TMac & Brown

[Deebauched 1,220]

I cant see tmac and Brown breaking any records running laps around the Tan.  What if one or both breakdown during a long tough pre season?

Are their tired legs going to hold up.

If not they should stop and accept an exit package and retire.

The preseason is going to be tough on the pair.

 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

21 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

If the club were going to make a decision in paying either one of them they would have made the decision by now especially as we're in the middle of trade period.

I'd much rather have a developing tall, forward or back developing away next then have two really injury prone players who will be lucky to clock up 10 games between them.

Harsh as it sounds but the club is bigger then the individual and I fully respect to both for helping us win a flag, but the reality is they both going into next year a year older and game getting more intense and brutal by the year.

Struggle to see how their bodies help up considering they both haven't played a full season of AFL for a number of years. That's simply not going to change next year.

If the money was going in the 2023 cap the decision would be public by now, but I get a sense they’ll be on the list in 2024 in order for the money to go in the ‘24 cap.

In that sense there’s no rush, we have until March to replace them with rookie train on players. Because it seems like we aren’t getting anyone who’s better than a train on player.

But now is the time to let them know we don’t see their futures on the list without drastic changes.

[Macca 17,032]

47 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

If the money was going in the 2023 cap the decision would be public by now, but I get a sense they’ll be on the list in 2024 in order for the money to go in the ‘24 cap.

In that sense there’s no rush, we have until March to replace them with rookie train on players. Because it seems like we aren’t getting anyone who’s better than a train on player.

But now is the time to let them know we don’t see their futures on the list without drastic changes.

In a practical sense, I can't see the club delisting both players with a close on a $1Million payout figure just to create 2 spots on the list

What I can see is we bite the bullet and retain both but with a reduced pre-season (a case of have-to to keep their bodies able) And then nurse them through the season proper

Somehow, find a way to keep them both fresh ... the alternative is a $1Million payout or risk them breaking down in the pre-season

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

In a practical sense, I can't see the club delisting both players with a close on a $1Million payout figure just to create 2 spots on the list

What I can see is we bite the bullet and retain both but with a reduced pre-season (a case of have-to to keep their bodies able) And then nurse them through the season proper

Somehow, find a way to keep them both fresh ... the alternative is a $1Million payout or risk them breaking down in the pre-season

I think they’ll both stay on the list so there’s no immediate pay outs, but it’s only adding rookies once they go to the inactive list. 

Maybe we stick with Tom and try that heavy load management tactic, ease him in to the year with a delayed start.

We tried heavily managing Brown this year, he rarely trained mid week. Did a lot of sessions on the bike or ropes. Once the games started he lasted about 3 weeks.

[Macca 17,032]

51 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think they’ll both stay on the list so there’s no immediate pay outs, but it’s only adding rookies once they go to the inactive list. 

Maybe we stick with Tom and try that heavy load management tactic, ease him in to the year with a delayed start.

We tried heavily managing Brown this year, he rarely trained mid week. Did a lot of sessions on the bike or ropes. Once the games started he lasted about 3 weeks.

We could look at 2-3 week windows with both players

The issue is that the sport requires a stack of running for all the players and a player can't be just plonked in the forward line these days.  So both Brown & T'Mac are going to be needed to do a fair bit of running in games

But all clubs will be experiencing the same issue sooner or later ... related to the longer contracts being offered or handed out these days (far more than yesteryear)

And that's related to the resticted FA's or unrestricted FA's.  Clubs don't want to lose talent, especially KPF's

And it's often the KPF's who start feeling the pinch once they hit their late 20's or 30+

Edited October 15, 2023 by Macca

[titan_uranus 25,043]

4 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

We owe them money, not a list spot.

Unless there’s some drastic reason to expect massive health improvements or there’s a special cultural reason to keep meet and 3 veg around we should move on.

Its bordering on elder abuse to put them through preseasons just so they can resume the cycle of injuries, surgeries and Casey games.

That’s not correct though, is it?

We can’t delist them and just pay them, not without their consent. If they want a list spot, that’s the end of the debate. 

[Redleg 41,428]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

That’s not correct though, is it?

We can’t delist them and just pay them, not without their consent. If they want a list spot, that’s the end of the debate. 

I believe that's wrong.

Contracts are not guarantees of list spots, they are guarantees of payment.

We could delist both but would have to pay them out.

[beelzebub 23,383]

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I believe that's wrong.

Contracts are not guarantees of list spots, they are guarantees of payment.

We could delist both but would have to pay them out.

Correct