Jump to content

TMac on the Trade Table?

Lord Nev
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Can't say I agree.

We re-contracted Tom in 2018, his FA year when several clubs were pretty keen on him.  So the club had to go some way to meeting the market so I'm not overly critical of the $, especially if it was part of a back-ended deal (not saying it was). 

What concerned me more was the 4 years (apparently without triggers) knowing that he missed the first part of 2018 after double ankle surgery and had subsequently injured his toe. 

Yes LH thats was my concern 4 years 

 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    The deal I would be pushing is:

    Tom takes $100k drop

    We pay $250k

    New club pays $350k

    No use having him on the list and the above frees up $450k of our salary cap. For the recipient club it is a 2 year risk on minimum money just like us with KK and Bennell etc etc.

    For those saying why should Tom take a drop the answer is simple.At Melbourne he wont get a game and in two years his career is effectively finished.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    26 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    The deal I would be pushing is:

    Tom takes $100k drop

    We pay $250k

    New club pays $350k

    No use having him on the list and the above frees up $450k of our salary cap. For the recipient club it is a 2 year risk on minimum money just like us with KK and Bennell etc etc.

    For those saying why should Tom take a drop the answer is simple.At Melbourne he wont get a game and in two years his career is effectively finished.

    But surely his manager would be telling him not to drop the salary for that very reason?  Tom is a bright guy as far as footballers go so it's not like he won't have anything to do after footy - but the way he's played the last two years (largely due to injury) then he's not AFL standard so should be making the most of it as much as he can financially.

    I see other people say it's bad management to trade him after we've offered him the contract and that he's versatile and can play anywhere.  If he is in 2017/2018 form and fitness he is worth every cent of the contract - the fact that we are looking to trade him suggests to me that they don't believe he can get back to those levels of fitness.

  • Quote
    •  

    he won't drop any salary for the next two years

    i thought we might get away paying $200k per annum but it would appear that we'll have to pay closer to $300-350k if he's on upwards of $700k guaranteed a year

  • Quote
    6 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

    But surely his manager would be telling him not to drop the salary for that very reason?  Tom is a bright guy as far as footballers go so it's not like he won't have anything to do after footy - but the way he's played the last two years (largely due to injury) then he's not AFL standard so should be making the most of it as much as he can financially.

    He's only punting 200k of his own money that he continues his career under my formula.

    he still gets $1.2Modd and a chance to get one more contract.

    Stay at Melbourne and he most likely plays at Casey in 2021

    Edited by Diamond_Jim

  • Quote

    34 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    The deal I would be pushing is:

    Tom takes $100k drop

    We pay $250k

    New club pays $350k

    No use having him on the list and the above frees up $450k of our salary cap. For the recipient club it is a 2 year risk on minimum money just like us with KK and Bennell etc etc.

    For those saying why should Tom take a drop the answer is simple.At Melbourne he wont get a game and in two years his career is effectively finished.

    yep, at the age of 30

    can't see any reason why he would drop 2 x $100k = $200k

  • Quote
    58 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    yep, at the age of 30

    can't see any reason why he would drop 2 x $100k = $200k

    He would only do it if it got him a 3rd year.

    Ie drop to 3 × $600k, or 2x $600k + 1× $400k with incentives.

    Better off overall, better off tax wise, extends career when may be on the way out.

  • Quote
    5 hours ago, Kent said:

    Really is incompetence from DEES

    Don't think Club could believe how quickly Tom has degenerated in form and statistics inside 2 seasons.

    Hopefully a great Clubman like Tom can turn it around despite dodgy ankles and toes.

    Best scenario is he stays and can be depth or if he rediscovers his form then the forward spots open up and even ruck or defence. Speed is crucial in his Recovery  if he is to be  Useful and relevant this  season.

  • Quote
    •  
    9 minutes ago, 58er said:

    Don't think Club could believe how quickly Tom has degenerated in form and statistics inside 2 seasons.

    Hopefully a great Clubman like Tom can turn it around despite dodgy ankles and toes.

    Best scenario is he stays and can be depth or if he rediscovers his form then the forward spots open up and even ruck or defence. Speed is crucial in his Recovery  if he is to be  Useful and relevant this  season.

    Drop a bit more weight and work on acceleration and holding marks if he stays.

  • Quote
    25 minutes ago, deanox said:

    He would only do it if it got him a 3rd year.

    Ie drop to 3 × $600k, or 2x $600k + 1× $400k with incentives.

    Better off overall, better off tax wise, extends career when may be on the way out.

    tom getting a contract for $400k at age 31 would be long odds

    i'd take $200k in hand rather than risk a resurrection in 3 years time at $400k

    p.s. no tax savings - all amounts off the top at top tax rate either way (unless playing funny buggers with other planned losses)

    Edited by daisycutter

  • Quote

    2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    The deal I would be pushing is:

    Tom takes $100k drop

    We pay $250k

    New club pays $350k

    No use having him on the list and the above frees up $450k of our salary cap. For the recipient club it is a 2 year risk on minimum money just like us with KK and Bennell etc etc.

    For those saying why should Tom take a drop the answer is simple.At Melbourne he wont get a game and in two years his career is effectively finished.

    We're entitled to explore a paycut option, and you're right that a paycut for someone on $700k per year isn't disastrous.

    But his career is on track to finish at the end of this contract no matter what. He has a daughter, and to be perfectly honest he's entitled to the money we owe him on his contract.

    So if he doesn't take it and instead prefers to stay with us and try to break back into the best 22, that's his prerogative and we'll have to deal with it.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    48 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    tom getting a contract for $400k at age 31 would be long odds

    i'd take $200k in hand rather than risk a resurrection in 3 years time at $400k

    p.s. no tax savings - all amounts off the top at top tax rate either way (unless playing funny buggers with other planned losses)

    The tax saving for him is that if he moves 100k from year 1 and 2 into yr 3, that $200k starts in the lowest tax brackets again in the 3rd year, instead of being at the top bracket in year 1 and 2.. It would only be a benefit if he wasnt otherwise going to get a contract or income in yr 3. 

    If a player retires end of season and takes a few months off (ie doesnt earn any income from Nov-July) that last little pay packet could be quite tax effective vs a normal season. I imagine most earn something else though. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Poor Tom.

    Mind you i reckon Toms a better player than Wright.

    Essendon clutching at straws.

    Mind you if no one wants Tommy I'm happy we keep him.  Get fired up Tom come back fit and tear it up.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    7 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

    Poor Tom.

    Mind you i reckon Toms a better player than Wright.

    Essendon clutching at straws.

    Mind you if no one wants Tommy I'm happy we keep him.  Get fired up Tom come back fit and tear it up.

    I was speaking to a client today, mad Dees man, he’s following most of the Dees players on insta ( no not the scooter riding little guy) and he’s said it looks like while most of the others are travelling Tmac is just working to shed kgs. Insta, how wonderful lol.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    2 hours ago, 58er said:

    Don't think Club could believe how quickly Tom has degenerated in form and statistics inside 2 seasons.

    Hopefully a great Clubman like Tom can turn it around despite dodgy ankles and toes.

    Best scenario is he stays and can be depth or if he rediscovers his form then the forward spots open up and even ruck or defence. Speed is crucial in his Recovery  if he is to be  Useful and relevant this  season.

    It happened the moment we put all our eggs into the Tom/Weid basket, I remembered thinking when we traded Hogan (and we can argue that was going to happen regardless) that this is a big gamble to be saying we expect Tom to be able to perform that way year after year.

    Sadly it was a gamble that definitely has not paid off. 

    We also expected Weids development to shoot up in 2019, but that still hasn’t really happened (improved in 2020 but still not to the level we need him to be). 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    He's only punting 200k of his own money that he continues his career under my formula.

    he still gets $1.2Modd and a chance to get one more contract.

    Stay at Melbourne and he most likely plays at Casey in 2021

    If he is only capable of playing at Casey while at Melbourne then why would he be more capable at another club. If that is the level he has reduced to why would any other club want him?

  • Quote
    On 11/5/2020 at 3:27 PM, Ron Burgundy said:

    If we can’t trade him, I agree.

    Then we can have Lever as the third tall where he can focus on intercept marking.

     

    That looks like the plan to me, as well. He is not trade bait until he regains form. Heavy summer of medical reviews and treatments may well see his form return. At least, his form as a CHB - he knows that game rather well. Fingers crossed. 

  • Quote
    6 hours ago, Redleg said:

    Are you seriously suggesting that Tom could play wing in 2021? Wow!

    Was about to post the same thing when I saw your post.

    Very strange suggestion.

  • Quote

    30 minutes ago, old dee said:

    If he is only capable of playing at Casey while at Melbourne then why would he be more capable at another club. If that is the level he has reduced to why would any other club want him?

    My reasoning is that he sits behind Weid, Ben Brown and Jackson at MFC as far as forwards go plus arguably Fritsch.

    Similarly no room in the backline and his game style even when fit probably doesn't suit the present gameplan.

    In another team he might not have as many players in front of him. North for example.

    Still haven't heard anyone mention the contract term for Ben Brown. At $550k a year sounds good but hopefully only three years.

  • Quote
    7 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    My reasoning is that he sits behind Weid, Ben Brown and Jackson at MFC as far as forwards go plus arguably Fritsch.

    Similarly no room in the backline and his game style even when fit probably doesn't suit the present gameplan.

    In another team he might not have as many players in front of him. North for example.

    Still haven't heard anyone mention the contract term for Ben Brown. At $550k a year sounds good but hopefully only three years.

    If North wanted to do that then they would have kept Brown rather than bring in Tommy.

  • Quote
    1 minute ago, rjay said:

    If North wanted to do that then they would have kept Brown rather than bring in Tommy.

    at $350k they might be happy to take a chance.

    Let's face it he's now a fringe project player at best.

  • Quote
    •  
    17 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    at $350k they might be happy to take a chance.

    Let's face it he's now a fringe project player at best.

    North have indicated they’re not interested in Tom.

  • Quote
    34 minutes ago, Blistering said:

    North have indicated they’re not interested in Tom.

    surely there is someone who'll take him at a bargain price.

     

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 25 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 232 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All