplorabe as North, and with youngsters like Horn-Francis refusing to comit further - the club must kind of run out of capable players/years to prepay, so they end up having no choice but to pay "that grab bag of spuds" over the odds.
Something similar happened to us during the days of the 'Bondi Billionaires' - only not so bad. We lost some players at the time, but it seems very likely that we also lost the ability to pay forward, which I suspect was still be having an effect up till at least last year. Hopefully we won't lose any more players as their value increases.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks