2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Word is we're paying $365 and Port $135

if true (and i doubt it) then we were royally screwed.

more like the other way around

1 hour ago, DemonDaniel said:

I just broke the news to my little fella, he's gone all quiet reflecting on his favourite player, 'carn' Wattsy!' he'd call out in his loudest voice every week. Really lamenting the fact I just got a number 4 pressed into his footy jumper  Xmas present now. 

That's pretty heartbreaking, dude. Oh well, hope that lever gets #4 

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

Jack... maybe they didn't really want you.

Chewy if they wanted him they would have got him (pending Ablett $$). He would have kept there window open and made them a better side.

You're assuming it was Geelong's choice. Unfortunately, unlike Lever, Jack's choice wasn't all about $. Some players look at footy like that you know. 

There has to be more to it than this. The only change in personalle between re-signing him and now, is Goodwin in a head coach position.

He must have done something, or got caught with something. 

A sad day.

6 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Just on this board? I am taking dramatic licence but if your (the royal you) is that this is a statement by the FD around commitment and preparation then that is tacitly saying Watts was Ground Zero for that behaviour, of you think we are now automatically destined for finals now that we have ridded ourselves of Watts you are directly saying he is the reason for our failure. And if you go to the footy and all you see and critique and lambast is the blonde number 4 then you are a sad individual who does what Mahoney said today and, unfairly, make Jack Watts the face of Melbourne. An abject failure of a club for most of his time here.

If you want to sit there and say that those things have not happened and prefer to have a semantical argument you definitely can do that.

I get what you're saying rpfc but I don't think any right-minded posters supportive of the Watts trade think he was 'Ground Zero' for poor commitment and preparation - rather, that his personal commitment and preparation as a senior member of our team and in a position of influence wasn't sufficient.

Further, I don't think anyone supportive of the trade is saying Watts is directly responsible for our failure, and as a footballer will be the difference between a flag or not (although plenty are arguing that we will have no chance without Watts), but that we're continuing to develop a culture that will push us towards success.

Lastly, Jack Watts was unfairly made the face of the MFC through a combination of factors - Melbourne supporter criticism was the least of these. And I'm happy to concede that this may well have played a part in his departure - Goodwin, when asked yet another question about Watts in a late-season post-match presser (when Watts had been demoted), was the testiest I have seen him. 

The powers-that-be no longer want Watts as the face of the MFC and the centre of attention as the club seeks to re-brand itself - and Watts' poster-boy status extending back into our dark past, while not the reason for our failure, is symbolic of it. 

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Ok.

Now post the picks after, like Sloane, Hannebery, Beams, etc.

The fact that some players succeed at a pick greater than 30 does not affect S Schultz's point.

It's not definitive, but listing the outcomes of all the players taken at a certain pick is meaningful.  The more years you include the better of course. But if you find that only 10% of players taken at pick 31 end up 'good' and only 2% of those taken at 61 do, then surely that tells you something.    Until someone does a similar analysis, preferably over many  more years that shows a different result, his data is indicative that around pick 30 only 10% of picks will work out. Of course his sample is too small to be definitive. If there was just 1 more 'success' in the list it would be 20%. 

5 minutes ago, praha said:

There has to be more to it than this. The only change in personalle between re-signing him and now, is Goodwin in a head coach position.

He must have done something, or got caught with something. 

or he's finally had the power to get rid of him. i wouldve done the same if i had 1 day in power. how come in 9 years, he's never backed into 1 pack? 

1 minute ago, Dr.D said:

or he's finally had the power to get rid of him. i wouldve done the same if i had 1 day in power. how come in 9 years, he's never backed into 1 pack? 

Really. Ever watched a game. Now you question his courage.  

Move on.  

Just acknowledge he had many strengths both on and off the field. Goodwin has made a statement which we want applied now to all.  Many many now on notice.  

Short summary. Good result. "Number 1 draft pick and goes for a second round pick in the supposed prime of his career with two years left to run on an existing contract. Pathetic really." (Demonology).  No angst from me that JW's gone. Way too much sentimentality here for an under-performing player that didn't cut it consistently over numerous seasons.

11 minutes ago, praha said:

There has to be more to it than this. The only change in personalle between re-signing him and now, is Goodwin in a head coach position.

He must have done something, or got caught with something. 

Unfortunately this site doesn't allow any form of speculation.

8 minutes ago, praha said:

There has to be more to it than this. The only change in personalle between re-signing him and now, is Goodwin in a head coach position. He must have done something, or got caught with something. 

I heard that it's a few of the Melbourne players who were close to selection, but playing at Casey, were disgruntled (best word i can think of) that jack was playing ones and not doing the non-negotiables that Goodwin preaches. Yet these melbourne listed players at Casey were doing them, but not getting rewarded.

If this was true surely talking to Jack and changing habits is the first action, if he didn't change after repeated discussions about them, then for team morale I'd understand the trade. In the end it's done and i think we would've been too top heavy, and perhaps still are if we want Weed in the team.

Hopefully we make finals and beat port in the first final

Wrong call in my opinion. Just an opinion. 

Continue to put my heart into the Dees as I have done for 40 years.

Thank you Jack. 

Just now, maximum bob said:

Short summary. Good result. "Number 1 draft pick and goes for a second round pick in the supposed prime of his career with two years left to run on an existing contract. Pathetic really." (Demonology).  No angst from me that JW's gone. Way too much sentimentality here for an under-performing player that didn't cut it consistently over numerous seasons.

I get the sentimentality side of things - while he could be frustrating to watch, he was an extremely likable player and when in form he was a classy player.

Your last part is right as well, and when you listen to Mahoney speak it's clear they felt the same way.  Some won't realise this straight away as they'll feel sad to not only lose Watts, but to get only Pick 31 in return, but I think in the end it was the right move to do.

I believe if we had beaten Collingwood in the last round and made finals Jack will still be with us. He played well that game and no doubt was on notice which just highlights all his previous inconsistency tempered with our lack of success. I guess Goodwin looks at this as the line in the sand for overpaid underperforming  players. The Bulldogs and Richmond example of flags won with no name blue collar committed players hit a nerve.

3 hours ago, TGR said:

Listen to the simpletons boo him next year, when in fact he loved the club and wanted to stay.

 

Club has no right to play the loyalty card when Trac and Co are offered big coin in 2019/20.

Like his old man said, we stuffed him and later stoned him.  

 

 

Pick 31 or Watts?  Give me Watts.

Loyalty is dead. If you're relying on loyalty to re-sign players you're stuffed. Success on the other hand

36 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Interesting quote from Mahoney on where the decision was coming from:

"the list management group felt that Jack's consistency of performance while at Melbourne hasn't been at the level expected"

So are you now saying that it was about performance. I remember numerous earlier posts of yours where you copped out of any argument about "facts" showing his performance stacks up by saying "it (the decision to trade him) has nothing to do with Jacks performance". 

18 minutes ago, praha said:

There has to be more to it than this. The only change in personalle between re-signing him and now, is Goodwin in a head coach position.

He must have done something, or got caught with something. 

Put $$$’s on it Praha..

we are paying his wage!!!

this upcoming trade period has to be the best one we have ever traded in. 

We need a class forward....

2 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

You can bet your bottom dollar the booing will come from the Watts haters like Dr Gonzo, Petracca and Dr d. to name a few

 

Lol you've got absolutely no idea mate

43 minutes ago, Sargent Shultz said:

I'm not that stupid (unless you ask my wife) But the point is that the people in charge of trade picks (they are paid a lot to get it right) in those years got it wrong 90% of the time (Roughead was OK). Why do we think MFC can bet the odds?

Hunt 57

ANB 40

Omac 53

Hannan 46

Go Dees!

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

This pretty much sums up up our trade negotiations:

 

Lol the dude in the blue reminds me of Mahoney and even used his own words, this deal is fair!!!!

Footy wise pick 31 for Watts is a ridiculous steal. You can only assume then that footy isn’t the no 1 issue here. 

Me personally I’d prefer we have Watts. 

The club has made a statement .

Do not invest in players, they are just a number, loyalty doesn't exist and don't bother buying jumper numbers for your kids only to have their hearts broken down the track.

2 hours ago, Delusional demon 82 said:

Paid overs for Lever and cop unders for watts... hell , we’ll even paying some of his salary 

MFC best club to negotiate with since 1897

We didn't pay overs for Lever. The reason we're part paying Watts wage is because he has low market value. That's not the clubs fault that's because he's never worked hard enough or hit enough contests 

Just now, DeeZee said:

The club has made a statement .

Do not invest in players, they are just a number, loyalty doesn't exist and bother buying jumper numbers for your kids only to have their hearts broken down the track.

How about:

Let's win a flag