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

    • GAMEDAY: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road for their 3rd interstate game in 4 weeks as they face a fit and firing Crows at Adelaide Oval. With finals now out of our grasps what are you hoping from the Dees today?

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

      What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thumb Down
      • 213 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

        • Sad
      • 231 replies
      Demonland
    View All