Thomas Mikaele re-signs



  • @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.



  • Great signing this kid is a gun and will only get better.



  • That’s a great signing, he’s going well.


  • ForumSupporter

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.

    All good but how long do you suggest Mikaele should have be re-signed for this time round…3 - 5 years…?


  • ForumSupporter

    Great news he has a bright future.



  • @swag_tiger said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Eelssupporter said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Jamescogs who give two. Jog on. Tigers for wooden spoon!!!

    How did a eels supporter get here?

    Same way they get anywhere. Public transport.



  • @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.
    Agreed. We have to identify, develop and retain the best young talent. We started this year with all the good young signings and this needs to continue.


  • Banned

    This post is deleted!

  • Banned

    The fam is good.
    Wests Tigers.



  • @avocadoontoast Hope so it would be a nice looking bench. Anyone that doesn’t back down from Sammy should be re-signed ASAP.



  • @Cultured_Bogan said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Fixes his hands and he’ll go to a whole new level. Very impressed with him so far.

    I’d like to see him make stronger impact in defence as well …I can’t remember him making a 1 on 1 tackle and he seems to fall on people or try and use his weight solely to bring people down

    Suppose you learn that the longer you spend in grade

    Nice to see a bloke you were told about 3-4 years ago reach some of the wraps that were placed on him


  • Banned

    This post is deleted!


  • @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.

    All good but how long do you suggest Mikaele should have be re-signed for this time round…3 - 5 years…?

    I don’t know. Maybe his agent said he wouldn’t sign for any longer - I don’t have any inside info. What I do think is that if the club is convinced a young player is the business they ought to try to lock them up for as long as possible while they’re still cheap.



  • @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.

    All good but how long do you suggest Mikaele should have be re-signed for this time round…3 - 5 years…?

    I don’t know. Maybe his agent said he wouldn’t sign for any longer - I don’t have any inside info. What I do think is that if the club is convinced a young player is the business they ought to try to lock them up for as long as possible while they’re still cheap.

    And why would the player agent of such a player agree to that? Knowing the value (and commission) for that player could well double in the next 2 years?



  • @balmain-boy said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @Geo said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    @2041 said in Thomas Mikaele re-signs:

    Good news of itself but I hate these two year extensions for young players. He’ll be off contract again at 23, barely even starting his prime and probably with a year of starting first-choice performance in his tank. Yet again, the Tigers will have done all the hard yards to get him there but won’t get any real benefit out of it as he’ll either leave or we’ll have to pay him full whack to keep him for the bulk of his career.

    How long do you suggest…?

    There is a line of thought that players perform well in a contract year then the form wanes once they get a new contract…

    2 year deals seem about the right length to me nothing stopping the Club extending again prior to the final year if form and growth continue…Maguire himself is only here till 2021 should we be locking him up longer term at this point as well…?

    That means extending him this time next year. So we’re not getting a great deal of value out of the new contract.
    The contract year phenomenon is highly dubious and certainly shouldn’t be something that leads clubs deliberately to offer player shorter term deals. Here’s a very detailed article about the NFL, if you can be bothered: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/contract-year-phenomenon-revisited
    I’ve said this before, but the only way a club like the Tigers can compete with teams with massive natural advantages is to be better at identifying talent and aggressive at locking it up whenever it’s not too expensive. That means finding juniors and cast offs and getting them on under-market deals. These dribbled out contracts where the player is almost constantly approaching free agency just set your players up to be poached when they start producing value.

    All good but how long do you suggest Mikaele should have be re-signed for this time round…3 - 5 years…?

    I don’t know. Maybe his agent said he wouldn’t sign for any longer - I don’t have any inside info. What I do think is that if the club is convinced a young player is the business they ought to try to lock them up for as long as possible while they’re still cheap.

    And why would the player agent of such a player agree to that? Knowing the value (and commission) for that player could well double in the next 2 years?

    Because you offer the contract early - putting financial security in front of a young player at a point in his career where that’s something he hasn’t had before. You’re asking him to take the risk of turning it down. What if he does then gets injured and never gets the big payout?

    It won’t work every time, of course - some players will take the risk and others will sign the big deal then not deliver on it. But in the first case you haven’t lost anything, and the second is way less damaging than getting saddled with big free agent contracts. Who’s going to do more damage to our cap position out of Suli and Packer?


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics