Apart from the clinical side of this debate and the fact that if we were to do it there is no guarantee that Cadman would still be there at pick seven. How about we consider what impact this might have on the playing group as a whole.
- They lose a mate for an inferior player and a pick
- They watch us bring in a seconds player on big money
- The money paid to Bowes lessens the pool for the rest
- We may be creating a situation where we have better players on less money
- What impact does Bowes salary have on future salary negotiations. Are we setting a bench mark starting point for all future contracts.
If you think all players will understand or even care why we are paying Bowes so much and be happy to earn less as a result then I think that’s misguided.
Remember what paying Rioli and BT massive contracts and expecting the rest of the group to suck it up cost us? Well it was the catalyst for 37 years of misery.
Extreme example I know, but we aren’t just dealing with spreadsheets and how we can do a deal, we’re taking about human beings, with human emotions. How does such a deal fit the Richmond Man culture? It’s sounds more like the Greame Richmond man culture
We certainly need to be aware of the opportunity cost of actually doing that deal (and there would be one). Ie. does it affect our culture, if we are paying some dud a lot of money, how does that sit with the likes of Jack / Cotch who are playing on unders.
I don't know if we can do it, or even if we would but the opportunity exists and with all opportunities, there is also an opportunity cost of not doing it.
Bullus uses the argument of opportunity cost when not taking our picks to the draft, similarly there is an opportunity cost of not doing a trade for accomplished mids like Hopper and Taranto.