I like him.

 

Not best 22 though.

 

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

So if the list is turning over so much next year then why not get a head start on looking for players to fill those spots now?

The list didn’t turn over last year and now hasn’t this year. So for 2 years we’ve been kicking it down the road. If we didn’t keep the Wagnii we could’ve had a better replacement for them in hand.

Free agents. More Tomlinson and Byrnes? Great!  No first round pick either.

I’m hardly a Hunt and I’m surprised we gave him 2 years, who else wanted him? But at least he has raw speed and age still on his side. If he did put it together he’d be a player. I’d rather gamble on upside that keep a player who won’t perform against good opposition and is a long way down the order. 

I don’t think anyone was saying you were DS.

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Not best 22 though.

 

no, ron, but deespenser seems to think that everyone on a 44 player list should be best 22 (and never take chest marks) :)

On 11/18/2020 at 4:39 PM, DeeSpencer said:

10 replies and all of them positive. You're all nuts.

He was picked twice and dropped twice before he was picked a 3rd time and the season finished  before he had time to be dropped again.

He's soft. He doesn't do the number 1 non negotiable for any key forward which is to bring the ball to ground. He doesn't defend either. He will lead up and take nothing marks on the wing but that's not a key forwards job and it means he's not where we need a big man which is competing for long kicks.

Ben Brown, Weid, Jackson and even Petty should all be ahead of him. Which means he's 5th in line, a position we could easily cover with Tom McDonald if things get that desperate, which is very unlikely.

We'll get to the end of the season and he'll retire after maybe 2-5 meaningless games if we have a terrible run with injury and everyone will wonder why we don't have the right depth of outside runners or skilled flanker types. And this is why. We're just burning through list spots on nothing footballers rather than churning the list looking for that diamond in the rough. 

You are really becoming a negative so and so.

I like him no star but he can give us some back up when times get tough. He deserves to be on the list and 1 more year won't hurt hard to see him get another year though.

13 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

We aren’t turning the list over and it’s just killing our 15-25 depth by not finding more guys. Instead we have these guys who are 30-35 battlers just wasting space. 

Agree with this. We are anything but ruthless when it comes to list management. One of M. Brown or TMac should have gone when we knew B. Brown was coming.

Id assume if we got Phillips Brown wouldn't be around, however unless another mature ruck drops outta the sky Brown is forward/back/ruck insurance??? But behind Tmac in same role so still questions.

4 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Agree with this. We are anything but ruthless when it comes to list management. One of M. Brown or TMac should have gone when we knew B. Brown was coming.

We tried to trade TMac out.  No takers...so how do you move him on then?

The list management dilemma is: is M.Brown probably better than pick 69 in a compromised draft?  Because that is what becomes the option if we were to delist him.  We have certainty about Brown, not about such a low pick, and if that pick fails, we have to keep him on the list for 2 years. 

11 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

A nice pick up with a mid 2nd round pick. Why hasn’t Jason Taylor been given a serious chance with the rookie draft and a good deep haul of picks for years now?

He can find more Harmes’ and Vanders but we won’t give him the picks. Instead it’s Mitch Brown’s 

#LetJTcook 

The inference from your post is that Taylor has had to do his job with one hand tied behind his back.

Isn't the alternative possible? Wouldn't Taylor be consulted on list management decisions and if he believes he can do better with the rookie draft and a "good deep haul of picks" than the trading strategy we've used, wouldn't his opinion carry some weight? Do we know he's not consulted, or, if he is, that he's ignored as you seem to imply?

 

31 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

We tried to trade TMac out.  No takers...so how do you move him on then?

The list management dilemma is: is M.Brown probably better than pick 69 in a compromised draft?  Because that is what becomes the option if we were to delist him.  We have certainty about Brown, not about such a low pick, and if that pick fails, we have to keep him on the list for 2 years. 

Yep, George I get this but from a list management postion we have M Brown, B Brown, tMac, Weed, Jackson and Petty as tall forwards. You can probably only play two at a time in this day and age, even though TMac and Petty can be tall back reserves and Jackson can ruck for short periods. How many tall forward reserves can stay before it starts impacting your list? We need flankers with skills. I'd rather take the punt with a diamond in the rough and lessen your salary cap than keep six guys fighting for two spots...

 

Edited November 19, 20204 yr by dee-tox

12 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Yep, George I get this but from a list management postion we have M Brown, B Brown, tMac, Weed, Jackson and Petty as tall forwards. You can probably only play two at a time in this day and age, even though TMac and Petty can be tall back reserves and Jackson can ruck for short periods. How many tall forward reserves can stay before it starts impacting your list? We need flankers with skills. I'd rather take the punt with a diamond in the rough and lessen your salary cap than keep six guys fighting for two spots...

 

yep Detox

You assume of course that TMac and Petty will come back 

That, at this point, is purely conjecture in my opinion

There is currently only hope that TMac and Petty will figure next year

If you are sure that they will that's great,but for me, I would rather assume the worst and as the club has continue with Mitch as a back up

Makes sense to me!!

50 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Yep, George I get this but from a list management postion we have M Brown, B Brown, tMac, Weed, Jackson and Petty as tall forwards. You can probably only play two at a time in this day and age, even though TMac and Petty can be tall back reserves and Jackson can ruck for short periods. How many tall forward reserves can stay before it starts impacting your list? We need flankers with skills. I'd rather take the punt with a diamond in the rough and lessen your salary cap than keep six guys fighting for two spots...

 

You're presuming that the likes of McDonald and Petty are only playing forward.  I'd be very surprised if TMc in particular doesn't spend all of the preseason with the backs, and Petty might just do the same.

And with regards lessening the salary cap - Mitch Brown would be costing us bugger all.  Him being on our list isn't impacting much at all.

On 11/19/2020 at 6:01 AM, Radar Detector said:

Seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I agree with much of this. I think Mitch Brown has played a role when required but with Ben Brown coming in and TMac staying, I expected him to be an immediate delist. That he isn’t means that we have one less place for a runner which is even more significant in a year of declining list spots.
 

Personally, I find the fact that we couldn’t find a spot for Tom Phillips but are holding onto this type of player totally baffling.

Do you know that we didn't make a play for Phillips?  Maybe Tom didn't want to come to us.  Maybe we looked at his salary and thought that we could find better value through the draft this year.  Maybe we are happy to use 2021 to see how the likes of Baker, Rivers, Sparrow, Jordan, Hore and Neita come on.

I find it baffling when people get baffled by list management decisions that they have no idea about.

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

 

And with regards lessening the salary cap - Mitch Brown would be costing us bugger all.  Him being on our list isn't impacting much at all.

Fair enough and good points raised but even 200 k can make a difference in overall salary cap. We need to keep Oliver, Petracca, etc next year...

M. Brown is maybe on 300k?

In tMac's case he is reported to be on 700k. 

There is money to be saved. It all adds up.

2 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Yep, George I get this but from a list management postion we have M Brown, B Brown, tMac, Weed, Jackson and Petty as tall forwards. You can probably only play two at a time in this day and age, even though TMac and Petty can be tall back reserves and Jackson can ruck for short periods. How many tall forward reserves can stay before it starts impacting your list? We need flankers with skills. I'd rather take the punt with a diamond in the rough and lessen your salary cap than keep six guys fighting for two spots...

idk why everyone is so outraged by keeping mbrown, petty is absolutely going back next year potentially tmac too and tomlinson back to a wing over pre season and into the opening month. and if we delist mbrown we're going to have to draft a mature ruck anyway so we may as well follow the st kilda model of playing two flexible ruck/forwards instead particularly bcoz we need to manage jacksons load in the ruck

19 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Fair enough and good points raised but even 200 k can make a difference in overall salary cap. We need to keep Oliver, Petracca, etc next year...

M. Brown is maybe on 300k?

In tMac's case he is reported to be on 700k. 

There is money to be saved. It all adds up.

Which top-line players have we lost because of Brown's 1 year extension?  Their salary, as well as Brown's, has already been worked out for 2021.  It's a non issue.

They tried to save money by offering TMc up, but there was no interest in him.  And it's actually got nothing to do with the fors/againsts of re-signing Brown.

 

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

We tried to trade TMac out.  No takers...so how do you move him on then?

The list management dilemma is: is M.Brown probably better than pick 69 in a compromised draft?  Because that is what becomes the option if we were to delist him.  We have certainty about Brown, not about such a low pick, and if that pick fails, we have to keep him on the list for 2 years. 

Brown is a rookie, we can replace him with a player on a 1 year deal 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The inference from your post is that Taylor has had to do his job with one hand tied behind his back.

Isn't the alternative possible? Wouldn't Taylor be consulted on list management decisions and if he believes he can do better with the rookie draft and a "good deep haul of picks" than the trading strategy we've used, wouldn't his opinion carry some weight? Do we know he's not consulted, or, if he is, that he's ignored as you seem to imply?

 

Valid point. Taylor has spoken in year previous about the depths of various drafts. But he was at the Pies when they nailed some rookie picks. The Tigers recent run has come from some great rookie finds.

At this stage he went 3 from 3 on top picks last year and at this stage he’s looking at taking 3 of 4 solid picks in this draft. 
 

Ben Brown nearly got on the Pies list before he played in the VFL. Fritsch and Lockhart were bought to Casey for a reason. Same with big Oscar McInerny. JT would have a deep list of high upside prospects, I want to see more dice rolls 

I generally agree with @DeeSpencer it seems a waste of a list spot keeping Mitch Brown on.  We've brought on Ben Brown, exited OMac, retained TMac and hopefully Petty is fit.  Mitch Brown seems superfluous and if we're relying on him we'll already be in hard place.

Unless they plan on trying to use him as ruck back-up which would be a big ask as @Hannibal Inc. has pointed out - he's a long way off being competitive.  I'd prefer we rookie listed some genuine State league ruck back-up.

The other factor that we don't have insight into is the player dynamics off-field - as a mature head he may be a steady, calming, advisory influence who pays his way off-field at a cheap price a la Jetts and Jones.

In that light for me it's not that big of a deal and definitely not evidence of a cultural deficit at the club.  Look TMac's and OMac's response to being open for trade and delisted - they both commented that the club was very supportive and professional - that's 100x more culturally important than ruthlessly cutting player number 35 on the list.

I think experienced depth players like Mitch Brown are worth retaining on minimum wages. Particularly as we don't know the length of the season yet and there are question marks over the fitness of Petty and TMac. Our KPP and ruck depth is Gawn, Jackson, Ben Brown, TMac, Weideman, May, Lever, Petty and Mitch Brown. Plus potentially Bradtke and Tomlinson and Hore and Smith. That doesn't seem excessive for 6-7 spots in the 22, albeit we may draft more.

Don't mind Mitch, like most on here I don't think he'll play much unless we cop injuries but he's a good depth option to have for another season. You have to admire a guy who is willing to bust himself for another gruelling pre-season and potentially play one of the toughest sports in the world for not much money...what would he be on, $80-90K base? Would be about the lowest paid 30 year old in the comp.

On 11/19/2020 at 8:14 AM, drysdale demon said:

the opposite to a big majority.

I would play Mitch Brown any day of the week in front of Melksham!!

22 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Not best 22 though.

 

Name your 22 for the exercise. If Tmac is out someone is in right? And Petty is injured and the jury is out on Weiderman.
So why not keep Mitch for insurance

On 11/19/2020 at 8:18 PM, loges said:

Did the ball get to full forward?

My point exactly. He should have moved himself into the midfield or defense and taken on some responsibility as captain, rather than hide in the forward line

Has this been announced? Didn’t see anything on the club website