Page 63 of 94
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:52 pm
by Bob Sugar
Medieval wrote:Defender wrote:Medieval wrote:Personally, I think we'll lose him. I think it's a bad thing because:
1. He is very highly rated by a lot of former football champions.
2. He's young.
3. He has great natural ability.
4. He could be anything!
I think it's a good thing because:
1. He could be anything, including a dud (see Jack Watts).
2. We have enough young players to cover the position he would play. Ramsey and Maynard are the first two that come to mind.
3. He's young enough that losing him wouldn't hurt us too much on the field. Beamsy hurt a lot because he was easily in our top 5. Shazz has played 4(?) games and hasn't cemented his spot yet, although that is mostly due to injury.
4. He is the key to us getting Dangerfield. He fits the Crows current player profile in terms of age, considering their window has just opened.
I've always thought our chasing Treloar was a ruse. I don't think we've been as heavily into him as the media makes out. I don't want to give Bucks and Hine too much credit, but could it be possible that they took Shazz in the draft knowing he was highly rated but conceding that he was heavily injured with the goal to have him fit in time for Danger to be out of contract?
No trading is needed for danger, he's a restricted FA, either crows match the offer (which has never happened before) or they don't and get band 1 compo.
IIRC, Adelaide can match the offer, and then trade him to whoever they want, to get what they want. Given that the compensation pick system has been pathetic, I think the Crows will most certainly match any offer and then go from there.
No ones going to offer him 1.5 mill + per year and then have to trade for him, that's why FAs get paid overs because you aren't weakening your list by obtaining them, in the short term anyway.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:07 pm
by melliot
Should have a solid Base contract but with potential for him to earn big bucks should he perform. Then it creates a win win.
How can he ask big money based on what he has done or shown. Right now he is a Fringe player that has potential. Marsh has shown more spunk so far.
I hope we keep him. But that's only on the basis that everyone else says he will be extremely good. I haven't seen it. So if he gets traded, it will be to our advantage for obtaining other targets.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:12 am
by Darkstranger
This thread is like a tennis match backwards and forwards to Shazza then Danger?
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:46 am
by jackcass
I don't understand why people have issues with a suggested $400k deal.
I'd assume a player like Langdon would be on something in the order of $350-400k. I mean just on the base draftee contract he'd have earned more than $250k this season.
Therefore a 3-4 year deal at $400k a year means we're likely paying marginally overs 1st year based on performance to date but if he progresses as we'd like then $400k is likely to be unders by the end of the contract. Swings and roundabouts.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:18 pm
by Medieval
Defender wrote:Medieval wrote:Defender wrote:
No trading is needed for danger, he's a restricted FA, either crows match the offer (which has never happened before) or they don't and get band 1 compo.
IIRC, Adelaide can match the offer, and then trade him to whoever they want, to get what they want. Given that the compensation pick system has been pathetic, I think the Crows will most certainly match any offer and then go from there.
No ones going to offer him 1.5 mill + per year and then have to trade for him, that's why FAs get paid overs because you aren't weakening your list by obtaining them, in the short term anyway.
It depends on how hard Adelaide wants to make it for the other clubs to get him and how much one of them wants him. It's easy to front load a contract these days, but given that its a FA situation, Adelaide would set those terms too.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:33 pm
by RudeBoy
De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:46 pm
by Skids
Spot on RB
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:50 pm
by MagpiesTheGreat
We are all just speculating.. don't get upset, don't get too emotional about our own assumptions/speculations/reasoning....
He stays or not....Collingwood will win a flag in 2017.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:53 pm
by Lazza
RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
As much as I would like to disagree with you, your pure logic defeats my efforts. I think you are right on the money here RB.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:13 pm
by Bob Sugar
RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
Yep, **** him I say, if he wants out let's send the ungreatfull pompous little shit to the draft so he can get snapped up by a bottom feeding club.
Unless he wants to stay of course.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:13 pm
by neil
RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
All true
However Cloke haggled over the terms of his contract
Pretty sure a number of others have haggled without getting much attention.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:17 pm
by dalyc
jackcass wrote:I don't understand why people have issues with a suggested $400k deal.
I'd assume a player like Langdon would be on something in the order of $350-400k. I mean just on the base draftee contract he'd have earned more than $250k this season.
Therefore a 3-4 year deal at $400k a year means we're likely paying marginally overs 1st year based on performance to date but if he progresses as we'd like then $400k is likely to be unders by the end of the contract. Swings and roundabouts.
I don't think your base contract for a draftee is correct. The average AFL contract in 2014 is about $280k so a draftee must be much less.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:18 pm
by Bob Sugar
neil wrote:RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
All true
However Cloke haggled over the terms of his contract
Pretty sure a number of others have haggled without getting much attention.
True, Damir began a bidding war between us and the Tigers before He even entered the draft, and he's bent us over during every single contract he's had, and he'll try and do it again in a couple of years.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:25 pm
by themonk
Defender wrote:neil wrote:RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
All true
However Cloke haggled over the terms of his contract
Pretty sure a number of others have haggled without getting much attention.
True, Damir began a bidding war between us and the Tigers before He even entered the draft, and he's bent us over during every single contract he's had, and he'll try and do it again in a couple of years.
Let him try next time
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:40 pm
by RudeBoy
neil wrote:RudeBoy wrote:De Goey didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Moore didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Maynard didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Langdon didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Ramsay didn't haggle over the terms of a contract extension.
Despite the fact that we've nursed him through 18 months of rehab and he's only played 3 fairly ordinary games for us, it seems Scharenberg reckons he's worth a lot more than these other players. I'd have expected him to feel that he owes Collingwood, not the other way around. Let him go back to Adelaide. It's obviously where he wants to be. We don't need players who are half-hearted and not fully committed to our club.
All true
However Cloke haggled over the terms of his contract
Pretty sure a number of others have haggled without getting much attention.
It's extremely rare for any player who has only played 3 games to haggle over their first contract extension. Cloke had already served 7 or 8 years. It is normal practice for a player's first contract extension to be fairly straight forward and negotiated quickly without much fuss. It's only when a player has truly demonstrated their worth by a few years in the system that contract haggling, to some degree, is to be expected.
