7 hours ago, Django said:

People don't play football professionally for the same reason they'd work at a bank. Poor comparison.

Over paid no matter how you look at it. Explains a lot about my bank fees

48 minutes ago, Django said:

Shocking call.

Seeing as the average player now receives about $340000 (?) PA, he deserves more than that for sure. He's our number one tall defender and players like Tom aren't easy to find.

The AFL average (said to be around $320k) is the average across 800 players.  Its a mathematical average not what the 'average player' gets.  With only about 90 AFL players (ie top 11%) earning more than $500k there are a lot of very good players earning not much more than the average of $320k.  (Note - figures before the new CBA and the new sal cap).

But I agree with your point that TMc is worth more than what 'picket' suggests.  Is he in the AFL's top 90 - 100 players ie over $500k?  Only he and the club can answer that one.

Mahoney is on record as saying by the end of this year we will have our player contracts lined up with what the club thinks the player is worth so I think the club would make him a very fair offer that reflects this value. 

2 hours ago, Django said:

Shocking call.

Seeing as the average player now receives about $340000 (?) PA, he deserves more than that for sure. He's our number one tall defender and players like Tom aren't easy to find.

I would have thought very tidy money for a player that 

1 Doesn't man up

2 Is easily outbodied

3 Disposal Iffy

O,k I'll ask you what do you think he is worth,

And to elevate him above the average $ 340, 00 would be paying far far too much!

9 minutes ago, picket fence said:

I would have thought very tidy money for a player that 

1 Doesn't man up

2 Is easily outbodied

3 Disposal Iffy

O,k I'll ask you what do you think he is worth,

And to elevate him above the average $ 340, 00 would be paying far far too much!

I'd see McDonald at the MFC for $400K, comfortably. Compared to what we'd have to offer to obtain a defender of similar skill, he is definitely worth it. 

He obviously has issues with his disposal but I don't think McDonald is easily outbodied. Probably ends up away from his man due to the 'diamond defence'.

7 minutes ago, Django said:

I'd see McDonald at the MFC for $400K, comfortably. Compared to what we'd have to offer to obtain a defender of similar skill, he is definitely worth it. 

He obviously has issues with his disposal but I don't think McDonald is easily outbodied. Probably ends up away from his man due to the 'diamond defence'.

Nar 400, 00 is way way overs way overs!  We could wheel and deal with that money elsewhere. Thank Cheezus I don't do the deals at MFC. I would go far too hard and bruise too many over inflated Ego"s 

Look at Hawks!! many of their champions play for the average which is still a tidy sum of $$ and allows them to keep a nucleus together built on "Equality"

It also WINS premierships!

To pay a Tom Mc Donald overs sets up a dangerous precedent !

6 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Nar 400, 00 is way way overs way overs!  We could wheel and deal with that money elsewhere. Thank Cheezus I don't do the deals at MFC. I would go far too hard and bruise too many over inflated Ego"s 

Look at Hawks!! many of their champions play for the average which is still a tidy sum of $$ and allows them to keep a nucleus together built on "Equality"

It also WINS premierships!

To pay a Tom Mc Donald overs sets up a dangerous precedent !

But is it really that far overs picket? As the contracts continue to roll over and the new money pours in, the player salaries will continue to rise.

13 minutes ago, Django said:

I'd see McDonald at the MFC for $400K, comfortably. Compared to what we'd have to offer to obtain a defender of similar skill, he is definitely worth it. 

He obviously has issues with his disposal but I don't think McDonald is easily outbodied. Probably ends up away from his man due to the 'diamond defence'.

T Mac should be the general of the backline, telling his teammates where to position themselves. He either isn't doing it, or is doing it poorly. I'm not sure why Dunn is on the outer because he seems the most suitable to assume such a role.

10 minutes ago, Django said:

But is it really that far overs picket? As the contracts continue to roll over and the new money pours in, the player salaries will continue to rise.

If EVERY player on a list reckons they are worth conservativley an extra 20-40 Grand what the clubs will pay then that potentially could be close to a Million bucks plus!

I reckon you would want to be sure of a players real worth before splashing the coin around!

400k is not overs, in fact, anything under 450k/year on a long-term contract and we would be doing quite well.

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

400k is not overs, in fact, anything under 450k/year on a long-term contract and we would be doing quite well.

Sorry, I just don't rate him! 

The average AFL salary these days is around the 350k mark.

400k is unders for Tom McDonald.

Get a grip.

 

 

FMD! We were rumoured (by nearly everyone) to have paid Mitch Clark between $500 and $600k about 4 years ago and WTF did that get us?

I'd give TMac at least $550k for 4 years without a problem. By the end of the 4 years that will be close to the AFL average. Of course, like everyone here, I have no idea of the contract mix at the club so it's purely speculating.

He has deficiencies which he is obviously working on, but IMO he will only get better.

 

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Why is everyone going overboard about Frost playing in the backline?

He hasn't played there at all for us, so why do so many believe he will suddenly be the answer?  He's proven nothing, and potentially relying on that is a very dangerous game to play.

Because he is a lousy forward?

39 minutes ago, fndee said:

Because he is a lousy forward?

as good a reason as any 

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

FMD! We were rumoured (by nearly everyone) to have paid Mitch Clark between $500 and $600k about 4 years ago and WTF did that get us?

I'd give TMac at least $550k for 4 years without a problem. By the end of the 4 years that will be close to the AFL average. Of course, like everyone here, I have no idea of the contract mix at the club so it's purely speculating.

He has deficiencies which he is obviously working on, but IMO he will only get better.

 

Yes, but its all about team balance  etc. Forget what was then....were were totally  fcuked up as a club with no sense or idea of values. 

 

We are now..that was then , this is now. Tom needs to adjust,, Thats life. We dont know what the club has actually offered, do you ?  I sense the club has put forward fair worth. I also sense some may have an inflated idea of worth. Hence..impasse.

So many games of 'blink' around  ah well...

8 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I noticed Daniel Merrett from Brissy is an unrestricted free agent.

Could be a good option as the number one stopper to release McDonald and Frost to being 2nd and 3rd talls for the next 1-2 seasons?

Was a good player in his prime the big sauce. Watching him on the weekend, it is clear the game has well and truly past him by.

This season might be his last I would think.

 

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Spot on SPC98.  Here are Plapp's comments for last week on Frost: Frosty had 14 possessions, four marks and had six rebounds. It was a really pleasing effort from Sam. The week before he only completed a quarter and a bit, due to a slight injury, but playing in a different position on the weekend, he was able to defend really strongly. He was able to give us some real offensive run from our backline. Frosty also used the ball really well and his aerial contest work was also a strong point of his game.  

Back to McD, I would sat that with Frost developing as a defender it would make us less reliant on TMc extending his contract.  If he stays he stays, if not so be it.  There will be options for us.

Sorry, but this is just bollocks.

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Spot on SPC98.  Here are Plapp's comments for last week on Frost: Frosty had 14 possessions, four marks and had six rebounds. It was a really pleasing effort from Sam. The week before he only completed a quarter and a bit, due to a slight injury, but playing in a different position on the weekend, he was able to defend really strongly. He was able to give us some real offensive run from our backline. Frosty also used the ball really well and his aerial contest work was also a strong point of his game.  

Back to McD, I would sat that with Frost developing as a defender it would make us less reliant on TMc extending his contract.  If he stays he stays, if not so be it.  There will be options for us.

missed this somehow but very pertinent.

Imagine possibly Hurley and Frost.. Or May...etc...or...who ever. Thing is  Mac wants to play realistic or its the door.

Ill go silly and suggest the club know exactly what they will concede to $ wise and also how much gamesmanship they will accept from his management . 

Im not sure either are that bright to be honest ( not the club )

(caveat  yes they both earn more than me...many do lol ) 

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

FMD! We were rumoured (by nearly everyone) to have paid Mitch Clark between $500 and $600k about 4 years ago and WTF did that get us?

I'd give TMac at least $550k for 4 years without a problem. By the end of the 4 years that will be close to the AFL average. Of course, like everyone here, I have no idea of the contract mix at the club so it's purely speculating.

He has deficiencies which he is obviously working on, but IMO he will only get better.

 

Aren't we paying H 500 a year? If so, you could easily see TMacs and even Howes arguments. 

14 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Sorry, but this is just bollocks.

why ??  Frost WAS a defender with eh Giants .  He's shown he can understand the game down there. The point about reliance on Tmac must surely be about  do we have options. ? yes/no 

It seems we're trying to build a defence thats based more about role playing than personel.

Tommy is ok , hes not great ffs

10 hours ago, SPC98 said:

I think that Tom and Frosty will play a key role as the main 2 backman next year.. What we really need is a medium tall defender to play the 'Josh Gibson' role of being able to read the play and distribute off half back. I thought Garland could fit this role, but he cannot defend and doesn't have the foot skills or quick thinking.. Tom is critical if we can find another similar 'strong intercept' mark type player.. Problem with Tom is, he is best suited to being a 2nd or 3rd up defender, or playing on someone who is the 2nd or 3rd tall.. If he is on the best forward, he gets exposed, particularly if he is trying to create run and carry out of the back half.. 

That'll be Weitering when he requests a trade to Melbourne. Come home, Jacob.

7 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I thought he played forward.... ?

I am happy to stand corrected though, it was a long time ago and my brain cells don't function so well anymore!

He played three games as a forward and then injured his toe. I'm not quite sure why people are saying they saw him play back, because he didn't.

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

why ??  Frost WAS a defender with eh Giants .  He's shown he can understand the game down there. The point about reliance on Tmac must surely be about  do we have options. ? yes/no 

It seems we're trying to build a defence thats based more about role playing than personel.

Tommy is ok , hes not great ffs

Yes, I agree Frost is best as a defender.

But the original post suggested that if Tom McDonald doesn't sign, the FD will sort of shrug its shoulders and say 'oh well, we've got Frosty, so we've got options, don't panic anyone'.

Suggesting Frost is an adequate replacement for McDonald is ludicrous.

I think the club understand what is required as contingency.

I don't think we are desperate if T Mac goes to who steps up...who they go after . Indeed who they are probably already sounding out.

TMac should understand he is not in the driver's  seat here .

11 hours ago, picket fence said:

I would have thought very tidy money for a player that 

1 Doesn't man up

2 Is easily outbodied

3 Disposal Iffy

O,k I'll ask you what do you think he is worth,

And to elevate him above the average $ 340, 00 would be paying far far too much!

Finally! Someone else who rightly realises that he isn't a good defender!......

Your sole job is to DEFEND. He regularly tries to mark the ball in the back 50 - all well and good if you mark it every time, but he doesn't.

He NEVER splits packs or thumps the ball out of bounds.

and he USUALLY butchers the ball by foot - efficiency starts are misleading as the cheap sideways or switch kick are easy to uncontested men or "space"

 

This guy is not worth 400k a year, and if he doesn't sign, he has to be traded - a huge win for the club. Oscar McDonald is worse, but he's only played a handful of games so who knows if he becomes anything - but last week against the Bears i had my heart in my mouth each time a defender named McDonald went near it.

8 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

Yes, I agree Frost is best as a defender.

But the original post suggested that if Tom McDonald doesn't sign, the FD will sort of shrug its shoulders and say 'oh well, we've got Frosty, so we've got options, don't panic anyone'.

Suggesting Frost is an adequate replacement for McDonald is ludicrous.

In fact if Frost was persisted with down back to at least the way Oscar Mc Donald is currently, then He just might become Better than Both combined!!