Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, poita said:

However I cannot see the wisdom in the deals offered to Langdon, Lever and Viney - they are all terrible contracts for us, particularly given the money they would each be on. I love Gawn, but cannot see him making it to 2027 in decent shape. Salem has done nothing for 3 years.

Salem’s on his original prime years longer deal signed at his peak and is back in decent form now he’s healthy again. Can’t really fault that one.

It’s the extensions to the guys in their back in years which are more questionable. 

The justication for someone like Lever is to smooth out the money. I think that’s reasonable but if he keeps getting injured it could hurt.

Langdon was out of contract last year, given our lack of run and pace it’s a big gamble to say we should’ve let him go.

I was critical of the Max and Viney length of deals. Apparently the justification was they were a sign the club wasn’t falling apart. Personally I think our leaders should’ve trusted the club to go 1-2 years at a time. I guess it’s up to the players to show good faith and retire if they can’t play.

The bigger issue is if we are rebuilding you are wise to give guys up when they have value. Unfortunately Tracc and Clarry had no value last year. And others we could’ve explored (Salem, Langdon) probably weren’t fetching much at all.

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

 

We seem to have lost our ruthlessness of trimming young guys who don’t seem up to it. Verrall, Sestan, 2 years for Laurie after last preseason, sticking with Hore. Hang it on to guys who clearly aren’t up to it.

Jack Henderson could be our best (only?) state league pick up in years. And even he’s probably a fairly limited depth player. AJ might be ok too. But we couldn’t find anyone in the last few drafts when we needed depth?

Even now we need a good back pocket to free up our talls and flankers.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Salem’s on his original prime years longer deal signed at his peak and is back in decent form now he’s healthy again. Can’t really fault that one.

It’s the extensions to the guys in their back in years which are more questionable. 

The justication for someone like Lever is to smooth out the money. I think that’s reasonable but if he keeps getting injured it could hurt.

Langdon was out of contract last year, given our lack of run and pace it’s a big gamble to say we should’ve let him go.

I was critical of the Max and Viney length of deals. Apparently the justification was they were a sign the club wasn’t falling apart. Personally I think our leaders should’ve trusted the club to go 1-2 years at a time. I guess it’s up to the players to show good faith and retire if they can’t play.

The bigger issue is if we are rebuilding you are wise to give guys up when they have value. Unfortunately Tracc and Clarry had no value last year. And others we could’ve explored (Salem, Langdon) probably weren’t fetching much at all.

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

The only way i can rationalize this is that keeping Gawn and Viney around for an extra 'twilight' year will be significant as our club transitions to a younger side. We see young sides stagnate due to lack of senior leadership, so these players will be helpful if they are not even on the park full time. 

 
32 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

The only way i can rationalize this is that keeping Gawn and Viney around for an extra 'twilight' year will be significant as our club transitions to a younger side. We see young sides stagnate due to lack of senior leadership, so these players will be helpful if they are not even on the park full time. 

As long as they’re still best 22 it won’t hurt but I just didn’t like the messaging of it.

In general though teams are all paying veterans a lot longer than they used to. North’s desperation for experience and overall shortage of talent seems to have changed the market.

3 hours ago, poita said:

Consider also the following long term contracts that Tim Lamb has agreed to:

  • Oliver contracted to age 33 (2030)
  • Petracca contracted to age 33 (2029)
  • Lever contracted to age 32 (2028)
  • Langdon contracted to age 32 (2028)
  • Viney contracted to age 34 (2028)
  • Gawn contracted to age 36 (2027)

I was concerned with the Gawn, Lever and Viney contracts.  In part because of their injury history albeit they make herculean efforts to play week in and week out.  And the Gawn and Viney contracts looked hasty or a PR exercise as they were both still contracted.

But their bodies have a 'used by date' and likely to be before 2027 and 2028.  None of us want to see their latter years played at Casey.  The alternatives are:

  • to retire them early, 
  • persevere in the seniors or 
  • do a Hawthorn style fire sale of their champions (Hodge, Michell, Lewis) for peanuts and heartbreak for fans.

image.png.8edd79df1baf93585c3447e3afd21122.png

They then traded Gunston (3 x Flags) and Tom Mitchell (Brownlow) while they had some trade currency.

Can't see Goodwin do anything like that as he loves all players, especially Gawn, Viney and Oliver.  He is not going to trade any of them and he is unlikely to trade Lever or Petracca. 

Nor do I want them traded; just saying some might have to be for the good of the club and growth of young players.

Some people will highlight players can go on to their mid 30's etc but rarely so many in the same team at the same time.

Even while in the premiership window we couldn't attract/keep players (eg ruckmen, mids) as they are down the line behind the above players and have to play at Casey.  Attracting key players won't get any easier in 2, 3, 4 years time.  Meanwhile, how many other players will leave for lack of opportunity...

 

btw, I'm not suggesting Goodwin should go now.  But our GM Football and or our new CEO need to ask some hard questions about list management over the coming years.  Now that I think about it, it won't be the GM Football as he was party to all the contracts.

Edited by Lucifers Hero


1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m still of the belief that last year was the time to move on from Fritsch. His value certainly wouldn’t have improved through 2 weeks.

Scrolling casually down I had mistaken your predominantly white profile image for Ghostwriter's predominantly white image and then when I saw this I almost [censored] on my couch.

Okay. Okay. The world hasn't gone that far inside-out.

Anyway, I think our current list management is aiming to have the swell of young players rise as quickly as possible while looking to get the most of the late career of a few serious champions. 2025 would be a pretty optimistic hope for anything magnificent, I fear, but we can get ourselves back in the conversation and then 2026-28 becomes a potential window for the veterans and youngsters to overlap for a big push.

That's my understanding of the list management as well as the game plan transition. The kids are the heart of the attacking style and will be 'raised' with that even if it hurts like being dragged over barbed wire a few times in 2025.

And yet, I still think we'll make finals in 2025, strangely enough. After all, it was round 2 last year Hawthorn got spanked by about 10 goals on the way to a 0-5 start, before they found the joy and the kids started to click.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

do a Hawthorn style fire sale of their champions (Hodge, Michell, Lewis) for peanuts and heartbreak for fans.

Looking at North on the weekend they had Darling and Parker both 32 playing at new clubs etc. Just because they have a contract doesn't mean they'll end their careers here - we'd love it but its no certainty. 

4 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Looking at North on the weekend they had Darling and Parker both 32 playing at new clubs etc. Just because they have a contract doesn't mean they'll end their careers here - we'd love it but its no certainty. 

I didn't say they would.

My point was I can't see Goodwin willingly trading any of them out.  Can you?

Edited by Lucifers Hero

 
3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I didn't say they would.

My point was I can't see Goodwin willingly trading any of them out.  Can you?

Was speaking in generalities on modern day football contracts, not saying you said anything sorry.

I can't see Goody doing that, but a lot can change in 2 years, even the coach.


42 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Why didn't we go after Caleb Daniel?

Don’t really need experienced players for the rookies in the same way as north 

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...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 3 replies
  • 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
    • 189 replies
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    • 489 replies