I NEVER thought I’d see a contract worse than the $6 million, six-year deal handed to Tom Scully by Greater Western Sydney in 2011.

It was an anomaly of the times, a result of the unusual circumstances created by the introduction of a new AFL franchise made by a club that had more room in its salary cap than any team would have again.

It was also a lesson to clubs everywhere — don’t throw buckets of cash at kids who are yet to prove they’re bona fide superstars.

Unfortunately, the Western Bulldogs weren’t listening.

Yesterday’s deal, which saw the Dogs land former No. 1 draft pick Tom Boyd from the Giants, was hailed as a “statement” from one of the AFL’s battlers.

“He’ll give us a lot of hope and I think that’s what we need,” Dogs chief executive Simon Garlick said.

List manager Jason McCartney added: “We haven’t had a player like this in a long time.”

In reality, the move trumps the Scully deal as perhaps the worst of all time.

There’s been more lopsided trades — and more wasteful contracts — but when you consider what the Bulldogs gave up to land Boyd and what they’ve agreed to pay him, this tops them all.

Let’s deal with the trade first, which saw the Dogs send their captain Ryan Griffen and pick 6 in this year’s draft for last year’s No. 1 pick Boyd.

The Dogs overpaid.

Yes, Griffen wanted out, but including pick 6 swung the deal in the Giants’ favour.

That’s a 28-year-old All-Australian and pick 6 for a 19-year-old key forward with huge potential but no runs on the board.

GWS wouldn’t have settled for Griffen and pick 26?

To make matters worse the Dogs agreed to pay part of Griffen’s wage over the next four years — at a total cost of $1 million.

Compare that to Scully, who the Giants picked up without sending anything back to Melbourne.

Then there’s Boyd’s contract — a whopping $7 million over seven years. It’s simply too much.

Only the Bulldogs and Boyd’s management will know exactly how much convincing he needed to make the move.

But from the surface it feels like another steal by Liam Pickering — the manager who struck the deal between Lance Franklin and the Swans last year.

Why did it need to be a million a season? Was Boyd not coming for $700,000 or $800,000?

Was the seventh year crucial in sealing the deal? Or would he have come for six?

Roughead, Cloke, Hawkins, Riewoldt just spotted shaking their heads — Kane Cornes (@kanecornes) October 15, 2014

@robbiegray_9 please don't go anywhere for your market worth atm. 150mill over 15. — Paul Stewart (@PaulDStewart14) October 15, 2014

The Dogs will argue it will all be worth it if Boyd develops into the player people most often compare him to — Geelong powerhouse Tom Hawkins.

But if he follows a similar career path to the big Cat they’ll be wrong.

Hawkins took four years to become the dominant player he is today.

That’s four years of learning the trade on a wage that represented his value to the team during that period.

Over the next four years Boyd will earn somewhere in the vicinity of $4 million.

It doesn’t make sense to pay that much for 20 goals a season, even if you’re guaranteed 60 goal seasons for the three years after.

But that’s what the Dogs have done.

“This is a long-term investment obviously ... it will be a work in progress,” McCartney said.

“We’re not expecting miracles overnight.”

I’ve got nothing against Boyd.

All power to the kid for taking advantage of the market and securing his long-term financial future.

He’ll be a target for opposition players and supporters but no one would knock back that deal.

It’s the Bulldogs who have the most to answer for.

Tweet your comments to @jaibednall on Twitter