titan_uranus

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?

Rams, Titans, Bucs. Meanwhile the Jets play the Chiefs this week...watch out. How many wins do we think it will take to win the NFC East this year?

I saw the arguments both for and against signing him up for another year. I have no issues with us doing it and I hope Jones is as motivated as he's ever been to push himself, improve his deficiencies, lock himself into the 22 as early in 2021 as possible, and prove many of us wrong. The test will come if he gets early games but struggles, making it harder and harder for us not to let him get to 300. But I'm happy to back him in to get it done.

Is this actually confirmed anywhere? According to this article he's looking at "Melbourne-based rivals". Can't find anything which says he's nominated St Kilda?

St Kilda weren't a "destination club" until players showed up there last year. We've attracted Langdon, Tomlinson, May and Lever in the last three off-seasons with, potentially, some more players to come this year. I don't buy your argument.

That's a ridiculous way to analyse player capability. Brayshaw came 3rd in the Brownlow once, I suppose that makes him better than Treloar?

I love that page. It tells me we once had someone wear number 59, which I never knew.

This is an incredibly hurtful position to take. People deal with loss in different ways. People grieve in different ways. If you managed to move on from your father's death and get to a point where your career is going well, hats off to you. But the fact you were capable of that doesn't mean everyone else should be as well. A "just get over it" attitude like this is not helpful.

I agree with your assessment of Treloar but the price is huge and I'm not sure we can afford it. I think we need to spend what money we have retaining our current A-graders and improving other areas of the ground. The unknown I suppose is how badly Collingwood want his salary off their books. They're not short of cash. If they're utterly desperate, maybe they'll agree to pay a significant portion of his salary. I doubt it though, as I suspect there's another club out there that is prepared to put down significant cap space for Treloar (Carlton, if they hadn't already committed to Saad/Williams, would be one, surely).

They signed him up to a 4-year extension in July last year, at a time when he was already contracted through to the end of 2021. Neither the hamstrings nor the poor kicking are new developments, both were well-known in July 2019. Whether it's bad salary cap management (no excuse for that either, it's not like in July 2019 they didn't know that Moore, De Goey, Mihocek, Cox etc. were all out of contract this year) or something else, this is a remarkable situation for the Pies to be in. As I've said before, I highly rate Treloar, his dodgy kicking notwithstanding. He'll find a home if he ultimately has to leave, even with the money he's owed under his current contract.

He's not a defender. IMO, he's also not a forward. He's just, IMO, not a footballer. I think he's significantly overrated on here and by the FD. But he'll be here next year so hopefully he can change my mind.

If Higgins is available this year we should be interested IMO. I think he's a pretty good small forward. As to Billings, I do not rate him as highly as others, and certainly not highly enough to trade Brayshaw for.

This has GNF riddles written all over it. Looking forward to seeing what the next few weeks brings.

I did pump up Geelong's tyres earlier, but the clear knock on them under Scott strengthened last night. In the 2017-2020 period, Geelong has played 11 finals for a 4-7 record. Richmond, in the same period, has played 12 finals for a 10-2 record (and three flags, obviously). In each of Richmond's premiership winning seasons, they've beaten Geelong (2017 QF, 2019 PF, 2020 GF). Things could have looked so different to the Richmond "dynasty" and Geelong's Dangerwood era if even one of those three Richmond-Geelong finals went the other way.

To be fair, whilst I don't agree with @DeeSpencer's overall view, the argument against taking Brown is clear and deserves consideration. It will either see us go into 2021 with Brown, Weideman and Jackson in our forward line, or with one of Weideman and Jackson not playing. If the former, can that forward line work? It's taller than both Geelong's and Richmond's (for example), and with the added risk that Brown, Weideman and Fritsch aren't good with pressure. If the latter, is that beneficial to our overall development? What's the point in taking Brown if we then can't/don't play Weideman? Or worse, it stifles Jackson's development? IMO, it will result in the former: we'll play Brown as the stay-at-home forward with Weideman and Jackson roaming further up. Jackson's agility mean he's not a true tall anyway, and I think Weideman will be better when he's released from the pressure of being our only tall marking option. The impetus on the FD is to ensure that Brown, Weideman and Fritsch are all chasing, defending and tackling when we don't have the ball. I'd rather us back ourselves in to see those players improve their defensive/pressure games than assume they'll never improve. But dismissing the argument against as simply "Brown kicks goals, we need goals, therefore we need Brown" is a bit shallow. It's a fair question to ask and debate to have.

Yes I agree. Fair. They're doing it in a 16-18 team era where the league is striving for equalisation at every turn, though.

Geelong has won 10+ games every year since 2003. They've only missed the finals twice in that period (2006 with 10.5 wins, and 2015 with 11.5 wins). They've won three flags in the last 14 seasons, could be four tonight. And they've made the preliminary final weekend 10 times in the last 14 seasons. All of that to me represents very strong performance. Yes, they've struggled in finals since the 2011 flag (a 6-12 record heading into tonight), and if they lose tonight they'll have won zero flags in the last nine seasons despite finishing in the top 4 six times. IMO, all that says to me is that they were a mark or two below becoming possibly the greatest team in the history of the game over a 14-season stretch.

If he stays, our plan has to be to use him as a mid/forward. He's not a defender and I don't want to see us try to continue pushing that square peg into that round hole. I don't think our midfield depth is so amazing that we can afford to let Harmes go. I also think Harmes is an upgrade on most of the small/mid forwards we played this year. Finally, I think we can think outside the box a bit in terms of using him as a defensive midfielder. I reckon there's a way to start him at centre bounces in the forward 6 but to have him push up after the opening bounce to follow someone. 6-6-6 only constrains that opening bounce, not the rest of the play, and I'm sure I recall Collingwood using Greenwood in a similar way.

Whilst Preuss and 23 for 9, or Preuss and TMac for 9 might not work, adding in our 2021 first rounder tips it the other way. I know we may want to ship TMac off, but this is too much out for not enough back.