1 minute ago, Forest Demon said:

But surely that raises the question of signing him to a long term deal when there is no clear role for him available?

I’m not sure if Harmes new he would be playing a different position  when he signed on. 
 

He had a role and that was changed by goody which was a genius move but I get ur point in long term deals. 

2 minutes ago, adonski said:

He will get picked up. Screenshot this, quote it, retweet it.

By who?

34 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

No takers for McDonald.

Stupid to give him a 4 year contract after 1 good season.  Same with the Harmes contract.

What were the club thinking giving a 26 year old key forward who just kicked 50 goals after a very good ruck/forward year a 4 year deal? Should’ve just had him year to year. Maybe even made him pay subs.

Same for Harmes. 24 years old. Best 22 for 3 years. Can play a variety of roles. Silly giving him a 5 year deal through his entire prime and likely getting a discount for it. Should’ve paid him far more money for 2 years and risked losing him in free agency, that would’ve been a much smarter move. 

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

What were the club thinking giving a 26 year old key forward who just kicked 50 goals after a very good ruck/forward year a 4 year deal? Should’ve just had him year to year. Maybe even made him pay subs.

Same for Harmes. 24 years old. Best 22 for 3 years. Can play a variety of roles. Silly giving him a 5 year deal through his entire prime and likely getting a discount for it. Should’ve paid him far more money for 2 years and risked losing him in free agency, that would’ve been a much smarter move. 

Careful, put an asterisk on this for sarcasm for your own sake 

23 minutes ago, adonski said:

Careful, put an asterisk on this for sarcasm for your own sake 

What do you know @adonski

51 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

I’m not sure if Harmes new he would be playing a different position  when he signed on. 
 

He had a role and that was changed by goody which was a genius move but I get ur point in long term deals. 

I was referring to the clubs decision to sign him for 4 years, it was a no brainer for Harmes. Considering he was only really proven as a mid, and we didn’t have a spot in there for him, it seems odd we would commit for such a long term.

In saying all that, I’m pretty confident he will be back, either in his primary role or even as a half forward where I think he can still be a contributor with his strong hands. I can’t see him ever making it as a half back though.

It would be nice to see a link to a post saying the TMac extension was a mistake at the time.

9 minutes ago, Forest Demon said:

I was referring to the clubs decision to sign him for 4 years, it was a no brainer for Harmes. Considering he was only really proven as a mid, and we didn’t have a spot in there for him, it seems odd we would commit for such a long term.

In saying all that, I’m pretty confident he will be back, either in his primary role or even as a half forward where I think he can still be a contributor with his strong hands. I can’t see him ever making it as a half back though.

why would a player not take career security when its available even if no one else wants him and hes stuck in the twos hes got himself a job and income for 4yrs no issues, not his problem. like the treloar situation now. 

59 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

What were the club thinking giving a 26 year old key forward who just kicked 50 goals after a very good ruck/forward year a 4 year deal? Should’ve just had him year to year. Maybe even made him pay subs.

Same for Harmes. 24 years old. Best 22 for 3 years. Can play a variety of roles. Silly giving him a 5 year deal through his entire prime and likely getting a discount for it. Should’ve paid him far more money for 2 years and risked losing him in free agency, that would’ve been a much smarter move. 

Top notch sarcasm.

Both are terrible contracts.

16 minutes ago, Turner said:

why would a player not take career security when its available even if no one else wants him and hes stuck in the twos hes got himself a job and income for 4yrs no issues, not his problem. like the treloar situation now. 

Not sure I can make it any clearer. I’m talking about the clubs decision to offer 4 years, not Harmes decision to accept it.

1 hour ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

No takers for McDonald.

Stupid to give him a 4 year contract after 1 good season.  Same with the Harmes contract.

You have two choices - you pay the player or you let them go.

I find it hard to believe that you'd have backed a decision to let him go.

Here's a hypothetical, Would you let Trac go if he wanted 4 years?

Fremantle has some logic attached to it now Hogan has been jettisoned. 
 

Coin around the same mark and they clearly have a need for a KP player. 
 

Smokey?

1 hour ago, McQueen said:

Fremantle has some logic attached to it now Hogan has been jettisoned. 
 

Coin around the same mark and they clearly have a need for a KP player. 
 

Smokey?

Or do you think that by now they may be somewhat wary of ex MFC key position forwards with foot injuries?

8 hours ago, Turner said:

why would a player not take career security when its available even if no one else wants him and hes stuck in the twos hes got himself a job and income for 4yrs no issues, not his problem. like the treloar situation now. 

Professional pride perhaps. I know money and an income are important but I’d like to think that playing is the most important thing in your career. Why play in the 2’s if you can hold down a spot on another team even if it is for less money. 

9 hours ago, Forest Demon said:

Unless we have someone we are specifically targeting this year with his salary, I’d be happy for TMac to stay for another year, come back 5kgs plus lighter, and give it a proper crack.

If that fails, move him on, pay a chunk of his salary for the remaining year and move on.

what prevented him from having a crack this year?

10 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

No takers for McDonald.

Stupid to give him a 4 year contract after 1 good season.  Same with the Harmes contract.

There was plenty of interest from rival clubs at the time. Would you have let him walk rather than give him the 4 years?

I’m calling rubbish on Tmac being on big $. I don’t know for fact, but here are some rock solid facts;

He signed at the end of 2017 not 2018 when he had a massive year.

Players generally get smaller salaries for longer term deals, like 4 year deals.

Jordan Lewis had been at the club for a year and was encouraging all the players to take a little less coin so they could keep a good team together. That’s what they did at Hawthorn. 
 

Big salary BS. Someone said it and everyone is running with it.

3 minutes ago, Marty said:

I’m calling rubbish on Tmac being on big $. I don’t know for fact, but here are some rock solid facts;

He signed at the end of 2017 not 2018 when he had a massive year.

Players generally get smaller salaries for longer term deals, like 4 year deals.

Jordan Lewis had been at the club for a year and was encouraging all the players to take a little less coin so they could keep a good team together. That’s what they did at Hawthorn. 
 

Big salary BS. Someone said it and everyone is running with it.

No, he signed in 2018.

We talk about whether we should be keeping him, surely Tom must be thinking that the moment Sideshow Ben walks through the door he's got an uphill battle to earn a spot in the 22 (which he already had before we started chasing Brown). So for his own career the best thing he can do is get his manager to pitch him to clubs requiring a key forward to get first team action.

If, and I stress IF, he doesn't end up leaving there needs to be some creative conversations about how we approach the rest of him contract. He was very mobile prior to 2019, if there are discussions had between him and Burgess to work out a new fitness plan could he be turned into a Richo style winger/HFF? I honestly think his defending days are behind him and his form is reflective on his own confidence as well as fitness. I think the best thing for him is to look for another club but for someone on such good coin we cannot let them stay stuck at Casey doing nothing.

Just now, Pates said:

If, and I stress IF, he doesn't end up leaving there needs to be some creative conversations about how we approach the rest of him contract. He was very mobile prior to 2019, if there are discussions had between him and Burgess to work out a new fitness plan could he be turned into a Richo style winger/HFF? I honestly think his defending days are behind him and his form is reflective on his own confidence as well as fitness. I think the best thing for him is to look for another club but for someone on such good coin we cannot let them stay stuck at Casey doing nothing.

I have seen the Richo role mentioned a few times regarding T-Mac, there's no chance that happens.

T-Mac is an aerobic beast, but he isn't running away from a mid, or taking hangers and creating opportunities like Richo did.

His past as a defender isn't a good reference point.  From 2012 to 2015 our defensive was a sieve and Tom had little support.  And he really didn't have much chance to 'learn his craft'.  Frawley was there but he lost interest at some point and then left.  2016 our defence tightened a bit.  2017 we experimented with a high zone and the ball sailed over everyone's head.  He was then needed on the fwd line where he stayed.

Our defence personnel and strategy is vastly different now.  So imv we could only judge how Tom would fare their if he had the chance to do so.

Let me say though that I prefer Tom goes because it will be best for all.  But some perspective is useful rather than righting him off.  Nor should we expect him to restructure his package.  It isn't his fault the club offered the contract they did or if they didn't structure it to manage the risks at the back end.

11 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

His past as a defender isn't a good reference point.  From 2012 to 2015 our defensive was a sieve and Tom had little support.  And he really didn't have much chance to 'learn his craft'.  Frawley was there but he lost interest at some point and then left.  2016 our defence tightened a bit.  2017 we experimented with a high zone and the ball sailed over everyone's head.  He was then needed on the fwd line where he stayed.

Our defence personnel and strategy is vastly different now.  So imv we could only judge how Tom would fare their if he had the chance to do so.

Let me say though that I prefer Tom goes because it will be best for all.  But some perspective is useful rather than righting him off.  Nor should we expect him to restructure his package.  It isn't his fault the club offered the contract they did or if they didn't structure it to manage the risks at the back end.

Wait..... what?

the club gave him a big juicy contract based on his 2018 exploits and he’s failed to back them up!

I understand this is the risk in any contractual arrangement but players should take more of this burden on for the good of the club and definitely be open to restructuring of contracts if they underperform over subsequent years. 
 

This isn’t a blip. Tom fell off a cliff after the club rewarded him very handsomely. 

15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

His past as a defender isn't a good reference point.  From 2012 to 2015 our defensive was a sieve and Tom had little support.  And he really didn't have much chance to 'learn his craft'.  Frawley was there but he lost interest at some point and then left.  2016 our defence tightened a bit.  2017 we experimented with a high zone and the ball sailed over everyone's head.  He was then needed on the fwd line where he stayed.

Our defence personnel and strategy is vastly different now.  So imv we could only judge how Tom would fare their if he had the chance to do so.

Let me say though that I prefer Tom goes because it will be best for all.  But some perspective is useful rather than righting him off.  Nor should we expect him to restructure his package.  It isn't his fault the club offered the contract they did or if they didn't structure it to manage the risks at the back end.

Agree.  As I posted earlier. it's preferable if he goes for salary cap balance by role, but it's not a disaster if he stays.  Worst case he's decent depth forward and back.  It's also worth remembering that TMac and Pederson carried the ruck in 2017 when Max got injured so he's depth in that role too.

general vibe from the afl scribes is that he's going nowhere

Appears to be little interest in Tmc probably due to loss of form, injury worries and $$$ contract.

 I thought the Crows might have a go with Hartigan moving on and Walker dropping off quickly. Tmc could help them at either end. 
Crows have pick 40 and pick 50.  Even pick 50 would be ok by me. 

Alternatively we keep Tom and redesign him back into defence or run Tom as a backup ruck option.