Manly MUST secure juniors

[pjayz]

It is reasonable to suggest he is going to be a star but not many "next big things" lock themselves into a long deal these days, you know "he's got to maximise his income, he's only in the game for a short time, he's gotta do what's best for his family, he wants to see who the coach will be, depends on the next TV deal, blah, blah, blah..."
It doesn't matter matter what our 3-5 year plan is if players are being courted 3 years out, they are hesitant to commit as "5 years is a long time in football"

Agreed, I wasn't suggesting a 5yr contract, rather a 3yr contract and if that is going as expected then lock him up further mid way through. Having said that, contracts mean less these days and some do like to test the waters as you said. We don't know the real story here though, I just hope he wants to stay at Many and does.

 

[Bearfax]

It is reasonable to suggest he is going to be a star but not many "next big things" lock themselves into a long deal these days, you know "he's got to maximise his income, he's only in the game for a short time, he's gotta do what's best for his family, he wants to see who the coach will be, depends on the next TV deal, blah, blah, blah..."
It doesn't matter matter what our 3-5 year plan is if players are being courted 3 years out, they are hesitant to commit as "5 years is a long time in football"

I never said that we pay him now what Myles and Taupau get paid. I said his worth based on 'expectation' (long term) was greater than Myles and probably equal to Taupau. You see your question was ambiguous.

If you had said how much is he worth to pay right now, that's a different issue compared to what you seemed to be asking 'How much do we think Knight is worth?' and 'How do we compare 'him with' Myles and Taupau in expectation v $$$'. My interpretation was what Knight was going to offer the club if he stays as opposed to the other two.

I maintain that Knight will be a better player than Myles and probably up Taupau's level in 'expectation'. Therefore given the time he will potentially be with Manly if he stays his value is high. I wouldnt pay him the big dollars yet but I would be paying enough for him to stay with an assurance of bigger bucks as he develops, but in a couple of years I would be paying at least what Myles and Taupau are now getting.

 

[StuBoot]

I never said that we pay him now what Myles and Taupau get paid. I said his worth based on 'expectation' (long term) was greater than Myles and probably equal to Taupau. You see your question was ambiguous.

If you had said how much is he worth to pay right now, that's a different issue compared to what you seemed to be asking 'How much do we think Knight is worth?' and 'How do we compare 'him with' Myles and Taupau in expectation v $$$'. My interpretation was what Knight was going to offer the club if he stays as opposed to the other two.

I maintain that Knight will be a better player than Myles and probably up Taupau's level in 'expectation'. Therefore given the time he will potentially be with Manly if he stays his value is high. I wouldnt pay him the big dollars yet but I would be paying enough for him to stay with an assurance of bigger bucks as he develops, but in a couple of years I would be paying at least what Myles and Taupau are now getting.

Bearfax, you wrote "At this stage Stuboot, I would rate him more important than Myles and potentially could match Taupau in a year or two."

The insinuation I took from that ( and I may be wrong ) is that if came to a choice between the two you'd take Knight over Myles. Also, apologies if my question seemed ambiguous.
The problem is with most young ones, a promise of bigger bucks as he develops is seen as a hollow promise, they want it now.
On the other side we've seen players saying "I want to be one club player" etc and shop themselves around at the first opportunity under the pretext of gauging their worth on the open market.

The thread title is that we must secure our juniors, I'm asking at what cost in $$, personnel and being competitive?
Look at the Tigers, they've gone down the road of juniors, juniors, juniors and their black hole seems to get bigger every year.

 

[Shoe1]

Maxta's title just says we must secure juniors. Not necessarily manly juniors?? :0)

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

What constitutes a real manly junior terry?

Well for starters, a very popular class of sailing dinghies.

But that's not important right now.

 

[Mals]

Bearfax, you wrote "At this stage Stuboot, I would rate him more important than Myles and potentially could match Taupau in a year or two."

The insinuation I took from that ( and I may be wrong ) is that if came to a choice between the two you'd take Knight over Myles. Also, apologies if my question seemed ambiguous.
The problem is with most young ones, a promise of bigger bucks as he develops is seen as a hollow promise, they want it now.
On the other side we've seen players saying "I want to be one club player" etc and shop themselves around at the first opportunity under the pretext of gauging their worth on the open market.

The thread title is that we must secure our juniors, I'm asking at what cost in $$, personnel and being competitive?
Look at the Tigers, they've gone down the road of juniors, juniors, juniors and their black hole seems to get bigger every year.

Exactly, Liam has not even played a single 1st grade game yet. Nate & Marty are proven internationals. We threw good coin at Michael Chee Kam when he was killing it in the U20s for Canberra and look how that turned out. Most young forwards especially those playing in the middle need quite a few years before they can a) crack a regular first grade spot and b) turn in consistent performances.

 

[Bearfax]

Stuboot I guess we both were a little out of sync with each other.

My issue is this. I think Knight, like the Trbojevics, is destined to be part of Manly's central core for the next decade if we can hold onto them and therein lays their value. Myles will last perhaps two or three more years and my impression is that he may have passed his peak (but still be an excellent signing). Taupau is near the peak of his game so enough said.

But Knight to me is a future rep player. Why do I say that of someone who has played only U 20s. Same as with the Trbojevics. Its not whether they star in U 20s, its how they do, what skill range you can see developing at that age. Each of those three are standouts as far as skill range. Someone like Demetriou for example could be outstanding but his skill range is not that great at this stage. He's a tank. Reminds me a little of Noel Cleal. Contain that element and he doesnt have much else.

The Trbojevics and Knight have a range of skills and to me are rep players in the making. Yes I would offer much more than average for juniors coming through to these three. I would compete heavily on the market to retain them.

 

[pjayz]

Look at the Tigers, they've gone down the road of juniors, juniors, juniors and their black hole seems to get bigger every year.

To be fair, that's because nobody wants to play for them....the Tigers couldn't recruit the Toukley Tuck-shop lady even if they offered her $500k and a new pair Jimmy Choos...

 

[Hgbcds]

Well for starters, a very popular class of sailing dinghies.

But that's not important right now.

Just answer the question. I've got a wife for nonsense mate.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

All nonsense aside 'mate' - I'm sure you already know the answer to your own question.

 

[Hgbcds]

All nonsense aside 'mate' - I'm sure you already know the answer to your own question.

I smell a rat terry or maybe a marlin.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Only if you split the Manly from Warringah.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

I hope he stays as the kid looks the goods, but investing a big slice of your salary cap on potential talent is a risk that doesn't always pay dividends. Just look at the mess the tigers are in. Sure JWH is one that got away but there haven't been too many others.

 

[double hoops]

If as was suggested he is going around telling folk he is off to the Roosters next year but hasn't actually signed. I guess it may go one of two ways. But the percentages may support it will go one way only. He will be labelled a Nark.

 

[rifraff]

I think we need to see them in at least NSW cup first until we decide if the potential is worth more than the minimum wage.

Few backs, let alone forwards come straight from u20s to make an impact in the NRL.

I f someone is offering overs they probably have to go

 

[Shoe1]

All nonsense aside 'mate' - I'm sure you already know the answer to your own question.

Here's one

 

[Jay Eagle]

A junior should not be on any more than a 2 year contract until he gets a crack at first grade and shows potential to cut it in an Nrl future, just like snake, Foz, beaver, kosef, tooves, Jake and Tom T and co, there are so many I could write a page... that is when you can truly start talking about longer contacts, and bigger coin.. If the minimum wage in the Nrl is just over $75k then these young blokes with real potential ( after showing it in first grade) should in my opinion be on no more than $100/150k and I believe this has always been the Manly way.. If your a junior with talent it will get recognised as you will get your chance, you just have to wait your time and the rewards will follow, many of greats came through the system the same way. It has as much to do with how you handle that period, how much you want to be an nrl player, and how much you want to be part of the manly culture. So if other clubs come knocking and throwing huge amounts of money then the test is there, do you not think people like beaver, tooves and Foz didn't go through that.. But they chose to stay for less to be part of Manly, For those rookies that took the cash and left there are not too many that really succeeded, partly because this shows their character and the club that paid the overs for the rookie actually did us a favour. Liam has potential, but hasn't been tested at nrl level yet and as soon as he does he and we will all know what his worth.. Remember the debuts of many of our talent juniors and they stood out, just did their job, looked liked they belong they then go on to become stars or very solid first grader. If the roosters offer Liam $200k and a three year deal, untested they are fools, but Liam would be a bigger fool for taking it in my opinion. So the test is on to see how great a player he will end up being. It's not all about what you do on the field it's also about what's in your head.

 

[Bearfax]

Trouble is Jay Eagle that Sydney City are not fools for outlaying huge sums for juniors. Once they've got them they can then determine their worth over the following years and dispense with those that dont make the grade. And they still can afford the big names when needed. But the fact is they get so many of the cream despite having such a small local junior talent and leave the rest of the teams in their wake.

And the result for SC. Hardly foolish. Though many suggest Manly and Melbourne have been the great successes since 2000, in fact Sydney City is the standout. They have 2 premierships, 7 grand-final appearances and 4 minor premierships. Compare that with Manly 2 premierships 4 grand-finals no minor premierships, Melbourne 2 premierships 4 grand-finals 1 minor premiership Canterbury 1 premiership 3 grand-finals 1 minor premiership and Brisbane 2 premierships, 3 grand-finals, 1 minor premiership.

So do you really think its foolish outlaying big money for juniors?