Which is the better deal?

maverick · Post: # 1387783Post **maverick** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 11:12am

Daisy Thomas 5 years @ $750K a year or
BJ 4 years @ $800k a year.

Appreciate neither would suit us, but which is the better deal?

I reckon Carlton's getting the better deal myself.

FQF · Post: # 1387789Post **FQF** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 11:26am

You would never want a player on a 5 year deal in my opinion, especially given the fact that he's just had almost an entire season of no footy.

He's 26, that means he'll be a 31 year old on 750k.

Will come back to bite.

dragit · Post: # 1387793Post **dragit** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 11:28am

I hope Mick absolutely destroys their cap on a guy that can't get on the ground, that would be sweet.

Carlton need key forwards more than outside run.

Good luck to them.

At least Goddard plays nearly every game.

Kickit · Post: # 1387839Post **Kickit** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 1:11pm

Anyone remember that Hamil guy.
Yeah he was a gun and all that but......

plugger66 · Post: # 1387930Post **plugger66** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 4:40pm

Both are crap deals for the sides taking them and daisy should do as BJ did and take it.

savatage · Post: # 1387934Post **savatage** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 4:46pm

dragit wrote:I hope Mick absolutely destroys their cap on a guy that can't get on the ground, that would be sweet.

Absolutely!

Stephen Theodore · Tue 10 Sep 2013 4:48pm

Is that fact he's been offered 5 yrs at 750k or just talk ?

If fact, he should run as fast as he can and take it. Good player, yes, worth that coin ? No way.

SainterK · Post: # 1387938Post **SainterK** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 4:50pm

They don't need to.

Collingwood would give him 500 max, so why 750?

plugger66 · Post: # 1387950Post **plugger66** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 4:57pm

SainterK wrote:They don't need to.

Collingwood would give him 500 max, so why 750?

Didnt essendon do the same. maybe if it was only 100K more he would stay.

QuestionOfAccuracy · Tue 10 Sep 2013 5:16pm

Why would you give a 5-year deal (and 750K at that) to a guy who has been chronically injured for close to 18 months and still isn't going to be recovered for a few months?

maverick · Post: # 1387981Post **maverick** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 5:51pm

Because he is a gun.
I would go close to saying without him playing for the Pies in 2010, we would have won GF1.

mr six o'clock · Tue 10 Sep 2013 6:00pm

BJ as he is able to play
Thomas for the last couple of years has had allot of injury concerns , 2012 he played most games but was his form was a shadow of the previous 3 and this year he couldn't get on the park . This can all turn around of course but you'd be taking a big risk .

dragit · Post: # 1387998Post **dragit** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 6:05pm

Mitch Clark on 600+ PA… played 15 games in 2 years so far…

Con Gorozidis · Tue 10 Sep 2013 6:09pm

Dunno. BJ is very resilient. Hardly ever injured.

Id say neither is a great deal but the answer surely is 'whoever plays the most games'?

maverick · Post: # 1388010Post **maverick** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 6:14pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:Dunno. BJ is very resilient. Hardly ever injured.

Id say neither is a great deal but the answer surely is 'whoever plays the most games'?

Why?

Wayne42 · Post: # 1388163Post **Wayne42** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 9:09pm

I don't care how many clubs offer ludicrous deals to players to get them to their club, as long as the Sants don't do anything idiotic..

We haven't seen the biggest deal yet, if it eventuates, Buddy to GWS, that has the potential to F*** them for years if he doesn't deliver. Half their cap per year

dragit · Post: # 1388196Post **dragit** » Tue 10 Sep 2013 9:32pm

Wayne42 wrote:I don't care how many clubs offer ludicrous deals to players to get them to their club, as long as the Sants don't do anything idiotic..

We haven't seen the biggest deal yet, if it eventuates, Buddy to GWS, that has the potential to F*** them for years if he doesn't deliver. Half their cap per year

Funnily enough, buddy's reported 2 mil per year is close to the difference in our cap to theirs... Bit like Tippett.

Which is the better deal?

Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?

Re: Which is the better deal?