I know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.
so if you were to list all the occasions where clubs have paid overs for a big name player in recent times and listed their subsequent success (or lack thereof) how does it stack up?
So if you run the stats like you have with buddy and Tippett does that mean, we should not chase top end talent?
Not so much dont chase it, just dont crazy overboard to get it. This, naturally, means that it aint going to happen very often, though
A couple of things that stick in mind that I have heard mentioned from within the club.
That looking at overseas sporting comps, bringing in high profile players under free agency ultimately leads to loosing a number of lesser players. I don't think this is limited to free agency though.
The salary cap makes this just about a monty to happen.
That their recruiting policy was to draft for the top liners and trade for need. considering the first statement, this makes sense to me, but it pretty much means that most of your trades are not going to be at the top end of talent.
If you can get a top liner at the right price, then fine, but I'm not convinced chasing one at any cost just for the sake of it is the way to go.
If you look at whorethornes recruiting over the last few years, they certainly have not gone down this path. they paid quite a bit for Frawley (who i reckon has been largely underwhelming) but this of course was faciltaed by the loss of Franklin.
Astute, is the word i would use for their recruiting
