Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby saintsRrising » Fri 14 Jul 2017 11:43pm

Obviously the very simple point that he paid too few players too much goes over your head.

There is no skill at all in retaining players by just throwing too much cash at them.

The teams that won the flags instead of us kept their best players on reasonable cash rather than just the cream getting it.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 26057
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: On a yacht in The Whitsundays.

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby meher baba » Sat 15 Jul 2017 9:15am

saintsRrising wrote:Obviously the very simple point that he paid too few players too much goes over your head.

There is no skill at all in retaining players by just throwing too much cash at them.

The teams that won the flags instead of us kept their best players on reasonable cash rather than just the cream getting it.


Obviously you have unparallelled access to the books of a number of AFL clubs. Could you please provide more details so those of us who don't have such access, to compare, say, what the Hawks paid Franklin, Hodge, Rioli and Mitchell to what we paid Riewoldt, Dall, Goddard and Lenny? I want year by year breakdowns.

Oh, sorry, you dont have that information, do you? You're just making it up as you go along.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby Dave McNamara » Sat 15 Jul 2017 4:37pm

meher baba wrote:Oh, sorry, you dont have that information, do you? You're just making it up as you go along.

I don't have all the information either, but my understanding is as follows, so make of it what you wish...

Us:
We were paying something like 60% of our salary cap to six players.

Luke Ball's paypacket was in the top handful of players in the league on the back of a stellar 2005. And he was worth it!!! The big three from that 'super draft'? At his peak, I'd rate Luke as being as good as Hodge, and not too far behind Judd. But then OP kicked in and hobbled him. :( Went from a racehorse to draft horse, and struggled to kick the footy 35m. (Have a look at his shot from ~30m out in the 2009 GF that barely reached the goal square! Yes, he shouldn't have sat on the bench throughout that final quarter, but other than giving other blokes a rest, I doubt that the 2009-Luke Ball would have made much difference to our cause.) Hence the next contract he was offered being for way less. He didn't like that. So left us. Whilst we got nothing for him, our firm stance with the Skunks was correct. Luke only got to the Skunks because they (and their manager) were allowed to get away with the most blatant and illegal draft manipulation I can ever recall. :evil:

Anyway, our skewed salary cap set-up meant not much $$$ left over to improve the (supposedly) infamous 'bottom six'. And hence, no $$$ to go poaching top liners from other clubs. That's a large reason why Ro$$y picked up the type of 're-cycled' players that he did. (Plus, I suspect, that he had little faith in our performance at the draft table at that time.)

Them - our competition under GT and Ro$$y:
Hillbillies. This I have as fact from a friend who is a family member of a very senior Hillbilly official, who was one of the key architects of their recovery after falling into major debt at the turn of the century.

Their teams that won them those flags included some bloody good players. None of them were on more than $400K! The players did this so they could stay to together to maximise the chances of winning flags - the Teddy's leading players did the same before them, and before them... the Effendrug players didn't...

Even the big name players at the Skunks and Skid Marks, whilst very well remunerated, weren't on as much $$$ as people would think. ($1 mil a year was a pretty big pay rise for The Ego to move to Swineland.)

So it's not hard to see the disadvantage we were at trying to combat our nearest rivals... both in terms of poaching topliners, and in terms of 'topping up' the standard of our 'bottom six'.

Thus, evening out our cap was one of the big goals when the Pelican was brought in. And I fully supported not paying the big $$$ that BJ wanted... especially given his post-draw form. Our players payments are now much more even. But given what happened, and what it cost us, I for one, have since been very very wary about paying the big big bikkies to one or two 'messiahs'.
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hArSps&feature=player_detailpage

Matt Finnis CEO wrote:"St Kilda is an iconic part of Melbourne which has an identifiable attitude and spirit that is really aligned with where we want to take the club. It is grounded but it is aspirational, it is eclectic, everyone belongs, and we say how do we capture that as an identity? It would be a good move on so many levels for the club."
User avatar
Dave McNamara
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 5102
Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2011 2:44pm
Location: Slotting another one from 94.5m out. Opposition flood? Bring it on...! Keep the faith Saintas!

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby meher baba » Sat 15 Jul 2017 4:58pm

Thanks Dave

Interesting. If I had been a manager at the AFL at the time, I'd have wanted to have a good look at those six players on contracts of $400k each.

Not offering much to Ball in 2009 was a no-brainer, especially as the coach didn't seem to want him. I'm still pissed that we wasted much of the money we saved on Lovett. It would have been relatively easy to dig in re BJ in the rebuilding phase. Presumably things were much tougher in the 2004-09 period, when the board no doubt felt that losing any of our key players wasn't a palatable option.

In the end, GT or no GT, we gambled on getting the most out of our group of top players, but injuries to Ball and Kosi spoilt that to some extent, along with Gehrig, Hamill and X not proving as durable as we would have liked.

But we still got to the PF five times and the GF twice in a seven year period. The list wasn't that bad, was it?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby SydneySainter » Sat 15 Jul 2017 4:59pm

With each thrashing we sustain, the likely hood of us getting a big fish like Kelly becomes more and more of a pipe dream. If we dish up in Sydney and Adelaide what we served up last night, I think the only way we'll be attracting a superstar mid is by being the highest bidder, which won't be smart move IMO, seeing as there is still some rebuilding to do yet.

The likes of Rocky may be a possibility and would certainly bolster out ball winning capacity, but as for that ever illusive speedy mid with sublime foot skills, we may have to go back to the draft and do it the hard way. If Kelly says no to us, it would be madness to shell out $1.5 mill for Dusty or Fyfe.
Bring Back The Heritage Strip!
User avatar
SydneySainter
Club Player
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby saintsRrising » Sat 15 Jul 2017 5:08pm

meher baba wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Obviously the very simple point that he paid too few players too much goes over your head.

There is no skill at all in retaining players by just throwing too much cash at them.

The teams that won the flags instead of us kept their best players on reasonable cash rather than just the cream getting it.


Obviously you have unparallelled access to the books of a number of AFL clubs. Could you please provide more details so those of us who don't have such access, to compare, say, what the Hawks paid Franklin, Hodge, Rioli and Mitchell to what we paid Riewoldt, Dall, Goddard and Lenny? I want year by year breakdowns.

Oh, sorry, you dont have that information, do you? You're just making it up as you go along.


Fair Dinkum!

LOL. Uparrelled acces..... if you were not so blinkered you would have read in this thread alone that others have heard what I have heard. It is no secret.

This information has been avalaible if you are attentive.
I have heard numerous St Kilda Officials speak on this on various occasions.....including but not limited to Bains, Pelchen, Finnis, etc. This has been on radio and tv interviews and in the press.

Whenever the club has spoken on our rebuild and the reasons behind our strategy I have been an avid listener.

As a 40+ year member I have also been invited and gone along to the briefings that the club conducts for long time members.

That you have not been attentive, or whether you just choose to just keep your head the sand, I do not know. But the reality of what occurred is as I have outlined and as others have outlined.

You mentioned keyboard warriors and this is very ironic as you are the only one going on in this thread with no basis apart from your own opinion or facts.

Personally I prefer to believe what club officials and others have stated rather than just the fantasy that you wish to have been true, but which was not the reality.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 26057
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: On a yacht in The Whitsundays.

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby saintsRrising » Sat 15 Jul 2017 5:15pm

SydneySainter wrote:With each thrashing we sustain, the likely hood of us getting a big fish like Kelly becomes more and more of a pipe dream. If we dish up in Sydney and Adelaide what we served up last night, I think the only way we'll be attracting a superstar mid is by being the highest bidder, which won't be smart move IMO, seeing as there is still some rebuilding to do yet.

The likes of Rocky may be a possibility and would certainly bolster out ball winning capacity, but as for that ever illusive speedy mid with sublime foot skills, we may have to go back to the draft and do it the hard way. If Kelly says no to us, it would be madness to shell out $1.5 mill for Dusty or Fyfe.


I would strongly suspect that the Hawks will nab Rocky as a FA. They unlike seem to understand the importance of landing key players. They have little to trade and Rocky is probably the best achievable FA.....and they do not dither.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 26057
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: On a yacht in The Whitsundays.

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby Teflon » Sat 15 Jul 2017 5:43pm

Scollop wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
meher baba wrote:
Even if we could (surely unlikely), we shouldn't IMO. Our priorities, in order, should be.

1. Sign a genuine star (Kelly is the best option I reckon).

2. Throw some of our extra $$$ at our existing list, rewarding those who've come on really well.

3. If there's any left over, grab some good established talent to fill gaps.


Sorry but 2. and 3. is how GT f****** up a tilt at a flag or two. We paid too much too our young emerging stars, and players like Ball gave us no loyalty once the largess for being overpaid for results delivered finished.


I was of the view that GT helped create the foundations for success and the blueprint for a team culture including the loyalty of the list (who included most of the leaders within the core playing group). I believe that RL was the main reason the loyalty dissolved.

Without the loyalty and belief created by GT the team wouldn't have got that close under RL imo, but it's all hypothetical. I reckon GT would have got the job done if he was given a chance. But history will say he failed as did RL. Only difference is that GT wasn't given the opportunity to see the fruits of the maturity of the group. RL had the core group in their prime.

If you want to be like a politician and blame GT because RL failed as a coach that's your business.


I've read some revisionist rubbish on here in my time but this is up there... (GT never given a chance????? He ran the show single handedly FFS! What rubbish is that???)
so now apparently Ross Lyon only got us to 3 Grand Finals and a 19 straight win season in 09 because of the brilliance of GTs cultural master stroke??? Not even Mehebabblealot, a self confessed Grant Thomas psychophant with an enormous "GT belief cloud" above his bed, could argue that...

Thomas, whose coaching career apprenticeship was Warrnambool ...., was one of THE main reasons we did not get success in an era when we had the talent - that comes from one of his Assistant Coaches at the time later sacked by Lyon so you work it out ??? But let's not pretend that this phoney snake oil salesman set us up for success under Lyon - like him or not Lyon in that period instilled a mental toughness into that Saints side that today's marsh mellows can only dream about. I remember going to the footy EXPECTING to win and hearing opposition fans bemoan "Shiite...... we are playing St Kilda next week... "
Last night I tipped a loss because this current side can't handle pressure against a side who stands up to them defensively or ant expectation at all.
I see dumb people...
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 14934
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby Teflon » Sat 15 Jul 2017 5:51pm

Dave McNamara wrote:
meher baba wrote:Oh, sorry, you dont have that information, do you? You're just making it up as you go along.

I don't have all the information either, but my understanding is as follows, so make of it what you wish...

Us:
We were paying something like 60% of our salary cap to six players.

Luke Ball's paypacket was in the top handful of players in the league on the back of a stellar 2005. And he was worth it!!! The big three from that 'super draft'? At his peak, I'd rate Luke as being as good as Hodge, and not too far behind Judd. But then OP kicked in and hobbled him. :( Went from a racehorse to draft horse, and struggled to kick the footy 35m. (Have a look at his shot from ~30m out in the 2009 GF that barely reached the goal square! Yes, he shouldn't have sat on the bench throughout that final quarter, but other than giving other blokes a rest, I doubt that the 2009-Luke Ball would have made much difference to our cause.) Hence the next contract he was offered being for way less. He didn't like that. So left us. Whilst we got nothing for him, our firm stance with the Skunks was correct. Luke only got to the Skunks because they (and their manager) were allowed to get away with the most blatant and illegal draft manipulation I can ever recall. :evil:

Anyway, our skewed salary cap set-up meant not much $$$ left over to improve the (supposedly) infamous 'bottom six'. And hence, no $$$ to go poaching top liners from other clubs. That's a large reason why Ro$$y picked up the type of 're-cycled' players that he did. (Plus, I suspect, that he had little faith in our performance at the draft table at that time.)

Them - our competition under GT and Ro$$y:
Hillbillies. This I have as fact from a friend who is a family member of a very senior Hillbilly official, who was one of the key architects of their recovery after falling into major debt at the turn of the century.

Their teams that won them those flags included some bloody good players. None of them were on more than $400K! The players did this so they could stay to together to maximise the chances of winning flags - the Teddy's leading players did the same before them, and before them... the Effendrug players didn't...

Even the big name players at the Skunks and Skid Marks, whilst very well remunerated, weren't on as much $$$ as people would think. ($1 mil a year was a pretty big pay rise for The Ego to move to Swineland.)

So it's not hard to see the disadvantage we were at trying to combat our nearest rivals... both in terms of poaching topliners, and in terms of 'topping up' the standard of our 'bottom six'.

Thus, evening out our cap was one of the big goals when the Pelican was brought in. And I fully supported not paying the big $$$ that BJ wanted... especially given his post-draw form. Our players payments are now much more even. But given what happened, and what it cost us, I for one, have since been very very wary about paying the big big bikkies to one or two 'messiahs'.


Correct on Cats - I heard Brian Cooke speak on this very point at an event and he stated that the playing group instilled the baseline payment policy, so much so that the playing group collectively had to endorse G Ablett being paid outside this range in recognition of his standing as the best player in the league FACT

GT screwed this so much that our payment structure was horribly unbalanced and lacked true buy in across the list .... but some refuse to listen to fact and continue to re write history... I can truly see how horrible events like Jonestown eventuate.... good old "true believers...." :roll:
I see dumb people...
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 14934
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby meher baba » Sat 15 Jul 2017 6:42pm

saintsRrising wrote:
meher baba wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:Obviously the very simple point that he paid too few players too much goes over your head.

There is no skill at all in retaining players by just throwing too much cash at them.

The teams that won the flags instead of us kept their best players on reasonable cash rather than just the cream getting it.


Obviously you have unparallelled access to the books of a number of AFL clubs. Could you please provide more details so those of us who don't have such access, to compare, say, what the Hawks paid Franklin, Hodge, Rioli and Mitchell to what we paid Riewoldt, Dall, Goddard and Lenny? I want year by year breakdowns.

Oh, sorry, you dont have that information, do you? You're just making it up as you go along.


Fair Dinkum!

LOL. Uparrelled acces..... if you were not so blinkered you would have read in this thread alone that others have heard what I have heard. It is no secret.

This information has been avalaible if you are attentive.
I have heard numerous St Kilda Officials speak on this on various occasions.....including but not limited to Bains, Pelchen, Finnis, etc. This has been on radio and tv interviews and in the press.

Whenever the club has spoken on our rebuild and the reasons behind our strategy I have been an avid listener.

As a 40+ year member I have also been invited and gone along to the briefings that the club conducts for long time members.

That you have not been attentive, or whether you just choose to just keep your head the sand, I do not know. But the reality of what occurred is as I have outlined and as others have outlined.

You mentioned keyboard warriors and this is very ironic as you are the only one going on in this thread with no basis apart from your own opinion or facts.

Personally I prefer to believe what club officials and others have stated rather than just the fantasy that you wish to have been true, but which was not the reality.


The only person on this thread who has posted some facts (if they are correct) is Dave M.

My "fantasy" as you put it, is that the club contracted to retain a core of good players who eventually took us to the GF twice. It appears I must be in some parallel universe and the reality was that the club bottomed out after 2006 due to our bad list management.

Was the approach Geelong took available to us? Would our players have stood for it, or would they have picked up the offers from other clubs that were surely on the table?

According to some on here, it was only the presence of GT that stood between us and signing Ball, Kosi, Roo, Dal, Lenny, and BJ to $400k contracts like Geelong (except that, now Teflon tells us, GA was on more than $400k per annum).

It's all rather confusing for those of us who don't buy the suggestion that GT was Satan incarnate.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby samoht » Sat 15 Jul 2017 6:46pm

Teflon - you're revising things selectively.

RL and all "great" coaches are only great at any given point in time because of their lists at the time. Last year the superlative 19-0 coach had a 0-10 start with Freo.
So we don't have to look too far back.

When was the last time a team and coach started a season 0-10, before RL had this dishonour last year?
A team that has a huge home ground advantage losing its first 10 games!!!

RL left a sinking ship - we were going backyards year by year under him.
Have you read my latest ebook, The Fugitive Soldier?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fugitive-Sold ... ve+Soldier
.. you can sample the first 2 chapters for free, by clicking on the above link.
User avatar
samoht
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
Location: Victoria

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby saintsRrising » Sat 15 Jul 2017 7:29pm

meher baba wrote:
It's all rather confusing for those of us who don't buy the suggestion that GT was Satan incarnate.


Well if you are confused, then it is by your own doing.

You really have absolutely no capacity to discuss a single issue do you. Have I labelled GT as such? It is actually quite a childish debating technique to argue the way you do. To insist that GT is 100% right, or 100% wrong is to be blunt just ridiculous. That those that disagree with aspects of his tenure have to see him as the devil is even sillier. That you wish to maintain such a stance IMO just debases any credibility that you feign to have.

Once again as you seem to have no ability at recall. Early on and for the larger part of his tenure with us I believe that GT did a good job. He was one of many including MK, RB, BW and others who all did a great job of resurrecting the Saints.

It is the later part of his time with us that I am not so enamoured with for a number of reasons. That he chose to fall out with his peers always was going to mean that he would be exited. If you have at all followed his working career pre, post and at the Saints you would know that such inter-personal conflict was common with him.

His taking on of player contract management was one aspect that I believe was simply wrong on so many levels and directly conflicted with his role as head coach. I also believe based on the information that has over the years been made public on it that he did it poorly as well.

In addition it is actually the norm that coaches reach and exceed their use by dates at clubs. The good ones normally get another crack at another club or two.


Anyway we will just have to agree to disagree. You prefer to splash the cash on a select few. I prefer the long term whole of list approach that Bains is taking.
I might not be so happy on the way we are drafting and who has been retained and for how long, but I am content on how we are managing player contracts in terms of $$$.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 26057
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: On a yacht in The Whitsundays.

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby Teflon » Mon 17 Jul 2017 11:12pm

samoht wrote:Teflon - you're revising things selectively.

RL and all "great" coaches are only great at any given point in time because of their lists at the time. Last year the superlative 19-0 coach had a 0-10 start with Freo.
So we don't have to look too far back.

When was the last time a team and coach started a season 0-10, before RL had this dishonour last year?
A team that has a huge home ground advantage losing its first 10 games!!!

RL left a sinking ship - we were going backyards year by year under him.


Simplistic
Completely ignore the fact that Lyin DID instill a game style that took the competition by surprise and that had all players buy in
Was it a "point in time" solution that's proven unsustainable? Ofcourse
But let's stop pretending that in 09/10 he just "had a good list" cause I'd argue Thomas had a better balanced, more mature list with NO game plan
Yes end Lyin we were going backwards cause he coached for now not future we all know this
09//10 he was one of the best coaches going round hence why the foolish Fockers paid 5m
That's not revisionist that's facts.
Gee Lyon hate us strong, I get it but let's be at least a little balanced.....
I see dumb people...
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 14934
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm

Re: Why not Rocky, Lever, Kelly and Whitfield?

Postby Teflon » Mon 17 Jul 2017 11:14pm

samoht wrote:Teflon - you're revising things selectively.

RL and all "great" coaches are only great at any given point in time because of their lists at the time. Last year the superlative 19-0 coach had a 0-10 start with Freo.
So we don't have to look too far back.

When was the last time a team and coach started a season 0-10, before RL had this dishonour last year?
A team that has a huge home ground advantage losing its first 10 games!!!

RL left a sinking ship - we were going backyards year by year under him.


Simplistic
Completely ignore the fact that Lyin DID instill a game style that took the competition by surprise and that had all players buy in
Was it a "point in time" solution that's proven unsustainable? Ofcourse
But let's stop pretending that in 09/10 he just "had a good list" cause I'd argue Thomas had a better balanced, more mature list with NO game plan
Yes end Lyin we were going backwards cause he coached for now not future we all know this
09//10 he was one of the best coaches going round hence why the foolish Fockers paid 5m
That's not revisionist that's facts.
Gee Lyon hate us strong, I get it but let's be at least a little balanced.....
I see dumb people...
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 14934
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm

Previous

Return to Saintsational Fan Forum (open to all ages)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1966, BackFromUSA, Beno88, Bing [Bot], Bruce G McAbee, carn_sainter, Con Gorozidis, derby Street, eel33, elizabethr, evo, freely, Google [Bot], Goose is king, jjenner, jonesy, Kate, kazonte13, longtimesaint, mbogo, MC Gusto, Milne, Moods, Otiman, perfectionist, peter van ravenstein, Premium89, remboy, repta, Rocket, SAAD, sainter104, Sainter_Dad, saintsRrising, samuraisaint, shrodes, spert, St Loxton, st.byron, Statsman, Stephen Theodore, stjohnc, StPeter, Superboot, Tom_Sainter, Turbo, Waltzing St Kilda, White Winmar and 112 guests