TMac on the Trade Table?

[old55 21,375]

26 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Any club will want the MFC to pick up 20-30% of his contract, I can't see that happening MFC paying him 150-200K a year plus getting what would be at best a third round pick for him, unless we really want him out of the club or he really wants to leave, if it is he wants to leave we should be able to say no worries but we need to re-negotiate your contract so we aren't picking up a fair whack if he moves.

We would if we wanted to spend the 70-80% saving on another player.

[Grouse 188]

I still have flashbacks to Shane woewodin ripping us apart against the pies, while we paid a large chunck of his wages. Any thought of continuing to pay tmac who will be opposition is off the table for me. I'd rather roll the dice with him than pay him for someone else. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Grouse

[Young Blood 2,036]

I still think this is the right move. Its the aggressive risk we need to take.

Even before this year Tmac was never a mobile player. He's always been limited in this capacity. We used to moan about his kicking as a key back especially when under pressure or kicking on an angle. I feel some of his deficiencies have been masked when he moved forward and are now made to look worse with his body changes.

He has always been a steady straight line kick, a good mark and reader or the ball along with his endurance all being his greatest strengths. This translated perfectly to set him up as a second tall forward option. Alongside an in form Hogan and Weid he looked terrific. There was definitely some continuity to his game but I think everything was clicking in terms of positioning and delivery.

This year you could see he put on significant upper body size and weight with the idea of playing as the deeper forward. It didn't work. He became slow, sluggish and it further reduced his already limited capacity of mobility with ball in hand.

I don't think we're going to get another 2018 Tmac out of him. I think the club knows it and required more from the position.

Going after Brown makes the most sense. He and Tom are similar yes but Brown as the second tall to Weid is a much better option IMO. I feel his attack on the ball and defensive pressure it pretty underrated and if he's taking the other sides second best tall defender at times I think he will perform consistently.

[Binmans PA 26,263]

2 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

If Tmac can get his mobility back and some confidence i am still completely confident he can be a good player at AFL level for us. 

if he goes, i'd only allow that to happen if we got something worthwhile in return. 

pick 78 wouldn't cut it, would rather keep him and back him to find form

I'd be happy with pick 78 if we didn't have to pay any of the remaining contract.

[Axis of Bob 10,261]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

I still have flashbacks to Shane woewodin ripping us apart against the pies, while we paid a large chunck of his wages. 

Shane Woewodin vs Melbourne (2003-2005):

3 games (1W-2L), 17 possessions per game, 0 goals, 0 Brownlow votes.

His best game was the first game back, which was a behemoth 22 possession masterpiece in a game Collingwood won by 10 goals. Unluckily overshadowed for a Brownlow vote by approximately 9 other players, one of whom was Simon Godfrey. 

We were put to the sword.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Axis of Bob
But I understand your point. You're right, paying for a player to play against you sucks.

[titan_uranus 22,516]

18 hours ago, Skuit said:

Question. I'm confused by this notion that clubs would be scared off by his salary. A club brings him in and they would negotiate a new contract, right? Maybe we pay a portion to satisfy all parties as best as possible - but failing that he stays at Melbourne as an outsider and doesn't get a game. I know this isn't ideal for us - but if he's grumpy and wants out he can take a pay-cut. Like employment decisions normal people have to make. 

In theory, probably (assuming the CBA doesn't prevent it).

But think about it in reality. We're not talking $5,000 or $10,000. We're talking $100,000+ over two years. So what you're suggesting is that he give up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

AFL careers are finite. He only gets one chance to capitalise on his ability to play AFL football, and he now has a family to think about. I'm not suggesting living on $500,000+ salaries is hard, but I don't know Tom and I don't know what lies ahead for him once his AFL career is over.

He may also feel like/know that if he stays, we won't be able to afford any of the other key forwards on the market, which in turn will force our hand and he'll be in with every chance to be our starting FF in Round 1. Remember, at the moment the impetus appears to be the club looking to trade him, not Tom wanting to walk out on us.

So if ultimately he doesn't want to take a pay-cut, I'll completely understand.

[Skuit 9,264]

6 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

In theory, probably (assuming the CBA doesn't prevent it).

But think about it in reality. We're not talking $5,000 or $10,000. We're talking $100,000+ over two years. So what you're suggesting is that he give up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

AFL careers are finite. He only gets one chance to capitalise on his ability to play AFL football, and he now has a family to think about. I'm not suggesting living on $500,000+ salaries is hard, but I don't know Tom and I don't know what lies ahead for him once his AFL career is over.

He may also feel like/know that if he stays, we won't be able to afford any of the other key forwards on the market, which in turn will force our hand and he'll be in with every chance to be our starting FF in Round 1. Remember, at the moment the impetus appears to be the club looking to trade him, not Tom wanting to walk out on us.

So if ultimately he doesn't want to take a pay-cut, I'll completely understand.

Yep - all this is fair, except that I get the impression Tom wants to leave. Also while the lost $$$ are huge, not so much as a %. He also seems one of the most likely on our list to be able to forge a post-footy career outside of the industry. I accept that while my values aren't necessarily the same as those of others, I'd like to think I wouldn't care less if I was earning $650,000 or $500,000 if it was a matter of job satisfaction. Anyway, I know there are serious disadvantages to us if we play too hard. 

[monoccular 16,189]

1 hour ago, Yung Blood said:

I still think this is the right move. Its the aggressive risk we need to take.

Even before this year Tmac was never a mobile player. He's always been limited in this capacity. We used to moan about his kicking as a key back especially when under pressure or kicking on an angle. I feel some of his deficiencies have been masked when he moved forward and are now made to look worse with his body changes.

He has always been a steady straight line kick, a good mark and reader or the ball along with his endurance all being his greatest strengths. This translated perfectly to set him up as a second tall forward option. Alongside an in form Hogan and Weid he looked terrific. There was definitely some continuity to his game but I think everything was clicking in terms of positioning and delivery.

This year you could see he put on significant upper body size and weight with the idea of playing as the deeper forward. It didn't work. He became slow, sluggish and it further reduced his already limited capacity of mobility with ball in hand.

I don't think we're going to get another 2018 Tmac out of him. I think the club knows it and required more from the position.

Going after Brown makes the most sense. He and Tom are similar yes but Brown as the second tall to Weid is a much better option IMO. I feel his attack on the ball and defensive pressure it pretty underrated and if he's taking the other sides second best tall defender at times I think he will perform consistently.

As I recall, in 2018 Hogan was missing for much of the business end of the season, when Tom played his most valuable football of his career, and Weed had a few good performances but could hardly have been called “in form” when Tom was at his best.

What I feel we need before making any moves, and any sensible suitor would do the same, is to get a full evaluation of his injury and fitness status.

His best was very good, inspirational at times, and if the assessment is that whatever ails him is recoverable, them why move him on.   If not, then would anyone want him anyway?

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by monoccular

[Rogue 585]

8 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Yep - all this is fair, except that I get the impression Tom wants to leave. Also while the lost $$$ are huge, not so much as a %. He also seems one of the most likely on our list to be able to forge a post-footy career outside of the industry. I accept that while my values aren't necessarily the same as those of others, I'd like to think I wouldn't care less if I was earning $650,000 or $500,000 if it was a matter of job satisfaction. Anyway, I know there are serious disadvantages to us if we play too hard. 

Fair call re: values, but most AFL players are starting from near scratch when they leave footy, and almost all will never earn anywhere near the same amount of money - not even in the same ball park. I think that's got to be taken into consideration.

That said, if you're earning big coin for quite a few years of a 10+ year contract you could very easily have a nest egg that would give you say 50K p/a indefinitely.

Out of interest, what makes you think Tom is one of the most likely to forge a post-footy career outside of footy?

[Roost it far 6,235]

Keep

[binman 38,592]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

C'mon binman, Watts was a no hoper. Guys like that who see footy as a hobby rather than a profession are locker room cancers. He had 10 years to prove his worth here and has subsequently retired without firing a shot at Port. Good luck to him it seems he got what he wanted out of footy but the club was right to move him on if anything they probably did so too late in the piece.

At the risk of going over old ground, i disagreed with the goody's decision to trade jack and even with the benefit of hindsight i still think it was a mistake.

The gist of my argument was (and remains):

• We were (and remain) a woeful kicking side, at a point in time where it has never been more critical and he was by far out best user of the football (and still would be)
• Makes zero sense to trade a player that helps address our biggest weakness - our appalling kicking
• Jack was by far our best 'assist' and last kick inside 50 player , so again it makes zero sense to trade a player that plays such an important role in the team - it is no coincidence that since he left we have ongoing 'connection' issues with our forwards
• The idea that was oft floated at the time that fritter adequately addressed the issues noted above was a furphy - we still could have drafted fritter and and had two decent kicks in our forward line (though it has become apparent fritter aint in Jack's class when it comes to kicking) 
• Sure jack was not never as physically committed to the contest as he could/should have been and sure he had a reputation as bit of a party boy but every great team has such players
• Every great coach finds a way to get the best out of super skilled, but perhaps not 100% committed players, when required - it is no coincidence Jack's best season at the dees came under Roos, a coach famous for his ability to harness the talent of different cats
• You don't need a team full of jack viney's, myopic, driven players who want to run though walls - and history has shown that goody's desire to build such a team has put us well behind the eight ball
• And i question how strong a teams culture really is if it can't manage to incorporate players with different approaches and mindsets  
• In any case Jack was by all accounts a pretty good trainer and barely missed any game though injury, which suggests he looked after himself pretty well and had the required professionalism  (questions over his 2017 rehab notwithstanding)
• Jack was a heart and soul player and his team mates loved him as did most fans - beware unintended consequences trading such players 
• All that said I fully acknowledge i have no idea what was happening behind the scenes or the factors that drove goody's decision (though I'll hasten to add most others don't either, despite all the gossip and assumed knowledge) and i fully respect his decision, as evidenced by the fact i have not banged on about it (much) since or bagged goody for it

Leaving aside all of the above my response 'not in my opinion' was only in part about the merits of the decision to trade jack.

It was as much about the flawed logic, in my view, of the idea his time at Port is proof we made the right call.

The fact is we will never know what might have happened if Goody had stuck with Jack. Who knows he may have found a way of getting the best out of jack, just as his mentor, Roos, had.

After all the best coaches get the best out of their players. And it is worth noting that jack was playing some pretty good footy in 2019 under Hinkley off the half back line (including a terrific game that helped bury our 2019 season) before his terrible injury.

By the by same applies to Hoges - another player who was apparently a party boy and was accused of being bad for the culture (and another player who I'd love to be still at the dees as, like jack, he has a skill set we are in desperate need of). His travails at freo are not proof we made the right call to get rid of him.

Edited October 14, 2020 by binman

[whatwhat say what 19,145]

watts was dropped to the vfl / sanfl by every senior coach he had

he wasn't good enough

move on

[Turner 1,482]

20 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

It seems such a sharp U-turn from just a week ago when he was slimming down to win his spot back, that I tend to agree.

Brown, or another forward (are there any on the table?) must on their way to us.

20 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Has always wanted out, but there's been minimal interest; so hard to move on when that's the case.

19 hours ago, Pates said:

But it does also seem like there's a fracture in the relationship between club and player, he's been taken over by Wied and LJ, and in the games he's played he has shown little to give us confidence of a return to form. It could well be that a change of club could be a good thing for him, and moving him on will free up our salary cap.

the public twitter spat in defence of his brother and the whipping he cops and maybe even the treatment from coaches towards Oscar probably played a part in this and as was the case last year when Cwags i believe only earnt a new deal with us coz Josh did i think that for one to stay and one go is an awkward situation and it leaves the stayer feeling bitter. therefore a clean split for both is necessary. 

7 hours ago, BW511 said:

From a football perspective, I think we would be very happy if Tom went across to Collingwood and shifted down back again.

i'd be devastated tho if he found some proper AA type form form a few years back down there because we had the player and the need to make that change this season and we should have taken the opportunity and held our hands up and been like we got it wrong, he's a defender. but now that the seasons over i think we need to take the chance to shift him free up what we can rather than continue to overpay him and see his value drop even further

[Skuit 9,264]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

Out of interest, what makes you think Tom is one of the most likely to forge a post-footy career outside of footy?

Mature, educated and well-spoken with interests outside of footy. 

[monoccular 16,189]

1 hour ago, binman said:

At the risk of going over old ground, i disagreed with the goody's decision to trade jack and even with the benefit of hindsight i still think it was a mistake.

The gist of my argument was (and remains):

• We were (and remain) a woeful kicking side, at a point in time where it has never been more critical and he was by far out best user of the football (and still would be)
• Makes zero sense to trade a player that helps address our biggest weakness - our appalling kicking
• Jack was by far our best 'assist' and last kick inside 50 player , so again it makes zero sense to trade a player that plays such an important role in the team - it is no coincidence that since he left we have ongoing 'connection' issues with our forwards
• The idea that was oft floated at the time that fritter adequately addressed the issues noted above was a furphy - we still could have drafted fritter and and had two decent kicks in our forward line (though it has become apparent fritter aint in Jack's class when it comes to kicking) 
• Sure jack was not never as physically committed to the contest as he could/should have been and sure he had a reputation as bit of a party boy but every great team has such players
• Every great coach finds a way to get the best out of super skilled, but perhaps not 100% committed players, when required - it is no coincidence Jack's best season at the dees came under Roos, a coach famous for his ability to harness the talent of different cats
• You don't need a team full of jack viney's, myopic, driven players who want to run though walls - and history has shown that goody's desire to build such a team has put us well behind the eight ball
• And i question how strong a teams culture really is if it can't manage to incorporate players with different approaches and mindsets  
• In any case Jack was by all accounts a pretty good trainer and barely missed any game though injury, which suggests he looked after himself pretty well and had the required professionalism  (questions over his 2017 rehab notwithstanding)
• Jack was a heart and soul player and his team mates loved him as did most fans - beware unintended consequences trading such players 
• All that said I fully acknowledge i have no idea what was happening behind the scenes or the factors that drove goody's decision (though I'll hasten to add most others don't either, despite all the gossip and assumed knowledge) and i fully respect his decision, as evidenced by the fact i have not banged on about it (much) since or bagged goody for it

Leaving aside all of the above my response 'not in my opinion' was only in part about the merits of the decision to trade jack.

It was as much about the flawed logic, in my view, of the idea his time at Port is proof we made the right call.

The fact is we will never know what might have happened if Goody had stuck with Jack. Who knows he may have found a way of getting the best out of jack, just as his mentor, Roos, had.

After all the best coaches get the best out of their players. And it is worth noting that jack was playing some pretty good footy in 2019 under Hinkley off the half back line (including a terrific game that helped bury our 2019 season) before his terrible injury.

By the by same applies to Hoges - another player who was apparently a party boy and was accused of being bad for the culture (and another player who I'd love to be still at the dees as, like jack, he has a skill set we are in desperate need of). His travails at freo are not proof we made the right call to get rid of him.

As a matter of interest, do you think that it is the coach alone who makes decisions about moving players on?

[binman 38,592]

19 minutes ago, monoccular said:

As a matter of interest, do you think that it is the coach alone who makes decisions about moving players on?

Each club would be different, but as general rule no.

That said i think goody made it clear with jack it was his call. And i suspect a driver was him making a statement about his minimum standards, the sort of players he wanted in his team - hard at it, uncompromising players who never shirked a contest - and the culute he wanted to build at the club. 

And as i said at the time i totally respect goody's call. Don't agree with it, but respect his right to make it. And i fully get the argument then and now why it was the right call.

On a related note i find it hard to square the decision to trade jack on cultural grounds with the decision to not only continue to select Melksham this season but have him be a stand in captain in the crows game. Barely laid a tackle all season, shirked contests all season (can barely recall one hard at contest and certainly can think of at least 5 where he pulled out) and showed zero on field leadership. 

[Captain Todd 167]

TMac had a poor year, injuries. Keep him, he is Melbourne through and through.

Love his effort and accuracy and professionality. He clunks marks when needed. 

Just remember when he was fit in the forward line with Hogan in 2018. Kicking 50 goals in a season is not common any more.

[defuture15 846]

I think the case with JW was that we wanted him to be a johnathan Brown key forward but that wasn't Jack's go. We didn't develop him at all well. A naturally skilled footballer.

Edited October 14, 2020 by defuture15

[TRIGON 4,719]

7 minutes ago, binman said:

On a related note i find it hard to square the decision to trade jack on cultural grounds with the decision to not only continue to select Melksham this season but have him be a stand in captain in the crows game. Barely laid a tackle all season, shirked contests all season (can barely recall one hard at contest and certainly can think of at least 5 where he pulled out) and showed zero on field leadership. 

Melksham's USB has 'the missing Essendon spreadsheet' and it was created by Goodwin?

[BAMF 3,787]

7 hours ago, sue said:

Just want to congratulate you on the bolded phrase.  I am so sick of commentators saying 'he marks the ball at its highest point' when what they actually mean is what you wrote. 

I am with you here Sue.

Another one that really gets to me is the 'Underground handball'

Underground. Ffs. The ball has gone under the ground, created a tunnel and popped back up to a player.

[monoccular 16,189]

3 hours ago, defuture15 said:

I think the case with JW was that we wanted him to be a johnathan Brown key forward but that wasn't Jack's go. We didn't develop him at all well. A naturally skilled footballer.

I am sure everyone knew from day zero that JW was never ever going to be a "beast" along the Jon Brown lines.  

Not that type of body or persona.   So that element was not lack of development on the part of the club.

[picket fence 15,301]

5 hours ago, binman said:

At the risk of going over old ground, i disagreed with the goody's decision to trade jack and even with the benefit of hindsight i still think it was a mistake.

The gist of my argument was (and remains):

• We were (and remain) a woeful kicking side, at a point in time where it has never been more critical and he was by far out best user of the football (and still would be)
• Makes zero sense to trade a player that helps address our biggest weakness - our appalling kicking
• Jack was by far our best 'assist' and last kick inside 50 player , so again it makes zero sense to trade a player that plays such an important role in the team - it is no coincidence that since he left we have ongoing 'connection' issues with our forwards
• The idea that was oft floated at the time that fritter adequately addressed the issues noted above was a furphy - we still could have drafted fritter and and had two decent kicks in our forward line (though it has become apparent fritter aint in Jack's class when it comes to kicking) 
• Sure jack was not never as physically committed to the contest as he could/should have been and sure he had a reputation as bit of a party boy but every great team has such players
• Every great coach finds a way to get the best out of super skilled, but perhaps not 100% committed players, when required - it is no coincidence Jack's best season at the dees came under Roos, a coach famous for his ability to harness the talent of different cats
• You don't need a team full of jack viney's, myopic, driven players who want to run though walls - and history has shown that goody's desire to build such a team has put us well behind the eight ball
• And i question how strong a teams culture really is if it can't manage to incorporate players with different approaches and mindsets  
• In any case Jack was by all accounts a pretty good trainer and barely missed any game though injury, which suggests he looked after himself pretty well and had the required professionalism  (questions over his 2017 rehab notwithstanding)
• Jack was a heart and soul player and his team mates loved him as did most fans - beware unintended consequences trading such players 
• All that said I fully acknowledge i have no idea what was happening behind the scenes or the factors that drove goody's decision (though I'll hasten to add most others don't either, despite all the gossip and assumed knowledge) and i fully respect his decision, as evidenced by the fact i have not banged on about it (much) since or bagged goody for it

Leaving aside all of the above my response 'not in my opinion' was only in part about the merits of the decision to trade jack.

It was as much about the flawed logic, in my view, of the idea his time at Port is proof we made the right call.

The fact is we will never know what might have happened if Goody had stuck with Jack. Who knows he may have found a way of getting the best out of jack, just as his mentor, Roos, had.

After all the best coaches get the best out of their players. And it is worth noting that jack was playing some pretty good footy in 2019 under Hinkley off the half back line (including a terrific game that helped bury our 2019 season) before his terrible injury.

By the by same applies to Hoges - another player who was apparently a party boy and was accused of being bad for the culture (and another player who I'd love to be still at the dees as, like jack, he has a skill set we are in desperate need of). His travails at freo are not proof we made the right call to get rid of him.

Agree MASSIVE FAILS in Goodwins Tenure!

[picket fence 15,301]

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

As a matter of interest, do you think that it is the coach alone who makes decisions about moving players on?

Oh God now you are sounding like Dan apologists! Of Course Simon Says!!

[Grouse 188]

7 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Shane Woewodin vs Melbourne (2003-2005):

3 games (1W-2L), 17 possessions per game, 0 goals, 0 Brownlow votes.

His best game was the first game back, which was a behemoth 22 possession masterpiece in a game Collingwood won by 10 goals. Unluckily overshadowed for a Brownlow vote by approximately 9 other players, one of whom was Simon Godfrey. 

We were put to the sword.

OK. But those 22 possessions felt like 40. Compounded by the fact we were paying. And that it was Collingwood. I couldn't handle a repeat. 

[DeeZee 6,776]

Collingwood apparently making some inquiries about TMac