Jump to content

Trade Jack Watts or not?  

475 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we trade Jack Watts?

    • Yes.
      142
    • No.
      311


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, P-man said:

Are we seriously paying some of his salary as well? lol

Wow.

Probably had to to accommodate Levers salary, the imminent arrival of Balic and all the draftees.

Its no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Petraccattack said:

Probably had to to accommodate Levers salary, the imminent arrival of Balic and all the draftees.

Its no big deal.

how does that even make any sense ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beelzebub said:

how does that even make any sense ?

We had to ship out Watts full salary as we couldn't afford it. 

So instead of paying 100% of it, we will pay a fraction. And therefore free up salary cap room. And Port wouldn't have done the deal if we didn't pay a part of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I reckon Garry Lyon summed things up quite well on SEN this morning. Link to it is here:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/10/17/popular-easy-and-safe-don-t-win-flags/

I think it's put things into perspective quite well. 

Not really...he's just pushing the same barrow of rubbish out that many here have/are

Garry Lyon ??  Mark says hello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

how does that even make any sense ?

I think he means we either keep Watts and struggle with the cap, or trade him out and pay a fraction.

Paying part of a traded player's salary is not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jara said:

I couldn't care less about Goodwin being a premiership player. I suppose I'm willing to reserve my judgement about his being a decent coach, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest that he won't be the latest in conga-line of failures. I regard his inability to lead our team into the finals this year as a failure.

 

Watts was overall a disappointment, but he played well in 2016 and continued that form into 2017 until he was injured. We had plenty of worse performers (even most of our so-called leaders could do with more work on their skills). I can't believe we gave him away for pick 31 and that we still have to pay a large chunk of his salary.  

He didn't carry it over into 2017 remember, he didn't play a single pre season game as he was out of favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Petraccattack said:

We had to ship out Watts full salary as we couldn't afford it. 

So instead of paying 100% of it, we will pay a fraction. And therefore free up salary cap room. And Port wouldn't have done the deal if we didn't pay a part of it. 

Yes - 66% is a fraction....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Petraccattack said:

We had to ship out Watts full salary as we couldn't afford it. 

So instead of paying 100% of it, we will pay a fraction. And therefore free up salary cap room. And Port wouldn't have done the deal if we didn't pay a part of it. 

a fraction yes 2/5 at least..

There were many utterances even by our illustrious FD along this journey that it wasnt ever about Sal cap...This is just another furphy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, praha said:

I think he means we either keep Watts and struggle with the cap, or trade him out and pay a fraction.

Paying part of a traded player's salary is not uncommon.

the two things can be independent.  I know its not unknown to do such..but... but often the trade is better weighted etc.

This isnt , hasnt ever been about sal cap

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GCDee said:

Amen 

Wow. Garry Lyon sticking up for the club.

I agree with everything he has said. We haven't won a flag in 53 yeas. Time to get ruthless and demand the best from our players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked - “Quite simply, previous regimes have been prepared to settle for less from Jack and I don’t think the Simon Goodwin cartel will. Those that observe Jack more closely and intimately than anyone else in the game are in a far better position to past judgment on whether he is part of their finals and premiership push. The fact they took pick 31 and are contributing to his wage suggests that they’re in no doubt.” 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I reckon Garry Lyon summed things up quite well on SEN this morning. Link to it is here:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/10/17/popular-easy-and-safe-don-t-win-flags/

I think it's put things into perspective quite well. 

Yep. "The football club’s decision to trade Jack Watts has not just been made on what happens on the weekend, it’s the manifestation of all that happens throughout the summer months and the day-to-day training loads. It’s the endless hours of game review tapes and it’s the degree of urgency, intensity and desperation that they’ve sought over the years."

The club will not improve with Jack Watts in the side. He would have added nothing more after 9 years on the senior list.

It may not improve without Jack Watts. But the team that is charged with improving the side know better than any of the emotional nuffies here spouting BS about the 'heart and soul' of the team and may just well improve the culture of the side and add a terrific young player. Time will tell.

Teams can't stand still, they have to keep turning over their lists to find the right comibination.

The failure of Jack Watts to get the best out of himself lies with Jack Watts. He knew what he  had to do and didn't do it. For him to claim he was shocked is a joke. The coaches have made the right call. 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, goodwindees said:

Can't believe that anyone would be STUPID enough to think that Port would be in a position to bring anyone into their Club today on $500k  for the next 2 years.  FCS, have look at their list and who they've brought in this week. 

I texted SEN/David Schwartz during the Mahoney interview to make sure they asked Mahoney about how much Dees were paying of Watts' salary and Mahoney after a pause was VERY shifty & misleading. 

Can't believe Mahoney said that it would need to be worked out with his Manager.  It's got nothing to do with Paul Connors, it was agreed to with Cripps of PA that we are paying 40% for next 2 years  

Botom line is Dees are paying $200,000 per season for next 2 years. 

This is a statement trade by Dees but handled very poorly. 

I think if you wanted to write how to stuff up a trade/negotiation, look no further than the Dees & Bulldogs in 2017. 

Someone earlier posted $165K or thereabouts which was a third. What was your source for the higher figure?

The basics of this trade are so flawed that it becomes more unbelievable by the day.

How not to negotiate and trash your limited brand in one exercise. Sorry if I have little faith in the football department but they have done nothing to command the blind faith that many on this board seem to exhibit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

has it been confirmed that we are paying part of his $1m salary over the next two years?

if so, what part?

that will really annoy me if so - i think pick #31 is sadly about his value, i.e. that of a player who is 9 years in and has never finished higher than 5th in the b&f and been dropped by every appointed senior coach he has played under

it's a very sad state of affairs

He even dropped himself which is unheard of in the AFL.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

The club won't stand for so-so commitment anymore.  What's wrong with that?

We were all absolutely filthy with not only our end to the season, but some of our efforts within games.  The club, internally, has clearly identified that there were certain aspects that needed to change, especially within our senior players.  One of those was clearly Jack.  We can speculate and listen to some of the drivel that get's splattered all over this forum floor, but the fact is that behind closed doors the club weren't happy with the standards Jack was setting for those around him.  As a senior player that is unacceptable.

So the club was ruthless.  They basically said that they aren't going to accept that anymore, especially from someone as experienced as Jack, and instead of sitting on their hands and wondering what to do, they made the tough decision to move him on to better our club.  Our FD are the ones who see everything, and if they believe that moving Jack on makes us a better club in the long run then I'm happy to get behind that.

I'm sad to see Jack go, but I'm impressed with the club and it's willingness to make the tough decisions to ensure that the end to 2017 doesn't happen again and that our young players are looking up to veterans who set the right standards and drive them on to some sustained success.

Can’t argue with any of that, it is just sad that we were prepared to get rid of him for almost nothing, and pay a wage to an oponent to do it. 

We need to find another forward who can use the ball because the FD have just given one away...

It may well be a masterstroke and i hope it is, but if it isn’t...

time will tell all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Macca said:

All the best to Jack and I really do hope he makes a success of himself at his new home.  The trade has more than a hint of salary cap relief about it but that's the way it goes. 

In sports all around the world the trading of players that supporters have an attachment to is quite prevalent.  It's just a part of pro-sports and we're going to see more and more of it in the AFL.  To get better,  a club has to make changes.

 

no problem with trading Macca. It is simply that the terms of the trade whichever way you look at it simply do not make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, green_machine said:

I hope this is not Goodwin being a malthouse.

He disliked Betts, Garlett and Robinson and look how that worked out for Carlton.

I am not big Mick Malthouse fan. But it is an insult to Malthouse to compare Goodwin to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Goodwin has put his cards on the table SWYL, so he's [censored] if the team doesn't deliver.

Absolutely. From 2018 onwards...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GCDee said:

Amen 

What was Mark Neeld?  Garry Lyon's safe and easy pick because Mick gave him a reference.

 

You can be lectured about Garry's thoughts.  I won't be.

 

 

FCS, we are paying some of Watts' wage?  It only gets better.  The MFC are paying Jordan Lewis' super; Watts' holiday, and over-compensated Adelaide too early. 

 

Strikes me of a club that is insecure, without much nerve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Can’t argue with any of that, it is just sad that we were prepared to get rid of him for almost nothing, and pay a wage to an oponent to do it. 

What does it tell you? It tells me that he was a liability to the playing group.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack was a very frustrating player I think we can all agree on that.

I think PA has paid unders and I do not like that we are paying a portion of his salary, guess all you like as to how much that is but at the end of the day you are still guessing.

I wish Jack well but I do not see him changing his ways and suddenly finding consistency and becoming the player we were all hoping he would become.  Uprooting yourself and moving interstate away from everything you knew has to be unsettling, even to someone that seems very grounded.

Just hope plan B works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TGR said:

What was Mark Neeld?  Garry Lyon's safe and easy pick because Mick gave him a reference.

 

You can be lectured about Garry's thoughts.  I won't be.

 

 

FCS, we are paying some of Watts' wage?  It only gets better.  The MFC are paying Jordan Lewis' super; Watts' holiday, and over-compensated Adelaide too early. 

 

Strikes me of a club that is insecure, without much nerve.

Lectured?  Hardly.  He made some valid points and, to me, summed the feelings of both supporters and our own football department on the matter quite well.  If you can't see that then that's your problem.

 

 

 

pWiseblood

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

never finished higher than 5th in the b&f and been dropped by every appointed senior coach he has played under

it's a very sad state of affairs

Where did Lever finish in the B&F this year?

 

B&F's are tainted my friend.  A tool of vindication used by coaches and the FD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnrmac said:

What does it tell you? It tells me that he was a liability to the playing group.

 

Yes he was. I have no problem with that. 

But the down side is we know longer have a player with elite kicking skills on the forward line. 

We better recruit well in the off season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×