#32 Travis Cloke

[Big T]

And I think we need to sit back and see what Trav does in the finals.

A lot of love has come out since the Essendon game.

Essendon. Possibly the worst team in the AFL since mid season. Possibly worse than the Giants. Travs 2 decent games of late have been the Giants and the Bummers.

Lets see him rip the Hawks a new one before we get too excited.

[Deja Vu]

Tannin,

Free agency, restricted or not, provides AFL players with an easier method of changing clubs if they want to. Do you agree?

Because players are now able to leave their clubs under free agency rules, and those clubs receive bugger all should they leave, would you agree that clubs will now be willing to pay higher salaries and offer longer term deals for their required players when they become free agents?

[Nick - Pie Man]

Money cannot buy happiness. just a thought for the day.

Nor can it buy premierships - just ask the Scum!

[Tannin]

In one word: NO!

They would like to, of course Deja, but the reality is that the money supply is fixed. Clubs CANNOT give free agents more money because there isn't any more money. There is a salary cap. And unlike the story with telephone companies, a cap means that you can't go over it.

(Unless you are Carlton and cheat, of course.)

Clubs can give free agents more of the existing money, but only by giving other players less money. The cap is the cap and it alone determines total player payments.

(We are assuming here that clubs are using close to 100% of their cap, as successful clubs always do. Clubs are free to spend a certain amount less than their cap, but only the no-hoper clubs on the brink of extinction ever do that. There seems to be no obvious reason why free agency would change that.)

[WhyPhilWhy?]

Think of the salary cap as a pie...

[themonk]

And I think we need to sit back and see what Trav does in the finals.

A lot of love has come out since the Essendon game.

Essendon. Possibly the worst team in the AFL since mid season. Possibly worse than the Giants. Travs 2 decent games of late have been the Giants and the Bummers.

Lets see him rip the Hawks a new one before we get too excited.

He is our best forward by far & has been for several years, even this year!

That's why other clubs are willing to pay $1mil for him.

[Deja Vu]

In one word: NO!

They would like to, of course Deja, but the reality is that the money supply is fixed. Clubs CANNOT give free agents more money because there isn't any more money. There is a salary cap. And unlike the story with telephone companies, a cap means that you can't go over it.

(Unless you are Carlton and cheat, of course.)

Clubs can give free agents more of the existing money, but only by giving other players less money. The cap is the cap and it alone determines total player payments.

(We are assuming here that clubs are using close to 100% of their cap, as successful clubs always do. Clubs are free to spend a certain amount less than their cap, but only the no-hoper clubs on the brink of extinction ever do that. There seems to be no obvious reason why free agency would change that.)

The bolded is exactly what I'm talking about, and is exactly what is happening right now. Better players who are currently or soon to be eligible for free agency are getting better deals at higher rates and longer terms (see Hurley, Selwood, Deledio).

This is at the expense of "lesser" players who are more easily replaceable.

So bringing the discussion back on topic, which category do you think Travis Cloke falls under? I think there is no question that he is a "better" player and if retaining him at the expense of "lesser" players is what it takes to keep him then that's what I would do.

If Travis were to leave, who would play CHF for the next 5 years? How much would it cost us to bring in a capable CHF, someone able to compete at the level that Cloke does now?

[Redlight]

What the AFL needs to do and hasn't yet is to assess salary caps in the light of the inflationary nature of free agency and increase them to accommodate it. They will do this eventually when the clubs start to complain and pressure them to do it.

Oh dear. Failed Economics 101, did we?

Inflation is determined by growth in the money supply. Indeed, many economists define inflation as "growth in the money supply". Increased prices are what you and I see in our role as consumers, and are a consequence of inflation, but the cause is an increase in the money supply (more precisely, an increase in the money supply relative to the creation/exchange of goods and services).

Given the salary cap, "inflation" in player payments is impossible. Because the money supply (in this case the AFL salary cap) is fixed and cannot change (except if the AFL decides it wants to change and adjusts the rules) "inflation" in player payments simply cannot happen. We may or may not see a rise in the proportion of total player payments going to individuals who happen to be free agents, but that too is irrelevant - if it happens, it can only happen at the expense of other players who are not yet free agents - in which case the average cost of player payments still remains exactly the same 'cause you can't go over the cap.

Whether players are free agents or not is completely irrelevant. The only thing that can increase player payments is a change in the salary cap rules.

(Oh, unless you are Carlton, of course. They you can just cheat, same as usual.)

I'm not sure that we need an economics lecture. No matter how interesting economics may be to economists, the rest of us would rather dip our testes in lava than hear any more.

I think the point being made was clear enough - free agency changes the expectations that players have of their potential income. It could even be said that their expectations are 'inflated' by free agency. Although, I hasten to add, that would only be a turn of phrase and neither an economic analysis nor an indication that air was being pumped into them.

That increased expectation may lead to non-free agents asking for more money, and, if disappointed, motivate them to switch clubs. Inflationary or not the end result is the same, Clubs will find it harder to accommodate the demands of their mid-range and better players. Not just the free-agents.

[Tannin]

... exactly what I'm talking about, and is exactly what is happening right now. Better players who are currently or soon to be eligible for free agency are getting better deals at higher rates and longer terms (see Hurley, Selwood, Deledio). This is at the expense of "lesser" players who are more easily replaceable.

No argument from me on that score. My point was that it is absurd to claim that free agency is "inflationary" or "is pushing costs up". The reality - as I think we both agree - is that costs remain exactly the same because the size of the pie (thanks WPW) is fixed.

Now, you claim that the payments for stars like Cloke are going up at the expense of other players. I have seen no evidence on that point but have no reason to doubt you. Let's postulate that, pending evidence against, and consider the consequences, particularly with regard to T. Cloke.

If we pay close to a million a year for Cloke, what are the consequences for the club as a whole? Yup, we get an excellent power forward, something that every club wants. But what are we giving up to get that? Who could we get (or more to the point, keep) for $400,00-$500,000 a year? A Beams? A Reid? Well, yes. In fact we could have both of those for the price of a Cloke.

Now I reckon Trav is a beauty. He is one of our best 10 players. I'd rather have Cloke than a Reid. But there is no way on earth that Cloke is worth a Reid and a Beams - but that's what his dorkhead management is asking.

When that's the deal on the table, it's time to walk away. "Make us a better offer" we say, "or we will keep that almost-a-million and use half of it to pay a Goddard and the other half on a Rioli".

[sem]

As i have always believed TRAV has made his mind up .

The two games he has played well were against below standard teams and my 95 year old mother could do that

Nothing has changed since what i believe happened about 4 weeks ago as per my previous thoughts on NICKS and especially the one headed

MALTHOUSE ! + CLOKE 1 = 2

The boy has gone.

How he gets paid by his new team has been worked out .

So i hope we can enjoy his last few games for Collingwood this year

Will he lift his effort for the finals ??? Lets wait and see

[David]

If Cloke does end up signing with us, I'm thinking of going through this thread and pulling out the most obnoxious posts. Anyone want to help? MagpieBat?

[5150]

If Cloke does end up signing with us, I'm thinking of going through this thread and pulling out the most obnoxious posts. Anyone want to help? MagpieBat?

What about those (of us ) who have had a bit each way, they will be ridiculed but we right as well.

Wont someone think of the fence sitters!

[HAL]

When, specifically, will they?

[ClokingDevice]

I was convinced he was gone until the players starting mobbing him and he started tweeting out of the blue and Goldy told Hughsey he aint doing what you hope

It's not a lot but I'm jumping on anyway because the alternative is too awful to contemplate

[Pa Marmo]

I have to believe that Bucks, Walsh and co are smart enough to place as much importance on Trav as he is wort, the number one marking forward in the land.