Guessing whether Bond did the right thing in his negotiations with players or other clubs is like judging someone for winning or losing a series of silent auctions. Sure, you can brand someone a loser if they keep walking away empty handed, but unless you know their bid, and the winning bid, it’s a pretty limited analysis. In this case, you’re relying on player agents and the media for your figures. You might as well be guessing.
Ask Collingwood how they feel about ‘winning’ Cloke’s inflated salary until the end of 2017. Or Sydney when they are paying for Buddy’s retirement against the cap for 5 years. How is Schultz’s back going? Would being at Freo have helped stave off Clarke’s depression? Aaron Black can’t get a game with North, would swapping a first round pick and loading up the dollars have helped Freo? Will Dixon’s attitude or ankles cause him to miss more games?
Maybe Bond has offered 10% over of what these players were worth every time, and another club has just offered more. Or loyalty has won the day. Does that make Bond a bad GM? Maybe Bond totally sucks. It's certainly possible, although the steves strike me as people who would throw someone like Bond under the bus if it tarnished their prospects for whatever next gig they're politicking to get. They haven't. Yet.
Evaluating Bond from outside the room is guessing. Some of you might argue it’s informed guessing, but if you’re only evaluating outcomes, I’d say it’s really not that informed.
