8 more years of Max King

[Otiman]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

[B.M]

Why is he a ‘sook’?

[St Dave]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

What rubbish, why does it tell you he isn't confident in himself?

Is every player that signs on for extended deals prior to free agency not confident in themselves? Was Petracca not confident in himself? Was Aaron Naughton? Nick Blakey?

Maybe he just loves the Saints? Has the average per season been announced? I'm sure he will be well compensated, maybe not to the level a 60+ goal a season player would command, but maybe that could be because he isn't selfish and wants money in the cap to build a team around him?

[Yorkeys]

Excellent news.


(But fancy having to ask, like all clubs, for AFL approval. Tail wagging dog. What a subservient process).

[magnifisaint]

Excellent news.


(But fancy having to ask, like all clubs, for AFL approval. Tail wagging dog. What a subservient process).

They need the all clear from Laura.

[Brunswicksainter]

Excellent news.


(But fancy having to ask, like all clubs, for AFL approval. Tail wagging dog. What a subservient process).

All clubs need to get a rubber stamp on contract extensions. This is standard process.

[The Fireman]

I reckon max will be a match winner in the near future

Bookmark it

[Otiman]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

What rubbish, why does it tell you he isn't confident in himself?

If he was confident, he'd back himself in to have elite seasons in 2025 and 2026 and come into contract negotiations with the ability to demand a huge contract. Philippou did this and held out as long as he could, even if it didn't work in his favour he was backing his ability to improve.

At this stage I reckon we've wrapped him up for cheap on the long term contract.

There's no way we'd offer him big dollars and such a long contract.

[Yorkeys]

Maybe newshound Morris miss-heard the story re mega deal for Zac, it was actually for Max on merit.

[seano1]

I would give Nas a 6 year deal before king

[St Dave]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

What rubbish, why does it tell you he isn't confident in himself?

If he was confident, he'd back himself in to have elite seasons in 2025 and 2026 and come into contract negotiations with the ability to demand a huge contract. Philippou did this and held out as long as he could, even if it didn't work in his favour he was backing his ability to improve.

At this stage I reckon we've wrapped him up for cheap on the long term contract.

There's no way we'd offer him big dollars and such a long contract.

I think you are confusing confident with selfish. You are advocating for a player to try to take the club for as much as possible which is to the detriment of building a good team around them.

How about addressing the rest of my reply, where I give examples of well paid players who took long deals on good money but not enough to break their teams wage structure. All from good clubs with good lists that have a depth of quality that allows them to compete.

Is every player that signs on for extended deals prior to free agency not confident in themselves? Was Petracca not confident in himself? Was Aaron Naughton? Nick Blakey?

Maybe he just loves the Saints? Has the average per season been announced? I'm sure he will be well compensated, maybe not to the level a 60+ goal a season player would command, but maybe that could be because he isn't selfish and wants money in the cap to build a team around him?

Go back to Dangerfield moving to Geelong, one of the best mids in the league at the time, taking a contract comfortably less than $1m per season to try to allow the club to pay other talent around him.

You could argue taking less than you are worth is a sign of confidence. Confidence that as a team you will be able to compete for a premiership and make up for a few lost dollars with the ultimate glory.

[Otiman]

How about addressing the rest of my reply, where I give examples of well paid players who took long deals on good money but not enough to break their teams wage structure. All from good clubs with good lists that have a depth of quality that allows them to compete.

None of those guys signed a contract after 2 seasons of injuries and massive media and member scrutiny.

Contract negotiation 101 is that you sign extensions when you can command the price.

Max might be a clubman but player agents definitely aren't.

[The_Dud]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

He definitely been valued on ‘potential’ and not actual returns, so I would say it’s a very good deal for him.

[Otiman]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

He definitely been valued on ‘potential’ and not actual returns, so I would say it’s a very good deal for him.

Then it's a risky gamble by the club.

I would hope it's heavily front loaded to manage our long term cap strategy.

[silverhalo]

Someone tell me how many games we won w/out King in the last 2 yrs.

I'm curious

We score more and win more when King isn’t playing since Ross arrived.

What's all this hate for Max King? Get him fully fit and get some mids that can deliver the ball properly to him and you guys will be eating your words

[Templar]

Has form in playing well in finals

[St Dave]

How about addressing the rest of my reply, where I give examples of well paid players who took long deals on good money but not enough to break their teams wage structure. All from good clubs with good lists that have a depth of quality that allows them to compete.

None of those guys signed a contract after 2 seasons of injuries and massive media and member scrutiny.

Contract negotiation 101 is that you sign extensions when you can command the price.

Max might be a clubman but player agents definitely aren't.

They all signed before free agency as a commitment to their clubs, all taking less than they might be worth on the open market for the live of the club rather than their bank balance.

So I don't understand, is your issue with Max? Or is it more some kind of malpractice on the behalf of his agent because he potentially (nothing has been announced $ wise) isn't trying to rob the club blind? I don't understand how a supporter could take an issue with a player not trying to bend the club over.

The club wants him to sign now before his head can be turned by free agent offers, it is unlucky that is coming after injury impacted years, but that is more what the club wants than Max specifically.

[St Dave]

Surely the decision to extend is a gamble to get him at current value and not after 2 years of 60+ goals and a Coleman.

It tells me Max isn't confident in himself if he's signing now.

He definitely been valued on ‘potential’ and not actual returns, so I would say it’s a very good deal for him.

We don't know what the value of the contract is though, so how can you say how he has been valued?

And I would argue his actual return of more goals than any Saints player has kicked in a season in over a decade (in his third year), and then being in track for more than that in his first injury impacted year, is a few steps up from just being potential.

We don't need him to play better than he did in his third or even fourth years (those performances/averages would have had him top 5 in the Coleman this year), though I am sure he will keep getting better because players generally don't peak in their early 20s, we just need him to play 20+ games again.

His durability is the risk, not his actual performance.

[Otiman]

I don't have an issue with Max, and I hope he does kick 60 a year and win a few Coleman medals.

We only know the length of the contract, so from the two options:

If it's high value, we have overcommitted to a player who hasn't proven himself to be worthy of a high value, high length contract which is a massive gamble by the club. The only way this makes sense is if it's hugely front loaded for salary cap reasons. Again we'll never know so have to speculate.

If it's low value, then Max has played the safe game to ensure a long career and hasn't backed himself to improve enough in the next 2 years to get a similar length contract at higher pay.

[Mr Magic]

Remind me please.
How many years did GC just re-sign Mac Andrew based on?

[St Dave]

I don't have an issue with Max, and I hope he does kick 60 a year and win a few Coleman medals.

We only know the length of the contract, so from the two options:

If it's high value, we have overcommitted to a player who hasn't proven himself to be worthy of a high value, high length contract which is a massive gamble by the club. The only way this makes sense is if it's hugely front loaded for salary cap reasons. Again we'll never know so have to speculate.

If it's low value, then Max has played the safe game to ensure a long career and hasn't backed himself to improve enough in the next 2 years to get a similar length contract at higher pay.

Lol, Max is happy to sign and the club are happy to sign, we don't know the dollars involved but in your mind there is no room for it being a good deal for both parties. Real 'I didn't want this to happen so it is bad either way' attitude. Maybe just stick with 'I think this is a bad deal we should let him walk' rather than looking like a fool attacking every possibility at once.

He is a young player who is also our best single season goal kicker in over a decade, he has only had one (half) of a bad season, but that's not proving himself worthy of a good deal.

If he has a cheaper deal, maybe there are performance bonuses that improve the deal if he can stay on the park and perform at a reasonable level? Would that be enough for you to acknowledge he is backing himself in?

[Otiman]

We're not going to agree on this, sorry.

[Scollop]

His durability is the risk, not his actual performance.

Before list management and the board approved the deal,(assuming it's a formality) they obviously had decent information on his knees and shoulders being stable.

Hopefully... from different doctors who signed off on Hannas being medically assessed as 'good to go'

Hopefully...Max didn't cheat on his psyche test

[St Dave]

We're not going to agree on this, sorry.

I wasn't looking to agree, I was trying to understand why you would proclaim that signing a long term deal was a sign of a lack of confidence.

Now that I understand that you just have a problem with signing Max at all. We know next to nothing about it, but every potential variation of a deal is an issue for you. That is fine, not everyone has to like everything the club does, I would just prefer it wasn't hiding behind rubbish speculation on a players mentality.

[darylcowie]

Certainty, stability(shoulders aside) and mediocrity is now assured.