Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Dont understand your last sentence.
Why would we have given bj the captaincy? Not captain material, always a bit of a to demonstrative on the field.
Roo is and deserves to be the captain. the effort he has put in year after year has been incredible. His efforts this year is nothing short of inspirational.
Cant remember was it pick 12 we traded for that superstar Lee? And I think we couldn't afford to keep him, he got $150k a year more than we offered.
Also he is not setting the world on fire at Essendon. Cheap kicks from a HBF aren't worth 800k a year.
Tell me again how Essendon can afford an extra $150k a year while staying under the salary cap and we can't.
Our whole team is a bunch of overpaid underperformers.
There should be a reserve of at least a million being paid to Lenny and Roo just to reach the minimum requirement percent of the cap.
That reserve can then be paid when we recruit players who are deserving.
Last edited by ace on Sun 24 Aug 2014 3:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Dont understand your last sentence.
Why would we have given bj the captaincy? Not captain material, always a bit of a to demonstrative on the field.
Roo is and deserves to be the captain. the effort he has put in year after year has been incredible. His efforts this year is nothing short of inspirational.
Cant remember was it pick 12 we traded for that superstar Lee? And I think we couldn't afford to keep him, he got $150k a year more than we offered.
Also he is not setting the world on fire at Essendon. Cheap kicks from a HBF aren't worth 800k a year.
Tell me again how Essendon can afford an extra $150k a year while staying under the salary cap and we can't.
Our whole team is a bunch of overpaid underperformers.
Strange comment. They finished below us the year they got him.
Sainternist wrote:Come on, Con. It wasn't that difficult to figure out why he left. We didn't match Essendon's offer, so he left. As simple as that. If we paid the extra mega bucks it took in order to keep him, we'd have all sorts of problems with our cap now and it would seriously hinder our rebuild.
Goddard has gone. Let's move on.
Yep. You are right.
I just lost it when I saw his speccie.
but its pointless dragging this up now.
wont help us in any way shape or form.
I guess id have rather we kept bj and traded joey but its all speculation revisionism and what ifs now...
plus wed still be bottom and bj would be so frustrated with his teammates he would have clocked one of them by now
Ive arrived at this topic a bit late - but Con you need to jump off the weekly whos "luke warm" bandwagon
Yes goddard did have a good game against the suns this week - a couple of goals & a nice grab...
The week before he was embarrassed in the forwardline (too slow if i remember the tag) and bomber had to flip the side round to get the win over the weagles... pick your week.
My personal subjective opinion - biggest figjam in the game - and the EFC to this point have paid overs
SainterK wrote:700 is what I heard, still think $650 over 3 and a 4th with terms would of got it done...some probably still think overs, I don't.
Regardless, those who said he was past it were wrong.
Oh well, goneski.
Cant remember many saying he was past it. many including me said he didnt deserve 4 years on 800k which seems to be the most popular figure. The other stuff is guess work. Think the club were happy to lose him and TBH what happens if he plays. We win one more game this year maybe.
Con Gorozidis wrote:Can someone remind me what we got in return for Goddard?
I honestly cant remember but in hindsight we should have given him 4 years and the captaincy.
not really sure why we didnt? Was it just to protect Roo as 'top dog'?
I bloody hope not.
Why pay him 800k a year for four when all he will do is maybe win us 2-3 more games and take the spot of a new developing kid? And like at the saints he always beats up on the middle to lower teams. Goes missing when competing against 'real' midfielders and is slow.
Like his fait would have been at the saints if he stayed, BJ will never win a flag. Saints move closer one without him. All the bombers will do is make
2013 9th
2014 7th
2015 18th
2016 7-8th?
2017 BJ working for channel 7
On money. Anyone that believes that the EFC back room boys are not looking after BJ beyond what the club pays him is naive IMO. And direct cash is but one of many ways to build ones wealth.
Just look at all the "jobs' that the golden boy had when he was playing.
FA deals favour the more powerful clubs, and is just part of the uneven playing field that the Saints have to struggle against.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
SainterK wrote:700 is what I heard, still think $650 over 3 and a 4th with terms would of got it done...some probably still think overs, I don't.
Regardless, those who said he was past it were wrong.
Oh well, goneski.
Cant remember many saying he was past it. many including me said he didnt deserve 4 years on 800k which seems to be the most popular figure. The other stuff is guess work. Think the club were happy to lose him and TBH what happens if he plays. We win one more game this year maybe.
I agree.
In the end, a 29 year old Goddard (next year) is simply not worth it for us. We need to spend the money in 2015/2016 on a 25 year old Goddard, in sync with our next core group.
Cant begrudge a man an additional 1 million (greater pay plus extra year).
On money. Anyone that believes that the EFC back room boys are not looking after BJ beyond what the club pays him is naive IMO. And direct cash is but one of many ways to build ones wealth.
Just look at all the "jobs' that the golden boy had when he was playing.
FA deals favour the more powerful clubs, and is just part of the uneven playing field that the Saints have to struggle against.
Well they do if you believe all that but I choose not to because why wouldnt every player from those clubs be involved. I think its simple in these situations. You either trust that the SC works or you dont and if I didnt I certainly wouldnt be bothered even having interest in the game. There is certainly no evidence yet that the bigger clubs are favoured by FA. What about Dal then. I reckon Essendon could afford 800k as we could but we chose not to pay it. They were below us on the ladder at the time so why wouldnt they be able to afford it.
SainterK wrote:700 is what I heard, still think $650 over 3 and a 4th with terms would of got it done...some probably still think overs, I don't.
Regardless, those who said he was past it were wrong.
Oh well, goneski.
Cant remember many saying he was past it. many including me said he didnt deserve 4 years on 800k which seems to be the most popular figure. The other stuff is guess work. Think the club were happy to lose him and TBH what happens if he plays. We win one more game this year maybe.
I agree.
In the end, a 29 year old Goddard (next year) is simply not worth it for us. We need to spend the money in 2015/2016 on a 25 year old Goddard, in sync with our next core group.
Cant begrudge a man an additional 1 million (greater pay plus extra year).
'Deemsy you've nailed it.
(I knew there was hope for you. Now you've just gotta move those 'business lunches' to the gym instead, and before you know it, those adoring girls of your youth will come flocking back. )
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
skeptic wrote: ↑Tue 30 Jan 2024 8:07pmCongrats to Dave McNamara - hereby dubbed the KNOWINGEST KNOW IT ALL of Saintsational
plugger66 wrote:
There is certainly no evidence yet that the bigger clubs are favoured by FA. What about Dal then. .
Thanks for clearly demonstrating my point.
North got an "old " Dal with only a couple of years left, and past his prime (though still good).
Dons got BJ at 27 which is prime for a big bodied utility like BJ.
Dons will get more years out of BJ, and in particular will get more elite years.
Dont think that proves anything because its one example for a start and secondly the Saints could have afforded to keep him but we chose not to. We could have matched Essendon so the imaginary money he would have received wouldnt have mattered because BJ would have had to stay with us. SR lets wait a little before we say it helps the bigger clubs unless you have complete proof.
Goddard is a top player but it has always been about Goddard not the team- could played a whole lot better in his last year with us, but was clearly in preservation mode having already seen what money was on the table earlier in the season. Good luck to him, but he is the past for us.
I think it's hard to judge how FA will affect both big and small clubs over the cycle of a generation...but just speculating on whats happened to date, you take a proven gun out of a weak team, yes you get good compensation, but you get an unproven draft pick. They could be better/could be worse...so if i was a betting man (and i'm vehemently not!) then i'd back the bigger clubs to be the beneficiary over the journey in more cases than not...
Saint wagga wrote:I think it's hard to judge how FA will affect both big and small clubs over the cycle of a generation...but just speculating on whats happened to date, you take a proven gun out of a weak team, yes you get good compensation, but you get an unproven draft pick. They could be better/could be worse...so if i was a betting man (and i'm vehemently not!) then i'd back the bigger clubs to be the beneficiary over the journey in more cases than not...
Do you mean bigger or do you mean better clubs? That comment you made suggests better clubs. The other way to look at it is if the hawks lose Franklin they get pick 19 and if the Dees lose frawley they get pick 3 so im suggesting the poorer, as in ladder position clearly win out on that deal. Franklin is a clear number one plus a player and Frawley is about pick 20 at best.
I was referring more on the destination of the good 'proven' player going to a more successful team/financially stronger, less about the club he leaves. The compensation as you say is clearly better for the weaker club/poorer club (they seem linked in the current climate of footy dept spending). But even with that compensation, it's still an unproven young player or perhaps an on trading of that pick for a less quality player than the one who's departed.
Last edited by Saint wagga on Tue 26 Aug 2014 4:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
Saint wagga wrote:I was referring more on the destination of the good 'proven' player going to a more successful team/financially stronger, less about the club he leaves. The compensation as you say is clearly better for the weaker club/poorer club (they seem linked in the current climate of footy dept spending). But even with that compensation, it's still an unproven young player or perhaps an on trading of a less quality player than the one who's departed.
I still cant see why the bigger club will get the good players especially if they are also going well. Wouldnt they usually be a on the SC limit? Im sure smaller clubs who are struggling will get good players especially those who have won a flag at a young age. All clubs must pay 95% of the SC anyway so between rich and poor clubs there is a maximum of 5% and if a small club is going well they will certainly get to 100% of the SC as we did for many years. I reckon we will get a very good player once we use FA and we are likely to be a poor and unsuccesful club at that time.
Agree we will be able to get a good free agent when we are in a position to start cherry picking our for list...problem is we will have likely suffered 3 yrs of poor ladder position. Consistently strong teams (again there seems to be a link here between wealth of the club and sustained success of late) will be able to attract good free agents for less money even when they are still in good positions, as evidenced so far. Its about what players are looking for, the majority wouldsay success within there forseeable and most likely short term future. Time will tell, but long term I think the FA talent pool will more sonsistently go the way of ladder succesful clubs, which of late seem to be financially strong across the board. Yes there will be clubs like us that can nab a gun at the right time (and we'll have to pay overs for them at the time), it's the trend that i'm thinking will go the other way.
Saint wagga wrote:Agree we will be able to get a good free agent when we are in a position to start cherry picking our for list...problem is we will have likely suffered 3 yrs of poor ladder position. Consistently strong teams (again there seems to be a link here between wealth of the club and sustained success of late) will be able to attract good free agents for less money even when they are still in good positions, as evidenced so far. Its about what players are looking for, the majority wouldsay success within there forseeable and most likely short term future. Time will tell, but long term I think the FA talent pool will more sonsistently go the way of ladder succesful clubs, which of late seem to be financially strong across the board. Yes there will be clubs like us that can nab a gun at the right time (and we'll have to pay overs for them at the time), it's the trend that i'm thinking will go the other way.
Where is the evidence so far as you stated? Im unsure there is any evidence yet. Every bottom club will have to pay overs whether they are the pies or the Saints. Why would you go to the pies for less money if they are a rich club if they are near the bottom? I dont see how that makes sense and why wouldnt you come to us for less money if if we had won 19 in a row even if we are a poor club. Its a chance for a flag. Facilties at most clubs these days are very good.
My point is I don't think the pies will be at the bottom of the ladder for a prolonged period of time, if at all, because they are supremely well resourced. I don't agree that all club facilities are that equal (we can agree to disagree on that point). The trend of where FA players have gone so far is the whole reason there is a debate about the merits of FA flying in the face of the current climate of attempted equalisation...
Saint wagga wrote:My point is I don't think the pies will be at the bottom of the ladder for a prolonged period of time, if at all, because they are supremely well resourced. I don't agree that all club facilities are that equal (we can agree to disagree on that point). The trend of where FA players have gone so far is the whole reason there is a debate about the merits of FA flying in the face of the current climate of attempted equalisation...
Must have missed the debate on FA. I thought i heard a stat saying that about half had gone to clubs below the club they were leaving. That to me suggests there is no ral trend at the moment. Pies have been on or near the bottom since being well resourced. The Roos have been no where near the bottom lately and have never been well resourced. Hawks on or near the bottom same as the Eagles. Blues the same.
