So, why offer a 4 x $500,000 contract to Betts?

[Pies4shaw]

Serious question, here. I'm not bagging the boy - he at least has had the very good sense to leave Princes Park, so he has that going for him. I'm just trying to understand why a club that doesn't look to be close to top 4 contention would do this - is he just a place-marker to take up salary-cap space so there's plenty of money to throw at, eg, Dangerfield next time he's up for a new deal, or is it something more straight-forward than that?

Betts is no star, he's just a good, ordinary small-forward who has shown no ability to run though the mid-field. Thus, he plays in a position that traditionally has next to no influence on the outcome of the biggest games. He's played 185 games, will be 28 when next season starts and - looking at the odds - chances are he has 50 to 60 good games in him, at most. His main asset is his pace and it's hard to imagine him tearing it up once he reaches the wrong side of 30, two seasons on. Moreover, if the Blooz are clearing the deck for Daisy, they obviously can't offer good money to renew Betts' contract, so you'd think he'd be touting himself around for an offer in a few days anyway.

Is about 1.5 to 2 goals per game (mostly against teams that aren't seriously in contention) from a small forward with no other strings to his bow really sufficient to demand that sort of money?

Thoughtful contributions, please. I understand that this is obviously his "market" rate - what I'm trying to focus on is why that would be.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-03/crows-swoop-on-betts

[roar]

Seems way over what he is worth, IMO.

[Wokko]

If a team wants to grab a free agent they have to pay overs or the old club will just match them.

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, Wokko - I understand that. But the new club still has to be willing to part with $2M over 4 years for a 28 year old small forward. It might be the price one would have to pay - the real question is why they paid it.

[Jezza]

I agree with fellow posters that Adelaide are paying too much for Betts, but as Wokko said: "You have to pay overs to grab a free agent".

[thebaldfacts]

Betts out Thomas in. Scum going backwards:)

[AN_Inkling]

The Crows would be looking to make the finals next year and hoping for top 4. They got there in 2012.

They lack for a quality small forward and Betts is one of the best in the comp. $500, 000 overs? Yes, but that's what happens with free agency, $700,000 is overs for Thomas too.

[swoop42]

Betts has been a good player for the scum over the years and cut us to pieces at times.

Still I like the fact they've gained Thomas but lost there best small forward and wont get any compensation for him.

Thanks Adelaide.

[Duff Soviet Union]

Ridiculous contract. Betts already looks done and they're giving him 4 years? Thank Christ it wasn't us.

[Tannin]

[Pies4shaw]

Thought I'd revisit this, in the interests of balance (on my part, since I didn't understand why Adelaide would do this deal, at all). In 2014, Betts kicked 51 goals at 2.3 goals per game. That's his best return for his career and nearly twice what he managed in 2013. He played well against Port twice (4 goals in each game) and kicked a bag of 5 against the 'Aints and GWS. On the other hand, he kicked 2 against Geelong, 1 against Hawthorn and none against Freo.

On balance, he was a plus for the Crows this year. That said, it still looks short-sighted, to me. He turns 29 next year and the Crows don't look to be rushing up the ladder, despite the age profile of their senior team (15 of their round 23 players were 24 or older).

[Jezza]

In terms of the amount of goals he scored this year it's his best year statistically so the Crows will be happy with his contribution but whether he improves on that remains doubtful.

Betts is a good honest small forward! That's his only big strength around the ground along with the pace he has.

[AN_Inkling]