On 27/09/2012 at 05:54, stuie said:

Have you seen our club? It's a disgrace, a mess, and a failure at the moment. The ONLY way we can get players better than what we have is to offer money, we have NOTHING else to bargain with.

Yep, but 'stuie', We got into this culture mess in the first place through the Daniher Era, paying overs for players who wouldn't do the dirty work as well as they're flamboyant stuff. They trashed what was left of our fragile Culture..

  On 27/09/2012 at 07:59, rpfc said:

Oh.

Your point is a really bad point.

If Hogan at 23+ years old is better than Pick 4 at 23+ years old then what doe the MFC care about that first year?

That's a rhetorical question.

You're struggling to understand aren't you...

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:17, dee-luded said:

Alright I'll qualify what I mean. I'd trade pick 3 or 4 for a Gaff.

Theres No way I'd giveup pick 3 or 4 for Wellingham or Caddy types.

The whole idea is trying to pick a Gaff or a Cotchin/Martin with these.

Anything outside top P15 would be OK by me. If we trade in a pick or 2, maybe we could ontrade for some of these 'Mature B/C graders'.

I don't think anyone is saying we should trade any of our first round picks for Wellingham or Caddy... (at least I hope not!)

And I reckon you're spot on about the ontrading, have a feeling we'll be doing alot of trading in the "middle", mid range picks for mid quality players type of thing.

  On 27/09/2012 at 06:17, rpfc said:

You are the one that made it into a recklessness du jour by reading too much into the numbers and not what was written.

Only a fool would think the numbers didn't mean anything.

They mean everything.

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:26, dee-luded said:

Yep, but 'stuie', We got into this culture mess in the first place through the Daniher Era, paying overs for players who wouldn't do the dirty work as well as they're flamboyant stuff. They trashed what was left of our fragile Culture..

I hear ya, but we're a bit like an old crusty millionaire... Unattractive, no chance of picking up against the hunky young fellas, so we flash the cash around to get some lovin.

I just see paying "overs" for decent players as part of the building process towards being a top 5-8 team that can then attract higher quality players with cash + success.

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:47, Ben-Hur said:

Only a fool would think the numbers didn't mean anything.

They mean everything.

The person behind the numbers downplayed them so why would anyone ignore that?

We dont need to buy the best available mid fielders but good midfielders who give us more opportunities and help our existing guys grow into better midfielders. I kind of like the moneyball theory get guys who work hard and add to the team but are not necessarily big stars and not paying overs. There are a lot of potentially good players being discarded by top clubs or walking from top clubs because of the lack of opportunity to play, theres probably enought there to put together a pretty reasonable team on their own. These guys are walking away from far better performing clubs than ours because they only have a few years to make their name and money, they cannot do that stuck in the twos. FA should be used to get mature bodies and guys who fill a short term specific needs, with a lifespan of at least 5 years. Draft picks should be to pick future stars who will start to produce in 1-2 years. I like the idea of banking and early pick to get Hogan or other elite 17 year old to keep new good talent coming in over the next year at a cheap price and to back up future trades.

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:49, stuie said:

I hear ya, but we're a bit like an old crusty millionaire... Unattractive, no chance of picking up against the hunky young fellas, so we flash the cash around to get some lovin.

I just see paying "overs" for decent players as part of the building process towards being a top 5-8 team that can then attract higher quality players with cash + success.

I don't think there is any Healthy culture way of fast-tracking an elevator up the ladder. But we have underperformed this year thru our change of direction.

i expect we will improve a couple of positions automatically, but from 12th, to get higher, we'll need to Improve a good bit.

We'll need some stronger bodies to supplement our better players and leave our kids to work harder to earn they're stripes.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:11, Deecisive said:

We dont need to buy the best available mid fielders but good midfielders who give us more opportunities and help our existing guys grow into better midfielders. I kind of like the moneyball theory get guys who work hard and add to the team but are not necessarily big stars and not paying overs. There are a lot of potentially good players being discarded by top clubs or walking from top clubs because of the lack of opportunity to play, theres probably enought there to put together a pretty reasonable team on their own. These guys are walking away from far better performing clubs than ours because they only have a few years to make their name and money, they cannot do that stuck in the twos. FA should be used to get mature bodies and guys who fill a short term specific needs, with a lifespan of at least 5 years. Draft picks should be to pick future stars who will start to produce in 1-2 years. I like the idea of banking and early pick to get Hogan or other elite 17 year old to keep new good talent coming in over the next year at a cheap price and to back up future trades.

I get what you are saying but pick 4 would not be a cheap price in my opinion.

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:47, Ben-Hur said:

Only a fool would think the numbers didn't mean anything.

They mean everything.

The numbers don't and can't mean anything unless you have a point of reference, which we don't without knowing what everyone else is paid. They're just arbitrary numbers I used to illustrate an underlying point about strategy; I wasn't trying to establish any sort of dollar value on the player, because from outside the system you just can't. If I hadn't have quoted actual numbers and just used algebraic symbols instead, would you still be seeking this argument? Because it wouldn't have changed my point at all, but you seem to be hung up on the actual number I said.

So you're right - in practice, if you're the list manager with the data in front of you, the numbers mean everything. But without the actual numbers in front of you, the only thing that we can reasonably argue is list management strategy.

  On 19/09/2012 at 01:04, Oucher said:

Anyone think that David McKay from Adelaide was worth $400k over 3 or 4 seasons.... Half of Demonland said 'Who??' when they heard of the attempt.

Me. He is growing as a player and he is about to hit his peak. He will be a very good player. Perhaps he's not 'A' grade (something that is very difficult to define) but he would have been a massive addition to our half back line.

It's funny, I spend my time reading idiotic posts and usually don't bother commenting. I read an idiotic post with an idiotic dollar amount that I commented on. But now it was simply "algebraic" to make a point that I'm supposedly missing.

How convenient. Maybe the next time a poster makes a silly comment perhaps they're afforded the same 'latitude'.

Sydney overpaid for Mumford, but did they overpay McGlynn, Mattner, Shaw, Kennedy, and Richards, or did they just identify the role they could play and give them an opportunity ?

The Saints didn't win a flag, but they played in 3 GF's. Did they overpay Dempster, Schneider, Gram, Ray, and before them King and Gardner ? They didn't overpay one of them. They looked for opportunities and picked most of them up for late draft picks.

As I said, I'm all for trading, but do it smartly and if there's a big prize by all means "overpay", but don't pay silly dollars as was argued in this thread because we have to fill the cap anyway. Be smart about it. Become a good club that sets standards and makes smart decisions.

Mooney and Schwarz reiterated this point on SEN today when they both agreed that "big contracts" creates "discontent" among the playing group. There's a lot more thought needed than simply "we need mature players, let's get them". Don't be shallow thinkers.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:47, Ben-Hur said:

It's funny, I spend my time reading idiotic posts and usually don't bother commenting. I read an idiotic post with an idiotic dollar amount that I commented on. But now it was simply "algebraic" to make a point that I'm supposedly missing.

I don't actually think you missed my point, because from what I've read in this thread I don't think what you're saying is very far apart from what I'm saying. Got the money, got the space, use it to improve the list.

I'm not trying to defend the numbers I put forward, by the way, I'm trying to dismiss them. I put zero thought in to the numbers I put in that post because I didn't really think it was the point. They were throwaway, but you've run with it.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:47, Ben-Hur said:

Sydney overpaid for Mumford, but did they overpay McGlynn, Mattner, Shaw, Kennedy, and Richards, or did they just identify the role they could play and give them an opportunity ?

McGlynn, Kennedy, Richards and Shaw were all players that were either on or very close to the scrapheap. They were fringe players at their existing club. The equivalent on our list is James Sellar. Wellingham is obviously not as valuable a player as Mumford, but for the purposes of this discussion he's closer to Mumford - who you agree Sydney overpaid for - than he is to those other guys.

  Quote

As I said, I'm all for trading, but do it smartly and if there's a big prize by all means "overpay", but don't pay silly dollars as was argued in this thread because we have to fill the cap anyway. Be smart about it. Become a good club that sets standards and makes smart decisions.

Mooney and Schwarz reiterated this point on SEN today when they both agreed that "big contracts" creates "discontent" among the playing group. There's a lot more thought needed than simply "we need mature players, let's get them". Don't be shallow thinkers.

I agree with every word of this.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:47, Ben-Hur said:

As I said, I'm all for trading, but do it smartly and if there's a big prize by all means "overpay", but don't pay silly dollars as was argued in this thread because we have to fill the cap anyway. Be smart about it. Become a good club that sets standards and makes smart decisions.

Mooney and Schwarz reiterated this point on SEN today when they both agreed that "big contracts" creates "discontent" among the playing group. There's a lot more thought needed than simply "we need mature players, let's get them". Don't be shallow thinkers.

Be smart about it sums it up well "Ben", good call.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:47, Ben-Hur said:

It's funny, I spend my time reading idiotic posts and usually don't bother commenting. I read an idiotic post with an idiotic dollar amount that I commented on. But now it was simply "algebraic" to make a point that I'm supposedly missing.

How convenient. Maybe the next time a poster makes a silly comment perhaps they're afforded the same 'latitude'.

Sydney overpaid for Mumford, but did they overpay McGlynn, Mattner, Shaw, Kennedy, and Richards, or did they just identify the role they could play and give them an opportunity ?

The Saints didn't win a flag, but they played in 3 GF's. Did they overpay Dempster, Schneider, Gram, Ray, and before them King and Gardner ? They didn't overpay one of them. They looked for opportunities and picked most of them up for late draft picks.

As I said, I'm all for trading, but do it smartly and if there's a big prize by all means "overpay", but don't pay silly dollars as was argued in this thread because we have to fill the cap anyway. Be smart about it. Become a good club that sets standards and makes smart decisions.

Mooney and Schwarz reiterated this point on SEN today when they both agreed that "big contracts" creates "discontent" among the playing group. There's a lot more thought needed than simply "we need mature players, let's get them". Don't be shallow thinkers.

Could not have put it better myself

Gotta love the off season... splitting fractions , defining and redefining old age. Sometimes I think we ought to argue over fashion as well, the length of hems and shades of grey .

There is one word that, to me , sums up everything you need to get right.

BALANCE !

If you havent got it , evreything will be out of kilter and eventually fall over. Thats been our problem for years. We've not got the balance right.

its that which the FD is seeking to redress me thinks .

  On 19/09/2012 at 05:29, Roost It said:

I would hope the club would pay him nowhere near $750,000. Offer him $100,000 a year more than the Pies with some incentives. Give him the term he wants upto 4 years.

I would presume with our coaching staff they know whether he can play or not. i'm not totally sold on him and wonder if he could step up in our 4th world midfield. I'll leave that to the coaches and recruiters.

I do know that I'd like the club to recruit some 23 -24 year old players this year.

I would say it isnt a given that the coaching/Recruiting staff know whether he can play or not MFC history would suggest otherwise I have no confidence that the club will make corect decisions this year any more than I thought it last year. I honestly hope that I am proved to be wrong

  On 27/09/2012 at 08:26, dee-luded said:

Yep, but 'stuie', We got into this culture mess in the first place through the Daniher Era, paying overs for players who wouldn't do the dirty work as well as they're flamboyant stuff. They trashed what was left of our fragile Culture..

Gee. That's a bit unfair, we wern't much chop before Neal come along.

If Wellingham leaves Collingwood, it will be to West coast.

I think we will end up with Koby Stevens , Rodan and Pearce and Shannon Byrnes

  On 27/09/2012 at 22:17, jackaub said:

I would say it isnt a given that the coaching/Recruiting staff know whether he can play or not MFC history would suggest otherwise I have no confidence that the club will make corect decisions this year any more than I thought it last year. I honestly hope that I am proved to be wrong

These blokes chased Clark hard and got him.

Was that a good decision?

What did you say about the Clark recruitment at the time?

  On 27/09/2012 at 23:06, DeeZee said:

If Wellingham leaves Collingwood, it will be to West coast.

I think we will end up with Koby Stevens , Rodan and Pearce and Shannon Byrnes

Not Rodan, please.

  On 27/09/2012 at 23:07, rpfc said:

These blokes chased Clark hard and got him.

Was that a good decision?

What did you say about the Clark recruitment at the time?

Clarke has been a great pick up. Much better than pretty much everyone expected. But they also chased Dawes hard and we dodged a bullet.

  On 27/09/2012 at 23:20, Fat Tony said:

Clarke has been a great pick up. Much better than pretty much everyone expected. But they also chased Dawes hard and we dodged a bullet.

Didn't chase him as hard as Clark.

How do I know?

We got Clark...

  On 27/09/2012 at 23:06, DeeZee said:

If Wellingham leaves Collingwood, it will be to West coast.

Not according to his manager.

  On 27/09/2012 at 10:47, Ben-Hur said:

Mooney and Schwarz reiterated this point on SEN today when they both agreed that "big contracts" creates "discontent" among the playing group. There's a lot more thought needed than simply "we need mature players, let's get them". Don't be shallow thinkers.

"Sign-on bonus" avoids these problems, just uses up available current TPP and helps us with future TPP.