3 minutes ago, poita said:

Re: McKenna & Vandenberg, why were either of these players retained when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season?

They are just a couple of deep fringe players clogging up the list (and the medical rooms) with their constant injuries.

Far better to take a couple of rookie picks instead who might amount to something.

McKenna i agree with (but got a 2 year contract so probably best not to break it after one year of injury).

Vandenberg i like (just needs to kick better). Plus i believe someone else posted recently stating that Vandenberg's leadership off-field has been first class and i'd suggest that is why he was retained. Obviously both may be in trouble at the end of this year if they cannot get back on the park.

1 hour ago, poita said:

 when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season

What else did the medical reports say? I haven't seen them to be crystal clear....

1 hour ago, poita said:

Re: McKenna & Vandenberg, why were either of these players retained when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season?

They are just a couple of deep fringe players clogging up the list (and the medical rooms) with their constant injuries.

Far better to take a couple of rookie picks instead who might amount to something.

Thanks for that Nostradamus. Got the lotto numbers for Saturday?

McKenna was contracted and played plenty of NEAFL games in his time at GWS, had some injuries as well but it's not like he's been constantly injured. In the delisting period as far as I know he was getting better and I think he either made it back to the main group or very close in November before further trouble. You can't delist contracted players who missed 1 year with injury unless you're certain it's an ongoing injury or you just want them gone. He's obviously battling some pretty severe hamstring troubles now but it's still a long way until the end of the year. 

I have a soft spot for Vanders as a player. I think his physicality and size could be very handy in September style footy. But it doesn't look like things are going well for him. Where our list is at I'd rather take the risk on Vanders than pick a rookie who likely won't play either. Especially in last years draft which apparently had no depth. I think he was our last player recontracted for this year so the club were weighing up options and tracking his recovery. 

surely the club has to be loyal to the players when injury strikes,the club expects loyalty from the players

3 minutes ago, forever demons said:

surely the club has to be loyal to the players when injury strikes,the club expects loyalty from the players

I don't think either expects loyality in 2018 fd. The player knows they have loyality that is as long as their contract most of the time. The club hopes the player is the same but recent events show the player is as long as there is no better offer. Cynical? Yes.

4 hours ago, poita said:

Re: McKenna & Vandenberg, why were either of these players retained when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season?

They are just a couple of deep fringe players clogging up the list (and the medical rooms) with their constant injuries.

Far better to take a couple of rookie picks instead who might amount to something.

Do you understand what a contract is? You've been a serial de-lister who doesn't seem to understand that if a player has a contract, the club has an obligation to honour that contract.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you understand what a contract is? You've been a serial de-lister who doesn't seem to understand that if a player has a contract, the club has an obligation to honour that contract.

Not sure Mr. Watts would agree with you.

Just now, old dee said:

Not sure Mr. Watts would agree with you.

Because he had a contract Mr Watts had to agree before he was traded. If he hadn't agreed he would still be at the club. (Doesn't mean he would play seniors footy in 2018, though, if he had stayed.)

1 minute ago, old dee said:

Not sure Mr. Watts would agree with you.

you can pay-out and delist but they stay in the cap unless they are traded to another club like Watts was.

forget watts who cares anymore ,he will just be the same ,no dash

I'd be happy enough with one Hunt for every five McKennas

2 hours ago, forever demons said:

forget watts who cares anymore ,he will just be the same ,no dash

Think he might win a flag before us

13 minutes ago, Old Bear said:

Think he might win a flag before us

He might in the SANFL...

Port in the AFL are a long way off.

10 hours ago, poita said:

Re: McKenna & Vandenberg, why were either of these players retained when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season?

They are just a couple of deep fringe players clogging up the list (and the medical rooms) with their constant injuries.

Far better to take a couple of rookie picks instead who might amount to something.

Constant injuries?   They have been on the list a year. 

We would be a great club, if they cut blokes because they are injured.

2 hours ago, rjay said:

He might in the SANFL...

Port in the AFL are a long way off.

I’ll back my footy knowledge against the majority of my fellow Demon supporters 

Port are a real chance this year

to at least top 4

sorry mate don’t challenge me again 

10 hours ago, Old Bear said:

I’ll back my footy knowledge against the majority of my fellow Demon supporters 

Port are a real chance this year

to at least top 4

sorry mate don’t challenge me again 

So, you're confident that the large number of players brought in from other clubs can be woven seamlessly into the fabric of Port Adelaide? I'm not so sure. Each of those players comes with learned behaviours (cultural, game style, etc) which has to fit in with PAs. Because of this, I think what PA has done is a high-risk strategy and I'm not confident they can make it work this year. Next year, however, (assuming they don't get scared in the meantime and dump Ken Hinkley) might see the pay-off.

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, you're confident that the large number of players brought in from other clubs can be woven seamlessly into the fabric of Port Adelaide? I'm not so sure. Each of those players comes with learned behaviours (cultural, game style, etc) which has to fit in with PAs. Because of this, I think what PA has done is a high-risk strategy and I'm not confident they can make it work this year. Next year, however, (assuming they don't get scared in the meantime and dump Ken Hinkley) might see the pay-off.

i think what they've done is basically enhance the opportunity for themselves for the next three years - they need to strike whilst the likes of robbie gray (about to turn 30), boak (29), ebert (28) and dixon (27) are at their peak, not to mention the likes of pittard, hartlett, polec and wingard are as good as they're every going to get too

they've brought in a lot of nqr's who're all 27 or older in rockliff, watts and motlop, and then strengthened their depth by adding superboot mckenzie, trengove so that they have experienced players to fall back on, rather than kids

i still think that their backline is a bit susceptible to being exposed, and their midfield is full of a whole bunch of similar types - polec and motlop their sole experienced players with pace, which is why i expect dom barry will play for them straight up in round 1

Without getting into the merits or otherwise of the Watts ‘trade’, I think most astute observers think Port will be a very good side this year.

I hardly think that’s a controversial opinion.

 

4 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Without getting into the merits or otherwise of the Watts ‘trade’, I think most astute observers think Port will be a very good side this year.

I hardly think that’s a controversial opinion.

 

I think a lot of observers think they will be a very good side but I'm not convinced they are so astute.

I guess time will tell...

17 hours ago, old dee said:

Not sure Mr. Watts would agree with you.

Watts agreed to leave, plus a contract does not necessarily guarantee you will be at that club (only contracted players can be traded), but it does guarantee that he will get the money in his contract.

Are we training with Port Adelaide this week or something? 

22 hours ago, poita said:

Re: McKenna & Vandenberg, why were either of these players retained when it is crystal clear to most that they won't make it on to the field for most (all?) of the season?

They are just a couple of deep fringe players clogging up the list (and the medical rooms) with their constant injuries.

Far better to take a couple of rookie picks instead who might amount to something.

You know on McKenna you could draw the same comparison with Hunt who didn't get on the park for a season and half . Did we do the wrong thing in retaining him too ?  I do recall the same "constantly injured move him on" cry from some on here.

Viney currently involved in the half ground match simulation 

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Watts agreed to leave, plus a contract does not necessarily guarantee you will be at that club (only contracted players can be traded), but it does guarantee that he will get the money in his contract.

That is where I was coming from CB now all a contract guarantees is you will be paid nothing else. Too bad if a player actually wants to stay at the club. From the other end all the clubs get is a guarantee that the have something to trade if the player changes his mind about where he wants to play. So As a general statement I believe loyalty both ways  if not dead is a seriously ill.

Eagerly awaiting today's training report. Refresh button getting a workout!