Bombers to make a play for Goddard

[andrewg]

Deledio, Hurley, Sam Reid, Ablett, Scully, Ward. - all 5 year deals

So all 25 and under at the time, except maybe Ablett who is comfortably the best player getting around.

Goddard - 28 early next season - no 4-5 year deal.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Great post I agree

[Megsie]

If BJ goes for the 1 extra year..........then so be it. Doesn't rank him
with much integrity or value in the leadership area.

[Cairnsman]

So all 25 and under at the time, except maybe Ablett who is comfortably the best player getting around.

Goddard - 28 early next season - no 4-5 year deal.

Exactly what I was thinking.[/quo

Great post I agree

I aggree too. The only person in that lot that has arguably shown he will be worth a 5 year deal is Abblet and unless he and the the Gold Coast are pushing for a top 4 win before his first contract expires then they might as well have put their money into some other publicity stunt or better still development players.

Deleido, Hurley, Reid and especially Scully and Ward have got a fair bit of work to do in their next couple of seasons to keep the "5 year" deal in vogue.

[SainterK]

I think you're all focusing a little closely and need stand back a bit...you've listed all the current 5 year deals but I am sure there are plenty of players coming out of 4 year contracts in their early thirties?

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

[Old Mate]

If the reports are true that BJ wants four years at 600k PA then the club is doing the right thing by not accepting those terms. That deal would mean we are paying a 30/31 year old 600k. Unless he's another Garry Ablett Snr then no thanks.

[bergholt]

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

yeah, i suppose it comes down to personal opinion. i wouldn't give him 4 because the last thing we need in the middle of a rebuilding phase in 2016 is to be paying a 31 year old $600k a year, taking up money that we could use to chase free agents or re-sign developing kids. if he's still good and playing well then, he'll get good contracts, same as lenny is now. if he's not then we've saved cash.

but also, my view is tempered by the fact that i don't really care if he goes because of where we are in the cycle. i just don't think we can compete in the next few years anyway, so if the option right now was a straight swap of bj for caddy (effectively) then i'd take caddy. he can only be more useful in five years than bj.

[plugger66]

I think you're all focusing a little closely and need stand back a bit...you've listed all the current 5 year deals but I am sure there are plenty of players coming out of 4 year contracts in their early thirties?

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

Does his form over the last 2 years warrant 4. IMO no way. I have changed my mind on BJ. If he stays it would seem we cant really gor for any free agents or even middle of the road players in the trade period. I would let him go now and then chase hard on an experienced backman. That could still leave us some money in the cap for another player.

[PJ]

I think you're all focusing a little closely and need stand back a bit...you've listed all the current 5 year deals but I am sure there are plenty of players coming out of 4 year contracts in their early thirties?

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

I have stood back a little and come to the conclusion we'd be better off without too many 600k players with little upside. BJ has been a champ and he may yet still be with us but to stretch our cap again for him is not in St. Kilda's best interests IMO

[Toy Saint]

Is there any opportunity for us to trade Goddard to Essendon?

They do have an excess of ruckman (although I'm not sure we want their 3rd best)

Goddard may not finish in our top 6 or 7 in the best & fairest, despite not missing a game. In my view he was probably ahead of Lenny in the drawn GF, but has not really dominated a match since. He is well short of All Australian.

As such, he should be rated as a very good footballer, but short of the highest level.

$500k for 3 years should be about right for this type of player at his age.

[saintsRrising]

We finished 9th.

That is 9th

That is not the type of finish that means we should be throwing money at our current list.....unless of course you are content with 9th. We actually need to trim, if we are to get some new blood in.

We need some tough decisions. We need to be realistic. We need some changes.

It is perhaps interesting to reflect that this year that reflect that the less skilled Zac would probably have had us playing finals football if we have had of say had him playing instead of BJ.

BJ is a good player yes, but the reality was that all the teams big forwards monstered our backline, and we lost many quite winnable games largely due to this (other reasons like skill errors yes), but the lack of a true big defender cost us dear.

Now YES, I want BJ to stay (and I am a bird in the hand type of guy....), but not at the price of crippling any meaningful list restructuring. His for over the last two years simply has not been elite and does not demand an elite salary/length tenure combo.

[dragit]

Is there any opportunity for us to trade Goddard to Essendon?

No. Essendon can get him for free if he chooses to go there, so no way they will trade us anything.

[Devilhead]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

[dragit]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

Correct

[#1GILL]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

I'm fairly sure it's not linked to where you finish. Band 1 is a mid first round pick. So I imagine it's either directly before the first of the final 8's picks, or 10th (9 teams above, 9 below).

Which means either way we recieve pick 12 and 13

[plugger66]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

Yep thats how it works. i think it makes sense because that way bottom clubs who lose a star get better compensation.

[saintsRrising]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

I'm fairly sure it's not linked to where you finish. Band 1 is a mid first round pick. So I imagine it's either directly before the first of the final 8's picks, or 10th (9 teams above, 9 below).

Which means either way we recieve pick 12 and 13

It is linked to where the affected clubs finishes.

So the lower a club is...the higher the compensation...which goes back to equalisation theory.

Trouble is that not all clubs will lose players equally!!! So there will be winners and losers.

[bobmurray]

I'm not fussed if he goes...no point paying overs for a player who isn't accountable to an opponent...

Imagine him at Essendon directing traffic and spitting the dummy....

We can gamble on getting set up for another crack in a couple years by getting some more quality on the list if he goes..

It could also backfire and we end up with top picks like Melbourne's....

[#1GILL]

So let me get this right here

If we lose Goddard to Essendon via free agaency then we are likely to get a Band 1 compensation pick - Jake Niall is saying pick 13 in compensation (one pick after our 1st round pick which is 12)

Does that mean if Goddard played for Melbourne and they lost him to free agency then they would receive pick 6?? (one pick after their 1st round pick which is 5)

Can anyone clarify this??

I'm fairly sure it's not linked to where you finish. Band 1 is a mid first round pick. So I imagine it's either directly before the first of the final 8's picks, or 10th (9 teams above, 9 below).

Which means either way we recieve pick 12 and 13

It is linked to where the affected clubs finishes.

So the lower a club is...the higher the compensation...which goes back to equalisation theory.

Trouble is that mot all clubs will lose players equally!!! So there will be winners and losers.

That's certainly how GWS & GC Uncontracted signings worked, but my understanding is that FA is different and far less accomadating. I'm not proclaiming to know it all, and I might be completely wrong but the way I read it is Band 1 is a mid first round pick, Band 2 is an end of first round pick and so on. Regardless of where the club finishes.

Does anyone have the official wording of FA compensation?

[Hemi Baxter]

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

yeah, i suppose it comes down to personal opinion. i wouldn't give him 4 because the last thing we need in the middle of a rebuilding phase in 2016 is to be paying a 31 year old $600k a year, taking up money that we could use to chase free agents or re-sign developing kids. if he's still good and playing well then, he'll get good contracts, same as lenny is now. if he's not then we've saved cash.

but also, my view is tempered by the fact that i don't really care if he goes because of where we are in the cycle. i just don't think we can compete in the next few years anyway, so if the option right now was a straight swap of bj for caddy (effectively) then i'd take caddy. he can only be more useful in five years than bj.

Spot on.

[Richter]

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

yeah, i suppose it comes down to personal opinion. i wouldn't give him 4 because the last thing we need in the middle of a rebuilding phase in 2016 is to be paying a 31 year old $600k a year, taking up money that we could use to chase free agents or re-sign developing kids. if he's still good and playing well then, he'll get good contracts, same as lenny is now. if he's not then we've saved cash.

but also, my view is tempered by the fact that i don't really care if he goes because of where we are in the cycle. i just don't think we can compete in the next few years anyway, so if the option right now was a straight swap of bj for caddy (effectively) then i'd take caddy. he can only be more useful in five years than bj.

It may be that BJ shoots himself in the foot... if the club pick up Caddy then BJ may not have the same option of $600k pa on the table any more from St Kilda. In that situation he'd be faced with taking a salary drop to stay with his mates... not what I think he is currently asking his manager to negotiate.

[Bernard Shakey]

I think you're all focusing a little closely and need stand back a bit...you've listed all the current 5 year deals but I am sure there are plenty of players coming out of 4 year contracts in their early thirties?

BJ does not even want 5, he wants 4, I believe this to be reasonable.

Who are these players you are sure of?

[SainterK]

It could also backfire and we end up with top picks like Melbourne's....

Impossible, we're guaranteed some guns I tell ya....

[maverick]

Just pay him the money, in 4 years time we will have noone decent to pay the money to anyway.

[Richter]

Do you think Brendon is simply using this to get his 4th year from the Saints?

I can't see the issue with 4 years , nor understand why they wouldn't give it to him.

It's about equality between all the players on the list... not giving especially generous contracts to any one player. Take Joey for instance... he's had a similar last 2 years to BJ. He's accepted a 2 year deal. BJ is a year younger than Joey. How does the list manager look Joey in the face and tell him that BJ is worth so much more than he is.

Over the last few years, only one player can claim to have been worth significantly more than any other on our list. He's a 5 time best and fairest winner, a 4 time All Australian including once as captain.

Brendon Goddard is a good player but he's no Nick Riewoldt. Heck, we've seen three other midfielders in the last ten years who are better than him (Banger, Lenny and Dal)... so again I ask... Why is he worth preferential treatment?

[maverick]

Do you think Brendon is simply using this to get his 4th year from the Saints?

I can't see the issue with 4 years , nor understand why they wouldn't give it to him.

It's about equality between all the players on the list... not giving especially generous contracts to any one player. Take Joey for instance... he's had a similar last 2 years to BJ. He's accepted a 2 year deal. BJ is a year younger than Joey. How does the list manager look Joey in the face and tell him that BJ is worth so much more than he is.

Over the last few years, only one player can claim to have been worth significantly more than any other on our list. He's a 5 time best and fairest winner, a 4 time All Australian including once as captain.

Brendon Goddard is a good player but he's no Nick Riewoldt. Heck, we've seen three other midfielders in the last ten years who are better than him (Banger, Lenny and Dal)... so again I ask... Why is he worth preferential treatment?

Because he can kick and just about everyone else in our team can't.