The club has secured Lever, easily a top 4 pick was he in the draft add Oliver, Petracca, Viney and Hogan and away we go

49 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

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

Word from whom?

Jake Niall on  Fox said if we are its a small amount.

 

Is it not possible to delete your own post anymore?

Edited October 17, 20177 yr by hardtack

Interesting factoid:

The first 122 pages of this thread took 33 days.

The second 122 pages of this thread took 8 days.

I guess this means that with practice, we got better at regurgitating the same rubbish in a more efficient manner.

2 minutes ago, Roost It said:

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 

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then.   Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

2 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

How about:

Let's win a flag 

They had better win a flag , otherwise Goodwin is on borrowed time.

41 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. 

He was apparently a naughty boy pre-season Praha, along with a few others, and was singled out to set an example.  Possibly the most senior/experienced of the group?

3 minutes ago, Roost It said:

The club has secured Lever, easily a top 4 pick was he in the draft add Oliver, Petracca, Viney and Hogan and away we go

Don't bother mate, save the effort... There are some who aren't emotionally attached to Watts but the majority on here are.

They can not see the forest from the trees.

History will judge the quality of this decision.

I have no idea if this is a good or bad decision. What I do know is that with Jack, it was a buyer's market and there were not that many buyers out there. I think that fact says a lot. In the end, I believe that the FD had a look at the situation, had a look at the offer and bit the bullet.

I think there was consideration given to the immediate impact on the club with the players and the supporters and also on the longer term impact on such things as list structure and flexibility with contract negotiations in the next few years. We do have a number of players that we want to retain such as Petracca, Hunt, Oliver, Gawn and Brayshaw. Jack being moved on may be, not just a catalyst for improved player application and performance, but it may also give us more flexibility in the medium term future. 

For me the interest will be in the reaction of the players. Good win will either have buy in 100% or he will have a very difficult path to walk. Listening to the players talk of Goodwin this season, I had the impression he was looked upon as part of 'the group'. this post season might just adjust a few player's view of him and set the necessary distance between him and the players

1 minute ago, DeeZee said:

They had better win a flag , otherwise Goodwin is on borrowed time.

You can say that for practically every coach. That’s their job, simple. 

3 minutes ago, sue said:

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then.   Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

Yes the club overpaid him but that's not Goodeins fault

2 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

They had better win a flag , otherwise Goodwin is on borrowed time.

You've checked out? 

3 hours ago, Jaded said:

Because we landed the best player who happens to be 21 and has 10+ AA years in him.

Please lets not lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day we have significantly improved our list by adding Lever. Does anyone here really think we can't win a flag without Watts? 

 

We can't win a flag without decent disposal, in particular better kicking to our forwards. Watts was the best we had and they got rid of him for peanuts. 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Spot poll/ pop quiz

Just a curiosity here.

It's not about sides...ok

Who still holds the same views about this adventure/farce/ circus /list management ( call it whatever suits ) as you did ...say .. at the end of season ?

Its a serious question....well...a real curiosity

I don't. I have far less faith in the coach than I did a month ago.

50 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

It's ironic that people are upset over the cost of bringing in a pick 4 equivalent player who's playign to his potential and turfing out a pick 1 that didn't.

How is Lever a pick 4? They drafted him at 14. A first and second round pick was a fair offer and we should have held our ground. 

 

pick 31  for Watts say no more.

25 minutes ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

So are you now saying that it was about performance.

While I'm touched that you remember what I did/didn't contribute to the thread,  I was simply posting a quote from Mahoney re who was behind the decision. (Hint: not just Goodwin).

Just now, Roost It said:

Yes the club overpaid him but that's not Goodeins fault

Arguing on this forum is like boxing with shadows.  Your post put all the blame on Watts. I pointed to some errors the club must have also made (if you accept the 'must trade Watts line as you do) and your response is to defend Goodwin. We don't know if he was happy or otherwise with Watts' contract so how do you know he is not at fault as much as the rest of the club.

Watt the f....

2 hours 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 sucks. Maybe they'll give the 4 to Lever and he'll have a new favourite

 

2 hours ago, DemonOX said:

So how many number 1s and top 25 draft pics have we [censored] up now???

Geez the dees make it a hard club to follow. 

That pick was already [censored] before today's trade.

1 minute ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

You've checked out? 

I just feel unemotionally invested.

Its a business, the romanticism of football just seems to be dying for me where I'm not sure if I care anymore.

Probally feel different by the time the season starts.

Jack was a huge family favorite and The Melbourne Football club is a dirty word at the moment.

12 minutes ago, Roost It said:

The club has secured Lever, easily a top 4 pick was he in the draft add Oliver, Petracca, Viney and Hogan and away we go

Top 14 pick. He was drafted at 14.

After this I don’t trust anything Mahoney or Goodwin and co say. 

They obviously say one thing and mean another. 

I thought after r23 it couldn’t get any worse obviously I was wrong. 

2 hours ago, sue said:

Whatever his mis-match and failings at MFC, he doesn't have to have a transformed performance to do well at Port.  Whatever your view of the benefits of trading him, don't forget where is was in the B&F 2016 and where is was in the count before he was injured this year.

I remember the 2016 b&f. Jack said he felt awkward on stage and he was usually in the audience  getting pizzed.

roos implored the players to choose greatness and watts returned to be dropped from the pre season games.

you remember what you want. I'll remember another in a long line of unfulfilled talent.

Edited October 17, 20177 yr by jnrmac

7 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

How is Lever a pick 4? They drafted him at 14. A first and second round pick was a fair offer and we should have held our ground. 

 

Rory Sloane was pick 44, are you going to offer a third rounder for him? 

Edited October 17, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

3 minutes ago, sue said:

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then.   Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

Yes the club overpaid him but that's not Goodeins fault

13 minutes ago, Roost It said:

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 

No. It’s because he has a contract with the Melbourne Football Club. That’s why we have to pay him. Like we paid Travis Johnstone to play for the bears.