If anyone has referred to Frawley as a spud they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I think you are going to have to bump those posts that mention he is not worth $400k but then in the next breath mention a top 5 pick.

I don't think stmj, or anyone that is happy to see him leave, has said that he is a spud. His point is that the bloke is not worth the same to us as he would be to other clubs. Specifically those who have more midfield assets.

The notion that - if Frawley left - the chances the MFC adding to its midfield goes up is irrefutable. He offers the best chance the club can get its hands on another top 5 pick and, in turn, a star quality player in the draft or trade.

That's the argument, it has merit, and thus we are having a thoughtful discussion.

Only on Demonland!

The main reason Rivers, Sylvia or Moloney leaving hasn't hurt us is because they were no good, and have been easily replaced.

Frawley will be the first one that hurts us if he goes. It will be clear for everyone to see when/if he's running around playing against us.

Can't "bump" RP as my "reply" button doesn't work.

I'll let you know post numbers.

Given that we will get a Top 5 pick because of our ladder position anyway, I'm happy to use that to bolster our midfield. Would much rather that and keep Frawley than lose him and have two picks, one of which is not certain to be a Top 5.

The main reason Rivers, Sylvia or Moloney leaving hasn't hurt us is because they were no good, and have been easily replaced.

Frawley will be the first one that hurts us if he goes. It will be clear for everyone to see when/if he's running around playing against us.

He has already left the backline for 3 months and the defence not only coped without him, but excelled in comparison to last season.

Your argument that he would improve our backline is without a doubt true, but his absence from the backline hasn't 'hurt us' this season so why would it hurt us next season?

You answered, and agreed here...

"Your argument that he would improve our backline is without a doubt true..."

We are on 4 fcuking wins.

Raise your bar FFS.

I ask myself some questions regarding this situation;

- Would our backline be better with Frawley in it? I am in no doubt it would be.

- If a club, let's say Hawthorn, are willing to offer him reasonable money to join them, then why? They are not going to pay overs for a bloke, so clearly another club would see that he would improve their backline too. Makes me confirm the answer to my first question.

Because of the answers to the above, I then ask;

- Why would we let someone go, who obviously makes our backline better, just so he can go and make another team's backline better? I don't use the compensation of a draft pick to cloud my judgement in trying to work out my answer to that.

STMJ mentioned that our compensation pick would significantly increase our chances of nabbing a star midfielder. Seriously? I find it funny how some think Frawley is an absolute spud, then put their hands out for a 1st round compo pick. Yes, there is a formula used, but why would another team pay top dollar for this so called "spud"? In my view, and I think it's pretty accurate, he'll need to be offered $600k minimum for us to qualify for a pick immediately after our first. Some on here wouldn't be willing to pay $400k for him, yet are happy to spend the top 5 pick they think we will get for him.

Only on Demonland!

I'll answer your last paragraph even though I've just posted something similar in the 'Players to target at the end of the year' thread.

Billy, the situation is more complex then you're making out. Frawley's qualities as a player to the clubs that are supposedly interested are very different from ours clearly. Hawthorn, Freo, Geelong and Gold Coast are all clubs said to be interested. What do they have in common?

They're clubs with strong lists, leaders, culture and they're ALL in flag winning positions, (bar GC but not for long).

If they pay overs for a bloke who's number one attribute is his one on one defending on the big boys of the competition it's because they're in flag winning positions and have identified a certain gap that needs filling.

There's no doubt whatsoever, he'd perform well in that role at any of those clubs and be made to look a million bucks for doing something he does best.

Where are the MFC at the moment when it comes to culture/environment, strong personalities, leaders etc? Absolutely in an infancy stage.

Has Frawley or is Frawley going to contribute to any of the above for our club going forward? I say no.

Do we have the chance of securing a player who could provide those characteristics our club so desperately needs to become strong again if Frawley leaves on a big contract on big money? Absolutely we do.

It's not as black and white as you're making out.

Our list, culture, leaders etc still need changing. That's the number one priority for me in all of this Frawley talk.

Edited July 2, 201411 yr by stevethemanjordan

He has already left the backline for 3 months and the defence not only coped without him, but excelled in comparison to last season.

Your argument that he would improve our backline is without a doubt true, but his absence from the backline hasn't 'hurt us' this season so why would it hurt us next season?

That's true, although it can also be attributed to a new game plan and a more accountable and hard working midfield. He played down there well (yes, outside of the last quarter) and smashed Liam Jones last week.

But your last statement does hold some weight. His absence hasn't hurt us as such, although his presence in the forward half has certainly been very, very handy.

STMJ - at some stage we need to have trust and develop what we have. At some stage we need to think that we can be a finals team - a train of thought that should be a prerequisite at the start of every preseason.

Will we make finals this year? No.

Will we make finals next year? Yes, and there's no reason that we shouldn't think we can't. We've won 4 games this year, and been leading in the last quarter in another 5 (from memory, might even be 6). Next year, we have to believe we can turn those games in to wins. That could be 10 wins, with 8 games still to play.

Frawley could be playing finals for us next year, and he will a> have a significant say is us achieving this, and b> as you have stated above, play a serious role in September.

Edited July 2, 201411 yr by billy2803

You answered, and agreed here...

"Your argument that he would improve our backline is without a doubt true..."

We are on 4 fcuking wins.

Raise your bar FFS.

You should just picture another poster with the same arguments that I have - you would give a more nuanced and sensible response.

If our backline is running at 85 out of 100 right now without Frawley, he would lift it to around 90 out of 100 but is that the reason we are on '4 effing wins' as you so eloquently point out?

Hardly.

We are where we are because our midfield is consistently beaten by better players and deeper rotations.

If we were to 'raise our bar' as a club - it may involve letting Frawley go so we can invest his worth in the midfield.

I'll answer your last paragraph even though I've just posted something similar in the 'Players to target at the end of the year' thread.

Billy, the situation is more complex then you're making out. Frawley's qualities as a player to the clubs that are supposedly interested are very different from ours clearly. Hawthorn, Freo, Geelong and Gold Coast are all clubs said to be interested. What do they have in common?

They're clubs with strong lists, leaders, culture and they're ALL in flag winning positions, (bar GC but not for long).

If they pay overs for a bloke who's number one attribute is his one on one defending on the big boys of the competition it's because they're in flag winning positions and have identified a certain gap that needs filling.

There's no doubt whatsoever, he'd perform well in that role at any of those clubs and be made to look a million bucks for doing something he does best.

Where are the MFC at the moment when it comes to culture/environment, strong personalities, leaders etc? Absolutely in an infancy stage.

Has Frawley or is Frawley going to contribute to any of the above for our club going forward? I say no.

Do we have the chance of securing a player who could provide those characteristics our club so desperately needs to become strong again if Frawley leaves on a big contract on big money? Absolutely we do.

It's not as black and white as you're making out.

Our list, culture, leaders etc still need changing. That's the number one priority for me in all of this Frawley talk.

STMJ - at some stage we need to have trust and develop what we have. At some stage we need to think that we can be a finals team - a train of thought that should be a prerequisite at the start of every preseason.

Will we make finals this year? No.

Will we make finals next year? Yes, and there's no reason that we shouldn't think we can't. We've won 4 games this year, and been leading in the last quarter in another 5 (from memory, might even be 6). Next year, we have to believe we can turn those games in to wins. That could be 10 wins, with 8 games still to play.

Frawley could be playing finals for us next year, and he will a> have a significant say is us achieving this, and b> as you have stated above, play a serious role in September.

Great debate from both of you.

I'm changing my mind all the time!!

If we were to 'raise our bar' as a club - it may involve letting Frawley go so we can invest his worth in the midfield.

This is my stance exactly.All other things aside Frawley's true worth is in the midfield both in terms of a Pick ( whether on traded or not ) and/or salary cap room.

Whatever we can exchange Chip for effectively gives us a greater leg up than anything he can actually contribute on a day, in a game.

Edited July 2, 201411 yr by beelzebub

Ok RP, here goes...

Read Pages 19 and 20. Is a player that "puts in half arsed efforts", "one of the dumbest footballers running around", is a "slow decision maker", that plays with "no urgency", is a "liability" going to be offered more than $400k a year by a premiership contending team? Even "fired up" (post #472) believes he isn't worth "any amount over 400 000", which I would expect all 18 clubs would be of the same view of a player possessing the above flaws.

From there, a player getting picked up for less than $400k would not attract a compensation pick that would be of significant value in the pursuit of attracting a star midfielder through trade, or obtaining one through the draft. To do that we would require a Top 5 pick, which the majority of posters would agree, but yet a number of the posters calling for this would also agree with my opening paragraph.

Ashdemon (post #49) called him "spud", which he could be getting confused with his uncle's nickname. That said, and again looking at the characteristics in my opening paragraph, I'd imagine if one player had all these flaws, then a "spud" would probably be a kind way of discussing his ability.

Now, if you want to continue being a smart ass, that's fine, but I will have no more time for you on this matter.

The main reason Rivers, Sylvia or Moloney leaving hasn't hurt us is because they were no good, and have been easily replaced.

Moloney I'll give you but Rivers is a staple in Geelong's defence and Sylvia has timed his run beautifully by getting games close to finals.

Can't "bump" RP as my "reply" button doesn't work.

I'll let you know post numbers.

Given that we will get a Top 5 pick because of our ladder position anyway, I'm happy to use that to bolster our midfield. Would much rather that and keep Frawley than lose him and have two picks, one of which is not certain to be a Top 5.

We dont have a choice whethe stays or not though, its completely up to him. But if he does decide to leave and we receive a top 5 pick its not the end of the world.

Edited July 2, 201411 yr by Dr. Gonzo

To expand on that, we were all shattered when Scully left but at the moment and assuming Hogan lives up to the hype we will be well on top.

Ok RP, here goes...

Read Pages 19 and 20. Is a player that "puts in half arsed efforts", "one of the dumbest footballers running around", is a "slow decision maker", that plays with "no urgency", is a "liability" going to be offered more than $400k a year by a premiership contending team? Even "fired up" (post #472) believes he isn't worth "any amount over 400 000", which I would expect all 18 clubs would be of the same view of a player possessing the above flaws.

From there, a player getting picked up for less than $400k would not attract a compensation pick that would be of significant value in the pursuit of attracting a star midfielder through trade, or obtaining one through the draft. To do that we would require a Top 5 pick, which the majority of posters would agree, but yet a number of the posters calling for this would also agree with my opening paragraph.

Ashdemon (post #49) called him "spud", which he could be getting confused with his uncle's nickname. That said, and again looking at the characteristics in my opening paragraph, I'd imagine if one player had all these flaws, then a "spud" would probably be a kind way of discussing his ability.

Now, if you want to continue being a smart ass, that's fine, but I will have no more time for you on this matter.

I heartily agree that there has been some outrageous statements on here about Frawley's talent or lack thereof. Is he flawed ? Absolutely - but he doesn't warrant some of the ridiculous statements that have been made on here (I will also suggest that a few using the "gun "word about him is also a bit over the top based on his last 2 years output).

What I don't understand that if we all believe that Roos will improve players - in fact this is Roos own words - "I'm here to improve the players". and are willing to say that certain players will get better under this coaching structure, why don't we believe that at 25 Frawley under Roos tutelage can once again play like he did in his AA year ?

To expand on that, we were all shattered when Scully left but at the moment and assuming Hogan lives up to the hype we will be well on top.

But two years on and we are not on top and we are left with assuming.

Actually we are on top as I believe we offered around $800-900K a season to Scully and there is no way he is worth anything like that - so it is money well saved.

I heartily agree that there has been some outrageous statements on here about Frawley's talent or lack thereof. Is he flawed ? Absolutely - but he doesn't warrant some of the ridiculous statements that have been made on here (I will also suggest that a few using the "gun "word about him is also a bit over the top based on his last 2 years output).

What I don't understand that if we all believe that Roos will improve players - in fact this is Roos own words - "I'm here to improve the players". and are willing to say that certain players will get better under this coaching structure, why don't we believe that at 25 Frawley under Roos tutelage can once again play like he did in his AA year ?

Very valid point. He has his flaws, yes, but if anyone is going to get the best out of him then it's Roos.

Nutbean, well said.

RPFC said that our backline might be 85/100 without him, and 90/100 with him. I'd like to see James with another year or two under Roos, with the view that it would make our backline 100/100 rather than 95/100.

To win a flag you must have the best you can get in the backline. That's why teams are apparently lining up for JFs services.

Now, if you want to continue being a smart ass, that's fine, but I will have no more time for you on this matter.

Whenever a poster writes the above - I am sorry to say - but I always think I hit the nail on the head.

You were trying to tie people who think like stmj in knots about Frawley's worth as a player and the commensurate compensation.

But all you have found is a few randoms calling him a spud and over-stating his form issues.

You don't have to engage, I don't really care, I am simply trying to add to this situation that is not as simple as some are making out.

You make some great points, and so does stmj, but you both run over a few things that need some extrapolation and exploration.

Nutbean, well said.

RPFC said that our backline might be 85/100 without him, and 90/100 with him. I'd like to see James with another year or two under Roos, with the view that it would make our backline 100/100 rather than 95/100.

To win a flag you must have the best you can get in the backline. That's why teams are apparently lining up for JFs services.

But the otherside of the argument is our midfield is 55/100, if Frawley leaves and Shiel comes in his stead that number jumps and is of more value than Frawley is to that backline - that is the essence of stmj's argument.

But the otherside of the argument is our midfield is 55/100, if Frawley leaves and Shiel comes in his stead that number jumps and is of more value than Frawley is to that backline - that is the essence of stmj's argument.

The only flaw in the argument is whether or not we can lure another big fish that would improve, for example, our midfield. Do GWS, for example, want more high picks or are they now looking to lure players to help their development? It's all fine and good to land a compo pick for Frawley and dream of who we might get, but the fact is that there isn't a whole lot out there on the market (that we know of) and we may not get the players we want.

RP, we will still have our first round draft pick to do "something" with. We don't need to hope/rely on getting top compensation if JF goes, just so we can add to our midfield.

If only we knew what the criteria/formula is to working out the Free Agency compensation. Given it's short history, $700k a year will get you Band 1, I don't think $500k will. A majority of posters on here think we will get Band 1, but then a different majority don't think he's worth $700k. They are two different majorities, but I'm sure there will be people who are in both groups.

The only flaw in the argument is whether or not we can lure another big fish that would improve, for example, our midfield. Do GWS, for example, want more high picks or are they now looking to lure players to help their development? It's all fine and good to land a compo pick for Frawley and dream of who we might get, but the fact is that there isn't a whole lot out there on the market (that we know of) and we may not get the players we want.

And what a huge flaw it is...

If I could swap Frawley for a commensurately talented mid - I would do it. But the world doesn't work like that.

Very valid point. He has his flaws, yes, but if anyone is going to get the best out of him then it's Roos.

FCS - Roos turned Ted Richards into a footballer. I say lets get Lucas Cook back and see what Roos can do with him !

( I jest of course)