How can they sort the new contract for Josh at the Dogs when we dont know when the 2020 season finishes? It’s usually on 1 November 2020 that the 2021 season starts, but that’s different this year.
Come to think of it, how does that affect payments and the salary cap? For the month of November 2020, assuming the comp is still being played, will a player be paid according to their 2020 wages or 2021 wages? And in which year will that money be counted towards the cap?
Presumably the same way they’ve worked everything out so far. V’landys says “Trust me, we’ll sort it out - oh and by the way if you don’t like it we’ll sh- all over you in the press. Sign here.”
I’m just glad Pascoe stated 2 seasons ago Wests Tigers has learnt from the mistakes of the past in relation to the salary cap and will not be paying for players to play for other teams in the future…
That was a really stupid thing for Pascoe to say, unless there’s more context to it that I haven’t seen. The mistake is giving the bad contract in the first place. If the bad contract is on your books, sometimes it’s not a mistake to eat some of it to avoid paying all of it.
Reynolds is a pretty clear case. The coach doesn’t rate him and he’s injured all the time. Arguably his value to the Tigers is pretty close to zero, yet he’s eating up 700-900k of salary cap. It’s clearly better to get some of that cap back if the “cost” is close to zero.
Might be wrong about this but can’t recall us having any joy out of any RU players we/ve signed over the years. Last one I recall was a Sevens guy we signed a few seasons back, played a few reserve grade games without any real distinction then went back to Rugby and represented Australia in international Rugby Sevens. Quade might be good for a short term deal but he’s no spring chicken any more.
There’s really no harm in buying a few lottery tickets. You know they’re long shots but if they pay off they do so big time. It’s not as if you’re obliged to give them big contracts or put them in first grade.
I think all this comes down to is that some people are really keen to understand how the game works and others really just want to be entertained.
The problem is that stats are either tiny parts of the whole story or end up being very oblique. Like, metres after contact - this is probably useful but I don’t think anyone would suggest that a player with a higher metres after contact number is definitively better than one with a lower one. It’s just part of the story. Then in baseball they’ve attempted to combine lots of numbers together to come up with a single stat: wins above replacement. The problem there is that people who aren’t into stats don’t understand how it’s calculated and tend to form the opinion that if I say Mike Trout has a 9 WAR and Mookie Betts has a 7 WAR I’m just making up some voodoo that doesn’t apply to real life.
As with more or less everything, we’d probably be better off if we were able to accept that we get different things out of the game. It’s not that easy, though. You might think Josh Reynolds should be first name on the team sheet because he always gives 110%, whereas I know he should be in reserve grade because the numbers demonstrate that he can’t do half the things a playmaker needs to be good at. We’re never not going to argue about that, and when half the people arguing disagree with the fundamental basis on which the other half has built its argument we’re probably not going anywhere positive.