titan_uranus

Packers, Steelers, Ravens

I'm not really a fan of digging up the past. But, in this instance, let's do it. There is not one single post criticising the contract. It's actually saddening reading that thread. It was June 2018, we'd just won six in a row. It's like a time capsule back to a much happier era. Feels like an eternity ago.

So far only 1 senior list player has been delisted (J Wagner). Hannan, OMac, Bedford and Jordon remain out of contract whilst Preuss and TMac appear odds on to leave. If they all go, that's seven players off the senior list in total. Brown takes one spot. Assume Lockhart gets an upgrade to the senior list. That leaves five spots. And that's before the AFL cuts the list size down. There's not as much room at the moment as your post suggests.

What frustrates me most about this thread is that Mahoney's core message is something we should all agree with, but most don't. That core message is "we need to drive improvement from the players who are currently on our list". For too long trade period has rolled around and we've all crossed our fingers and sweated on the club bringing in someone, or multiple players, who are going to change everything for us. Additions to the list from other clubs make a difference, but IMO they re usually closer to the icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.

Collingwood is interested in TMac despite his salary, which can only mean one of two things: either they think/know we're going to be paying a significant portion of it, or they're prepared to wear it if other cards fall their way (e.g. Treloar, Phillips and/or Cox depart). IMO the Treloar situation isn't just salary cap pressure, it's mismanagement from Collingwood that has blown up in their face (they held a possibly genuine concern about how he would perform with his partner and child in Queensland and weren't sure he could commit to staying in Melbourne. They've then poorly responded to Treloar telling them he disgreed and wants to stay).

Look, I understand @DeeSpencer's concerns, but this doesn't need another thread. This discussion has been had, at length, in the Ben Brown thread. I think it's relatively clear we're going for Brown to partner with Weid, not to replace him. If it doesn't work in 2021, DeeSpencer will have a field day reminding us all about this thread, but I'm with the vast majority who believe the Brown-Weideman forward combo can work.

There are very few, if any, people advocating for us taking Treloar at the expense of Oliver. The issue to consider is having them both in our midfield. If that's not possible then it's not possible, end of story. But, if it is, then it's worth considering.

Just to counter the recent "report" of the Buckley phone call:

On-field issues I accept - he's not a good kick and has had hamstring issues, those are two strikes against him. IMO his positives as a player outweigh those negatives but each to their own. Off-field though, I don't agree with you at all. I've never heard a bad thing about Treloar's personality or cultural fit. I've never heard him described as selfish and he doesn't play that way (if Rendell suggests otherwise, I disagree). The interstate family thing could be difficult but he and his partner are committed to making it work and they wouldn't be the first people to maintain a long distance relationship, even with children. My gut tells me the falling out between Collingwood and Treloar is mainly of Collinwood's own doing, not Treloar's.

Bringing in some draftees, possibly upgrading Lockhart (if we offer him a third season on the rookie list he can walk out as a UFA) and of course Brown (and maybe another, who knows), means we must be odds on to let TMac go in addition to Preuss (with J Wagner the only senior list player to be delisted so far, we could lose all of Hannan, OMac, Jordon and Bedford and possibly still not have enough room). And that's before we lose senior list spots due to COVID-related shrinkage.

I'm OK with this, without being over the moon (but certainly not upset by it). A bit surprised it's a two-year deal, but if we get consistent performances closer to his late-season form then there's a future for him in our forward half.

Who's on the market in terms of key defensive depth who you'd want at the club? I'm not convinced McKernan is an upgrade on Brown as a back-up forward. He probably is as a back-up ruck, but I'm not convinced he's good enough to make it worthwhile. But, it will only be for a bargain basement salary so it won't be the end of the world if it happens.

Good news. Given he's out of contract and North have contributed to pushing him out, I would have thought pick 23 (which is now pick 25) is about right. There are no certainties in football and there's no certainty this is going to work for us, but I like the move and I think there's a strong chance this will make us a better side in 2021 and beyond.

I see this is now news from a more reputable source than Tony Sheahan! Yes - you have to wonder whether they need Ratugolea on their list if they take Hogan (and Preuss?).

The news is Hogan's going to be traded to GWS. They've already got Himmelberg, Finlayson and Riccardi. Adding Hogan surely means they don't need TMac (the more so if they want Preuss)?

So which one is it? FWIW, I'm all for getting a back-up ruck onto the list to replace Preuss but I'm not sure McKernan is the best option.

If he's chosen Geelong, I'll only be disappointed at that news if we end up failing to bring in anyone for the wing. If we get Phillips or anyone else, then it's all good. As to the Doctor: the issue I have is not that he passed on news that we were in the box seat for Smith, but that he passed on news that he'd already signed (the Doctor was adamant it had happened). If he's going to Geelong, clearly the Doctor's mail on Smith was incorrect. Does that mean the rest of his mail is also incorrect? Only time will tell.

I just posted this in another thread but Mitch Cleary said something similar during an AFL Exchange podcast yesterday: Richardson getting a larger role including head of football and head of coaching sort of stuff, Mahoney getting a different role involving list management. It may well be that a decision has been made in the last day or two (explaining why it's now leaking out) and a formal announcement may be imminent?

During yesterday's AFL Trade Radio segment "AFL Exchange", Mitch Cleary said that Alan Richardson will be taking on a part head of football role as well as head of coaching role, whilst Mahoney would be taking on a role "in the wider footy department", including list management.

Totally agree with giving Hore another year. I'm not sure we needed to keep Smith if we've now kept both Hibberd and Hore, but so be it. I'm less sure about Spargo at all, let alone for two. Whether it was one or two years, if we're re-contracting Spargo and we're considering players like Higgins and Hind, that must spell trouble for both Hunt and ANB. If we're only keeping one of Spargo, Hunt and ANB, I'm not convinced Spargo is the better pick over Hunt. Edit: I thought ANB was out of contract this year. Given he's not, that surely ratchets up the pressure on Hunt (Bedford surely will be delisted).

Can someone who knows the rules better than me help confirm how the salary cap works in a situation like this? If Collingwood trades Treloar to another club and pays $200,000 per year of the $900,000 per year he is owed (I'm making these numbers up), does the $200,000 count towards Collingwood's salary cap? And does the team that acquires him take a $900,000 or $700,000 hit to its salary cap?

For those who argue that Jones is taking the spot of someone better, I'd argue that's unlikely to be the case. I think it's fair to assume Jones' wage for 2021 won't be significant. The reality is if we didn't give that list spot and salary cap space to him, it would be going to a late pick in the draft or to the sort of player many on here term an "NQR". In other words, Jones isn't taking up the potential spot of a A-grade acquisition from a rival, or even from a high draft pick in the draft.

What you appear to be saying here is even clubs who are "destination clubs" are going to struggle. I'm really not following your complaint about us. Well then I'm not sure whether this is a fair point to raise. Do you think we're the only club which has an interest in some players who ultimately don't come to the club? You've already seen from @MadAsHell's post above that some of your gripes around so-called "stinker" trades don't really add up to a meaningful argument. But, again, do you think we're the only club which brings in players who ultimately struggle?