Jump to content

James Peatling

Dannyz
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

33 minutes ago, Deez21 said:

Peatling now has a 5 year deal on the table from someone so this probably won’t be enough 

West Coast?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    40 minutes ago, Deez21 said:

    Peatling now has a 5 year deal on the table from someone so this probably won’t be enough 

    Good player, but the bidding seems to be heading toward excess. 

    The body of work isn’t significant with Peatling, 5 years is a big investment.

  • Quote
    • Like 10
    • Author
    11 hours ago, Deez21 said:

    Peatling now has a 5 year deal on the table from someone so this probably won’t be enough 

    What a shame. 
    I think we were possibly the first or second club to offer him 4, so you can’t say we didn’t give it our best. 

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
     
    1 hour ago, Dannyz said:

    What a shame. 
    I think we were possibly the first or second club to offer him 4, so you can’t say we didn’t give it our best. 

    I'd be hoping the club sees the value of upping the offer

     

    or peatling sees the opportunity of full time midfield minutes 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    2 hours ago, Dannyz said:

    What a shame. 
    I think we were possibly the first or second club to offer him 4, so you can’t say we didn’t give it our best. 

    Is there an inkling we might our offer to overs? Let's face it you don't win these battles offering under the others.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    13 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    West Coast?

    Not sure but not GWS

     

    Depends now on what Peatling values between $, years or position. His choice

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    22 minutes ago, Deez21 said:

    Not sure but not GWS

     

    Depends now on what Peatling values between $, years or position. His choice

    It’s almost always $. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    Not worth 5 years. He's a decent player, but reality is he's a second tier midfielder. You don't give long contracts, big dollars, or high draft picks at trade for him. 

    Good we had a crack, but not worth what he's getting. Fair play to him milking the $$$ when he's overvalued.

  • Quote
    • Like 11
    36 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

    Not worth 5 years. He's a decent player, but reality is he's a second tier midfielder. You don't give long contracts, big dollars, or high draft picks at trade for him. 

    Good we had a crack, but not worth what he's getting. Fair play to him milking the $$$ when he's overvalued.

    I’m not sure I agree with you here.

    We gave James Harmes an incredibly long contract a few years ago and he never had a period of sustained form like Peatling. 

    The cost of change is always higher. More money, more years and more compensation. I’d do 5 years. We need to take a few risks to bolster our list before Gawn retires.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    I would have liked to get him but I don’t think we should pay overs to get him over the line. Both in terms of cash and length of contract. 
    Bit of a red flag for me that his best bit of form comes just as he’s out of contract and trying to get the best deal possible. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 1

    It’s a no from me, happy with Rivers and McVee, maybe draft a young buck with promise.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    27 minutes ago, JJJ said:

    I’m not sure I agree with you here.

    We gave James Harmes an incredibly long contract a few years ago and he never had a period of sustained form like Peatling. 

    The cost of change is always higher. More money, more years and more compensation. I’d do 5 years. We need to take a few risks to bolster our list before Gawn retires.

    The Harmes deal was a mistake, and likely contributed to this decade's poor track record of AFL recruitment and the depth erosion we've seen post premiership. You can't pay role players overs (speculating in Harmes' case) on long deals when you already have 4/5 guys on top end coin - go and find yourself a Tom Atkins on $100k if you need a defensive minded midfielder who's never going to be a needle mover.

    Edited by Davos

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    1 hour ago, Davos said:

    The Harmes deal was a mistake, and likely contributed to this decade's poor track record of AFL recruitment and the depth erosion we've seen post premiership. You can't pay role players overs (speculating in Harmes' case) on long deals when you already have 4/5 guys on top end coin - go and find yourself a Tom Atkins on $100k if you need a defensive minded midfielder who's never going to be a needle mover.

    That’s not true. He had a stretch contract which paid him ok but added years. If we hadn’t traded Harmes, his contract would still be pretty modest. Hardly impact TPP.

    My point was, that if we are to extract a ready to go mid, from a Premiership contender no less, who could help us win a premiership, why wouldn’t we pay him a bit more than market value and add a year? We have 2-3years tops to get another flag.

    The types of contracts that have hurt us are the large multi year, multi million dollar deals. Peatling’s contract won’t go near that level.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    4 hours ago, Deez21 said:

    I'd be hoping the club sees the value of upping the offer

     

    or peatling sees the opportunity of full time midfield minutes 


    Where would he be getting these full time midfield minutes? Casey?

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    3 hours ago, Davos said:

    The Harmes deal was a mistake, and likely contributed to this decade's poor track record of AFL recruitment and the depth erosion we've seen post premiership. You can't pay role players overs (speculating in Harmes' case) on long deals when you already have 4/5 guys on top end coin - go and find yourself a Tom Atkins on $100k if you need a defensive minded midfielder who's never going to be a needle mover.

    I think you are not correct with the sweeping statement of the poor track of recruitment this decade. 

    I realise that our 4 best have probably been May 2019 Lever 2018 then Lingers and BBB in 2021.  They are not too blame nor are the Club as the Flag was ( and could still be) a result of their extra ability and professionalism plus performance.

    After that we started arranging our star players ( Max TracClarry Angus JV. ) and it started to get out of hand in the length and occasionally a little overs in payment. Tmac got a 4 year term free his standout year in 2018 after 53 goals in 2018. 

    Harmes was rewarded with a deal too long and this has resulted in some role players getting deals too long and reducing our flexibility to recruit and trade. Hunter Schache Laurie are examples of that. 

    So we need not be so generous it seems because that has come back to bite us. 

    The long term stars deals have served us pretty well but lesser lights have possibly been overvalued and not paid their way. 

    Also we have joined picks to move up the draft order recently which has reduced our no of selections in alleged poor drafts, and not used picks after second round using rookie lists to take a chance.

    This year is interesting as Yze Mentha and another lad I think are Academy or F/Son selections and surely it’s a squeeze if we don’t move say Hore or Tommo stays. 

    The days of a No 53 like Tmac should be good in this deep draft so hope we use or picks wisely. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    4 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    I’ll save the bucket for Finn Callaghan.  👍🏻

    Yeah true that. 5 years a bit much for Peatling. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    If Peatling takes a 5 year deal somewhere then the trade price will be decent - probably something in the vicinity of the ANB pick 25. GWS aren't going to trade him for pick 50, they could push him to the draft and Richmond will snap him up.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    4 hours ago, old55 said:

    If Peatling takes a 5 year deal somewhere then the trade price will be decent - probably something in the vicinity of the ANB pick 25. GWS aren't going to trade him for pick 50, they could push him to the draft and Richmond will snap him up.

    I'd trade pick 25 for Peatling in a heartbeat. This guy is going to be better then ANB.

    He's just turned 24, his key strengths are his agility, speed and footy IQ. In his draft years the things he had to work on was his strength/size, endurance and disposal efficiency. Since then he's gone from 73kg to 79kg, built his tank while being able to maintain that speed and ability get in and out of traffic with quick feet and smarts. Hard to say how much his disposal has improved but considering this season that 50% of his possessions were contested (7.1 per game) his overall disposal efficiency of 70% is pretty good for a midfielder who played inside a fair bit.

    He can play inside or outside mid and you just love his attack on the contest and want to tackle. In the two finals played he really showed how committed his is defensively with his pressure and tackling. He also showed his versatility by hitting the scoreboard playing the high HF pressure role and I think could even play down back if needed with how well he reads the play/ball with strong marking for his size

    Very similar type player to Rivers, drives the legs out of packs with a penetrating kick.

    Whoever gets him will be stoked to get such a well rounded player already who has had to prove himself with immense improvement over three years and hasn't even reached his full potential.

    He is exactly what this team needs and I think in a few years looking back pick 25 for him might be a steal.

    Edited by Young Blood

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    12 hours ago, layzie said:

    Yeah true that. 5 years a bit much for Peatling. 

    The club didn't think it was too much for Tomlinson

    Edited by John Demonic

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
     

    I could envisage a pick 25 for Peatling & Derksen being palatable but not much more.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

    I could envisage a pick 25 for Peatling & Derksen being palatable but not much more.

    Do you think they’d throw Peatling in for free with Derksen?

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    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
      • 91 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
      • 342 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