Tom McDonald?

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

To me he's not for sale.

Of course you wouldn't want to lose him, but if it came down to having no way to keep him we would need to look at the best deal possible

[beelzebub 23,383]

To me he's not for sale.

of course he...for the right price, the right trade etc.

He's good , hes not AA , he has flaws. Certainly not on the unreplacable list by any means..

That some are saying he needs a classier player alongside to give off to suggest we mightnt have the right player in the first place. Hes certainly amongst our best , but quite frankly were arent that good .

I think ideals as "not for sale " need to be tempered with a realistic appreciation of where were are...or more the point where we're not.

[rpfc 28,779]

of course he...for the right price, the right trade etc.

He's good , hes not AA , he has flaws. Certainly not on the unreplacable list by any means..

That some are saying he needs a classier player alongside to give off to suggest we mightnt have the right player in the first place. Hes certainly amongst our best , but quite frankly were arent that good .

I think ideals as "not for sale " need to be tempered with a realistic appreciation of where were are...or more the point where we're not.

If we were to trade McDonald it would be to bring in a player like McDonald.

I know where we are - but it does not involve trading a 21 year old tall defender with the talent of McDonald.

[beelzebub 23,383]

If we were to trade McDonald it would be to bring in a player like McDonald.

I know where we are - but it does not involve trading a 21 year ould tall defender with the talent of McDonald.

not necessarily. Who knows how any trades evolve at a particular juncture.

Mac needs a run with to finish off his workm Why not get players who dont. You know...improve.

T mac would not be high on anyones replacement list and thats fair enough but to suggest hes " hands off" is laughable.

[rpfc 28,779]

not necessarily. Who knows how any trades evolve at a particular juncture.

Mac needs a run with to finish off his workm Why not get players who dont. You know...improve.

T mac would not be high on anyones replacement list and thats fair enough but to suggest hes " hands off" is laughable.

Even more laughable is the notion that you can build a list by trading players as young and talented as McDonald.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Even more laughable is the notion that you can build a list by trading players as young and talented as McDonald.

more laughable is that you not consider such outright.

Good teams know when to move. Youve got blinkers on.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

He's hands off at this moment in time BB.

We've got a big bodied guerrilla defender who may be leaving our club at seasons end and our list is hardly full of great one-on-one defenders so I think it's fair to say he's on the untouchables list for this season..

It may be a different case if our list was teaming with top end KPP backmen but T Mac has shown his worth as a standout close checking defender. As others have pointed out, if we had some elite rebound half back flankers with elite skills coming out of our backline, Tom would be made to look a lot better than he is as he'd be assigned to play to his strengths and not worry about being the rebound player himself. We all know about his decision making/kicking deficiencies.

Edited July 7, 2014 by stevethemanjordan

[rpfc 28,779]

more laughable is that you not consider such outright.

Good teams know when to move. Youve got blinkers on.

I really don't.

I said at the start of the season that we might be in a position to lobby for a Priority Pick at the end of this season - I know where our list is.

But holding onto your kids is such a must in our current state. As stmj says - losing Frawley is eased by McDonald's presence. If they both leave we are not progressing in 2015.

[beelzebub 23,383]

You hang on to...interesting desperative context... to whom ever only for as long as they are the best option.

Im not suggesting shopping him around but youd be silly to never listen to offers.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

I think BB is right no one is untouchable its just whether deal is right or not. I want him to stay but if we offered the right deal we would be stupid not to look at it. These things need to be looked a in the context of the drat and any other deals on offer and that cant be done till you know whats available s righ now no one is untouchable. On things for sure we wont get better unless we change and you wont just be able to off load duds.

[Nasher 33,617]

There's the "you have to be open minded to any offers in case the deal of a lifetime falls on your lap" view that bub and co put forward, and then there's the "be a little bit realistic about what he's worth in a trade vs what he's worth to our team" view that rpfc and stmj have cast.

Of course I'd trade Tom for Gaz Jr, but in reality I'd be staggered if we were offered a deal that landed us a player more valuable to us than our best 'gorilla' defender. I consider myself in the "I'm open minded for offers but as sceptical as could possibly be that we'd get anything that would make us a significantly better side so I wouldn't waste any time on it" camp.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Could not have said it better Nasher.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Some people seem to think it's possible to build a team full of perfect players. It's just not.

I understand the aspiration to improve and get as frustrated by TMac's disposal as the next guy, but our improvement will be much greater if we get rid of any number of the 'not up to it' players on the list and not a highly capable, 21yo key position player.

Where do we find this amazing young lock down KPD with elite disposal anyway? Gee whiz.

[Redleg 41,432]

I really don't.

I said at the start of the season that we might be in a position to lobby for a Priority Pick at the end of this season - I know where our list is.

But holding onto your kids is such a must in our current state. As stmj says - losing Frawley is eased by McDonald's presence. If they both leave we are not progressing in 2015.

Agree. Chip will leave and Tom must stay.

As to the PP, the excuse Mark Evans gave for us not getting one, as well as the unsaid closeness to the tanking issue, was that we had Clark and Hogan to come back. If we lose the experienced big bodied Chip, a pick will not replace him for a few years while the kid develops and Clark is gone and Hogan has a back issue. On top of that we will have had another year, about 8 in a row where we have been poor and at the bottom of the ladder. I would be in there now seeking one and telling him if we don't qualify, then no one ever will again. I would go hard as a pick would be tradeable and may get us another experienced player or two.

[Deeoldfart 8,061]

Tom is an integral part of our spine right now, and a key 'building block' for the future. He is young and developing and will only get better with experience, continued tutelage from Roos and Co. and as we accumulate a bit of talent around him.

[rpfc 28,779]

Agree. Chip will leave and Tom must stay.

As to the PP, the excuse Mark Evans gave for us not getting one, as well as the unsaid closeness to the tanking issue, was that we had Clark and Hogan to come back. If we lose the experienced big bodied Chip, a pick will not replace him for a few years while the kid develops and Clark is gone and Hogan has a back issue. On top of that we will have had another year, about 8 in a row where we have been poor and at the bottom of the ladder. I would be in there now seeking one and telling him if we don't qualify, then no one ever will again. I would go hard as a pick would be tradeable and may get us another experienced player or two.

Mate, I would love us to privately lobby for a PP (even publically lobby for one) - and for the good of the league; St Kilda is going to need one soon. The Lions need one now. If we end up 5 and 17 after going 6 and 38 the two years before that and DON'T get a PP it almost removes it as a device to equalise the league.

Top 5 picks are golden if you have half a clue and I still think we should 'qualify' (if people don't like me saying 'deserve') for one.

I would love to know what Peter Jackson is thinking about this issue.

[Little Goffy 14,639]

People complaining about Tom McDonald are just lining themselves up for participation in the 2016 'humble pie' thread.

Anyway, an overall disposal efficiency of 73% for Tom isn't horrendous, but there is definitely a clanger problem throughout our defence.

Mcdonald 2.4

Garland 2.4

Dunn 2.3

On the other hand, for the 1%ers count -

McDonald 9.7

Garland 4.9

Dunn 4.6

I think we can persevere with the young fella a bit longer.

[rjay 25,088]

Agree. Chip will leave and Tom must stay.

As to the PP, the excuse Mark Evans gave for us not getting one, as well as the unsaid closeness to the tanking issue, was that we had Clark and Hogan to come back. If we lose the experienced big bodied Chip, a pick will not replace him for a few years while the kid develops and Clark is gone and Hogan has a back issue. On top of that we will have had another year, about 8 in a row where we have been poor and at the bottom of the ladder. I would be in there now seeking one and telling him if we don't qualify, then no one ever will again. I would go hard as a pick would be tradeable and may get us another experienced player or two.

Agree and I would be very surprised if we weren't pushing for it already 'Redleg'. Gillon seemed open to the idea last year.

[Slartibartfast 17,625]

Agree. Chip will leave and Tom must stay.

As to the PP,

As much as I might agree, we're dreamin'.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Cant see us and a PP being ever in the same room. Not sure if anyone else will ever get one again either

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

People complaining about Tom McDonald are just lining themselves up for participation in the 2016 'humble pie' thread.

Anyway, an overall disposal efficiency of 73% for Tom isn't horrendous, but there is definitely a clanger problem throughout our defence.

Mcdonald 2.4

Garland 2.4

Dunn 2.3

On the other hand, for the 1%ers count -

McDonald 9.7

Garland 4.9

Dunn 4.6

I think we can persevere with the young fella a bit longer.

Tom is a ripper. I would love him to hang around. I think your right that people get hung up on a couple of clangers. grimes is the perfect example. Regularly cops a flogging for a clanger or two but this season he averages 71% disposal effieciency and 1.7 clanger a game from 19.5 disposals. FFS Gary Ablet is 69% and 4.2 clangers a game from 32 disposals.

[Demon_JB 1,385]

Tom is a ripper. I would love him to hang around. I think your right that people get hung up on a couple of clangers. grimes is the perfect example. Regularly cops a flogging for a clanger or two but this season he averages 71% disposal effieciency and 1.7 clanger a game from 19.5 disposals. FFS Gary Ablet is 69% and 4.2 clangers a game from 32 disposals.

You'll find it's because that 1.7 clanger a game usually results in a score from a turnover, which in turn then stands out more than a normal clanger that doesn't result in anything but just a turn over further up the ground.. Ablett will have more clangers because he has more clearances, he will get boot to ball to kick it out of congestion only to land in the hands of an opponent. It's like a heart surgeon making that one big mistake that sticks out at work as someone died, versus someone who makes more errors but those errors are less damaging.

[nutbean 8,838]

Tom is a ripper. I would love him to hang around. I think your right that people get hung up on a couple of clangers. grimes is the perfect example. Regularly cops a flogging for a clanger or two but this season he averages 71% disposal effieciency and 1.7 clanger a game from 19.5 disposals. FFS Gary Ablet is 69% and 4.2 clangers a game from 32 disposals.

and i think people need to look at the game in conjunction with stats. I think Tommy Mac is a beauty but the part of his game that needs attention is his disposal and decision making. He is actually better when is he is instinctive and has little time to think about his disposal. The more time he has the more he worries me. Grimes flaw in his game is the same and needs to improve - I don't need a figure of 71% to tell me that.

[beelzebub 23,383]

and i think people need to look at the game in conjunction with stats. I think Tommy Mac is a beauty but the part of his game that needs attention is his disposal and decision making. He is actually better when is he is instinctive and has little time to think about his disposal. The more time he has the more he worries me. Grimes flaw in his game is the same and needs to improve - I don't need a figure of 71% to tell me that.

I could be sarcastic here and suggest these are minor considerations. but theyre not

Seriously if theyre not fixed...well

[Nasher 33,617]

I think Tommy Mac is a beauty but the part of his game that needs attention is his disposal and decision making.

Is it that bad really? He's probably "bottom quartile" in the AFL (and someone has to be) and I know he has a funny action, but in the error riddled game just gone, I don't recall any Tom McDonald howlers, and he was involved in the game plenty.

It's probably a case of being way overplayed amongst supporters because a small number of very bad errors stick in people's mind and skews their perspective.