Why would they get rid of Blake and DWZ if there aren't significant savings? Why upset the fans and the players for only a small gain? That makes no sense. We don't know the exact numbers but I will credit the retention committee with enough intelligence not go and do this without a worthwhile reward.
To get under the cap. Brian Fletcher even publicly said we had salary cap pressure for next year, so it’s not really a saving that can be used for much, it’s a saving to make us salary cap compliant.
Next year after upgrades for Naden and Too there should still be enough left to have cash for an extra player in the 200 to 300k range or to replace Maloney with a better player (Maloney's salary plus the savings), although I'm not sure there are any on the market next year.
Yeah I’d say the only way we can make a significant signing is if Maloney leaves, otherwise it’ll be Peachey for $300k. Who could still be a good contributor.
I'm not against 5 year contracts, a few key players on 5 or 4 year deals makes sense. Even more so now that trading players is commonplace.
I don't think the fact we will mainly have 3 year deals will make any difference to the trading. Teams are fluid and a player can sign and within 12 months is not worth what he signed for. You would still trade him if he had 2 years left on a 3 year deal. Too and Naden are great examples of where we paid too much for DWZ and Blake because we had no idea these two would be so good and other teams were trying to sign them. Gus did what he had to do to retain them and nobody complained at the time. A rep quality centre and fullback are worth the rumoured 500k a year each. But only if they really are rep quality and as it turns out, they aren't.
I’m not against one or two, but Gus was handing them out like candy.
Cartwright, Moylan, Cleary, RCG, Blake, Whare even Leota got a 4 year deal. Merrin & Tamou also got 4 year deals. Tamou looks like he’ll be the first to actually finish one.
I honestly do think more 2-3 year deals will see less horse trading, it may not mean less player turnover overall, but I expect we’ll see more players actually finish their contracts and not be re-signed.
If someone was traded with 2 years left of a 3 year deal I’d suggest that would be an unusual circumstance. I think the shorter contract can have the potential to keep the player hungry, where as a 5 year deal a player might be a little too comfortable.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's very easy to be critical of deals signed. I think it is very difficult and much more complicated than people think. The market place inflates salaries some times and you just don't know what a player is going to go on and do. It is so frustrating watching a player like Blake with all that athletic ability, just not make the step up. As Gus said, you actually have to take a punt that a player will go on and be worth what you sign them for. If that doesn't eventuate, you move them on. This is exactly what has happened with Blake and DWZ, isn't that just showing the system works? I hope we continue to do that and constantly review our roster and make changes.
You abhor it, I embrace it. For many years we would have happily allowed overpriced mediocre players to stay on our roster.
I was actually critical of several of these 5 year deals when they were signed, not just after if fell apart. I remember be flabbergasted that Dean Whare would be given a 5 year deal after coming off two significant injuries. Also never rated Bryce Cartwright, who was a classic example of a hyped panthers junior.
The point for me is not signing these guys to overpriced deals in the first place, Gus’ strike rate was bad, there’s no getting around that. The guys he identified as being worth long term deals have for the most part been failures.
So yes, I don’t want overpriced, mediocre players on our roster either. But I want the strike rate of our talent identification improved. Without Gus I’m hopeful that can happen, because it pretty much can’t get any worse. (I’m talking specifically about the players given long deals here)
As I’ve mentioned before, none of that is to say Gus didn’t do some great stuff at the club, but I think there’s decent evidence to suggest his decision making became worse as time went on. So I’m glad we’ve freshened things up, and hopefully now will do things more by a consultative process than one mans viewpoint.
