6 hours ago, bing181 said:

This is just ridiculous. It's not some Sunday morning kick to kick with your mates. These are professionals, working in a professional environment. Everyone knows what the rules are.

Grasping at straws.

True, they know they have to toe the line according to the rules, but it doesn't mean they all have to like them. Or that they're all convinced that the "rules" have been fairly applied in this case. 

 

Nothing to add.

Just wanted to be a part of something special.

(186)

Me too. 

Loves ya Jack! 

Dont go!

Just play better...

Edited October 13, 20177 yr by PaulRB

5 hours ago, mo64 said:

Do you know this as fact?

It's feasible. We're pushing him out 1 year into a 3-year contract, so we're the party that's taken the initiative to break the contract. Not unreasonable to expect that we should pay some of what remains of it.

5 minutes ago, Akum said:

It's feasible. We're pushing him out 1 year into a 3-year contract, so we're the party that's taken the initiative to break the contract. Not unreasonable to expect that we should pay some of what remains of it.

Port had offered him a 3 year deal. 

The conditions I'd consider paying salary for would be:
1. To help a cap strapped team in return for a better pick
2. When a team takes a poor performing player on big money for you and you minimise their cap hit

I doubt Watts is either of those and the 20% rise in cap probably makes it unnecessary. Connors probably just tears up his Melbourne deal and starts with a fresh 3 year contract at Port if that's the case.

5 hours ago, Roost It said:

Explain to us how else you can do it

Since you asked so nicely ...

There was absolutely no need for Goodwin & to a lesser extent Jones to talk his value down early in the piece. They gained nothing from doing it, and really messed up our capacity to negotiate a higher pick. 

Where was Mahoney at that time? The FD took ages to work out its narrative, and then its negotiating position, and by then it was almost too late, a lot of damage has been done. Even some "Watts needs to go" posters wondered why we were talking his value down so much.

In answer to your question about "how else you can do it":  how about something neutral that aims at the ball (i.e. the issue) and not the man (Watts)? Such as: "Our game next year is going to be much more focussed on contested ball. Watts has great talents, but not in the areas that our team will be moving into. We've therefore encouraged him to seek other options where his talents will be a better fit for their style of play."

Pick 15, please.

[P.S. My opinion (not fact) for why Goodwin & Jones were so heavy on criticising Watts initially was that they were struggling to convince the playing group of the strength of their reasons for pushing him out. I can't imagine who else the would have been trying to convince that "Watts is bad". If my opinion has any truth whatsoever, I very much doubt whether what anybody has said since would have made the slightest bit of difference. Which would be grounds for concern.]

4 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

We have just as many as Richmond did.

Houli? Martin? Cotchin? Rance? With Watts gone, Salem is the only Demon who comes anywhere near this quartet in quality and consistency of ball use.

And they moved the ball into space brilliantly and lowered their eyes into attack, resisted the temptation most of the time to bomb it on to Riewoldt's head (the way that we do predictably with Hogan and, yes, Watts, under Goodwin) which would have allowed Adelaide's tall defenders to pick it off with ease. They either hit forward targets, or delivered it low and hard and into spaces when no targets were available. They were brilliantly coached, and they were encouraged by their coach to take the game on and take risks.

In all the bluster about Richmond's pressure, some have totally missed their skill and their quality of ball use. If they hadn't been able to hurt Adelaide so much when they had the ball, a lot of their pressure would have been wasted, and it would have been much harder to sustain.

6 hours ago, jackaub said:

Mate this guy has played the club off a break his whole career

I for one have lost any respect i might have had for him

Roos soft managed him back into the club in 2015

Just a complete waste in my opinion

You and the othe biscuitdunkers have  a different opinion. So be it

And if he loves the club as much as you say wahy doesnt he have a go? 9 years bye bye Jack

couldn't agree more. 9 years of bruise free footy and he was lucky to survive many culls but it was only because of the high turnover of coaches that he survived each change over

My heart wants him to stay but my head says otherwise. This is one of those super tough times where you don't know which way to lean. All I hope is that he is happy with his choice.

2 hours ago, Akum said:

Since then, we've stopped Goodwin talking to anybody ...

And you know this how?

It's the trade period. Comments and media on trades are handled by the FD/list managers, i.e. Mahoney and Viney. As with every club.

The amount of "I just completely made this up" BS on this thread is reaching new lows (or heights), even by D'Land standards.

A fellow Demonlander asked me a couple weeks back what I thought of the slated Watts' trade. I indicated that I didn't really care but would be happy enough to never have to think or hear about Jack Watts again.

I was wrong. So so very so wrong. The wrongest I've ever been. It's apparent now that I'll never escape JW4 in my life-time. Leave/stay/go/join the circus/whatever: a whole generation or more of the Melbourne Football Club will be defined by Jack Watts. My generation. I'll still hear about Jack watts when I'm Old Dee's age.

This makes me sad. (Insert sad-face emoticon).

 

1 hour ago, Akum said:

They gained nothing from doing it, and really messed up our capacity to negotiate a higher pick. 

Yes, because teams' trade strategies are completely based on remarks from opposition coaches/captains in the press.

Tex Walker and half of Adelaide running down Lever doesn't seem to have had much impact on the price we had to pay for him.

1 hour ago, Akum said:

Pick 15, please.

For a guy who finished 21st in the B&F, was dropped to the two's after being held back from pre-season matches for a half-baked attitude to pre-season.

If we get pick 30 we'll be doing well. It's all he's worth.

Reality.

Ripping bloke with plenty of talent but not the sort of gung-ho animal the club wants atm. 

Weve got others on the list who crack in with more passion so were moving him out to make some cap space for a crack at a free agent next year perhaps?

All speculation, but thats my read on it.

Say it aint so Jack .

This thread  should be  renamed- ‘the ultimate whipping boy’ a sad lesson in getting ahead of ourselves,  a masterpiece. 

5 hours ago, Akum said:

Since you asked so nicely ...

There was absolutely no need for Goodwin & to a lesser extent Jones to talk his value down early in the piece. They gained nothing from doing it, and really messed up our capacity to negotiate a higher pick. 

Where was Mahoney at that time? The FD took ages to work out its narrative, and then its negotiating position, and by then it was almost too late, a lot of damage has been done. Even some "Watts needs to go" posters wondered why we were talking his value down so much.

In answer to your question about "how else you can do it":  how about something neutral that aims at the ball (i.e. the issue) and not the man (Watts)? Such as: "Our game next year is going to be much more focussed on contested ball. Watts has great talents, but not in the areas that our team will be moving into. We've therefore encouraged him to seek other options where his talents will be a better fit for their style of play."

Pick 15, please.

[P.S. My opinion (not fact) for why Goodwin & Jones were so heavy on criticising Watts initially was that they were struggling to convince the playing group of the strength of their reasons for pushing him out. I can't imagine who else the would have been trying to convince that "Watts is bad". If my opinion has any truth whatsoever, I very much doubt whether what anybody has said since would have made the slightest bit of difference. Which would be grounds for concern.]

I could not disagree with you more here. It sent a message to the playing group and to anyone who wears our colours going forward that nothing but the most professional of training and preparation standards will be accepted by the footy club. Unless you are prepared to give 110% at every contest and in everything you do with your footy, don't bother coming to Melbourne.  

51 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

I could not disagree with you more here. It sent a message to the playing group and to anyone who wears our colours going forward that nothing but the most professional of training and preparation standards will be accepted by the footy club. Unless you are prepared to give 110% at every contest and in everything you do with your footy, don't bother coming to Melbourne.  

Except that that message should have been IN house not spread to the press pre trade week. We just didnt handle this trade well imo...its not the end of the world and the trading guys have been great over the last few years. But we didnt handle this trade well

6 hours ago, Akum said:

Since you asked so nicely ...

There was absolutely no need for Goodwin & to a lesser extent Jones to talk his value down early in the piece. They gained nothing from doing it, and really messed up our capacity to negotiate a higher pick. 

Where was Mahoney at that time? The FD took ages to work out its narrative, and then its negotiating position, and by then it was almost too late, a lot of damage has been done. Even some "Watts needs to go" posters wondered why we were talking his value down so much.

In answer to your question about "how else you can do it":  how about something neutral that aims at the ball (i.e. the issue) and not the man (Watts)? Such as: "Our game next year is going to be much more focussed on contested ball. Watts has great talents, but not in the areas that our team will be moving into. We've therefore encouraged him to seek other options where his talents will be a better fit for their style of play."

Pick 15, please.

[P.S. My opinion (not fact) for why Goodwin & Jones were so heavy on criticising Watts initially was that they were struggling to convince the playing group of the strength of their reasons for pushing him out. I can't imagine who else the would have been trying to convince that "Watts is bad". If my opinion has any truth whatsoever, I very much doubt whether what anybody has said since would have made the slightest bit of difference. Which would be grounds for concern.]

Goodwin didn't talk his value down

we were never getting a first rounder for a guy who everyone knows doesn't get out of second gear unless he wants to. 

The coach and captain don't need to convince anyone. Jones, for all his faults, works his backside off and Watts, with all his talent, doesn't. Goodwin made it clear what he expects and Watts can't get there. 

8 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Except that that message should have been IN house not spread to the press pre trade week. We just didnt handle this trade well imo...its not the end of the world and the trading guys have been great over the last few years. But we didnt handle this trade well

The message is out there for the whole footy world to see now. And really, how much do you think it would damage Watts' trade value?? He was always going to valued in that 20 - 30 range. 

6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Port had offered him a 3 year deal. 

The conditions I'd consider paying salary for would be:
1. To help a cap strapped team in return for a better pick
2. When a team takes a poor performing player on big money for you and you minimise their cap hit

I doubt Watts is either of those and the 20% rise in cap probably makes it unnecessary. Connors probably just tears up his Melbourne deal and starts with a fresh 3 year contract at Port if that's the case.

If we agree to pay some of his salary going forward, I wish to slightly revise my opinion of your Mahoney's negotiating skills thread.

 

Edited October 13, 20177 yr by Ron Burgundy

186.  An appropriate point to reflect.

only JW and Jones left from that one, I think.

Port supporters on bigfooty reckon Watts and 36 for picks 30 and 33.

So a lower end second round draft pick and also a 3 pick upgrade in the late second round as steak knives.

Is this fair?

22 hours ago, jnrmac said:

This is vying for the award of most unhinged comment and that's saying something.

Watts by the way averages 8 kicks per game. 

'Unhinged' - ease up cowboy.  It was an analogy, not every aspect to be taken 100% literally.

Yeah, so would you take Jack Viney's 15 kicks per game at 40% efficiency over Jack Watts 8 kicks per game at 90% efficiency?  (9 turnovers Vs 1).  Actually I'd take both, because they play different roles within the team,  but I think there's more chance that Jack Watts improves his training standards and intensity than Viney or any of our average kickers and decision makers bring that part of their game up to Watts standard.

In so many of the games we played this year, we dominated time in forward half, but lacked the polish to make good decisions and execute with ball in hand to enable us to penitrate foward 50.  Watts is elite at this game and also at finishing off when he gets the ball inside 50.  Might help next year with Lever if Salem can be pushed further up the feild, but gaining Lever and loosing Watts could be two steps forward and at least one step back.

Edited October 13, 20177 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

6 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Port supporters on bigfooty reckon Watts and 36 for picks 30 and 33.

So a lower end second round draft pick and also a 3 pick upgrade in the late second round as steak knives.

Is this fair?

Tell em they’re dreaming!

A different way to look at it, esp Jones and Goody:

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/mk-what-this-advisor-learnt-from-firing-someone-they-deeply-admired/