Teddy, moses, & brooks

[TurnStyle]

from sydney morning herald

Set of Six: Let's hope money doesn't break up Luke Brooks, Mitchell Moses and James Tedesco
Date
March 15, 2016 - 10:01PM

League Columnist
View more articles from Phil Gould

Luke Brooks, Mitchell Moses and James Tedesco again showed their brilliance against the Manly Sea Eagles on Monday night. The skill, speed and flair of these young players is a joy to watch and the combination they are forming is a dangerous one indeed.

How sad it will be for Tigers fans and for the game in general if this talented trio should ever be broken up because of salary cap and/or opportunity. I would also hope that these three lads understand that while money is important to a professional footballer, it is not the be all and end all of life.

By remaining together for the rest of their careers at the club that gave them their first opportunity, these youngsters could achieve something really special. If that means earning a few dollars less each year to ensure they have other quality players around them, then it's a small sacrifice to make.

Main man: James Tedesco grabbed a brilliant hat trick in the big win.
Main man: James Tedesco grabbed a brilliant hat trick in the big win. Photo: Getty Images
If they are successful, the money will come in other ways. Changing clubs just to go to the highest bidder is not all it's cracked up to be.

Sure, it's up to Tigers management to understand the importance of these three boys as a combination and find the necessary funds to keep them together. But someone also has to explain to the boys the value of sticking together over time.
\
\
\
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/set-of-six-lets-hope-money-doesnt-break-up-luke-brooks-mitchell-moses-and-james-tedesco-20160315-gnjvvs.html#ixzz430SAezHw
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

very interesting (especially after reading moses was in contact with penrith!!), and i agree, he often comes across as a bit of a tool, but this is great, level headed advice from gould.

i know professional sport is different to the everyday joe's career (in particular at this point regarding earning longevity vs career money earned) and as such they have the fallback that money is more valuable to them (paradox?!!), but i think the underlying issue is an almost moral one.their options are:

a) work at company x where you earn $500k a year and you really get along well with everyone there, you have a great time at work and really enjoy what you do. you have a real connection with your workmates and when you achieve success, you share it with people who are more friend than colleague.

this is an assumption: from all reports, they are great mates. maybe theyre not?!

b) work at company y who has approached you (flattering in itself!), where you'll earn $700k per year, but accept that moving from where you are is worth the risk of not enjoying work so much because you're getting $200k more per year.

this is an assumption: you might miss all your mates, but you may also really like the new ones youve made, and make more money to boot! (in brooks' and moses' case a pun… :wink: ) it is impossible to know until youre there.

not everyone has the same values. some people are more inclined to be influenced by more money than others; some people value enjoying life as a whole (given they can financially support their consideration of a decent living) - and work is a large part of that - more and dont care as much about the $$$.

a huge consideration is that these guys are kids, and being thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars at them. they havent even 'worked' for a living for long, let alone had time to really know what they want out of and really value in life.

a lot (imo) has to do firstly with someone's core values and who they are, but probably equally as important with young people is who is around them and has influence over them at the time. i was a contractor for years and know that the more money you make, the more your agent makes...

unless we are them, we dont know how they feel. a lot of us (and surprisingly phil gould!) think there is more to life than the big bucks, and just want them to build their legacy as Wests Tigers.

but theyre kids. and it is a lot of money.

bad mix...

 

[jirskyr]

Problem is VT, there'd be endless argument/debate amongst clubs and fans for how the NRL has rated players (by what criteria?), and then you'd have instances where lowly-rated players became awesome over a short period, or awesome players form dropped alarmingly and clubs would want rating revision.

Then there's the restraint of trade where players will argue their potential earnings are being bound to a selective rating system. You might say clubs could pay players whatever they could afford, but in reality they'd pay them in proportion to their rating (i.e. why pay an exorbitant amount if the NRL says your guy is a 4/10?) Or vice versa, if NRL rated someone a 9, they might scare off all suitors who don't want to pay those kind of prices for such an large cut of their points limit.

You might as well just scrap points and provide further salary cap discounts for long-serving or junior-rated players.

 

[TurnStyle]

completely agree.
any ratings system is intrinsically flawed as at its core, it is based on human opinion, and people are human (if you know what i mean?).

cant remember the quote, but to paraphrase: "the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay".

 

[VanillaThunder]

Problem is VT, there'd be endless argument/debate amongst clubs and fans for how the NRL has rated players (by what criteria?), and then you'd have instances where lowly-rated players became awesome over a short period, or awesome players form dropped alarmingly and clubs would want rating revision.

Then there's the restraint of trade where players will argue their potential earnings are being bound to a selective rating system. You might say clubs could pay players whatever they could afford, but in reality they'd pay them in proportion to their rating (i.e. why pay an exorbitant amount if the NRL says your guy is a 4/10?) Or vice versa, if NRL rated someone a 9, they might scare off all suitors who don't want to pay those kind of prices for such an large cut of their points limit.

You might as well just scrap points and provide further salary cap discounts for long-serving or junior-rated players.

That's the thing though, their earnings aren't being restricted at all because clubs can pay whatever they want. Yea there'll definitely be a correlation between ratings and salary, but if a club like the Roosters wants to splash their cash and buy out players with unmatchable offers, they can, but it negates the uneven TPA playing field.
There's definitely flaws to be ironed out, but there's plenty of debate over unreleased TPA's and subjective interpretations by the NRL (refs, judiciary, etc.). In the case of lowly rated players playing well, good on the club for getting the best out of them, it's no different to us signing Taupau on a smaller contract and him showing his true worth. If the NRL rates someone a 9 then they'd undoubtedly be a star of the game, there'll be someone who'll take them, or said star (*cough*Tedesco) could stay with his junior club, earn his ratings discounts and help his club build a stronger roster.
There's also the issue of players points rating changing mid contract, though that could be rectified with ratings for cap purposes being set when contracts are signed (players to take risks on themselves, clubs to develop). It also makes new broadcast deals and related salary cap revisions easier to manage.

By no means is it a perfect, or even ideal system, but I think there's enough upside for it to at least be considered an option, and in the broken climate of the modern salary cap the NRL should be exploring all avenues to pick ideas from.

 

[VanillaThunder]

completely agree.
any ratings system is intrinsically flawed as at its core, it is based on human opinion, and people are human (if you know what i mean?).

cant remember the quote, but to paraphrase: "the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay".

For discussion's sake, isn't a salary cap therefore intrinsically flawed as human opinion? Someone decides a somewhat arbitrary number that clubs can't go over, then a person within a club decides that a player is worth x amount of money. At least this way the onus is on a professional, governing body-appointed council to fairly and accurately assess the talent in the league they oversee. Seems fair enough to me (as a non-elite athlete, 21 year old armchair expert (literally)).

 

[foreveratiger]

Problem is VT, there'd be endless argument/debate amongst clubs and fans for how the NRL has rated players (by what criteria?), and then you'd have instances where lowly-rated players became awesome over a short period, or awesome players form dropped alarmingly and clubs would want rating revision.

Then there's the restraint of trade where players will argue their potential earnings are being bound to a selective rating system. You might say clubs could pay players whatever they could afford, but in reality they'd pay them in proportion to their rating (i.e. why pay an exorbitant amount if the NRL says your guy is a 4/10?) Or vice versa, if NRL rated someone a 9, they might scare off all suitors who don't want to pay those kind of prices for such an large cut of their points limit.

You might as well just scrap points and provide further salary cap discounts for long-serving or junior-rated players.

That's the thing though, their earnings aren't being restricted at all because clubs can pay whatever they want. Yea there'll definitely be a correlation between ratings and salary, but if a club like the Roosters wants to splash their cash and buy out players with unmatchable offers, they can, but it negates the uneven TPA playing field.
There's definitely flaws to be ironed out, but there's plenty of debate over unreleased TPA's and subjective interpretations by the NRL (refs, judiciary, etc.). In the case of lowly rated players playing well, good on the club for getting the best out of them, it's no different to us signing Taupau on a smaller contract and him showing his true worth. If the NRL rates someone a 9 then they'd undoubtedly be a star of the game, there'll be someone who'll take them, or said star (*cough*Tedesco) could stay with his junior club, earn his ratings discounts and help his club build a stronger roster.
There's also the issue of players points rating changing mid contract, though that could be rectified with ratings for cap purposes being set when contracts are signed (players to take risks on themselves, clubs to develop). It also makes new broadcast deals and related salary cap revisions easier to manage.

By no means is it a perfect, or even ideal system, but I think there's enough upside for it to at least be considered an option, and in the broken climate of the modern salary cap the NRL should be exploring all avenues to pick ideas from.

It's a similar way of my thinking but you have put alot more thought into it…..In regards with juniors and player discount. It's plain to see that the current set up isn't right, how the Broncos sign James Roberts deep into pre-season is bewildering.

That point system isn't bad VT, even if they got 50 very well respected NRL Employees or ex player Legends who are still associated with the game and get them to rate the players and get an average for each player

 

[happy_tiger]

The only way you could what you guys are proposing is to work off each player stats without having the player revealed to the committee

 

[Nelson]

The only way you could what you guys are proposing is to work off each player stats without having the player revealed to the committee

Stats don't reveal everything. That system would never work sorry. Too much theoryball and not enough commercial reality.

 

[happy_tiger]

The only way you could what you guys are proposing is to work off each player stats without having the player revealed to the committee

Stats don't reveal everything. That system would never work sorry. Too much theoryball and not enough commercial reality.

But some are highly overrated and get picked for SOO or have and prices would be exorbitant and would get priced /rated out of the game

One player might be highly valued at his club for the role he performs week in week out , there are just too many variables that would come into play with the ratings

 

[TurnStyle]

completely agree.
any ratings system is intrinsically flawed as at its core, it is based on human opinion, and people are human (if you know what i mean?).

cant remember the quote, but to paraphrase: "the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay".

For discussion's sake, isn't a salary cap therefore intrinsically flawed as human opinion? Someone decides a somewhat arbitrary number that clubs can't go over, then a person within a club decides that a player is worth x amount of money. At least this way the onus is on a professional, governing body-appointed council to fairly and accurately assess the talent in the league they oversee. Seems fair enough to me (as a non-elite athlete, 21 year old armchair expert (literally)).

alright!… a riposte from vanilla thunder! (i know its going to be interesting)

first up, i dont think a salary cap is intrinsically flawed, as it is a definitive (okay, no TPAs!) amount of money a club is allowed to salary their roster.

LOVE to play devil's advocate, and i often do: its a great perspective...

the thing about your point is that at any location you place the assessment, it is, by definition an opinion.

opinion is a human thought.

i dont think it is possible to calculate a player's (or any product's for that matter) "worth", as it is different circumstances (and so many other factors for that matter) that dictate it.

let's say your club has no half back or good prospect: what you would pay for Luke Brooks is WAY more than another club would - if the incumbent is thurston, and you already have someone you think will be better, then he is worth far less of your cap space than he is to another team who REALLY needs a half back.

 

[Fumbles]

Brooks has played nearly 50 games and delivered nothing. Moses kicking last week was the worst I have ever seen and he leads the NRL missed tackles.
Yet we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin. They can't even win us a club game.
Why are we so desperate to keep two very average players on very big money which could cost us the players we should be keeping ?

 

[MacDougall]

They're both good, but they both already need a scenery change and a reality check. Their development will stifle without gun halves to learn from.

 

[TurnStyle]

Brooks has played nearly 50 games and delivered nothing. Moses kicking last week was the worst I have ever seen and he leads the NRL missed tackles.
Yet we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin. They can't even win us a club game.
Why are we so desperate to keep two very average players on very big money which could cost us the players we should be keeping ?

this is a forum, so off the bat im going to slate you.
sorry, but here it is.

we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin

seriously, "they will win us the Origin" :roll

not going anywhere near that one. my god - what a stupid thing to say.

i agree, brooks has not imo developed as i had hoped.
but moses is awesome.apart from his first half season (i was very critical) he really won me over last year.

i always said he has an awesome pass, and i think people will warm to him.
i think hell be bloody awesome.

 

[jirskyr]

That's the thing though, their earnings aren't being restricted at all because clubs can pay whatever they want. Yea there'll definitely be a correlation between ratings and salary, but if a club like the Roosters wants to splash their cash and buy out players with unmatchable offers, they can, but it negates the uneven TPA playing field.
There's definitely flaws to be ironed out, but there's plenty of debate over unreleased TPA's and subjective interpretations by the NRL (refs, judiciary, etc.). In the case of lowly rated players playing well, good on the club for getting the best out of them, it's no different to us signing Taupau on a smaller contract and him showing his true worth. If the NRL rates someone a 9 then they'd undoubtedly be a star of the game, there'll be someone who'll take them, or said star (*cough*Tedesco) could stay with his junior club, earn his ratings discounts and help his club build a stronger roster.
There's also the issue of players points rating changing mid contract, though that could be rectified with ratings for cap purposes being set when contracts are signed (players to take risks on themselves, clubs to develop). It also makes new broadcast deals and related salary cap revisions easier to manage.

By no means is it a perfect, or even ideal system, but I think there's enough upside for it to at least be considered an option, and in the broken climate of the modern salary cap the NRL should be exploring all avenues to pick ideas from.

I appreciate the thought experiment, but I still think any "points" system would be exploited by rich clubs.

The business is driven by money, and the primary differentiator between clubs is the amount of money at their disposal. NRL tries to create a level playing field by limiting the proportion of that money that can be spent on players.

If Roosters can pay players anything they wish, how does it negate the uneven TPA playing field? It would actually give the Roosters the ability to flex all of their club, sponsor and benefactor wealth pools.

It would mean Roosters could out-compete Wests Tigers at every level - they can overpay the 10s, the 8s, the 6s, the 2s. We would potentially never be able to match the powerful clubs on salary for equivalent-rated players. It would be like giving the richest sides first draft pick every year, and us having to take the leftovers.

Fair enough Roosters can only run out a 175 point side, but how many backup points could they have sitting on the sideline or in NSW Cup? Or what would be the monetary value of those 175 points? Would a $20M 175-point team really be equivalent to a $7.5M 175-point team?

It could be possible that Tigers could not even afford the 10s or 8s; there might be a limited pool of that level of talent. We might not even be able to field a 175 point side because we haven't the money to make that many high-profile acquisitions.

I don't think you can ever get away from the money component: that really the only way to level the playing field is to cap money. You could become really fascist about it and try to cap everything: sponsorship, non-salary spending, investment. But that would not be in the interests of the business.

And at the same time, players, managers and player associations are constantly attempting to circumvent the cap. It's exactly what corporations do with tax, to try and bend the rules or find loopholes. There is a continuous pressure from within the code to explode salaries, and I think a points system would permit this, would permit money to again strongly differentiate the clubs, like Super League era.

 

[Fumbles]

Brooks has played nearly 50 games and delivered nothing. Moses kicking last week was the worst I have ever seen and he leads the NRL missed tackles.
Yet we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin. They can't even win us a club game.
Why are we so desperate to keep two very average players on very big money which could cost us the players we should be keeping ?

this is a forum, so off the bat im going to slate you.
sorry, but here it is.

we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin

seriously, "they will win us the Origin" :roll

not going anywhere near that one. my god - what a stupid thing to say.

i agree, brooks has not imo developed as i had hoped.
but moses is awesome.apart from his first half season (i was very critical) he really won me over last year.

i always said he has an awesome pass, and i think people will warm to him.
i think hell be bloody awesome.

That one good game every ten doesn't make him awesome.
Did you see Moses kicking last week ? That was anything but awesome it was embarrassing. Does he even know how to get a repeat set or is he that busy with half his time practising missing shots at goal and the other half practising missing tackles.

Brooks what a total waste of money his best game was his first NRL game and his just been getting worse ever since.

 

[VanillaThunder]

completely agree.
any ratings system is intrinsically flawed as at its core, it is based on human opinion, and people are human (if you know what i mean?).

cant remember the quote, but to paraphrase: "the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay".

For discussion's sake, isn't a salary cap therefore intrinsically flawed as human opinion? Someone decides a somewhat arbitrary number that clubs can't go over, then a person within a club decides that a player is worth x amount of money. At least this way the onus is on a professional, governing body-appointed council to fairly and accurately assess the talent in the league they oversee. Seems fair enough to me (as a non-elite athlete, 21 year old armchair expert (literally)).

alright!… a riposte from vanilla thunder! (i know its going to be interesting)

first up, i dont think a salary cap is intrinsically flawed, as it is a definitive (okay, no TPAs!) amount of money a club is allowed to salary their roster.

LOVE to play devil's advocate, and i often do: its a great perspective...

the thing about your point is that at any location you place the assessment, it is, by definition an opinion.

opinion is a human thought.

i dont think it is possible to calculate a player's (or any product's for that matter) "worth", as it is different circumstances (and so many other factors for that matter) that dictate it.

let's say your club has no half back or good prospect: what you would pay for Luke Brooks is WAY more than another club would - if the incumbent is thurston, and you already have someone you think will be better, then he is worth far less of your cap space than he is to another team who REALLY needs a half back.

I agree, if TPAs didn't exist then the world would be a much better place (from a Tigers fan's point of view), though that opens up (or further opens) a can of worms about restraint of trade. A points system wouldn't change a club's consideration of monetary worth at all, in fact it would make it easier for clubs to be flexible in their squads and players to earn more money closer to what they think they were worth.
I've rated Brooks a 5/10, fairly high for someone with his experience and based on what he's shown in top level league; it's an optimistic rating. Realistically he's probably at a 3 or 4, but given the raps he has and his supposed high ceiling, he's taking up an extra point or two so that should he take a few expected steps up, he's not completely tilting the scales.
As you said, we don't have a halfback, he's a decent, if unproven, prospect. What we pay for him is above market value now, and it would be in a points system too, the difference being we're not as hindered by taking a risk on a young bloke with potential than we would be through a strict financial cap.
A club like us is perennially overpaying our talented juniors to stave off cashed up rivals, which means when coveted signatures are up for grabs, we simply don't have the cap space to compete. At least this way we're getting compensation/advantages for having a strong local presence, further bonuses with our new ability to splash a bit more cash (providing we actually had it) to match offers, and a real chance for every club to build a strong foundation within their playing group wider than a just a big three or four.
Again, it's not a perfect system and it's not even my preferred one either, it's just an alternative that I think would liven things up a bit. Trial it in the Nines and see how it works out hey?

Opinions aside, thank you for posing questions and actually attempting to foster discussion, it's what forums are for, right?

 

[VanillaThunder]

I appreciate the thought experiment, but I still think any "points" system would be exploited by rich clubs.

The business is driven by money, and the primary differentiator between clubs is the amount of money at their disposal. NRL tries to create a level playing field by limiting the proportion of that money that can be spent on players.

If Roosters can pay players anything they wish, how does it negate the uneven TPA playing field? It would actually give the Roosters the ability to flex all of their club, sponsor and benefactor wealth pools.

It would mean Roosters could out-compete Wests Tigers at every level - they can overpay the 10s, the 8s, the 6s, the 2s. We would potentially never be able to match the powerful clubs on salary for equivalent-rated players. It would be like giving the richest sides first draft pick every year, and us having to take the leftovers.

Fair enough Roosters can only run out a 175 point side, but how many backup points could they have sitting on the sideline or in NSW Cup? Or what would be the monetary value of those 175 points? Would a $20M 175-point team really be equivalent to a $7.5M 175-point team?

It could be possible that Tigers could not even afford the 10s or 8s; there might be a limited pool of that level of talent. We might not even be able to field a 175 point side because we haven't the money to make that many high-profile acquisitions.

I don't think you can ever get away from the money component: that really the only way to level the playing field is to cap money. You could become really fascist about it and try to cap everything: sponsorship, non-salary spending, investment. But that would not be in the interests of the business.

And at the same time, players, managers and player associations are constantly attempting to circumvent the cap. It's exactly what corporations do with tax, to try and bend the rules or find loopholes. There is a continuous pressure from within the code to explode salaries, and I think a points system would permit this, would permit money to again strongly differentiate the clubs, like Super League era.

In the pure theorycasting form, it would negate TPAs in that we'd avoid situations where players are signing contracts below market value (or accepting smaller offers) with the unmanageable guarantee that there are TPAs out the ass lined up for them to make up the difference. Players are ending up on an official cap at half their value because richer clubs like the Roosters or Broncos have the wealthy sponsors and benefactors you talk about who can lay out serious money to make up the difference. A points system doesn't change that at all. Rich clubs will still be able to splash their cash and woo players over on money alone, what it does give the comparatively poorer clubs a chance to do is to focus on the development of their own juniors, safe in the knowledge that their is real, tangible benefits in doing so, and knowing that should they keep those players together long term there's even more gain; stability breeds success.
Take Farah for example. I've rated him a 9/10, but being a local junior and a long-serving clubman he'd only take up 5.5 points of our cap. He may cost us $900,000 a year or whatever ridiculous number it's supposed to be, but we have more cap flexibility to outlay on other players. If the Roosters were to buy him for, say, $2,000,000 a year, he can go for the money (and rightly so), but he's going to take a full 9 points off them. They can splash money around on quality players, but there is real, obvious benefits to retaining local juniors that hopefully players and clubs alike could see the benefit of. That 3.5 points could turn Moses in to Thurston, or Naiqama in to Inglis. Yes we might struggle to field competitive offers initially but that would be as a result of our clubs financial position, not through our being forced to pay overs for our own juniors to stave off interest from cashed up, TPA'd up rivals.

Your point about the monetary value of the 175 points was more of a point of interest for me, like the movie Moneyball. 175 points of talent is 175 points of talent, it can cost a team - like you said - 20 million or 7.5, it'd just be interesting to see what sort of money clubs are outlaying for a supposedly even (if the NRL is an independent, objective observer) talent pool.
I'd have it apply to the top 25 only I think, with something mirroring the current second tier cap or some similar sort of financial limit. After all, looking at the past three winners of the NSW Cup being Cronulla, Penrith and Newcastle, quality in reserve grade doesn't necessarily equate to success in the top flight.

 

[Russell]

Brooks has played nearly 50 games and delivered nothing. Moses kicking last week was the worst I have ever seen and he leads the NRL missed tackles.
Yet we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin. They can't even win us a club game.
Why are we so desperate to keep two very average players on very big money which could cost us the players we should be keeping ?

this is a forum, so off the bat im going to slate you.
sorry, but here it is.

we talk about these two like they will win us the Origin

seriously, "they will win us the Origin" :roll

not going anywhere near that one. my god - what a stupid thing to say.

i agree, brooks has not imo developed as i had hoped.
but moses is awesome.apart from his first half season (i was very critical) he really won me over last year.

i always said he has an awesome pass, and i think people will warm to him.
i think hell be bloody awesome.

That one good game every ten doesn't make him awesome.
Did you see Moses kicking last week ? That was anything but awesome it was embarrassing. Does he even know how to get a repeat set or is he that busy with half his time practising missing shots at goal and the other half practising missing tackles.

Brooks what a total waste of money his best game was his first NRL game and his just been getting worse ever since.

Sounds like you think they have a positive future in front of them.

 

[supercoach]

Its funny, so many people on this forum don't rate Brooks and Moses yet half the clubs in the NRL would give their back teeth to get them on their rosters. When people like Hasler,Bennett,Gould and Johns give them the thumbs up,that will do me.

Not saying they are there yet, but I remember a young JT at the bull dogs and he was no better at the same age. There are absolute no certainties when talking about young football talent but our kids you would rather have them on your roster than someone else

 

[Harvey]

I think a lot would be keen to get them on their rosters, but how many would part with 600k a season to get them?