1 hour ago, Adzman said:

Are you sure this was originally written by a Collingwood supporter? It is an interesting argument that I tend to agree with.

For the record, I think lever is a solid player and I'm aware we paid overs in terms of salary and at the trade table but that doesn't mean that he won't bring success to the club. 

Lynch is a huge get for anyone, but at cool million a season I think he will certainly eat up cap space wherever he goes.

a million a season and the rest.

Good article!

Still would like to nab Josh Kelly while not breaking the bank: (is he a big fish)?

31 minutes ago, Dee Dee said:

Good article!

Still would like to nab Josh Kelly while not breaking the bank: (is he a big fish)?

does a brown bear [censored] in the woods

1 hour ago, Dee Dee said:

Good article!

Still would like to nab Josh Kelly while not breaking the bank: (is he a big fish)?

You're new to this AFL thing are you mate?

8 hours ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

Does Jake Lever qualify as a “big fish”?

Of course he does in terms of what we gave up in return.  And I fully endorse the deal even if the deal goes south. 

In order to get better we have to take chances and win, lose or otherwise,  you have to live with the chances you take.  Related - we could have gone to the draft with those 2 first round picks and drafted busts.  Or,  we could have foregone the chance to draft 2 top players.

Sport reflects life ... any decision ever made is ultimately a bit of a gamble.  And the greatest risk is often not taking that risk.

Edited March 4, 20187 yr by Macca

I often read EB&W, especially if the pies are not doing well. It's good entertainment.

Problem with them getting Lynch is that it would seriously improve them.

At the minute their KPFs are Cox (already shown what he's got, won't get better) and Reid (good backman, not so good forward).

And playing Moore down back is killing his confidence.

With Lynch up forward, it would straighten them up like no-one's biz. As it is, where are their scores going to come from?

I don't think the culture, salary cap, team structure etc problems that come with signing a big fish really matter all that much if they are a gun player. Think advantages of having superstars make up for a lot of the problems.

The issue a club like Collingwood have now and North are in the same boat - is having all but flagged their intentions publicly where does it leave their current players?

They'll be looking for a pay day now as well, plus wondering why they aren't good enough and why they need some outsider bought in. 

It's the same issue that happens with tanking. Tanking is fine if you're going to discard pretty much every player who's currently on your list and start afresh. If you've got 10 of your best out injured and are going to trade a few more away then go for it, but if you've assembled an improving team and you send the message that they aren't good enough and that they can't focus on winning then you hit problems.

12 hours ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

Does Jake Lever qualify as a “big fish”?

 

10 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Nope, that was only the end result of the financial transaction.

Well that demonstrates why I remain v concerned about the Lever deal.

in my view he is not,  (11th in the Crows B and F) and will not be, the best player at Melbourne, yet he's being paid, we understand , much more than anyone else. Historically this has lead to dissatisfaction, unrest. We are signing a lot of our real stars for 2 years. What happens when those short terms  run out.

so, although the original piece from WJ related more to the star recruit's  ability to lift a team by his play, there is another side to it also

I think Nick Stevens made a greater "impact" on his ex partner than for Carlton F.C.

Josh Kelly? Didn't MFC trade the pick that would have secured him for Salem (draft pick) + Tyson?

45 minutes ago, Farmer said:

 

Well that demonstrates why I remain v concerned about the Lever deal.

in my view he is not,  (11th in the Crows B and F) and will not be, the best player at Melbourne, yet he's being paid, we understand , much more than anyone else. Historically this has lead to dissatisfaction, unrest. We are signing a lot of our real stars for 2 years. What happens when those short terms  run out.

so, although the original piece from WJ related more to the star recruit's  ability to lift a team by his play, there is another side to it also

I don't suppose by any chance that he finished 11th because he had told them beforehand he was leaving the club? (And anyone claiming club b&f's are democratic, transparent or a valid basis to judge a player's worth need book a room with the tooth fairy)

Also, is Lever being paid "much more than anyone else" on our list? You know this as a fact?

1 hour ago, Farmer said:

 

Well that demonstrates why I remain v concerned about the Lever deal.

in my view he is not,  (11th in the Crows B and F) and will not be, the best player at Melbourne, yet he's being paid, we understand , much more than anyone else. Historically this has lead to dissatisfaction, unrest. We are signing a lot of our real stars for 2 years. What happens when those short terms  run out.

so, although the original piece from WJ related more to the star recruit's  ability to lift a team by his play, there is another side to it also

I very much doubt he is being paid much more than anyone else.

All clubs have to pay out most of their salary cap, ours is no exception. With a salary cap of 12.45 million (minimum spend approx $11.8 million) the money has to be spent somewhere.

Hogan would be on good cash, you could expect Petracca just signed a pretty decent deal. If he was unhappy with his deal he wouldn't have signed.

We would have more players on or expected to top 600+k than you might think. Not everyone is on the average which is now approaching 400k...

In current times the money someone like Lynch could be offered is getting up to around, well figures of around $1.5m have been mentioned. Now that's going to take a big piece of cap space, put that into context with Lever.

I think you are unduly worried 'Farmer'...

Depends on what role said recruit plays and why he was brought in. If the aim is to get a start but for him to have no job in the team or a role that he isn't suited for, then it can backfire. If he has a role that is defined and everyone knows who everyone is, it can pay off handsomely.

The examples raised by Jack (with the greatest respect) aren't as relevant in the time of the salary cap. 

I think in modern times other examples hold more weight. 

The two biggest for mine are Gary Junior and Buddy.

For mine, Ablett's move was a failure, if the aim was to make a superstar team with him as the centerpiece. The results should speak for themselves.

The other reason why they got him, as far as I can tell, is that they wanted veteran leadership. Clearly that was an even bigger debacle. The locker room split along the lines of the God Squad and the Party Boys and Gazza wasn't the man to rectify that (if anything he might have contributed to it). 

Buddy remains to be seen. If they get 7 years out of him at his current rate, then I think it can be termed a pass. Everyone knew what he would do in that team. Essentially that was to make a great team shoot into the stratosphere. Sadly, I think the final verdict on that will come down to if he can get them to another flag.

Of course, a big fish can be counterproductive if it stuffs up your ability to retain the supporting cast. Though that goes without saying.

Edited March 4, 20187 yr by Colin B. Flaubert
Autocorrect issues

Tom Mac forward, Pedo depth

Hunt / Hibbo / Brayshaw in middle

Lever in Defence, Frost depth

Cant the trade be looked at more than acquiring an "11th" in b&F player? 

All these moves should be as valuable collectively as the value of a big fish

Edited March 4, 20187 yr by Doodle Dee

14 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Occasionally go there for a good laugh but didn’t do so after Rd 23 last year for some reason.

I assume it’s a case of keep your friends close... 10 points IMO! I’ve trawled Geelongs foruns recently to see if I could gain any insights into Rd.1.

All I found was a sense of uneasiness, combined with a cadre of intelligent supporters who likely require a new government funded dental plan..

Rd 1 is looking good!

 

 

13 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

I assume it’s a case of keep your friends close... 10 points IMO! I’ve trawled Geelongs foruns recently to see if I could gain any insights into Rd.1.

All I found was a sense of uneasiness, combined with a cadre of intelligent supporters who likely require a new government funded dental plan..

Rd 1 is looking good!

 

 

 

Maybe the last 10 years have been tough on me, but i still to this day can't imagine any fans of any team being scared of playing the dee's.

Maybe Viney destroying Selwood is still on their minds.

I'm sympathetic to the arguments put regarding Judd, Ablett, Buckley and Franklin. But there's also been S Burgoyne, Gunston, Jolly, Josh Kennedy, Lake, Hall and Tom Boyd who have changed clubs and been part of Premierships. All good sized fish, I would have thought. It's about getting the fish you need, not just the biggest ones. 

20 hours ago, Farmer said:

 

Well that demonstrates why I remain v concerned about the Lever deal.

in my view he is not,  (11th in the Crows B and F) and will not be, the best player at Melbourne, yet he's being paid, we understand , much more than anyone else. Historically this has lead to dissatisfaction, unrest. We are signing a lot of our real stars for 2 years. What happens when those short terms  run out.

so, although the original piece from WJ related more to the star recruit's  ability to lift a team by his play, there is another side to it also

You seriously have no idea how good Lever is.  With him we're a chance at the flag in 2018.  Without him we'd be no chance.

And the B&F result ?  You do realise Lever missed 5 games  in 2017 ?  Nine of the top ten played at least 3 more games than him.  Best & Fairests usually favour those who play, not those in sitting the grandstand.  As an example here is one round of their voting:

Round Five v Gold Coast
Sloane – 16
M. Crouch – 15
Lever – 15
Laird – 14
B. Crouch – 13
Atkins – 12
Lynch – 11
Smith – 11
Walker – 11
Hampton – 10
Otten – 10
Cameron – 9
Hartigan – 9
Betts – 8
Mackay – 8
Brown – 7
Douglas – 7
Knight – 7
Milera – 6
Jacobs – 4

Twenty players out of 22 received votes.  And that's a consistent theme with their other rounds.  

Plus Adelaide knew he was leaving before the end of the season and there'd been rumblings he was going all year.  Do you think under those circumstances there's a chance they didn't look favourably upon him when voting for the club's highest individual honour ?

He will absolutely be in our top 2 or 3 most important players.  To get a player of his quality to come to your club at 22 you have to pay.  He's reportedly being paid around $750-$800K and will be worth every cent.

To deduce he's not that good due to his B&F ranking is hopelessly flawed.

We lost a few close ones last season. With Lever we would have made finals, and not just scraped in. 

It should also be noted that backmen can sometimes poll poorly in B & F's.

Our own Gary Hardeman's best finish in a B & F was 3rd and he played in a team that never played finals and was often a cellar dweller.  As a consequence,  Gary was constantly in the play. 

And Hardeman was a star player, no question. 

Lever was definitely worth a punt and adds to a growing list of good players that the club is building towards. 

 

18 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

I assume it’s a case of keep your friends close... 10 points IMO! I’ve trawled Geelongs foruns recently to see if I could gain any insights into Rd.1.

All I found was a sense of uneasiness, combined with a cadre of intelligent supporters who likely require a new government funded dental plan..

Rd 1 is looking good!

 

 

If you are trawling the Geelong forum for any insights into the Round 1 game against Melbourne, do you have any idea who will counter, neutralise, nullify, upset, beat, combat, address, stand against or frustrate Tom Hawkins? That is the only match-up that I am worried about and on his day, Hawkins can destroy us.

2 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

If you are trawling the Geelong forum for any insights into the Round 1 game against Melbourne, do you have any idea who will counter, neutralise, nullify, upset, beat, combat, address, stand against or frustrate Tom Hawkins? That is the only match-up that I am worried about and on his day, Hawkins can destroy us.

That Tonya Harding might be able to help. Anyone got a phone number?

14 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

That Tonya Harding might be able to help. Anyone got a phone number?

1800Kneecap