Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Peter Jackson Interview



Ugottobekidding

The Jack Watts in 2018 Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

He did have something to do with it, even if it was indirectly.

Getting Lever on a large contract meant that something had to give - we still have a number of players to sign and the salary cap will probably be tight.  We obviously wanted to move Watts on, but in doing so it freed up some of the cap room that we gave up to sign Lever.  It will no doubt help in our quest to re-sign all the young players going forward, even if it's just in the short term.

Keeping both Lever and Watts wasn't an option, so Lever played a role, even if it was small, in helping to move Watts to Port Adelaide.

If the goal in getting rid of Watts was salary cap space we would’ve fought harder in the negotiations with PA for them to pay more of his salary, possibly even resulting in us taking a lower pick. We didn’t, we are still paying a significant portion of JW’s salary. Salary cap management is complicated, no doubt, and little things can make a difference, but this was not the case here, we had the space for Lever and Watts, we chose to get rid of Watts. You can not believe me if you want to, but anyone from the club will tell you the same, if the only way you guys can reconcile getting rid of Watts is that it helped get Lever then you’re clutching at straws.

Edited by deejammin'
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, deejammin' said:

If the goal in getting rid of Watts was salary cap space we would’ve fought harder in the negotiations with PA for them Ron pay more of his salary, possibly even resulting in us taking a lower pick. We didn’t, we are still paying a significant portion of JW’s salary. Salary cap management is complicated, no doubt, and little things can make a difference, but this was not the case here, we had the space for Lever and Watts, we chose to get rid of Watts. You can no believe me if you want to, but anyone from the club will tell you the same, if the only way you guys can reconcile getting rid of Watts is that it helped get Lever then you’re clutching at straws.

Wrong.

We are paying 15% over the next two years of his contract.  So that's 7.5% a year.  That's nothing.  

By doing that we got a slightly higher pick for very little in terms of payment towards his contract.  It's a drop in the ocean and freed up hundreds of thousands of dollars for us over the next few years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No one else wanted Watts, he had next to no currency. It makes it hard to negotiate a better deal. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Wrong.

We are paying 15% over the next two years of his contract.  So that's 7.5% a year.  That's nothing.  

By doing that we got a slightly higher pick for very little in terms of payment towards his contract.  It's a drop in the ocean and freed up hundreds of thousands of dollars for us over the next few years.

That is exactly what I had heard we were paying, and on top of paying Fritsch base salary we are not saving so much that our cap was so tight that it made the Lever deal happen. 

Let me ask you, I’ve asked this question directly to both senior members of our list management team and both said it had nothing to do with it. Why would they do that? What do they stand to gain by giving themselves less outs for why a popular player is gone? 

You believe what you want to believe, I’m done talking about it. I hope we made the right decision, I am yet to believe we did, I do not believe it and see no convincing evidence it had anything to do with Lever. The argument  you are making is the equivalent of arguing we delisted Jack Trengove to get Lever, it freed up space, were the two things directly related in any way, no, but hey you could make the same ludicrous argument about cap space!! 

I’m not going to comment on this til the end of the season as I’m sure I’m annoying people by constantly posting in this thread.

Edited by deejammin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

MFC publicly trashed Watt’s reputation during trade period.

Watts had a reputation? Yes, but not the one that you're talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 10:47 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

What are you talking about?

i think you are losing the plot mate. Your arguements are like Swiss Cheese Dr. 

Seriously i am not an old Kevin Bartlett, but i am looking at what the AFL has done and is doing to the game

It is unrecognisable to what i watched 25-30 years ago

The AFL are swimming in money, but most clubs are in debt. You keep telling us this is a good thing. 

In 1970 121,000 people rocked up to the Grand Final and you could hear the cheer squads face off at one another from Richmond Station. 

As a 7 year old i have never forgotten that noise  

Now it’s loud cheap music and betting ads that are so loud

 

This is definitely true. anyone who went to the football in the 70s for example could suck in fantastic atmosphere. now it's silent before games and subsequent breaks in the game are saturated with noise from the P.A and ground announcers. Peak Football Cometh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Watts had a reputation? Yes, but not the one that you're talking about.

enligh of today’s events you wanna be very careful what you say regarding somebodies reputation unless it’s 100% true.   

Now if you don’t know for a fact your post is redundant - again after today’s events. 

Share this post


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

Wrong.

We are paying 15% over the next two years of his contract.  So that's 7.5% a year.  That's nothing. 

Your maths don't quite work for me.

I suspect he's on $500K per year, so we're paying 15% over two years, which would be $150,000, or $75,000 per year.

Well, that's how I read it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Your maths don't quite work for me.

I suspect he's on $500K per year, so we're paying 15% over two years, which would be $150,000, or $75,000 per year.

Well, that's how I read it.

15% is what PJ said we are paying over two years, unless I misinterpreted it wrong and that we are paying 15% each year for two years...? 

Share this post


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

15% is what PJ said we are paying over two years, unless I misinterpreted it wrong and that we are paying 15% each year for two years...? 

They are the same thing. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Watts the matter said:

They are the same thing. 

Let me clarify - is it 15% over 2 years (eg paying 7.5% each year) or do we pay 15% of his wage each year? That's different. 

Share this post


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

 

Now if you don’t know for a fact your post is redondant - again after today’s events. 

What events, DD?

ps Wiseblood. 15% would normally mean 15% each year.  If he’d put a dollar figure on it e.g. $150k over 2 years, that would equate to $75k each year.

Share this post


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

Let me clarify - is it 15% over 2 years (eg paying 7.5% each year) or do we pay 15% of his wage each year? That's different. 

I can see what you are getting at but if someone says 15% over 2 years then that would mean 15% of each year.

I have not seen the actual quote but going on the use of those specific words, it could not mean 7.5% each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jimcor2 said:

What events, DD?

ps Wiseblood. 15% would normally mean 15% each year.  If he’d put a dollar figure on it e.g. $150k over 2 years, that would equate to $75k each year.

Posters need to be more aware of Demonlands code of conduct 

4. Player abuse is the most difficult area to moderate. Whilst we do not want to stifle player comment and criticism player abuse is NOT acceptable. Comments should be constructive and not destructive. Comments such as "player X is useless" or "player X is crap" are NOT acceptable. 

As of today the AFL players have put all publishers on notice both on and offline. The vitriolic language you use towards players past or present could get you in deep trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Posters need to be more aware of Demonlands code of conduct 

4. Player abuse is the most difficult area to moderate. Whilst we do not want to stifle player comment and criticism player abuse is NOT acceptable. Comments should be constructive and not destructive. Comments such as "player X is useless" or "player X is crap" are NOT acceptable. 

As of today the AFL players have put all publishers on notice both on and offline. The vitriolic language you use towards players past or present could get you in deep trouble. 

No it won't.  Journalists might get a kick up the bum, but fan sites?  Unless it's horrible nothing is going to happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Posters need to be more aware of Demonlands code of conduct 

4. Player abuse is the most difficult area to moderate. Whilst we do not want to stifle player comment and criticism player abuse is NOT acceptable. Comments should be constructive and not destructive. Comments such as "player X is useless" or "player X is crap" are NOT acceptable. 

As of today the AFL players have put all publishers on notice both on and offline. The vitriolic language you use towards players past or present could get you in deep trouble. 

Thanks for that.  At first, I thought you had posted it to warn me then I realised you were just answering my question!  I will try to ensure my VLQ (Vitriol Level Quotient) is suitably low.  Hopefully, others will also do their best.  Again, thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2018 at 10:11 AM, sue said:

And of course none of those who wanted him gone will say 'I told you so' after any poor performances he makes this year.     

In a real game? Yeah, maybe.

Share this post


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

15% is what PJ said we are paying over two years, unless I misinterpreted it wrong and that we are paying 15% each year for two years...? 

If you pay 7.5% of one year and 7.5% the next year you're still only paying 7.5% of the total combined for both years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If you pay 7.5% of one year and 7.5% the next year you're still only paying 7.5% of the total combined for both years.

Yes, you're right, Doc.  I think I was playing with a few cards short of a full deck last night.  Cheers.

Edited by Wiseblood
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deejammin' said:

There’s no truth to this. Mahoney said as much during trade week,  we could have easily paid both salaries and kept both. We’re still paying a proportion of Watts’ salary on top of paying Fritsch a base listed player salary. There’s is a small amount saved but not enough to be the difference between getting Lever and not. Ask anyone from the club, it is categorically not true.

I see it differently, but with the same ultimate effect. Getting Lever freed Tom McDonald to go forward which made Watts redundant. So, in my view it seems that the Lever and Watts trades are intrinsically linked, but not because of the salary cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Wrong.

We are paying 15% over the next two years of his contract.  So that's 7.5% a year.  That's nothing.  

By doing that we got a slightly higher pick for very little in terms of payment towards his contract.  It's a drop in the ocean and freed up hundreds of thousands of dollars for us over the next few years.

no, it's 15% of his yearly contract, each year for 2 years

Share this post


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

Yes, you're right, Doc.  I think I was playing with a few cards short of a full deck last night.  Cheers.

It's still a good deal WB. We got rid of a jack and picked up an ace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's not a lot – I think over the final two years of his contract it's about 15 per cent," Jackson told SEN radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one like many was saddened by the clubs decision. I also thought in light of how well Jack played in the last 2 years it was a bad decision.

Now that its all said and done I can be less emotive about it and accept while a good player of late JW was not and I doubt will ever be a star.

The highlights of him playing so well against Cwood someone posted are  probably the fondest memories we all have of him.

Lets be brutally honest.... there are not too many more. Yes his disposal was clever and he was one of the best said shots going around and yes hes a good backup option if Hogan and Mcdonald are injured and one of the other 3 forwards is not up to par. But that's it.

If the decision made Lever happen by just 10 to 20 % (which Im sure it did) than we should all see the bigger picture and move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/03/2018 at 8:36 AM, Ethan Tremblay said:

Surely even the ‘Keep Watts Camp’ would take Lever over Watts. We weren’t getting Lever if we kept Watts.

And, for the last time, don’t call me Shirley.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×