Teddy, moses, & brooks

[stevetiger]

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

Maybe but we don't know any of this. Maybe other clubs wouldn't even be picking these two in first grade.

How have they gone so far this year. I'd give Moses 2 good games, 1 average game and 1 shocker out of 4 and Brooks 1 good game and 2 below average. Is that worth $1.2m+ combined per year ?

 

[Russell]

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

Maybe but we don't know any of this. Maybe other clubs wouldn't even be picking these two in first grade.

How have they gone so far this year. I'd give Moses 2 good games, 1 average game and 1 shocker out of 4 and Brooks 1 good game and 2 below average. Is that worth $1.2m+ combined per year ?

For these two - imo, absolutely and that ain't spin.

 

[stevetiger]

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

Maybe but we don't know any of this. Maybe other clubs wouldn't even be picking these two in first grade.

How have they gone so far this year. I'd give Moses 2 good games, 1 average game and 1 shocker out of 4 and Brooks 1 good game and 2 below average. Is that worth $1.2m+ combined per year ?

For these two - imo, absolutely and that ain't spin.

I hope you are right. I think Brooks when he looks good looks great. Moses to me has been more consistent and I think he could a real good player.

I just think they both need to be consistent and get to Tedesco level players. I suppose if 1 gets to that level that is enough.

 

[ricksen]

How do the AFL and other Australian sports handle the TPA portion of salary caps?
I've no time for the sport, but the contract system and general transfer/draft system seems to be a lot better than the mess we have in the NRL.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

I think the AFL has a larger salary cap than the NRL- but don't worry their clubs rort the system just as much as certain NRL clubs do. Young AFL players tend to stay with the clubs they originated from more than youngsters in the NRL it seems though.
TPA's are a massive blight on our game but are here to stay sadly, salary cap discounts for home grown talent is the best and fairest way to keep our game from becoming a who's-got-the-biggest-cash-flow comp like European soccer.

 

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

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?

The other clubs would part with the money. It would be structured a lot differently with a large chunk being TPA and less being included in the Salary Cap. This is why NRL will end up like the top European soccer leagues if they don't work out how to level the advantage clubs get by way of access to a large amount of TPA's.

 

[Masterton]

How have they gone so far this year. I'd give Moses 2 good games, 1 average game and 1 shocker out of 4 and Brooks 1 good game and 2 below average. Is that worth $1.2m+ combined per year ?

I think sometimes what sounds like an enormous contract isn't so big considering the growing salary cap. I mean, Parra apparently offered Hopoate $1.8m for 3 years.

 

[ricksen]

I think the AFL has a larger salary cap than the NRL- but don't worry their clubs rort the system just as much as certain NRL clubs do. Young AFL players tend to stay with the clubs they originated from more than youngsters in the NRL it seems though.
TPA's are a massive blight on our game but are here to stay sadly, salary cap discounts for home grown talent is the best and fairest way to keep our game from becoming a who's-got-the-biggest-cash-flow comp like European soccer.

From reading this - http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/free-agency

Basically if a club drafts a player, that contract is protected for a certain amount of time, therefore there is a lot more emphasis placed on developing from within, rather than just buying players willy nilly.

Looking at the sharks roster at present (http://www.sharks.com.au/team/player-profiles.html), how many of these guys have been developed in house? Barely any. There's no impetus to do so in the NRL.

The Sharks have been a poor team in recent history, and yet have still been able to go out and recruit fairly well over the same period of time.
Why is it that we're the only club with no clout in the transfer market?

 

[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.

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?

oh, definitely. thats why i was happy to get a response from you. i know you are level headed and pragmatic and i think you have great opinions.

if only there were no TPAs, and there was an incontrovertible method of ranking players. but it is such a subjective issue that this is impossible given the good old supply and demand….

thing is there is really no alternative i can think of? the only way imo, is to completely eradicate TPAs - as they are the one differing and subjective aspect of the so called cap that either hampers or benefits a club.

im certain the NFL has no such thing. if a player is marketable, then that is great for him and joining a new team this could be a consideration, but i really dont think a club with people (CEOs) who support them and are able to offer that extra outside the cap is fair!

it would be awesome if things were like "madden NFL" where every player is given a rating. but this again is subjective because of the old "what you need" factor.

apart from scrapping TPAs, i cant see how an even field is ever going to be achieved by the NRL.