Page 252 of 271
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:25 pm
by MightyMagpie
magpieazza wrote:I understand all the arguments put forward about the salary space because we need to fit in Wells, Mayne and WHE. I know that WB know we want the salary space and are feeding off that, but it still stinks that less than 12 months ago we could have asked for first round pick plus more.
A players value just cant diminish so quickly can it?
It will hurt us if he has a good year and it will be with our direct competitor!!
That is why I am in the camp for make Cloke stay and dont worry about getting Mayne.
Back in 2012 Freo supposedly made a massive FA offer for Trav before he signed with us for 5 years. I reckon 2 or 3 years ago we would have been a chance to trade him for 2 x first rounders or thereabouts.
A more recent example ... almost 12 months ago the Giants rejected 2 1st Rd Picks for Cam McCarthy, they would have Pick No.3 in the '16 Draft.
All these "sliding doors" moments are interesting when you look back.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:26 pm
by Cam
71 then, surely that is still taking the p!$$. 36 or its not getting done. He should kick 30-40 goals if he gets himself right.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:32 pm
by thompsoc
mooretreloar wrote:MightyMagpie wrote:thompsoc wrote:
If it is 79 then that is ZERO points.
If it is 71 then that is 29 points.
So he is basically worthless.
May as well delist him with Travs blessing.
No - if we delist we still have to pay his salary!
Yes he is worthless (in trade currency) and has had to renegotiate his contract with WBD for them to even take him. If I had to guess based on all the smoke and shadows behind the mirrors, I would say it went something like this: 2016 (4th year) $800K, 2017 (5th year) highly conditional at Pies so dropped to say $500K. Renegotiated 2 years at $300-350K at Bulldogs which arguably justifies the manager's claim of a more than 50% reduction (if you compare to 2016 and not what he would have got in 2017).
We already have pick 79 as things stand. RudeBoy must have made a error. Pick 71 was mentioned on Trade Radio. Indicative Draft Order:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-02/i ... raft-order[/quote
You google AFL draft order and go into the first article, here Dogs don't have 71. But, then you look at the date and it says 5/7/16, which obviously turns out to be the order on that day based on ladder positions, so maybe RudeBoy was looking at an old order. I was too earlier today.
Your link is the most up to date link.
I friggin know we have to pay his salary.
My question is...
if we keep him on for one more year and he walks as a free agent.
what compo do we get from the AFL?
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:32 pm
by AN_Inkling
Cam wrote:71 then, surely that is still taking the p!$$. 36 or its not getting done. He should kick 30-40 goals if he gets himself right.
It's ridiculous if that's what the Dogs offer. I expect it will be a third round pick. It will be done though, we don't want to keep him and need the cap space with at least three players very likely to be brought in.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:34 pm
by MightyMagpie
thompsoc wrote:mooretreloar wrote:MightyMagpie wrote:
No - if we delist we still have to pay his salary!
Yes he is worthless (in trade currency) and has had to renegotiate his contract with WBD for them to even take him. If I had to guess based on all the smoke and shadows behind the mirrors, I would say it went something like this: 2016 (4th year) $800K, 2017 (5th year) highly conditional at Pies so dropped to say $500K. Renegotiated 2 years at $300-350K at Bulldogs which arguably justifies the manager's claim of a more than 50% reduction (if you compare to 2016 and not what he would have got in 2017).
We already have pick 79 as things stand. RudeBoy must have made a error. Pick 71 was mentioned on Trade Radio. Indicative Draft Order:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-02/i ... raft-order[/quote
You google AFL draft order and go into the first article, here Dogs don't have 71. But, then you look at the date and it says 5/7/16, which obviously turns out to be the order on that day based on ladder positions, so maybe RudeBoy was looking at an old order. I was too earlier today.
Your link is the most up to date link.
I friggin know we have to pay his salary.
My question is...
if we keep him on for one more year and he walks as a free agent.
what compo do we get from the AFL?
Not sure if serious ...
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:37 pm
by mooretreloar
AN_Inkling wrote:Cam wrote:71 then, surely that is still taking the p!$$. 36 or its not getting done. He should kick 30-40 goals if he gets himself right.
It's ridiculous if that's what the Dogs offer. I expect it will be a third round pick. It will be done though, we don't want to keep him and need the cap space with at least three players very likely to be brought in.
Unfortunately, it is not as ridiculous as you think, my reasoning is outlined earlier today.
I think 59 is the very best we can hope for, but I would be very happy if I'm wrong.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:38 pm
by MightyMagpie
AN_Inkling wrote:Cam wrote:71 then, surely that is still taking the p!$$. 36 or its not getting done. He should kick 30-40 goals if he gets himself right.
It's ridiculous if that's what the Dogs offer. I expect it will be a third round pick. It will be done though, we don't want to keep him and need the cap space with at least three players very likely to be brought in.
Bucks' most recent comments removed suggestion of a negotiation. He basically said Trav had been a good servant and we will grant his wish. So Club seems to have decided to treat him as a FA. We wouldn't get FA compensation for the deal he has done at the Dogs. So a pick like 71 (or even lower) is my bet.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:40 pm
by HAL
If you were him would you do that?
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:47 pm
by thompsoc
MightyMagpie wrote:thompsoc wrote:mooretreloar wrote:
You google AFL draft order and go into the first article, here Dogs don't have 71. But, then you look at the date and it says 5/7/16, which obviously turns out to be the order on that day based on ladder positions, so maybe RudeBoy was looking at an old order. I was too earlier today.
Your link is the most up to date link.
I friggin know we have to pay his salary.
My question is...
if we keep him on for one more year and he walks as a free agent.
what compo do we get from the AFL?
Not sure if serious ...
Yes I am serious.
We are getting nothing but some salary relief.
Next year as a free agent we may get a half decent pick.
I would not have a clue...that is why I threw it out there.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:50 pm
by MightyMagpie
thompsoc wrote:MightyMagpie wrote:thompsoc wrote:
I friggin know we have to pay his salary.
My question is...
if we keep him on for one more year and he walks as a free agent.
what compo do we get from the AFL?
Not sure if serious ...
Yes I am serious.
We are getting nothing but some salary relief.
Next year as a free agent we may get a half decent pick.
I would not have a clue...that is why I threw it out there.
No we would not get compensation of any value based on his current value (ie new contract negotiated with Bulldogs for 2 years at less than 50%) and his age. If he kicked 100 goals for us in 2017 we might though.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:55 pm
by thompsoc
Thanks Mightymagpie.
So it depends on his new contract with a new club.
Not what he got previously.
So his value needs to be pumped up by kicking a bag of goals.
So he is worth about a packet of chips at the moment.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:00 pm
by Member 7167
If the boot was on the other foot and we were attempting to procure the services of Travis, what we we be willing to pay?
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:03 pm
by mooretreloar
Member 7167 wrote:If the boot was on the other foot and we were attempting to procure the services of Travis, what we we be willing to pay?
I argued this earlier today, no way we would pay a 2nd or 3rd round pick. I could imagine the outrage on these pages if we did.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:08 pm
by magpieazza
Its a shame (and probably an oversight by the authorities ) that when you are trying to establish the value of a player, that his present year salary ($800 k) isnt used as a basis for calculations!!
This whole Cloke trade stinks on alot of levels.
Just imagine he plays brilliantly for the next couple years.
Ill go one better.......he kicks the winning goal after the siren 20 m out dead in front.........in the GF
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:20 pm
by Member 7167
magpieazza wrote:Its a shame (and probably an oversight by the authorities ) that when you are trying to establish the value of a player, that his present year salary ($800 k) isnt used as a basis for calculations!!
This whole Cloke trade stinks on alot of levels.
Just imagine he plays brilliantly for the next couple years.
Ill go one better.......he kicks the winning goal after the siren 20 m out dead in front.........in the GF
The fact is that anything is possible. He is certainly past his best but he can be significantly better than he was this year. If he had willingly adopted the Pies fitness plan he may have been much better this year. I suspect he will be more cooperative with his new club next year.
He may also take the last shot at goal from 20 meters out directly in front when his new team is 1 point behind and kick it out of bounds on the full as he has done many times in his career