Mitchell watch

[Ludwig]

It'd be funny if we lose Mitchell but gain someone better.

I've kinda gotten used to the idea of Mitchell leaving now anyway. The more it drags out the more I don't mind him going. Heeney and Mills are ripe for the midfield. I'm sure the extra cap room will be welcome.

Not sure if it's a good idea keeping Tippett on the pay he's getting. Definitely lower his pay or show him the door.

Everyone says Tom is going, but I trust Annie and feel that there is every chance that he will be staying.

Perhaps the delay in the decision involves Tippett. It could be that we are trying to find a trade for Tippett that will get him off our payroll. At his best he's a big contributor. He's contracted for another 2 years so he can't be forced to move; he will have to receive a decent contract and we will want to get something decent for him in compensation. I would offer Tippett and Towers to Brisbane for pick 19. If it's true that he's on a mil a year, we might have to chip in and pay a bit of that as well, but it may be worth it.

The other one that might help keep Mitchell is trading Sinclair and his $400k a year. That would free up another few hundred thousand and we really don't need him. You would think someone would be interested, but again, Sinclair is under contract and he doesn't have to go anywhere.

[Mug Punter]

Maybe Tippett should take a pay cut so we can keep Mitchell?

Kurt has a contract! Would you take a pay cut to keep a co-worker?

[Mug Punter]

Everyone says Tom is going, but I trust Annie and feel that there is every chance that he will be staying.

Perhaps the delay in the decision involves Tippett. It could be that we are trying to find a trade for Tippett that will get him off our payroll. At his best he's a big contributor. He's contracted for another 2 years so he can't be forced to move; he will have to receive a decent contract and we will want to get something decent for him in compensation. I would offer Tippett and Towers to Brisbane for pick 19. If it's true that he's on a mil a year, we might have to chip in and pay a bit of that as well, but it may be worth it.

The other one that might help keep Mitchell is trading Sinclair and his $400k a year. That would free up another few hundred thousand and we really don't need him. You would think someone would be interested, but again, Sinclair is under contract and he doesn't have to go anywhere.

If Tippett is on $1M next year and if we can offload him and Towers for Pick 19 and Brisbane are prepared to pay 100% of his salary then I reckon we'd take it.

But I doubt they will and any "overs" we are paying him we will wear either directly or indirectly here.

I think many of us have short memories here and I also think it is not Tippet's fault being paid what he is. Also, as above, he has a contract which we all expect players to honour so the players should also expect the club to honour contracts too. Some of the talk here re Tippet is bordering on disrespectful

[Ludwig]

If we had signed Buddy first, then Tippett probably wouldn't be a Swan. I don't blame Tippett for his pay packet. It's just that it's crimping our ability to do things with other players. I wouldn't be against paying part of his salary, but not a big part, if we could arrange a trade for him. At his best, he's a very good player and probably worth around $600 pa. I also don't blame him for getting injured. That's just football. And I wouldn't single him out for his performance in the GF either. The whole forward line was pretty dismal on the day.

That was very bold of us to give Tippett a 6 year deal (effectively) then followed by a 9 year dear for Buddy, both on megabucks. It's a miracle we can keep as many players as we have.

[Mug Punter]

If we had signed Buddy first, then Tippett probably wouldn't be a Swan. I don't blame Tippett for his pay packet. It's just that it's crimping our ability to do things with other players. I wouldn't be against paying part of his salary, but not a big part, if we could arrange a trade for him. At his best, he's a very good player and probably worth around $600 pa. I also don't blame him for getting injured. That's just football. And I wouldn't single him out for his performance in the GF either. The whole forward line was pretty dismal on the day.

That was very bold of us to give Tippett a 6 year deal (effectively) then followed by a 9 year dear for Buddy, both on megabucks. It's a miracle we can keep as many players as we have.

I pretty much agree with all of this but the big thing is that none of us know what the deal is for years 5-6 (next year and 2017). If it's $600K instead of the $900K bandied around for this year then I'd say he is actually being paid in line with his value. And I think the idea of us effectively front ending a six year deal is not that left field.

And it's only for another couple of years so apart from Tom potentially it hasn't cost us massively. I do think he offers us something different as a first ruckman that can go forward and when fit he possesses a huge tank, talk lumping him and Nanka as the same level is quite frankly insane.

[goswannies]

I've always believed that if a player agrees to a front ended longterm contract that they are happy with at the time of signing, the player has an advantage. They have the advantage of compound interest & returns on their early income vs back ended contracts. They are also advantaged if they under perform through the duration of the contract.
If they over perform, they should actually think back & remember that they were happy enough with the deal when they signed it.

[Mug Punter]

I've always believed that if a player agrees to a front ended longterm contract that they are happy with at the time of signing, the player has an advantage. They have the advantage of compound interest & returns on their early income vs back ended contracts. They are also advantaged if they under perform through the duration of the contract.
If they over perform, they should actually think back & remember that they were happy enough with the deal when they signed it.

It would be really interesting to see how we structure our deals.

Clearly Buddy's has a big bulge but I would think that, all things being equal that you'd try and keep them fairly level with moderate increases. I guess you'd use any excess space to maybe pay some sign-on bonuses for the young kids so they can buy a house etc but for long terms success I thinhk we try to neither massively front or backload

[goswannies]

It would be really interesting to see how we structure our deals.

Clearly Buddy's has a big bulge but I would think that, all things being equal that you'd try and keep them fairly level with moderate increases. I guess you'd use any excess space to maybe pay some sign-on bonuses for the young kids so they can buy a house etc but for long terms success I thinhk we try to neither massively front or backload

I don't think massively front/back ended contracts are necessarily good. My comment that if a contract is front ended, I think it can be to the player's advantage

[Industrial Fan]

Frawley became an unrestricted free agent because of a front loaded contract. Dangerous in the era of free agency.

[Mug Punter]

Frawley became an unrestricted free agent because of a front loaded contract. Dangerous in the era of free agency.

The only thing that triggers free agency is years of service at the one club so Frawley actually became an unrestricted agent because he had been at Melbourne 10 years not because of a front loaded contract.

Is what you are saying is that the front loaded contract is why the Dees could not afford to keep him?

There are two problems that can occur with a majorly frontloaded contract

(a) Players gets falsely disillusioned in the final years they are being under paid - you'd hope that their agent and the player is intelligent enough to realise that they were overpaid early on as a compensator

(b) The club suddenly has to find a massive increase in funds per year to re-sign the player and they can't find it in the cap.

It's (b) that is the issue in my opinion and why I believe clubs should only consider front ended deals when they know it is the player's final contract, and even then it has issues.

[veramex]

The swans hands are tied until this CBA thing comes through. Once this is finalised we will know exactly how much more money we can give to players. I'm wondering if they can get an agreement with tom done with a handshake deal to say once CBA is finalised (and players will hopefully get more money) that we can adjust your contract to give you closer to what you want.

Fresh CBA for players could be signed off in weeks: McLachlan - M.afl.com.au

[liz]

The only thing that triggers free agency is years of service at the one club so Frawley actually became an unrestricted agent because he had been at Melbourne 10 years not because of a front loaded contract.

Not entirely true.

Frawley had only been at the Dees for 8 years. Players coming out of contract after 8 years (but fewer than 10) are restricted FA if they are in the top 25% earners at their club. Otherwise they are unrestricted.

Probably made no difference in the Frawley case. It seems unlikely that the Dees would have tried to keep him, and the Hawks' offer was large enough to secure the Dees the highest possible compensation pick they could have received.

[Mug Punter]

Not entirely true.

Frawley had only been at the Dees for 8 years. Players coming out of contract after 8 years (but fewer than 10) are restricted FA if they are in the top 25% earners at their club. Otherwise they are unrestricted.

Probably made no difference in the Frawley case. It seems unlikely that the Dees would have tried to keep him, and the Hawks' offer was large enough to secure the Dees the highest possible compensation pick they could have received.

Aha, fair enough and my apologies. Didn't realise that aspect of the free agency structure.

As for the example in question, Frawley is an absolute Spud and I'm sure the Dees were laughing all the way to the Draft Bank when they got that compo pick for him

[Mug Punter]

The swans hands are tied until this CBA thing comes through. Once this is finalised we will know exactly how much more money we can give to players. I'm wondering if they can get an agreement with tom done with a handshake deal to say once CBA is finalised (and players will hopefully get more money) that we can adjust your contract to give you closer to what you want.

Fresh CBA for players could be signed off in weeks: McLachlan - M.afl.com.au

It is inconceivable that the clubs have not been given instruction of what they can spend next year without sanction if the eventual cap ends up being lower (i.e. they could carry through any difference and offset it the following years).

[bennyfabulous]

Herald sun reporting mitchell is ready to request trade on the website tonight! To the hawks, hope they are wrong