1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Perhaps we aren't the destination club people think we are...

Tmac staying??  No takers or we have decided to keep him?

iirc the only people who have linked us to Brown are those who see we need a tall fwd, Brown is available so 2+2=5. 

Hard to know, there's so many moving pieces this time of year and situations can be complex.

I don't know how keen Brown is/was, he did have a zoom meeting with Mahoney, Goody and Max which apparently went really well. Given that, they're must have been at least enough interest from both sides to do the due diligence. I haven't written it off totally as a possibility, bu the rumours are it's unlikely atm.

TMac requested a trade, club was (and still is, as far as I know) happy to facilitate it, but his contract, form and injury concerns have kept any interest lukewarm at best so there's definitely a chance he's still with us next year.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Hard to know, there's so many moving pieces this time of year and situations can be complex.

I don't know how keen Brown is/was, he did have a zoom meeting with Mahoney, Goody and Max which apparently went really well. Given that, they're must have been at least enough interest from both sides to do the due diligence. I haven't written it off totally as a possibility, bu the rumours are it's unlikely atm.

TMac requested a trade, club was (and still is, as far as I know) happy to facilitate it, but his contract, form and injury concerns have kept any interest lukewarm at best so there's definitely a chance he's still with us next year.

Seems like most interest for Tmac might come from a suitor looking for a key back. Would someone like the Dogs be interested or is the only noise come from the pies for him so far?  Could squeeze a decent set of picks out in a deal involving Hannan too.

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Perhaps we aren't the destination club people think we are...

Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

Just now, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Seems like most interest for Tmac might come from a suitor looking for a key back. Would someone like the Dogs be interested or is the only noise come from the pies for him so far?  Could squeeze a decent set of picks out in a deal involving Hannan too.

Don't know mate, only interest I've heard of was the Collingwood talk in the media.

Not sure on Dogs, first thought is if he's too slow for their style? Could the Hawks be an option? They love an injured recruit.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Don't know mate, only interest I've heard of was the Collingwood talk in the media.

Not sure on Dogs, first thought is if he's too slow for their style? Could the Hawks be an option? They love an injured recruit.

With retirements of Frawley and Stratton and the absence of Sicily for the better part of next year it'd make sense for sure. Anything and anyone to get his behind off our books please!

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

That seems to be the only way we get really good players:  outbid other interested clubs with $$$ or picks.

I need to get my flak jacket out - the last time I posted something like that there was a huge, negative pile on!

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

Once this trade period is done, it'll be pretty evident as to how our club and list is really perceived in AFL circles. Could be seriously back to the drawing board for us if we fail to land the key pieces touted. 

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

That seems to be the only way we get really good players:  outbid other interested clubs with $$$ or picks.

I need to get my flak jacket out - the last time I posted something like that there was a huge, negative pile on!

That's because there's no basis for your assertion. 

If you want to avoid that push back then you should provide some evidence to support your view.

15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That seems to be the only way we get really good players:  outbid other interested clubs with $$$ or picks.

I need to get my flak jacket out - the last time I posted something like that there was a huge, negative pile on!

Agree 100% with this and if we don't land a few this draft ( Ben Brown Ideal) and offload a few (T Mac and Oscar)  then we will not improve 1 Iota!

Edited October 19, 20204 yr by picket fence

H

2 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Agree 100% with this and if we don't land a few this draft ( Ben Brown Ideal) and offload a few (T Mac and Oscar)  then we will not improve 1 Iota!

How does losing TMac make us better?

44 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

That's because there's no basis for your assertion. 

If you want to avoid that push back then you should provide some evidence to support your view.

Our big and medium fish:

• May was well on his way to Collingwood but they couldn't satisfy GCS with draft picks.  We could.  Like someone else said it was a marriage of convenience coming to us.
• Saints pulled out of the race for Tomlinson and we were the last option.
• Lever was our highest paid player when he arrived, reportedly more than other clubs were prepared to pay.

The above commentary was in the media at time. 

People can do their own research and provide evidence that what I've written above is incorrect. 

I can hear people say: 'do you believe everything you read in the media' cry.  The answer is no I don't.  Nor do I think that everything they right is fiction. 

If people pile on that is fine.  I can deal with it.  I just ask them to do some research before they go full on with the keyboard.

And if people just pile on without evidence then I shall choose to not respond.

I'm with @Demonland:  Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

Edited October 19, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

The reality is that if you aren’t playing finals consistently or you aren’t loaded with money, you aren’t a destination club. 
Players look at results. We have made finals once in a decade. That says a lot more to players than looking at our list with a magnifying glass and judging our likelihood of future success. 

@Lucifer's Hero

I think I require a higher burden of proof on these things because nobody really knows and it's easy just to throw about statements like that without any evidence. We just get speculation from footy journos who have, kindly speaking, a pretty ordinary reputation for their ability to extract the truth. All of the things you said might be true but nobody has any way of knowing; it's just speculation and I think forms a pretty weak argument.

My personal view is that, in the absence of credible information, people will project the narrative that they want to hear. I just don't think that the evidence justifies a view one way or another.

i'd be taking a look at Sav if we miss on brown, absolutely, he's young and you could say raw but would be a good goalsquare player who can clunk them and take pressure off weid and jacko, u can definitely see he has room for improvement and untapped potential but he'd come cheap and at least gives us a younger alternative to mitch brown. also back ups the ruck well too. 

Say we miss on brown its Sav vs 2m Peter coz i'm not going into another season with just Weid, Jacko, Tmac, MBrown 

or i guess we try and prise mihocech out but id rather a bigger body who has that F/R flexibility seeing as we're missing out on all the BIG boys

3 minutes ago, Turner said:

i'd be taking a look at Sav if we miss on brown, absolutely, he's young and you could say raw but would be a good goalsquare player who can clunk them and take pressure off weid and jacko, u can definitely see he has room for improvement and untapped potential but he'd come cheap and at least gives us a younger alternative to mitch brown. also back ups the ruck well too. 

Say we miss on brown its Sav vs 2m Peter coz i'm not going into another season with just Weid, Jacko, Tmac, MBrown 

or i guess we try and prise mihocech out but id rather a bigger body who has that F/R flexibility seeing as we're missing out on all the BIG boys

Who is Sav?

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

@Lucifer's Hero

I think I require a higher burden of proof on these things because nobody really knows and it's easy just to throw about statements like that without any evidence. We just get speculation from footy journos who have, kindly speaking, a pretty ordinary reputation for their ability to extract the truth. All of the things you said might be true but nobody has any way of knowing; it's just speculation and I think forms a pretty weak argument.

My personal view is that, in the absence of credible information, people will project the narrative that they want to hear. I just don't think that the evidence justifies a view one way or another.

Fair enough.  Thank you for responding reasonably.

I happen to think we aren't a destination club and won't be until we become a 'big' club and start regularly winning finals. 

3 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Who is Sav?

Rocca? ?

8 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Who is Sav?

Ratugolea - given the Hawkins Cameron Stanley lineup he wont get a single look-in, doubt he hangs around the fringes waiting if hawkins gets 2yr deal

4 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Rocca? ?

he coached me at school, such a great bloke and good coach

Edited October 19, 20204 yr by Turner

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Fair enough.  Thank you for responding reasonably.

I happen to think we aren't a destination club and won't be until we become a 'big' club and start regularly winning finals. 

I can certainly see the argument. I think players also look at other things when they think about coming to a club. I think relationships are important, I think their football role is important (with how they see themselves fitting within the team), lifestyle factors (such as location) and also I think the list profile is important. Players go to work every day and want to get fulfillment from that. Different players play for different reasons and I don't think that $$$ explains all of it. 

28 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

@Lucifer's Hero

I think I require a higher burden of proof on these things because nobody really knows and it's easy just to throw about statements like that without any evidence. We just get speculation from footy journos who have, kindly speaking, a pretty ordinary reputation for their ability to extract the truth. All of the things you said might be true but nobody has any way of knowing; it's just speculation and I think forms a pretty weak argument.

My personal view is that, in the absence of credible information, people will project the narrative that they want to hear. I just don't think that the evidence justifies a view one way or another.

I don’t think there’s any mystery to it Axis. You don’t need to know contract specifics to understand human nature. Stands to reason that if you offer a lower chance of success you have to compensate with higher salary.

Players ultimately want success or most of them do anyways (there are some mercenaries I’m sure) and will accept less salary to join a successful team. If we offered the exact same terms to a player who also had the option of Richmond who do you think they’d join? I think you know the answer.

The Patriots in the US created the template for paying significant unders for talent. They had a brilliant coach and quarterback and were the nearest thing to guaranteed success around. They had players knocking on their door to join particularly players in the latter part of their career. https://www.sbnation.com/2016/3/14/11214640/patriots-contracts-tom-brady-julian-edelman-rob-gronkowski-malcolm-butler

Geelong are probably the closest example in the AFL.

Another example from the EPL a number of years ago was Man City. They were taken over and suddenly had money to burn. They had to pay through the nose for talent but within a few years they had bought their way to success. Once they had achieved success, and the revenues that flow from that, their wage rates then reverted to the average.

Would you want to go to a club that trained on the same paddock as the one they have to do their poo’s and wee’s on? 

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Would you want to go to a club that trained on the same paddock as the one they have to do their poo’s and wee’s on? 

what's hawthorn got to do with this?

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

This is why I hate these deals where we give away a first and second rounder for pickett. We are throwing it away. He will be a good player no doubt but draft picks are so valuable

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That seems to be the only way we get really good players:  outbid other interested clubs with $$$ or picks.

I need to get my flak jacket out - the last time I posted something like that there was a huge, negative pile on!

I was a part of that.

Mainly because you posted it without evidence/reasoning, and as @Axis of Bob has said, it's very easy to take a set of limited facts (which is all we get as supporters most of the time) and project your own spin on things.

I get the sense from your recent posting that your view is generally a pessimistic one. That's fine, and understandable given our recent history, but that doesn't mean it's accurate or fair, nor does it mean the converse is untrue.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Our big and medium fish:

• May was well on his way to Collingwood but they couldn't satisfy GCS with draft picks.  We could.  Like someone else said it was a marriage of convenience coming to us.
• Saints pulled out of the race for Tomlinson and we were the last option.
• Lever was our highest paid player when he arrived, reportedly more than other clubs were prepared to pay.

The above commentary was in the media at time. 

People can do their own research and provide evidence that what I've written above is incorrect. 

I can hear people say: 'do you believe everything you read in the media' cry.  The answer is no I don't.  Nor do I think that everything they right is fiction. 

If people pile on that is fine.  I can deal with it.  I just ask them to do some research before they go full on with the keyboard.

And if people just pile on without evidence then I shall choose to not respond.

I'm with @Demonland:  Sad to admit it but without $$$ or the high draft picks to trade we are not a destination club.

As to May, I've done a search for the news around that time. I can see the media saying Collingwood was going to get him, which evidently was incorrect. I can also see an article suggesting Collingwood were refusing to pay two first round picks for him. Query if it was correct given the previous article, but at any rate we ended up paying one pick, not two (and we got KK back). So, as far as I can tell, there's not a great deal of evidence to suggest we only got May because we paid more than Collingwood.

As to Tomlinson, I can't find anything which reports that St Kilda pulled out of the race, all I can find is suggestions Tomlinson chose us. Now, that doesn't mean St Kilda didn't pull out of the race, but it's hard to say, and hard to know why, if true.

Lever might be highly paid, but I'm not sure paying players highly is all that big of a disaster. One of the clubs you cited in your previous post as a comparison is Carlton, who forked out insane figures to get Jack Martin in the door (completely unwarranted figures IMO). They're doing it again with Williams and Saad. So we're not the only club who pays high figures to attract the players we want to prise out of other clubs.

Ultimately, over the last three off-seasons we've brought in Lever, May, Tomlinson and Langdon. I am happy to stand behind those four names as being strong acquisitions (accepting that the jury's out on Tomlinson), and all that whilst we've continued to draft (bringing in Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Sparrow, Fritsch and Petty over the same three years).

Having said all of this, I don't think we're a "destination club". I just don't think it's that big of a deal. 

5 minutes ago, Elegt said:

This is why I hate these deals where we give away a first and second rounder for pickett. We are throwing it away. He will be a good player no doubt but draft picks are so valuable

Throwing what away?

We effectively moved our first round pick this year into last year to take Pickett who, as you say, will be a good player no doubt.

What's your concern with that? Rather than draft good players we should hold onto draft picks (last year) and hope that in 12 months time (i.e. now) we'd be able to throw them at other players?