On Tuesday, it was revealed that Dale Thomas and his management agreed to remove the trigger clause in his contract. The disintegration of the contract is a win-win-win.
That’s three wins for three parties.
The first win is for Carlton. The Blues free up a spot and cap space on a list skewing younger and not-Daisy Thomas. The second win is for Daisy himself. He trades in a year of Carlton purgatory for post-football goodwill. Goodwill is valuable currency. Daisy can seamlessly transition to a media role as a nouveau Shane Crawford or maybe a pupaic Billy Brownless.
Win three is for me, Ken Sakata. I get to eulogise the worst AFL contract in recent memory. I expect to feel better anytime now. I’ve pegged all personal development to the end of bad Carlton contracts. When the Liam Jones deal ends, I might take up salads and yoga.
The Daisy Thomas deal (RIP 2013-2017) is a disaster. If you believe all sports media, the Daisy Thomas deal is not only a cautionary tale for list managers but a complete 100 per cent disaster.
If you bought a Tesla but received a Volkswagen, that’s probably a 50 per cent disaster. If you get a Toyota, that’s an 80 per cent disaster. If you buy a Tesla but receive a signed Delta Goodrem CD – any album – that’s a 100 per cent disaster.
No doubt, you’ve been inundated with details of the ill-fated contract. A better writer would spare you and skip ahead. But I’ll need to run it back. I need the pain to feel alive again.
It’s 2013. AFL free agency. Carlton had to choose between keeping small forward Eddie Betts and poaching Dale Thomas from arch-nemesis Collingwood. Daisy had a newly reconstructed ankle, which is a good or a bad thing, depending on whether you know anything about medicine. Carlton chose Daisy for a reported 700k a year. Eddie went to Adelaide for 500k.
It’s 2017. Eddie Betts has lead the goal-kicking at Adelaide every year he’s been there. Eddie Betts has a forward pocket named after him at Adelaide Oval. Eddie Betts is now a two-time All-Australian.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Daisy? 2.1 million dollars later, it’s debatable if he’s best used as an average AFL player or an incredible VFL player.
I was right about the pain, I feel more alive than ever.
As a footballing decision, the failure of the Daisy Thomas deal has inspired a complete philosophical change in Carlton’s list management. No more poaching expensive free agents, no more fiscal irresponsibility. Carlton decided to join the rest of modern football with a cost-effective commitment to drafting and developing in-house. It could work. They once did it with a teenage Eddie Betts.
All indications point to it paying off. This past weekend, a win over Collingwood featured an electric performance by seven-gamer Samo Petrevski-Seton, poetically echoing the energy of a Collingwood-era Daisy Thomas.
Daisy’s best football at Collingwood has always been inexorably linked to his off-field persona: vibrant, daring and magnetic. He was everywhere at once, running down forwards in the back pocket and snapping goals up front. Revisionists would have him benefiting from a midfield of Swan, Pendlebury and Beams. But at his peak, he possessed qualities beyond them. Daisy was a genuine match-winner.
With Thomas, Carlton had bought the Collingwood blueprint of success. Thomas was brought in to play behind Marc Murphy and Chris Judd. It would shield him from a tagger-heavy competition to thrive as Carlton’s x-factor and match-winner.
Image: AAP
Although he played 20 games in his first season, Thomas was never close to his mercurial best. The new Daisy was trying, he just wasn’t very good. Maybe it was the lack of pre-season, maybe it was the new team. Maybe it was the reconstruction.
Fears began to mount that his troublesome ankle had drastically lowered the ceiling of his ability.
Conscious of his limitations, coach Mick Malthouse began playing Thomas as a defensive forward against the more dynamic half-backs of the competition. The tagged had become a tagger. It seemed like a quizzical and utterly unimaginative use for a former star player of the league.
Malthouse would be sacked early in 2015 after a premiership tilt turned into crumbling mediocrity. Thomas would suffer a season-ending shoulder injury three days later.
The appointment of Brendon Bolton has focused on the development of a younger core of players. The shifting narrative of Daisy Thomas is being re-written again. In defence to criticism against Thomas this year, Bolton said he was valued for setting training standards and his contributions to team meetings.
In 2017, the last year of his contract, it’s debatable if there’s a role for Daisy Thomas in Carlton’s best 22.
Unlike the Tom Boyd deal, the last contract to come under scrutiny, Daisy Thomas won’t be afforded a last transformative act. There will no grand final, no final reprieve. The enduring opinion of its success will, unfortunately, be its definitive one.
The deal will be remembered by Carlton’s front office incompetence and its underestimation of Daisy’s injury history.
It’s important to note that neither were in Thomas’ control. It’s hard to begrudge a man who tried hard at a job he was overpaid to do.
Tom Tiang
Guest
Whatever happened to that Bush Footy Legend. Chrissy Yarran, you know, the one of three indigenous kids, that played out on that drama AFL rookies show we watched back in Swan Hill. The only one to make it out of the bush. That Guy. You know. Y'know. Show me the money
Macca
Guest
Mattyb - A few of things I hope you can help me with to understand your position - 1) of the first round picks that are no longer at GWS where are they now and what did GWS get for them? 2) Given the SOS built list has already played in a prelim final and is currently 1 of the premiership favourites and rated as the most talented list in the comp how can you rate his time as the recruiter extremely poor? 3) Of the supposedly 10-15 players who need to be removed from the blues list how many were recruited by Silvagni? 4) If recruiting for with so many concessions is "shooting fish in a barrel" why aren't the Suns a top 4 team by now? 5) Given the Giants had to trim down the size of their list doesn't it stand to reason that more than usual number of players will be moved on?
Aransan
Guest
Matty, so what happened to Gold Coast who started earlier with similar picks?
mattyb
Guest
SOS was shooting fish in a barrel. With all the compensation picks he had GWS should be a certainty for the flag. If SOS was any good he would be able to let his record stand and wouldn't need people being so protective of his questionable record.
Kane
Guest
Your point just proved that he's a more than handy recruiter, GWS are in the top 2 or 3 premiership favorites and by your way of thinking he's built this on later draft picks.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
You could easily say Silvagni is either incredibly incompetent with his first go round at the Giants, or fairly corrupt with his cheap grafting of all those high GWS picks now he's at the Blues.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Plenty.
Lofty
Guest
What a surprise. Another positive Mattyb response regarding Carlton. At least you didn't call SOS morally corrupt like you have on other occasions. There has been no shortage of other clubs happy to pick up the so called GWS failures but why let the truth in the way of a good story.
mattyb
Guest
I think to call SOSs record at GWS as chequered is being kind. As always Carlton people are looking at the past and also expecting SOS to be a saviour (maybe in the hope he can make up for the disaster that Sticks was at the club) SOS just had the sheer volume of picks to fall back on but overall his record was extremely poor. While he was in in charge only 50% of his first rounders from 2011 remain,40% from 2012,33% from 2013 and a whopping 0% from 2014. First round picks are the bread and butter for any decent recruiter. Wonderful full back as a player but the jury is still out on whether he is much else. Plenty of failures already at the blues in the short time he has been there with a portion of the 10-15 players that need to be delisted already selections made by him.
Kane
Guest
Whilst i agree with you a certain extent, Dalrymple was drafting to needs at a formed club whereas SOS was drafting to i suppose you could say "starting a team from scratch which needs players and depth for every position" in only a few drafts and trades. When u see how evenly matched GWS are across the board then i reckon he done a pretty good job.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
You got me Macca, I give up, LOL ?
Macca
Guest
PD - A judicious use of high picks - I would call a judicious use of high picks for a team that had virtually zero players at the time would be one where you take a variety of players, all those players are still playing AFL 4-5 years later, you were able to trade some of the less successful ones for more high picks and the vast majority of them (ie roughly 80% even by your count - roughly the same as Dalrymple) are rated "successful" - SOS ticks all those boxes. And I didn't say all those players had the same "runs on the board" as Smith, just if we make allowances for one we have to make allowances for all of them. And what we are talking about is " I think SOS’ “chequered history” at GWS is really overblown if you go back through the 2011 to 2014 drafts their aren’t too many misses. If you throw in the success of the established players he got to the club as well his great job with the blues should have been fully expected." - even on your "failures" SOS didn't have too many misses so you should have expected his success at the blues. And it was you who suggested Plowman was a failure because other players taken later were better, again if you use that logic for him we need to apply it to everyone.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Are you seriously suggesting Ahern, Plowman, Buntine, Pickett and Sumner are in the same ball park as far as "runs on the board" as Clay Smith?!! You've gotta be kidding Macca. I know you like to keep debating till the cows come home, but I think you've lost track of what we were debating. Not sure how many times I can say it, we're talking about judicious use of high draft picks (and whether SOS made some mistakes in his time at GWS with his use of very high draft picks on players that have subsequently been shown not to be worth such a high pick). You keep trying to skew the conversation to "whether a player is better than another player ... or whether a player has played x number of games (irrespective of whether they were taken with a high pick or not)". Give me Clay Smith over the rest of that rabble any day.
Macca
Guest
PD - So Smith should have allowances made because of his injuries but Ahern, Plowman, Buntine, Pickett & Sumner don't? Plowman gets marked down because Stringer got taken after him but Smith doesn't because Hill & Ross got taken after him? And Since Plowman has returned from injury last year he has played 26 consecutive games where Hrovat has played 11 in that time but you say neither is an established player? The facts are Silvagni had a very good record at the Giants which should have been good enough for anyone to expect he would perform very well at the blues. As for "what actually transpired" that is highly subjective.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Macca, my comments aren't about whether the players are still on the lists or how many games they've played. I think you're missing the point. My comments are about poor selections with high draft picks, on a relative basis. The facts are that SOS had some very modest returns with very, very high draft picks, instead of using them to recruit guns. Plowman looks like he might be okay, but I think it's fair to say he's commensurate with Hrovat at this stage, in terms of likelihood of becoming an established player (neither is there yet). So I'm not calling Plowman a fail. I'm saying he is a fail to use pick 3 on. If GWS picked up Plowman at pick 40+, I'd agree he was a reasonable selection. But pick 3 is reserved for future stars of the game. As for Clay Smith - unlike O'Rourke and Plowman who were taken at picks 2 and 3, he was pick 17 - your focus on number of games ignores that he's had three knee reconstructions in that time and yet still managed to become not only a premiership player, but a key performer in last year's finals series (BOG in the PF and useful in each other game). So he has recently transformed into an unmitigated selection success in my book, relative to where he was selected (and you selectively chose to ignore that he averages 5 tackles per game - but maybe that's not deemed important in Carlton's forward line). As for your "if" "coulda" "woulda" examples, I'm just staying with evidence of what has actually transpired.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Macca, my comments aren't about whether the players are still on the lists or how many games they've played. I think you're missing the point. My comments are about poor selections with high draft picks, on a relative basis. The facts are that SOS had some very modest returns with very, very high draft picks, instead of using them to recruit guns. Plowman looks like he might be okay, but I think it's fair to say he's commensurate with Hrovat at this stage, in terms of likelihood of becoming an established player (neither is there yet). So I'm not calling Plowman a fail. I'm saying he is a fail to use pick 3 on. If GWS picked up Plowman at pick 40+, I'd agree he was a reasonable selection. But pick 3 is reserved for future stars of the game. As for Clay Smith - unlike O'Rourke and Plowman who were taken at picks 2 and 3, he was pick 17 - your focus on number of games ignores that he's had three knee reconstructions in that time and yet still managed to become not only a premiership player, but a key performer in last year's finals series (BOG in the PF and useful in each other game). So he has recently transformed into an unmitigated selection success in my book, relative to where he was selected. As for your "if" "coulda" "woulda" examples, I'm just staying with evidence of what has actually transpired.
Macca
Guest
Also PD - if we shift just one of Hrovat or Smith from you 'Success" column into you "fail" column that means Dalrymples failure rate for his first round picks in that period is 22%, (Also good thing for you the Dogs went with Dunkley then Collins with their consecutive picks rather than the other way around)
Macca
Guest
PD - is it a lottery because nothing is guaranteed - if you look at the players that you call "fails" for Silvagni, Plowman, Pickett, Ahern, Buntine and Sumner have all had pretty serious injury issues, you can't know that going into a draft. It is also interesting that you claim Clay Smith as a draft "success" after 51 games over 6 season averaging 14 possessions and 0.8 goals per game but Plowman makes it onto your "Failure" list. Also SOS has shown he has the ability to draft good late picks (Frost, Williams, Williamson & MacReadie for example), trade well and bring in good mature talent all great attributes in a list manager. And I am not trying to say SOS is the best but when all your apparent failures are still on AFL lists, many picked up by other clubs who obviously saw what he did in them you are marking pretty harshly.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Macca, I'm not a SOS basher. Still rate him as the best full back I've seen (Lake 2nd). Yes, his record may improve, just as Clarko's winning percentage is decreasing! I'm just validating my comment that he had a chequered history at GWS: lots of good picks, but half a dozen poor ones as well. For example, compare his top 25 picks to Simon Dalrymple's: - Christian Howard (2009, Pick 15) - FAIL; - Mitch Wallis (2010, Pick 22) - SUCCESS; - Clay Smith (2011, Pick 17) - SUCCESS; - Jake Stringer (2012, Pick 5) - SUCCESS; - Jackson Macrae (2012, Pick 6) - SUCCESS; - Nathan Hrovat (2012, Pick 21) - RELATIVE SUCCESS; - The Bont (2013, Pick 4) - SUCCESS; - Josh Dunkley (2015, Pick 25) - SUCCESS. So he's had one fail out of eight selections, most of which were either second round or late first round. (We should get really technical and apply a weighting scale, to reflect the lateness of the picks, compared to those SOS had ... but I can't be bothered.) That doesn't sound like a lottery to me. That sounds like evidence of extremely competent. Throw in other 'coups' under his watch like Luke Dahlhaus (rookie), Tom Liberatore (pick 41), Caleb Daniel (46), Lachie Hunter (pick 49), Toby McLean (pick 26), Marcus Adams (pick 35), Bailey Williams (pick 48), Tory Dickson (pick 57), Zaine Cordy (pick 62) - it's not a lottery.
Macca
Guest
Dingo - in 2011 the giants took Patton, COniglio, Tyson, Hoskin Elliott, Buntine Haynes, Tomlinson, Sumner, Greene, Adams, Smith & Downie plus Sam Frost as new AFL players years later every one of those players is still on an AFL list, 7 of them have played more than 50 games and 8 remain with GWS - if that is a low point you have had a very good career. In 2012 we had Whitfield, O'Rourke, Plowman, Jaksch, Corr, Stewart, Redfern & Williams all but Redfern remain on an AFL list 2 have played more than 50 games and 3 remain at GWS 4 years later. While not as stellar as 2011 or 2013 it is still a pretty solid return.