Beams signs for 3 ... Cloke edges closer to Dees?

[John Crow Batty 8,832]

Good point ADC - so we don't really need Cloke. Alternatively, if someone is determined to get him, how would we fit two such players into a team - where would we play each one?

There is not much alternative. One would play deep and the other higher up, perhaps Cloke for his lead up marking strength. The way we are playing now he would need to play up to the wing to get a kick. negates his worth. Would turn out to be another Dawes.

Edited August 21, 2012 by america de cali

[Dr. Gonzo 23,932]

Good point ADC - so we don't really need Cloke. Alternatively, if someone is determined to get him, how would we fit two such players into a team - where would we play each one?

Clark would play 0-40 metres from goal, being the high marking, goal-kicking forward.

Cloke would play 40-80 out leading up to the wings and being the link man between half-back and getting the ball down to Clark. He can also bomb them from 55-60 out occasionally as well.

I don't see the conflict.

[Sir Why You Little 36,769]

Clark would play 0-40 metres from goal, being the high marking, goal-kicking forward.

Cloke would play 40-80 out leading up to the wings and being the link man between half-back and getting the ball down to Clark. He can also bomb them from 55-60 out occasionally as well.

I don't see the conflict.

How good would that be!!!

[ChaserJ 4,836]

Reid & Fasolo re-signed, even less money available for Cloke:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/145290/default.aspx

[Hardnut 327]

Clark would play 0-40 metres from goal, being the high marking, goal-kicking forward.

Cloke would play 40-80 out leading up to the wings and being the link man between half-back and getting the ball down to Clark. He can also bomb them from 55-60 out occasionally as well.

I don't see the conflict.

I do and you have just confirmed it - your thinking is too restrictive. IMO we would be better off with good midfielders and more options for the cost of Cloke, if that's what you think he should do.

[Hardnut 327]

Reid & Fasolo re-signed, even less money available for Cloke:

http://www.afl.com.a...90/default.aspx

Never buy something because someone else may not want it - first decide do you really want it.

[ChaserJ 4,836]

Never buy something because someone else may not want it - first decide do you really want it.

What I really want is for GWS to overspend & sign Cloke, and leave them with less money to retain their talented young Victorian KPF's. Fancy coming back to Victoria Jeremy?

[Undeeterred 3,101]

My point is a player like Cloke would be ineffective in a poor side. All my Collingwood friends say he is fair weather player. When things are tough he disappears, can't handle pressure and is almost a certainty to miss a crucial shot at goal. Not surprising they are always jeering him when things go wrong. Going for someone like him at his price is a blinkered quick fix assuming money will solve our problems ignoring the rest of our game which is still not up to AFL standard all around the ground. He's not worth even half the figures that are being bandied around.

That's ok - he'd probably fit in really well over here because we'd all be nice to him and yell out 'good show Travis' at him a lot.

Maybe he doesn't kick straight over there because he's just scared of being bashed by them in the carpark after the game.

[Undeeterred 3,101]

There is not much alternative. One would play deep and the other higher up, perhaps Cloke for his lead up marking strength. The way we are playing now he would need to play up to the wing to get a kick. negates his worth. Would turn out to be another Dawes.

No, he'd turn out to be someone for Watts to kick it at from half back, who isn't Mitch Clark.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,932]

I do and you have just confirmed it - your thinking is too restrictive. IMO we would be better off with good midfielders and more options for the cost of Cloke, if that's what you think he should do.

We can have midfielders as well. I don't really see how my thinking is too restrictive. Big forwards provide structure and targets for those further up field. Cloke & Clark can be interchangeable if required.

Which midifielders do you think we should get if we're not going to spend the spare cash on Cloke? We will be getting some in the draft though I assume you have some lined up for the trade period as well?

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Which mids are available as free agents? Sewell re signed Lenny Hayes isn't going neither will Joey. Boak is there but apart from that there aren't many out there to spend on instead of getting cloke.

[Hardnut 327]

We can have midfielders as well. Big forwards provide structure and targets for those further up field. Cloke & Clark can be interchangeable if required.

I don't disagree with you, but my point is that we should not over-emphasise (or over pay) Cloke. Too many people fall for the 'one good player and all will be well' trap. We should have the midfield as our first priority - in whatever form (experience, youthful potential etc) - and then look for the additional big forward who may or may not be Cloke. Whilst Cloke is a very good player, I am cautious about him for our club and at an inflated price and contract length.

[Range Rover 1,935]

I don't disagree with you, but my point is that we should not over-emphasise (or over pay) Cloke. Too many people fall for the 'one good player and all will be well' trap. We should have the midfield as our first priority - in whatever form (experience, youthful potential etc) - and then look for the additional big forward who may or may not be Cloke. Whilst Cloke is a very good player, I am cautious about him for our club and at an inflated price and contract length.

The problem is ... taking a caution approach won't land you a big fish.

Risk versus reward.

[Hardnut 327]

The problem is ... taking a caution approach won't land you a big fish.

Risk versus reward.

or a big dud, which has happened before,

or more importantly - a good player, but at the wrong time - back to the midfield development issue.

[Undeeterred 3,101]

I don't disagree with you, but my point is that we should not over-emphasise (or over pay) Cloke. Too many people fall for the 'one good player and all will be well' trap. We should have the midfield as our first priority - in whatever form (experience, youthful potential etc) - and then look for the additional big forward who may or may not be Cloke. Whilst Cloke is a very good player, I am cautious about him for our club and at an inflated price and contract length.

Think people are going around in circles on this.

1. There are no decent FA midfielders. There is a big b@rstad CHF available, though.

2. We are going to choose about 1000 midfielders in the upcoming draft.

3. While those midfielders develop, we have nobody at whom to throw a substantial portion of our salary cap.

4. Why not throw it at Cloke, front-ended, and keep him until the midfielders we drafted in 2012 become truckloads of $$$, at which point we will be paying Cloke next to nothing?

5. It would sure help those youngies develop if they have Cloke and Clark to kick it to, rather than Clark and Petterd, or Bate, or some other spud.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,932]

I don't disagree with you, but my point is that we should not over-emphasise (or over pay) Cloke. Too many people fall for the 'one good player and all will be well' trap. We should have the midfield as our first priority - in whatever form (experience, youthful potential etc) - and then look for the additional big forward who may or may not be Cloke. Whilst Cloke is a very good player, I am cautious about him for our club and at an inflated price and contract length.

If landing Cloke didn't inhibit our ability to get/develop/retain our midfield would you be against getting him? I get what you're saying but although he will get paid a tonne I just don't think it will negatively impact our ability to obtain midfielders. If it did then I would be against getting him so I think we're basically on the same page. But with our current situation including money to burn in the salary cap I don't think it will ruin us like some think. Clark is only on about $500k a year as well despite some reports so it's not like all our cap will be wasted on the forward line.

[Biffen 12,939]

Only problem with the Cloke deal is that he is confused and thinks he is Gary Abllet Jnr or Lance Franklin.

He just aint worth the money he wants.

Or that David wants.

[rpfc 28,087]

We need good players. We have a boatload of Salary Cap money that we HAVE TO SPEND.

The way some of you are talking about Cloke you would think our list is in a lot better shape than it is.

[Range Rover 1,935]

We need good players. We have a boatload of Salary Cap money that we HAVE TO SPEND.

The way some of you are talking about Cloke you would think our list is in a lot better shape than it is.

Same sort of vibe as people scoffing at my Lenny Hayes thread on the other forum. "Past it". "Not precisely what we need". "Over 30" etc etc

Ahh newsflash people ... we have close to the worst list in the competition. Quit living in la-la land.

[old dee 23,561]

Same sort of vibe as people scoffing at my Lenny Hayes thread on the other forum. "Past it". "Not precisely what we need". "Over 30" etc etc

Ahh newsflash people ... we have close to the worst list in the competition. Quit living in la-la land.

Ahh Yep

[Hardnut 327]

Think people are going around in circles on this.

1. There are no decent FA midfielders. There is a big b@rstad CHF available, though.

2. We are going to choose about 1000 midfielders in the upcoming draft.

3. While those midfielders develop, we have nobody at whom to throw a substantial portion of our salary cap.

4. Why not throw it at Cloke, front-ended, and keep him until the midfielders we drafted in 2012 become truckloads of $$$, at which point we will be paying Cloke next to nothing?

5. It would sure help those youngies develop if they have Cloke and Clark to kick it to, rather than Clark and Petterd, or Bate, or some other spud.

If landing Cloke didn't inhibit our ability to get/develop/retain our midfield would you be against getting him? I get what you're saying but although he will get paid a tonne I just don't think it will negatively impact our ability to obtain midfielders. If it did then I would be against getting him so I think we're basically on the same page. But with our current situation including money to burn in the salary cap I don't think it will ruin us like some think. Clark is only on about $500k a year as well despite some reports so it's not like all our cap will be wasted on the forward line.

I too think we are on the same page, especially given the current salary cap situation. As I have said I think Cloke is a very good player. My concern is that those making the decisions need to be sure they have thoroughly checked all midfield options as a priority before landing Cloke (and then his contract needs to be carefully thought through - personally, I would not give anyone a 5 year contract for example, unless it had other clauses relating to performance etc etc). Don't misunderstand me here, my caution comes more from concern about the quality of admin/management abilities and decisions than it does from Cloke's ability.

[old55 23,089]

I too think we are on the same page, especially given the current salary cap situation. As I have said I think Cloke is a very good player. My concern is that those making the decisions need to be sure they have thoroughly checked all midfield options as a priority before landing Cloke (and then his contract needs to be carefully thought through - personally, I would not give anyone a 5 year contract for example, unless it had other clauses relating to performance etc etc). Don't misunderstand me here, my caution comes more from concern about the quality of admin/management abilities and decisions than it does from Cloke's ability.

Collingwood offered him a 5 year contract with performance clauses and that's what he won't sign! You just said "I don't want him".

[Hardnut 327]

Collingwood offered him a 5 year contract with performance clauses and that's what he won't sign! You just said "I don't want him".

Maybe he doesn't fit with Collingwood's future plans and their cap is continually tightening - so much so, that they won't give in to Cloke's demands.

Buckley's comments on tonight's Ten News make me even more 'cautious'.

I haven't said I don't want him - rather, it should be on MFC terms - not on inflated Cloke terms.

Be careful, be very careful...

[old55 23,089]

Maybe he doesn't fit with Collingwood's future plans and their cap is continually tightening - so much so, that they won't give in to Cloke's demands.

Buckley's comments on tonight's Ten News make me even more 'cautious'.

I haven't said I don't want him - rather, it should be on MFC terms - not on inflated Cloke terms.

Be careful, be very careful...

No, Collingwood offered him what you want to offer him (your "MFC terms") - he might end up taking that at Colingwood but you'll HAVE to offer him more to move - therefore you've effectively said you don't want him

[Sir Why You Little 36,769]

Maybe he doesn't fit with Collingwood's future plans and their cap is continually tightening - so much so, that they won't give in to Cloke's demands.

Buckley's comments on tonight's Ten News make me even more 'cautious'.

I haven't said I don't want him - rather, it should be on MFC terms - not on inflated Cloke terms.

Be careful, be very careful...

What did Buckley say on the news?