Wood and Butler re-signed

[SaintPav]

Wood gets a 3 year contract and Butler gets 2

https://x.com/9NewsMelb/status/1830168096914432338

[Scollop]

What is it with St Kilda and 3 year contracts for 30 year olds?

[SuperDuper]

Very strange to give wood 3. I guess he will be on a low salary but still strange. Same with hill I guess they both took a lower salary for a longer contract??

[Sainternist]

Stoked about Woody! Loris will be, too.

[mad saint guy]

There's a big difference between resigning and re-signing

[damienc]

There's a big difference between resigning and re-signing

Thank you. Yes.

[skeptic]

I edited the title.

Posted earlier but removed it… I was a bit miffed by Mason getting 3 years. He’s already 30 and there were some signs (IMO) that he’s plateauing in terms of form though he finished the season strongly.

Having thought more about though… worst case scenario, if he’s spending the last season-season and a half at Sandy, with a lower salary teaching the kids and demonstrating leadership/positive attitude etc… that a big win IMO.

We’ve lacked that for a long time and the club has undervalued the presence of proper mature aged depth/experience at the club for most of the last 15 years to more recently

[SaintPav]

Sorry about the typo.

[wally]

I think it’s a good call , by all reports he is helping out the young ones with prep and I think some are living with him.
I suspect he’s been carrying an injury or 2

[older saint]

Mason great for culture and also been playing very well.
Haven't checked but Butler was high for pressure acts this seasons for the team ( at times at least ) . Also not obviously ready replacement.

[Yorkeys]

Noting we know nothing of the specific contractual arrangements; and its becoming clearer, is it not, that contracts between clubs and players are tending towards becoming more statements of intent and ways to fix salary levels than binding mutual obligations.

Its now discretionary for players to stay with clubs, yes? if a better offer comes along........

AFL are going to need to boost a) the sophistication of its scrutiny of total package arrangements - e.g. how can Hawthorn take two critical, key position, highly paid players from lower sides with ease and impunity; and b) get more hard nosed with the players association to stem the drift towards players moving between clubs with comparative ease, notwithstanding existing contracts.
If it doesn't the competition is going to become more premier league-ish.
Can you imagine if a big club won six of seven premierships in a row and looked likely to win yet another. It wouldn't just be Melbourne fans deserting live games.

[Sanctorum]

I edited the title.

Posted earlier but removed it… I was a bit miffed by Mason getting 3 years. He’s already 30 and there were some signs (IMO) that he’s plateauing in terms of form though he finished the season strongly.

Having thought more about though… worst case scenario, if he’s spending the last season-season and a half at Sandy, with a lower salary teaching the kids and demonstrating leadership/positive attitude etc… that a big win IMO.

We’ve lacked that for a long time and the club has undervalued the presence of proper mature aged depth/experience at the club for most of the last 15 years to more recently

One of the reasons the club brought Ross Lyon back in late 2022 was to develop a strong culture of success, which the coach has reiterated quite a few times in the past two years and appears to be progressing well.

Mason Wood's value is recognised not just for his outstanding form in 23/24, but also as a mentor to the younger players. In occasional interviews by the media he has come across as a very passionate Sainter, and a really decent human being.

So it's quite undserstandable that the club decided to reward him with a 3 year deal!

[saynta]

I thought some sad sacks would offer negative comments on at least one of the signings. I see I wasn't disappointed ..or surprised.

[Otiman]

One of the reasons the club brought Ross Lyon back in late 2022 was to develop a strong culture of success, which the coach has reiterated quite a few times in the past two years and appears to be progressing well.

Mason Wood's value is recognised not just for his outstanding form in 23/24, but also as a mentor to the younger players. In occasional interviews by the media he has come across as a very passionate Sainter, and a really decent human being.

So it's quite undserstandable that the club decided to reward him with a 3 year deal!

I was going to post something along these lines, but you've nailed it.

Tom Campbell was in this boat too. Even if Mason doesn't play seniors, he is worth the contract.

[D.B.Cooper]

I edited the title.

Posted earlier but removed it… I was a bit miffed by Mason getting 3 years. He’s already 30 and there were some signs (IMO) that he’s plateauing in terms of form though he finished the season strongly.

Having thought more about though… worst case scenario, if he’s spending the last season-season and a half at Sandy, with a lower salary teaching the kids and demonstrating leadership/positive attitude etc… that a big win IMO.

We’ve lacked that for a long time and the club has undervalued the presence of proper mature aged depth/experience at the club for most of the last 15 years to more recently

I think the soft cap is very shallow, therefore signing a guy like Wood on a low contract (assuming) he can be that coaching mentor at the club.

He is certainly respected and admired by NAS amongst other young players.

[magnifisaint]

Wood is a late developer. It would be great to see him get to 100 games in the RWB.

[Waltzing St Kilda]

Has Sharnan re-signed?

[ace]

Noting we know nothing of the specific contractual arrangements; and its becoming clearer, is it not, that contracts between clubs and players are tending towards becoming more statements of intent and ways to fix salary levels than binding mutual obligations.

Its now discretionary for players to stay with clubs, yes? if a better offer comes along........

AFL are going to need to boost a) the sophistication of its scrutiny of total package arrangements - e.g. how can Hawthorn take two critical, key position, highly paid players from lower sides with ease and impunity; and b) get more hard nosed with the players association to stem the drift towards players moving between clubs with comparative ease, notwithstanding existing contracts.
If it doesn't the competition is going to become more premier league-ish.
Can you imagine if a big club won six of seven premierships in a row and looked likely to win yet another. It wouldn't just be Melbourne fans deserting live games.

If it were to become more like international soccer you would have the situation where players either maintained more than 1 year on their contract or they would be traded against their will.
Top international soccer clubs NEVER allow a player to become a free agent, they never go into a season without signing on for the following season. The club either owns them or they trade them for cash before that can happen.
In the AFL that would mean trading them for draft picks the year before they become free agents.

[Scollop]

I think the soft cap is very shallow, therefore signing a guy like Wood on a low contract (assuming) he can be that coaching mentor at the club.

He is certainly respected and admired by NAS amongst other young players.

Agree with everything you've said. However....

First Hill and now Wood. Soft cap limitation means we essentially retain 34 and 35 years olds on the playing list for the last year of their contract.

We'd be keeping them in 2026 and 2027 at the expense of bringing in 18-23 year olds. We are hoping they may still be performing on field at a high level, but it's not sustainable to keep doing that with your older players.

My problem with continuing to go down that path is that you could be sacrificing the future prosperity of the team.

It's a risky strategy when you might be forced in culling players that you possibly didn't want to in 2026 and you keep Hill and Wood ONLY because they have a contract (and not because they deserve to play on in 2027).

[SaintWiki]

What is it with St Kilda and 3 year contracts for 30 year olds?

Many 30 year old don't have stuffed bodies these days - and besides I'd be really pissed off if we let him go now and we don't know what the negotiations were.

[skeptic]

I think it’s a worthy question though I agree that it’s been answered nicely.

If Mason’s form does fall away say after a year… and/or we’re not winning or in finals contention, this decision will be heavily criticised then

[repta]

Mason has been going well. Body holding up well. He is as good as he ever will be ( players don't get better after 30). His best is really good. Leadership around the club is good.

Butler has evolved as a player. 2 is long in my opinion. In 18 months it would not surprise if he was pulling on the Sandy jumper regularly

[D.B.Cooper]

If Hill & Wood are there for leadership, mentoring, etc…

We are supporting imported players while not offering a home grown team man in Seb Ross with another year.

Don’t know, and it’s opposed to my previous post, but the club may feel Hill & Wood have 3 years in them.

I doubt they’d leave or anyone else would offer them three, so perhaps it was unnecessary?

[SaintPav]

It’s clearly a show of faith and a reward for output, with perhaps clauses to mitigate any risk to the club due to age etc.

[nostalgicsaint]

I think the soft cap is very shallow, therefore signing a guy like Wood on a low contract (assuming) he can be that coaching mentor at the club.

He is certainly respected and admired by NAS amongst other young players.

Agree with everything you've said. However....

First Hill and now Wood. Soft cap limitation means we essentially retain 34 and 35 years olds on the playing list for the last year of their contract.

We'd be keeping them in 2026 and 2027 at the expense of bringing in 18-23 year olds. We are hoping they may still be performing on field at a high level, but it's not sustainable to keep doing that with your older players.

My problem with continuing to go down that path is that you could be sacrificing the future prosperity of the team.

It's a risky strategy when you might be forced in culling players that you possibly didn't want to in 2026 and you keep Hill and Wood ONLY because they have a contract (and not because they deserve to play on in 2027).

Over a 3 year period we're not going to have too much of an issue given we don't have that many old players.