#32 Travis Cloke

[RudeBoy]

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.

At Collingwood that figure is $800,000 pa x 4 years.

[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.

At Collingwood that figure is $800,000 pa x 4 years.

If he wants 5 at 750 no strings attached just get it done.

[Cuthbert Collingwood]

some stats:

Trav has missed 5 games in the last six seasons, 3 of them in 2005. He is 25 years old.

At the age of 31 and 32 David Cloke played 19 and 17 games respectively. In his last two seasons (admittedly playing for the rabble that are the Richmond Tigers) he played 21 and 22 games, at the age of 35 and 36.

5 year deal for Travis? I have absolutely no problem with it - it doesn't even need to be performance based as Trav will play well into his 30's.

[uuuuu..... The LoneSTAR]

5 year deal for Travis?

I don't mind 5 years either although it may be more about the money?!?! Having said that, retaining Travis is like kicking a supergoal!!!!!!.... We keep the best contested mark in the game & the boooos get squat!

[Tannin]

I'm on record as being against too large a payout to Trav because we need to keep enough aside to pay the likes of Pendlebury and Beamer and Sidebottom and Reid and whichever of our young guns turns into the Beams of 2014 - Elliott, say, or Paul Seedsman. Whoever it is (and there will be new young stars - if there are none, we are rooted - we will have to offer a decent package. Much as Cloke is important, we need to keep a sense of perspective and not go too far the way his pigheaded owner wants us to.

But I have no problem with a more reasonable payment per year spread over a longer time. Assuming that there are sensible minimum performance requirements - an essential with a really long contract - I don't have a problem with signing him up 'till he is 32. A gift for catching it in a big frame like Cloke's, hell, even if he can't run and cover the ground the way he does now, he'd be a massive threat to any defence just parked in the goal square monstering full backs. (Think J. Brown, A. Rocca.) Who says the dinosaur in the goal square ain't still viable?

Five years? No worries. I don't mind 6 or even 7.

[noddy,]

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?

Moneyball. Good film.

(in a nutshell, clubs that overpay for stars would get cleaned up by smarter clubs that collect underpaid higher-level mid tier players).

[Deja Vu]

Can't compare a sport with zero cap against AFL.

I also think 800 for 5 years is reasonable given other offers are on the table for at least 200k a year more (400k more if the Freo deal is to be believed).

What I dislike is that those offers were invited in the first place. I much prefer the Pendles approach where the player instructs the manager to deal with his current club without letting other clubs put offers forward.

But that's happened now and we can't change that.

[Tannin]

Can't compare a sport with zero cap against AFL.

Why not? Have you any evidence that demonstrates there is any difference in the relative weightings of player skills and player payments? A link would be nice.

[Deja Vu]

http://voices.yahoo.com/do-higher-baseb ... 72253.html

The evidence is irrefutable - one needs a good comparative payroll to compete to win a championship. Over this 21 year period, there was once both teams paid under baseball's average: 1985, but then only barely - the Cardinals were 1% below the average, literally about $3200. In a little under 50% of the years covered here - 10 - the Series winner had average player salaries of in excess of 25% more than baseball's average, 11 if you include 1986 when the Mets had a payroll 24% more than the average. Conversely, there was only one year in which the World Series loser had a payroll greater than 25% higher than the average - the 2003 Yankees

[Tannin]

^ That's a very interesting article, Deja Vu, and thankyou for linking to it. I read it with pleasure.

Alas, it has nothing at all to do with my question. I asked you for evidence of difference in "the relative weightings of player skills and player payments" when you compare leagues with a salary cap vs leagues without a cap.

Just to make the reasons clear, let's refresh our memories of the discussion so far:

1: I said that it would be a mistake to pay too much for Travis Cloke and not have enough left for players like Beams, Fasolo, and Reid.

2: Noddy pointed out that clubs which overpay for stars get cleaned up by smarter clubs which collect underpaid higher-level mid tier players.

3: You essentially claimed that Noddy's comment was not relevant because you "can't compare a sport with zero cap against AFL".

4: I asked you to substantiate that claim by giving evidence of relative differences between cap leagues and non-cap leagues.

If your contention that we "can't compare" football to baseball because baseball salaries are not capped has any merit, there will presumably be some evidence you can point us towards. I suggest to you that there it is unreasonable to assume that there is some significant difference between good baseball recruiting/retention strategies and good football recruiting/retention strategies unless we have some evidence for that view. In short, if we are going to pay way too much for one player (Cloke) we must first have good evidence to suggest that paying a very large amount for one player is justified.

[Deja Vu]

The link I provided was to refute Noddy's claim, which I think it does.

[Animal]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/blues- ... 6466844404

Reading this article makes me think Cloke is gone.

"Sources say Collingwood is highly active in its pursuit of a versatile big man, with up to $700,000 to offer another key position player to replace Cloke."

[E]

^ That's a very interesting article, Deja Vu, and thankyou for linking to it. I read it with pleasure.

Alas, it has nothing at all to do with my question. I asked you for evidence of difference in "the relative weightings of player skills and player payments" when you compare leagues with a salary cap vs leagues without a cap.

Just to make the reasons clear, let's refresh our memories of the discussion so far:

1: I said that it would be a mistake to pay too much for Travis Cloke and not have enough left for players like Beams, Fasolo, and Reid.

2: Noddy pointed out that clubs which overpay for stars get cleaned up by smarter clubs which collect underpaid higher-level mid tier players.

3: You essentially claimed that Noddy's comment was not relevant because you "can't compare a sport with zero cap against AFL".

4: I asked you to substantiate that claim by giving evidence of relative differences between cap leagues and non-cap leagues.

If your contention that we "can't compare" football to baseball because baseball salaries are not capped has any merit, there will presumably be some evidence you can point us towards. I suggest to you that there it is unreasonable to assume that there is some significant difference between good baseball recruiting/retention strategies and good football recruiting/retention strategies unless we have some evidence for that view. In short, if we are going to pay way too much for one player (Cloke) we must first have good evidence to suggest that paying a very large amount for one player is justified.

Actually Tannin, in sports with a hard salary cap, like AFl and NFL, there is still merit in paying whatever it costs to get a difference maker at a position where there arent many difference makers. In the NFL, there is virtually no salary that is too high to pay a quarterback that is the best because it is such an important position. conversely, in positons where there is a lot of talent and not many difference makers, this is where you save your money by getting younger players (who might be just as good as a veteran but not as demanding on salary (think dayne Beams over dayne Swan for example).

If you agree that Collingwood cannot win without a power forward of cloke's ability (which i think is true), and when you look at what we would replace him with if he left - basically no options, a salary cap expert would probably tell you that this is the place to spend your valuable cap space.

The other interesting thing about caps is that it is tested annually whereas contracts run for a long time.

The other way teams build championships is to load up teams so that they are really good for one or two years and hope to win it all.

The Raven have tried to do that. They made an unbelievable team in 2000 and won the superbowl, but it cost them for the next few years because they were paying players in future years to get service in 2000. Let me explain. If i get three gun mids, that might cost me $700k per year. If i only have 1.4 mill to spend, i might give those players 450 each in the current year, and give them extra years on their contracts so they makew up for it later. It makes it harder to build a winner in three years, but i have decided to go for it all this year.

Other teams - ala Pittsburgh steelers try to build perennial contenters with balanced payrolls year on year. they work on the theory that chemistry over the long term will breed success and this model has also been successful.

At the end of the day, the only ocnstant i can find is that the key to how much you pay someone relates to how much of an impact not having the player would have on your team. I would argue that Dane swan's replacement value is going down very quickly at collingwood given the emergence of other players.

Pendles and Cloke on the other hand are massive difference makers and neither can be easily replaced. they deserve gher salaries.

I think that is why you are seeing teams paying over the odds for really quality key forwards. Franklin, cloke, Reid, Tippett, Clarke and the like.

[Pa Marmo]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/blues-first-in-q-for-lynch/story-fnelctok-1226466844404

Reading this article makes me think Cloke is gone.

"Sources say Collingwood is highly active in its pursuit of a versatile big man, with up to $700,000 to offer another key position player to replace Cloke."

Heresay brother, un-named sources = Internet forums.

[Member 7167]

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

At this point in time it is an each way bet. The rules stipulate the process. As such it would be reasonable to assume that a deal has NOT been done. Pity help the club that breaks the rules on this when considering the publicity surrounding this trade and the fact that it is the first major restricted free agency trade. If Carlscum have broken the rules on this and it is proved publicly then the AFL will have no choice but to nobble them.

If the deals are equal I cannot see why Travis would leave unless he felt he had lost the trust and support of the CFC, it supportyers and it players. I do not think that this is the case.

All we can do is support Travis both on and off the field and hope he has a big impact on a successful Pies final campaign.

I hope he stays but that is yet to be determined. As I have said in the past, I am disappointed in the publicity this has generated and the potential adverse effect upon our season.

In the meantime he is one of ours. Make him feel loved, wanted and supported.

GO PIES

SIDE BY SIDE

Hopefully tonight we redefine our season at the expense of the Dawks.