Just now, Fat Tony said:

I love Kossie but extending his deal from 2 more years to 9 years and increasing the pay on his original deal was questionable business. These long term deals are risky IMO - even for great players.

So you’d rather we lost him to Freo.

Ok cool

This is what the market demands. Jesus do people think our club operates in a vacuum?

26 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Melbourne gets pick 13, Fremantle's future first round pick and future second round pick (tied to the Dockers) in exchange for Jackson, picks 44 and 67. GWS gets Toby Bedford.

2 first and a second with some late stuff back is as good as you’ll see for any uncontracted player. More than we paid for Lever for example. How is that folding?

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

I never said he’s done a great job, but you’re going on about him folding at trades when there is no proof of that.

I can tell you categorically that the Viney and Gawn extensions came from the board in a time when we needed good news and to manage optics. It was not Lamb’s decision alone.

And where was the bitchin and moaning when Lamb managed to snag Kosi for 9 years when every man and his dog thought he was gone?!

I gave you proof of folding at trades.. Luke Jackson. He was out of contract and talked a big game considering he said Luke was a "generational" talent and would need to be more then just pick 13 and future pick.. at the end he folded and accepted exactly that.

Dont beat your chest demanding more only to then accept the same offer you say ypu wouldnt except?

Where is the proof that it was a board decision?

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

I gave you proof of folding at trades.. Luke Jackson. He was out of contract and talked a big game considering he said Luke was a "generational" talent and would need to be more then just pick 13 and future pick.. at the end he folded and accepted exactly that.

Dont beat your chest demanding more only to then accept the same offer you say ypu wouldnt except?

Where is the proof that it was a board decision?

I specifically asked you about contracted players so don’t change the narrative to suit your endless hatred of our club and then ask me to accept it

And you can believe me or not I couldn’t give a stuff

Jesus why do I bother with you. I should know better.

Enjoy piling [censored] on our club

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

2 first and a second with some late stuff back is as good as you’ll see for any uncontracted player. More than we paid for Lever for example. How is that folding?

Go back and read what Tim Lamb wrote on the Jackson trade.

He talked a big game on a "generational talent" about needing more then just pick 13 and a future pick. In the end he accepted exactly what he said he wouldnt accept initially. That's folding.

1 hour ago, SthSea22 said:

Is it safe to say that McVee took the FC on a ride for 18 months? Speaks volumes who he is as a person imo.

Or maybe how bad the footy club has been

2 hours ago, Adam The God said:

I love his no nonsense approach. I thought he answered and framed the Clarry thing well.

I read on another thread from one of the perennial Eeyores that Lamb was further undermining leverage with any Clarry deal.

Lamb said that "we had a really honest chat with Claz where Kingy outlined how he saw our midfield moving forward and how we wanted our midfield to operate, where he saw Clayton fitting in with that and then obviously we've seen a bit of interest in Clayton from rival clubs, so we'll see how that plays out".

Then when asked whether we would contribute to any ongoing Clarry salary he said "we're not gonna talk about any details about what a deal would look like with any of our players at the moment".

I thought Lamb just straight batted most things in a reasonable way, and I thought he answered the questions about Clarry's role and off-field well.

But the questions overall were poor. Too much focus on things they all knew Lamb couldn't answer - will you pay salary, what trade would you accept - and not real question ls like:

• What is the role King would require Oliver to play? Did Oliver say he was or wasn't prepared to play that role?

• You've talked about how Trac is a modern day great, but Oliver has 4 X Bluey and 2 X AFLCA MVP and you don't talk about him in the same way, why?

• You mentioned that to trade Trac the offer needs to be head turning, but you aren't using the same language Oliver. Is that because you see him as surplus to your current needs?

• Are WCE in the conversation for McVee? Would you be prepared to send him to the PSD if Fremantle didn't offer a reasonable trade? Would you be prepared to re-draft McVee ahead of Freo in that situation?

Personally, I am a bit disappointed that there has been a clear decision to pump up Trac as a great but effectively down play Oliver. There is no reason the club couldn't say similar things "Clayton is a great player and if he would prefer to seek a trade because he doesn't like the role outlined for him, we expect to see a deal that provides value to us versus the value he'd provide in role we think he'll play on King's game plan moving forward.".

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

If the club is paying any of Clarry's salary whilst he's at another club, then it's an indictment on Lamb's list management. It's the thing that cost Collingwood's Ned Guy his job.

Collingwood were forced in to a fire sale because they’d overpaid a bunch of players.

Clarry’s life got tipped upside down when his girlfriend got sick of his [censored] and he went way off the rails. He’d just about never missed a game and was a super hard trainer.

Easy to criticise it in hindsight but no one was saying it was a bad deal at the time.

If there was a mistake it’s clear we tied our contracts to cap rises. Clarry’s 7 years 7 million bumped to 1.3/1.4 based on the cap rises. My understand is most teams did this so it’s not unique or damaging but Clarry would be easier to move if we just locked in a fixed price.

He's brought in a few too many duds over the last couple years but he got a great return for Jackson and will get a great return for Trac

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

So you’d rather we lost him to Freo.

Ok cool

This is what the market demands. Jesus do people think our club operates in a vacuum?

I love Kossie but I would rather we had just held him to his initial contract. Like Jack Viney last year, there was no rush to re-contract.

The club's assets are future salary cap space, list spots and draft picks. We seem to not understand that and operate as if we are beholdant to the players/agents.

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

I love Kossie but I would rather we had just held him to his initial contract. Like Jack Viney last year, there was no rush to re-contract.

The club's assets are future salary cap space, list spots and draft picks. We seem to not understand that and operate as if we are beholdant to the players/agents.

If we don’t resign him now, we risk being held over a barrel later. Simple.

And Viney and Kosi are not on the same planet

I’d have let Viney walk, but Kosi is a generational talent who was in hot demand and a major flight risk

If he agrees to a long term deal you RUN to get it done. And let’s not pretend like any other club in our position wouldn’t do the same

Saints would love to have locked up NWM for that long.

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Collingwood were forced in to a fire sale because they’d overpaid a bunch of players.

Clarry’s life got tipped upside down when his girlfriend got sick of his [censored] and he went way off the rails. He’d just about never missed a game and was a super hard trainer.

Easy to criticise it in hindsight but no one was saying it was a bad deal at the time.

If there was a mistake it’s clear we tied our contracts to cap rises. Clarry’s 7 years 7 million bumped to 1.3/1.4 based on the cap rises. My understand is most teams did this so it’s not unique or damaging but Clarry would be easier to move if we just locked in a fixed price.

That’s the real balls up. Tieing salary to the cap meant that we never got any relief as that contract aged.

The long term deals are fine if you give them to the right players/people. I think we made a mistake on Oliver for reasons none of us want to elaborate on for a variety of reasons.

If Lamb sticks around, he needs to be judged internally on how quickly he can realise King’s vision of the playing list.

17 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I gave you proof of folding at trades.. Luke Jackson. He was out of contract and talked a big game considering he said Luke was a "generational" talent and would need to be more then just pick 13 and future pick.. at the end he folded and accepted exactly that.

Dont beat your chest demanding more only to then accept the same offer you say ypu wouldnt except?

Where is the proof that it was a board decision?

I'm not sure what his alternative is? all 17 clubs posture and play the same game, Gold Coast are right now even though they know we have the whip hand with Trac contracted.

This is a real test for Tim Lamb though, if we accept a rubbish deal for a contracted Petracca Lamb can go with him as far as i am concerned, he'll never get a more simple deal to negotiate than a club desperate to sign a star level contracted player

17 minutes ago, deanox said:

I thought Lamb just straight batted most things in a reasonable way, and I thought he answered the questions about Clarry's role and off-field well.

But the questions overall were poor. Too much focus on things they all knew Lamb couldn't answer - will you pay salary, what trade would you accept - and not real question ls like:

• What is the role King would require Oliver to play? Did Oliver say he was or wasn't prepared to play that role?

• You've talked about how Trac is a modern day great, but Oliver has 4 X Bluey and 2 X AFLCA MVP and you don't talk about him in the same way, why?

• You mentioned that to trade Trac the offer needs to be head turning, but you aren't using the same language Oliver. Is that because you see him as surplus to your current needs?

• Are WCE in the conversation for McVee? Would you be prepared to send him to the PSD if Fremantle didn't offer a reasonable trade? Would you be prepared to re-draft McVee ahead of Freo in that situation?

Personally, I am a bit disappointed that there has been a clear decision to pump up Trac as a great but effectively down play Oliver. There is no reason the club couldn't say similar things "Clayton is a great player and if he would prefer to seek a trade because he doesn't like the role outlined for him, we expect to see a deal that provides value to us versus the value he'd provide in role we think he'll play on King's game plan moving forward.".

You can infer the answer to most of these yourself.

The differing sentiment between Trac and Oliver simply boils down to leverage. View any and every tidbit of trade slop interrogation with this lens.

7 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I love Kossie but I would rather we had just held him to his initial contract. Like Jack Viney last year, there was no rush to re-contract.

The club's assets are future salary cap space, list spots and draft picks. We seem to not understand that and operate as if we are beholdant to the players/agents.

Jeepers, you sign guys like this as soon as possible. Imagine the next 2 years of media around Kozz if he hadn’t signed. As it is they’ll probably be saying he wants out.

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

Personally, I am a bit disappointed that there has been a clear decision to pump up Trac as a great but effectively down play Oliver. There is no reason the club couldn't say similar things "Clayton is a great player and if he would prefer to seek a trade because he doesn't like the role outlined for him, we expect to see a deal that provides value to us versus the value he'd provide in role we think he'll play on King's game plan moving forward.".

My recollection of Lamb's presser was that he said both Trac and Clarry are really good players.

JFC next Wednesday night can't get here quick enough.

2 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Jeepers, you sign guys like this as soon as possible. Imagine the next 2 years of media around Kozz if he hadn’t signed. As it is they’ll probably be saying he wants out.

9 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

If we don’t resign him now, we risk being held over a barrel later. Simple.

And Viney and Kosi are not on the same planet

I’d have let Viney walk, but Kosi is a generational talent who was in hot demand and a major flight risk

If he agrees to a long term deal you RUN to get it done. And let’s not pretend like any other club in our position wouldn’t do the same

Saints would love to have locked up NWM for that long.

I am personally glad I will get to watch Kossie play for us for his career, but I think it was a bad deal and I would not sign anyone for nine years.

The club needs to realise that it is not the end of the world when you lose great players, but a bad long term deal can put you in the duldrums for years.

5 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I am personally glad I will get to watch Kossie play for us for his career, but I think it was a bad deal and I would not sign anyone for nine years.

The club needs to realise that it is not the end of the world when you lose great players, but a bad long term deal can put you in the duldrums for years.

Losing good players for picks that don’t get you good players is how you end up ‘in the doldrums’ not long term deals with the cap nearing $20m.

The long term deal is to protect the club from not getting value for the asset. The situation with Clarry is different because the asset is distressed which is why we have to pay half of his salary to make it less distressed for a possible club.

8 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

JFC next Wednesday night can't get here quick enough.

You mean the one after don’t you?

12 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

My recollection of Lamb's presser was that he said both Trac and Clarry are really good players.

"Superstars," he said.

11 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

JFC next Wednesday night can't get here quick enough.

Then we'll be up in arms about the draft, then the fixture, then pre-season supplementary drafts, then best 23s etc

7 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

"Superstars," he said.

That's pretty good, isn't it?

43 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I love Kossie but I would rather we had just held him to his initial contract. Like Jack Viney last year, there was no rush to re-contract.

The club's assets are future salary cap space, list spots and draft picks. We seem to not understand that and operate as if we are beholdant to the players/agents.

No doubt he would have been out the door if he hadn't signed the extension

Would have had to package Kozzy and McVee lol

1 hour ago, poita said:

For how many of these players did we receive even close to fair value?

All of them.

(Btw, Hogan to GWS, where he won a Coleman; Pick 54)