7 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

It's funny you know. 

I remember how many posters were up in arms on this forum nearly a decade ago about the potential of losing James Frawley (of all players) to Free Agency. 

Many didn't want to lose him. For the exact same fear that many hold for losing Brayshaw now. Who hilariously happens to be the compensation we received for losing James Frawley.

We're in a completely different situation now.

There is no comparison.

Is he worth a Nos 1 pick?

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I get where you're coming from, and I won't bother writing a whole long thing, but my short version is:

- Draft picks are no guarantee of a gun player.

- Our window is now. Right now. A bunch of our key players only have a couple of years left. I'd be worried about the period between when they finish and when these draft pick players come through.

There's 'possibilities' in many directions with draft picks.

All I'd say is that your fear is getting the better of you. 

- Draft picks are no guarantee of a gun player. But two top 10 picks, one in the top 5 is as close as you're going to get as a guaranteed gun player with our recruiting team. 

- Our windrow is right now. But I want our window to be there in 5 years too. And 10. That's how you build the opportunity for sustained-success through list management. I'd rather have a slight dip one year and then be back up for another few rather than have to completely bottom once our core get into their thirties. 

This is especially true if we're planning to compete with the biggest Melbourne clubs, largest membership bases, try and attract the biggest name sponsors, grow our training base etc etc. 

All of that will only come with staying ahead of the pack and consistently featuring in finals over a long period. Not just three-five years. 

We've got a lot of catching up to do as a club. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

We're in a completely different situation now.

There is no comparison.

Of course there's a comparison. 

People are scared of losing a player because nobody can see the potential that'll be born from it and the Frawley example is perfect. 

That's the comparison. 

I get the compensation won't be the same, but a list spot opens up, we'll have endless potential for trading, moving up the draft order with pick swapping, etc etc. 

We'll be fine. We're in safe hands. 

 

Edited May 16, 20222 yr by JimmyGadson

Was there anything in the fact that they let Jackson lead the team off last night, they all waited for him? Do they know something we dont?

24 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

It's funny you know. 

I remember how many posters were up in arms on this forum nearly a decade ago about the potential of losing James Frawley (of all players) to Free Agency. 

Many didn't want to lose him. For the exact same fear that many hold for losing Brayshaw now. Who hilariously happens to be the compensation we received for losing James Frawley. 

 

Very different scenario - Frawley wanted to move from a basket case to a flag favourite: Jackson to WCE would be exact opposite.

8 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Of course there's a comparison. 

People are scared of losing a player because nobody can see the potential that'll be born from it and the Frawley example is perfect. 

That's the comparison. 

I get the compensation won't be the same, but a list spot opens up, we'll have endless potential for trading, moving up the draft order with pick swapping, etc etc. 

We'll be fine. We're in safe hands. 

 

Completely different mate.

Frawley left a bin fire of a club as a free agent at age 26. We were in desperate need of draft currency to facilitate a rebuild.

Jackson is a 20 year old in a team firmly in a premiership window and absolutely not in desperate need of high draft picks at the moment.

I mean, I'm not saying it's a complete disaster if we lose Jackson, but I firmly believe we're far better placed for success if we manage to keep him around, particularly given Gawn, May, TMac and Brown would only have a couple of years left.

11 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Of course there's a comparison. 

People are scared of losing a player because nobody can see the potential that'll be born from it and the Frawley example is perfect. 

That's the comparison. 

I get the compensation won't be the same, but a list spot opens up, we'll have endless potential for trading, moving up the draft order with pick swapping, etc etc. 

We'll be fine. We're in safe hands. 

 

You underestimate what Jackson does, the Template is fine, but Jackson can be a Core player for 10 years. The reason Max moves around the ground is because LJ Rucks very well. 
i am well aware we need to trade out certain Players, but not the wrong ones

"Hello sir. I see that you have a nice, healthy cow and all the ingredients needed for the future except for milk ....... but would you be interested in selling me that cow for some magic beans?" 

The fact it’s taking so long for Luke to sign would suggest, we’re not offering the ridiculous amounts of money the media is spouting.

At the moment he isn't.

The speculated money he's asking for should be reserved for players that rip games apart, not cameos or good quarters here and there. Jackson has ripped one game apart and that was against GC with 4 goals in a 100 odd point win last year. In all of his other better games such as the grand final, he's faded in and out of games.

I agree that he is important to our structure and if we offer him $800K a year, it's based on future speculation rather than the present.

 

 

 

 

Question: Is Jackson worth the money?

Answer: Yes!

He's worth a good contract but we shouldn't completely throw our TPP structure out of whack to retain him....our recruiters are the best in the league, I'm confident we would do very well with high drafts picks received in a trade.

1 hour ago, Harrison Petty GOAT said:

We don't give players money off potential. Jackson has showed potential but is still not a bonefied "star" whereas gus is a heart and soul leader, you can't just buy those heart and soul leader. In my opinion gus is more important than Jackson as he is a leader showing the troops what to do. But hopefully we can keep them both!  

I’d use the word potential when describing Weideman, Jackson is past that for me. The only question in terms of money is how good can he get.

8 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

I fear that if he gets the money that has been rumored we will lose players. My opinion is he is a second string ruckman the best in the comp at it but still a second string ruckman, Weid could do his job. Give me Brayshaw's signature over Jackson's any day far more important player. If Jackson wants to chase money let him go to West Coast or Freo.

Hey Werridee, love you an’ all but could you PLEASE put the word “of” after “worthy” in the thread title? TIA 🙂

6 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Hey Werridee, love you an’ all but could you PLEASE put the word “of” after “worthy” in the thread title? TIA 🙂

or better still, change worthy to worth. less is better.

57 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Jackson has ripped one game apart and that was against GC with 4 goals in a 100 odd point win last year.

 

 

 

 

 

Jackson turned the grand final. At 19.

In response to the OP's question

Yes. Absolutely

Is a unicorn in the hand worth two in the bush?

Edited May 16, 20222 yr by Fat Tony

2 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

I've said it before but if Luke Jackson leaves, it could work out better for us long term given the ridiculous offer we'll receive for him. 

Obviously the club will be considering all of these possibilities as well.

He's a future star ruckman. But if we were to receive two top 10 picks with one inside the top 5 you'd have to seriously consider it given Taylor and co's history at the draft. 

We're also in this for sustained success over a period rather than being a flash in the pan great team so you've got to give up to get back. 

If we lost Brayshaw and Jackson in the next little period, it'd be scary to think what our draft haul could be over the next couple of seasons and that'd be another young core/crop that will grow and be the nucleus of the next wave once our current core push into their late 20's.

Always looking ahead, but still in awe of our current side. Eyes on finishing top two for the perfect platform for another crack at it. 

 

The problem with this Jimmy is that we won't get those picks. If he nominates Freo, they can only gives us their current 1st rounder and next years first. So that's like Pick 15 and Pick 16 next year. We wouldn't be getting great picks if he nominates Freo. 

If he nominates WCE, we'd get their pick 1 (or 2) and probably a late first or early 2nd next season. He's out of contract. We have no leverage. 

9 hours ago, David-Demon said:

With respect you have to compare apples with apples.

Jackson is a second year player and you are comparing him to The Weid ? and to Brayshaw who has years more experience that him.  Give him a fair go please...!!!!

And for exactly that reason it’s hard to justify matching other teams’ exorbitant offers to him

2 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

Of course there's a comparison. 

People are scared of losing a player because nobody can see the potential that'll be born from it and the Frawley example is perfect. 

That's the comparison. 

I get the compensation won't be the same, but a list spot opens up, we'll have endless potential for trading, moving up the draft order with pick swapping, etc etc. 

We'll be fine. We're in safe hands. 

 

When we lost Frawley we were bad and needed draft picks. The only reason not to be absolutely delighted with pick 3 was our history of draft bungles and even that was a stretch.

When we lost Hogan we immediately put pick 6 on the table and got May in because we were in our window and needed a ready made replacement.

There’s an argument to letting Brayshaw go and using the pick and money to trade or draft a competent wing/flanker and coming out ahead in youth and dollars. That’s easy to see. I don’t think it’s easy to replace Jackson and with his age it’s hard to sell it as a win for the future and it certainly costs the present. We’d owe it to the current team to find a ready made ruck/forward replacement and that isn’t always easy or cheap either.

At the end of the day though I don’t think we’ll be aggressively choosing to keep them or move them based on what we’ll get back. They’re good team mates and people as well as good players, you don’t push guys like that based on theoretical returns in 5-10 years time. We’ll offer the right contracts based on their value to us, if the players go then we’ll decide how to maximise the returns. 

It is hard to see Gus leaving his mates..

We could sign him for 800k a season and look back in 3 years and laugh at how cheaply we got him

4 hours ago, old dee said:

I can think of a bloke called Kennedy who got traded by Carlton for the Visy bandit and is still playing. 

You are right of course OD. I seem to recall that Kennedy was reluctant to return to W.A. I'll modify my question:

In the AFL era, how many West Australians have left Victoria willingly, accepting big bucks in their first contract in WA, and had good, long careers? I must admit, I can't think of one.