Lomax is reputably on 800k, I am not sure when his contract expires. No one's going to get him for a bargain
When his 800 at Saints expires you might!.............he has been a Saints junior and prodigy the whole time, I think its a bit sad when you come through that type of upbringing (lets face it he is overpaid and was never worth 800) but when you are a non destination club as Bup points out, what you pay is irrelevant if you have NRL grants and have to pay that money to retain him.i.e. your not spending your money in the sense that your being prudent, just spending what someone (NRL) gives you and you have to spend it!
This concept really exposes the fault of player values, if you are good enough you go to a destination club and take the lower dollars, it finds them out if you are not as good as you think. BUT you do get to play with better players and your showcase improves. A guy like Lomax has received his big pay early and is now struggling at the the back end and he has to re earn it.
The question is he really as good as he or someone else thinks he is.
The interesting thing is we now see a number of players that that have left their premier clubs and getting paid a fortune.
The Penrith exit is rewarding players like the ones that have gone to the dogs, Luai going to Wests next year, even Pappalini and Mahoney leaving us. Korisau going to Tiges..... its pay day and picking up Lomax means you have to be pretty sure he is as good as some think.....personally I watched him last year closesly and didn't like what I saw, but then I cannot judge how much of that was unhappiness with his position at Saints.
I do not believe that many on here understand values, when trading players. We made a choice with Moses, Brown and Gutherson and it has worked.....some can argue that Matterson, Lane, Sivo and Paulo have not....subjective in it its self. RCG sits/stands out there an outstanding choice when he was not happy with his foundation club. Maybe Lomax may fit that image?
I think our team this year is much more cognisant of the realities after the good fortune of them making a GF and thinking that they only have to turn up the next year. Home truths like the one this blog alludes to are coming home.
A lot of criticism is landed on the recruitment and retention committee. This year we know what we are short of but the R&R mob have been selective in not taking any profile players, because the judgements being made here to say that there is limited value. If we don't have the right level of juniors coming through then we will have no choice.
The intermediate answer is that the extra money they now have can be allocated for retention of players we want to keep and this allows latitude for retention of the juniors we are developing as keepers.
Makes you think doesn't it.... there is more to R&R then a lot understand and it is not just a subjective decision on which player WE like.
Replies
Thanks Hoe, agree with what you said.
I tried to specifically generalise about player valuations and use Lomax as an example. To answer Sluggo who was taking the piss, I can accept the premise he is making but I personally had overlooked Waqa as an example of the problems you can have if you get it wrong. Interesting I was probably and initially happier with Waqa than Lomax but would accept that Lomax qualifies circumstantially for Parra (using Slippery's well made points).
Actually using my own rhetoric it doesn't matter what you pay for Lomax if it fits this years budget (which has to be spent regardless) it would be the length and size of the contract that would become the issue. i.e. pay him 800 for this season only and then renegotiate in November.....another balancing quandry for the R&R.
Front ending for future years may also be an issue to remember when doing that balancing act? probably would never have said that if the discussion didn't bring out the circumstantial aspects. i.e pay him 800 (assume we have it) and then offer a 450k contract for 3 more years plus incentives.
he cant be worse of than an existing contract as per the collective bargaining agreement
I think it goes far back to the Michael Jennings situation and how he really left us in the lurche at a real critical time during a prelim semi. He and Fergo were our last quality back signings and we really have not been able to bring anyone through (Ok Wil Penisini). Our last really backline star other then our players in the spine was Semi Radradra....(what he could have been in our team with the spine we have now) but he went to the riches of global Rugby ...fair play....
I agree with your blog and the complexity of R and R .....however as I have always said 38 years ......and now with moses out for 3 months who knows how this seasons goes ....lets hope its the unearthing of Blaize as a true home grown talent!
I actually think Lomax is good for us, he has that flair we lack, yes at times it doesnt come off, but under a stronger coach like BA he will be more selective.
He is someone can use through fullback, wing & center.
He would be worth 600-650k. If we pay that, im ok with it
Lomax is alot like Staggs i think, worth the value and risk
I also like the fact he's not comfortable getting great money and losing every week. He seems to have drive to be a winner and progress his career. He could take 800k and bludge on the wing if he wished.
The thing is, players values change regularly. Not only at their current club but with many clubs. For example. Before the Eels game last Sunday, Lomax was more valuable to the Eels than after the successful debut of Blaize. Last week the Eels number 1 priority would have been to get Lomax, I would hope now there priority is to re-sign Blaize.
Another factor is when a new coach starts with a roster he hasn't put together. Flanagan views Lomax as a winger and $800,000 per season for a winger ( not a origin or international) player at this stage is to much. I believe if Flanagan could get 3 quarters of the $800,000 for Lomax he would let him go. Surely the Dragons would be better off with a $600,000 a season middle or edge forward.
Gone are the days of when local juniors were major priorities. The game today has become a finely tuned business and value for money is the key. It only takes a couple of bad deals for clubs to find themselves in trouble for several years.
Well thought out and expressed Slippery.... you raise good points about circumstantial valuations.
The reason that local juniors are important is you'll usually get a season or two with them on a pittance allowing you to heavily invest elsewhere and " front load " that season into a premiership tilt.
if they're good young kids then you'd be very likely to be paying a premium to poach them unless you're a winning club with a larger opportunity or you have a player they're keen to be mentored by. We have neither. Until the last two games you'd say that Brown was still very much in a learning stage and not capeable of teaching anyone anything, and Moses going by this place is still the oldest learning player in the history of the game, Gutho you'd be too scared he would call you a dumb cunt if you messed up and most of the rest of our squad are journeymen.
There are far more attractive clubs for a young promising rookie to go to. So we very much need to produce our own OR buy a couple of players that can attract more players. Like we did with the Watmong situation. Obviously you would make a smarter purchase , but regardless, he attracted players.
I totally agree with your comments regarding the importance and benefits regarding local juniors at discounted rates, however, this is only a factor with their 1st contract if they show promise. Once a player starts showing they have regular 1st grade qualities and therefore demand more money, there junior club has very little advantages, more disadvantages by paying too much. Ideally, developing clubs can benefit greatly if they identify the talent of their young stars and sign them to their 2nd contract before their potential gets displayed in the top grade. The Eels and Blaize are the perfect example. I have no doubt that if the Eels signed Blaize last week they would have got him on less money than what they would need to pay now.
Yeah I just look at Penrith. Many of those guys chose to staty and play together for obviously the success . Us with Inu , Hayne , etc era , yes it's a very short window you'll get , you're correct. But there is an ever so slight advantage to be had . If we were a better located with a lifestyle attraction like The Goldy or Cronulla as examples , or more attractive club for TPAs etc then maybe it wouldn't be so important , but I think we are in a situation wheras we must keep producing if we are needing to pay the guys on the big coin slightly overs to stay.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next