All clubs that are looking to splash big cash on Dusty Martin and Nat Fyfe need to first consider whether they are ready to create an imbalance in their squads.
Three of the biggest signings in recent times are the Dangerfield, Tippet and Franklin trades. Sydney has been severely effected by those two signings. Geelong will most likely feel the same ramifications that the Swans have felt.
Grand finals and minor premierships aside, success in AFL is measured in flags.
Kurt Tippet came into a premiership-winning side that had a culture of performance above expectation. They had won the premiership with a 22-year-old relatively unknown Sam Reid as their key forward. Their side was young and full of promise, they have not won a premiership since.
When Franklin came in it was surely going to be the cherry on top of an already impressive team. They haven’t won since. And find themselves 2-6.
Geelong were in the middle of a pretty impressive rebuild. When Patrick Dangerfield signed with Geelong it was hailed as a game-changing signing. The press has never got over Dangerwood and probably never will.
The huge amount of money that has gone towards signing the ‘superstars’ of the game could be used elsewhere. Geelong used to have a culture of players making personal monetary sacrifices to maintain a strong squad.
Now it honours two men. This is obviously having a detrimental effect on the rest of the playing group. They do not seem motivated enough to tackle or challenge for the ball. We have seem similar things at the swans in the first six weeks.
The Swans are most likely in a better position for the rest of this season. Their 0-6 start was a wake-up call, whereas a 5-3 start is just a mask that will offset problems.
AFL is a team sport with anywhere between 38-44 players in a squad. Having one, let alone two of them getting paid over a million dollars a year is going to be detrimental to the moral and strategy of the team.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Even a bad $500,000 signing like Tyrone Vickery can have negative effects. The salary cap is a socialist mechanism, based on equality. Big profile signings with seven figures will create a sense of inequality.
The Swans and Geelong have had very obvious problems finding form this year. If a player is getting paid too much, how can a team strategy not revolve around or involve those players.
Geelong’s dependence on Dangerfield is obvious and was most notably exposed in last year’s Preliminary final against the Swans.
From 2005-2012 Sydney won two flags and Geelong won three. These two teams have had some success but no flags since. Time will tell whether they can get flags with these signings on their lists.
The imbalance in player pay would suggest that it will be harder than before they chose to go down the superstar signing road.
Aransan
Guest
Brinnx, you are mistaken in believing that Geelong have superstars hogging a large part of their salary cap, but as has been said elsewhere they have created a problem for themselves by trading away their draft picks. I believe their strategy has been mistaken because they incorrectly believed they were still in a premiership window and I make the point that insecure coaches can push a club down a short term path.
Aransan
Guest
Jack, Tom Boyd is still very much at the development stage of his career and he will be a better player next year. It is one thing to have to play predominantly in the ruck in the preliminary final against GWS after the Bulldog's primary ruckman went down compared with having to back up every week in the ruck the following season when you really are better placed as a half ruck and half forward. Boyd's heroics in the preliminary and grand finals last year could not have been reasonably expected from such a young physically big player, but they are a sign of future things to come.
Brinnx
Guest
Yep Jack , Boyd probably paid back the club for what he did in the GF alone. Worth the length of the contract for that elusive flag - most fans would say - hell yeah. So classic catch 22 - no million dollar man - no flag. Will other clubs follow this blueprint? That was last year when the comp was in the final fits of the GWS-Gold Coast creation bias affecting the competition . For mine we are entering a new era of no dynasty's, much like the NRL of late. You get into the top 8 this year - your a genuine shot at the flag.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
Interesting you bring up the Bulldogs - without their million dollar man they probably wouldn't have won the flag. But this year he's back to being a potato again, and they've already lost Hamling with plenty of rumours abound that he certainly won't be the last to leave.
Brinnx
Guest
This trade period will as always be full of intrigue. As a Blues supporter I hope the "Messiah" recruitment policy's of the past are just that - in the past. IMO what you have to give up for Martin-Fyfe- Kelly is just not worth the cost. It takes a team to win a flag - not one or two superstars who hog a large part of the cap as Geelong and the Swans are discovering. this year. Does not matter if you have the two of the top ten player in the comp if your bottom six cant play the game to a top level. The bulldogs won a flag without their milllon dollar man being a major player for the majority of the season.. They should be the blueprint fpr sides going forward.
Gecko
Guest
Agreed this is a shallow analysis. I agree with Michael that the Swans have had a different club culture since the arrival of Buddy and Tippett (and relatively simultaneous departure of several club stalwarts), however the Swans got to a Grand Final last year so their new club culture can't be too bad. As to Dangerfield and Selwood hogging Geelong's salary cap, their team mates know that both players could have gotten more with another club. Michael should have looked for other possible reasons for Geelong's brittle form. Player development at Geelong seems to be an issue, with zero players developing into A-graders in recent years.
col in paradise
Guest
I don't think the money is the issue with Dangerfield...or Dangermouse !...yep he gets a large number of possessions but he is all over the place and stuffing up the Cats structure and team work...that's how I see his impact on the team....Tippets of course been a dud...Buddy I think is delivering but the team is not as strong as the 2012 and 2005 teams...and that is with of course a higher standard of teams now across the board...
Scott
Guest
I reckon you make your point well in the article but chose the wrong examples. Dangerfield has been a raging success and I reckon if Ablett goes back there next year they'll prob win the premiership. He only cost them what his worth. Buddy is the same. They did one of the best deals in footy imo. They got the marquee player of the comp and with all the salary cap increases he'll wind up being cheap by the end of his contract. Those 2 teams finished 1st and 2nd on the ladder last year and even know they aren't going well now, we still don't know how this year will pan out. I reckon Fyfe is the kind of player you throw money at. He is one of the few players that will instantly help a team climb the ladder. Martin is starting to get pretty bloody good himself and could be as well. Outside of maybe about 5 or so players, then I agree with your point.
Birdman
Guest
Agree on Boyd - vital component of the 2016 flag but the issue for me is that value is harder to find after year one or two of these mega deals.
Birdman
Guest
Tom Mitchell's 2017 stats at the Hawks makes a lie of the view that he was a fringe or luxury player at the Swans - in fact Jack and Hannebery might fit that description better. Glad to say, the Hawks have made out like bandits on that trade. Thx for also reminding me about Nankervis - can I also add Membrey? The deal that keeps giving (to other clubs).............
Redgater
Guest
The lose of Malceski to swans whilst hurt was not that bad as he fizzled out...lose of mummy was a bug one mummy or tippet has to mummy every day of the week. Mitchell was a luxury at the swans with their midfield but a shame to lose quality young miss. You also forget fringe players like biggs nankervis medbury but you all good players lost due to the squeeze and allowing goodes to play on one year too many. Happens at all clubs. The swans were once the masters at swing the value in fringe players and giving them a shot and need to get back to that to recreate that team ethos that stood them so well...no one man (or two) should he bigger than the te
Moff
Guest
To bring a player into a side and not overpay...base it on a % of the CEO's salary. Say 85% as we can not have the CEO's underval;ued.
Aransan
Guest
James, I agree that Geelong's problem is especially due to it trading itself out of the draft.
Aransan
Guest
I was critical of the Bulldogs signing Tom Boyd at the time on the contract he was given but I don't believe the Bulldogs would have won the 2016 premiership without him. There will be a number of players on million dollar contracts under the new salary cap, it will only make sense for a club to entice a player from elsewhere on this money if they fill a particular piece of a jigsaw puzzle for their own list. A club icon should be prepared to stay at a club for 80% of their market value. I believe Fyfe, Bontempelli and Martin would have market values of $1.25m under the new salary cap thus $1m should be enough for them to stay at their clubs on 5 year contracts. Players should be wary of clubs prepared to pay significantly over market value unless they are unconcerned about premiership success.
Birdman
Guest
JH, you make it sound like the the Swans deals had no consequences - they cost them key players in Mumford, Tom Mitchell and Malceski at a minimum with the biggest consequence being loss of COLA itself. The Dangerfield trade doesn't deserve to be in this conversation IMO since it's unders relative to the market. The Vickery deal looks a bust ATM but the context that's missing from this story is that Roughead was still receiving treatment when it landed so it ended up being insurance only but def. a bit pricey. The fact that Hawthorn are prepared to play him in the magoos is reassuring to me.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Sydney offered those contracts to Tippett and Buddy when they had the extra COLA cap space. Not sure they would have gone for both of them had they known the AFL would scrap it. Plus it's not as if other stars in their squad like Hannebery, Parker or Kennedy are looking to flee the harbour city. Their two grand finals in three years says that they've still been an elite team. I agree in principle that offering massive contracts to buy players can have a detrimental effect but I'm not convinced by either of your examples. For me, Geelong's biggest problem is that it traded itself out of the draft in recent seasons to bring in experienced players, which means it now hasn't got enough obvious young talent coming through. Cockatoo is the only real example that stands out, with a couple of 'potentials' in Parfit and Parsons. And now they want to bring back Abblett for a season or two. SMH.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Shallow analysis. These players are on more money therefore they are envied and that’s why they’re not winning.
Cat
Roar Guru
Exactly. Part of the reason we actually had to make a trade with Adelaide is because Dangerfield agreed to an undervalued contract. Adelaide could have matched it on dollar value easily.
Landgraft
Guest
Geelong haven't changed from the salary cap structure set in the dynasty years, its basically shared as evenly as you could hope and neither Joel nor Danger are eating up an unfair portion of the clubs TPP. We have a lot of problem, but an unbalanced payment structure isn't one of them.
Slane
Guest
Dangerfield wasn't a monster signing in the same vein as Tippett or Buddy. He took significantly less money to play in Geelong then he was offered by a multitude of other clubs.