Smokey

Well said, couldn't agree more. Seems a ridiculous deal to me

I wouldn't worry too much about the opinion of someone who thinks "lowder" is a word

Posting drunken videos calling out the club for not being interested in having players who can kick is not a dignified response. Nor is that the behaviour of a man, rather the behaviour of a child who still can't accept the reason he got the boot.

Fantastic value

Me being aware of the existence of Range Rovers shows my ignorance. Got it. "Better than your type" haha, it gets better. How was the snow at Bulla this season?

38 years of watching footy and you still think a player like Jack Watts is more important than the teams standards and aspirations of greatness. I bet you drive a Range Rover.

1. Big ask when Watts had 8 years of bad habits on the trot. Having to give certain players extra attention just get what is expected out of them is ridiculous in any case. If he wanted to remain at the club his actions throughout the year would've reflected that. 2. I don't think anyone has questioned his good start to the year. I think the fact he retreated into his old ways after the hammy is a far more significant than him doing his job for the first part of the year. All these people whinging about only get pick 31 - please consider the following: - Port was the only club who showed genuine interest in him. - The best pick they had available was 31 To me that seems like a simple, logical equation.

Personally I have never expected him to be our 'saviour'. He doesn't fit the profile. What I do expect, however, is his behaviour's and standards be that of a senior 9 year player. Someone for our kids to look up to. The leadership group and coaching group have condemned him in this area on multiple occasions and that really should say it all. It's not like they are making this stuff up (and suggesting its a personal vendetta his nothing short of ridiculous). Finishing 21st in the B&F in a year which saw us almost taste some real success also speaks volumes. His training and preparation habits are poor enough to have us arrive at this point. It's obvious he has to go, so the job of the FD is to get the best deal now. The fact only 1 club made a legitimate offer for his services is another damning example of his actual value. Granted, I accept the fact we did just trade out a commodity we are desperately short on in kicking ability and decision making. But again, his personal attributes have obviously left the club with no choice. Jack made the decision to get traded this year. I have faith in the FD that they will get the best possible outcome here. 31 seems unders, so I trust we will get something else in an upgrade somewhere. And hopefully we can package all these picks into something decent. What we get back may not immediately benefit us, given the lack of what we need being available and the time left to craft something, but the club seems fairly adamant that having him on the list would have us worse off than getting unders for him in a trade. And I agree with that.

And what's the point exactly? That I'm incorrect in saying that I believe he has a NET negative impact on our team and expressing that on a public discussion forum? Consider my use of the term net. And who's talking about him as a person? I thought we were talking about footy ...

I've spoken about Watts on numerous occasions in a positive light. Stop assuming everyone that doesn't share your sentiments hasn't had anything positive to say about him at any point. Assumptions never lead to productive discussion.

Telling me I shouldn't highlight Jack's bad attributes, followed by telling me there's two ways to look at every situation, is an oxymoron. I believe Watts has a net negative impact on our list. I'm entitled to that opinion.

Absolutely he's known quantity That is - known for laziness, unwillingness to take his game to the next level, a poor influence on younger players and an all round disappointment over 9 years I'm thrilled that our FD had the guts to make this call, and in turn sending a very strong message to the rest of our list.

Again, lets wait and see what we actually get huh? My guess is 31 + an upgrade somewhere else, which we can hopefully package to get back in the 1st round.

People in here already saying the deal is bad before we even know what the deal is haha

Who really cares?! The trade period has a bit of a Women's Weekly feel to it these days ... too much gossip and unnecessary opinion.

So many sentimental bleeding hearts in this thread. Jack doesn't output that which is expected of a 9 year player. The results have spoken for themselves for a long time. I love the fact the club has finally drawn a line in the sand with this bloke. His attitude doesn't fit in with the culture we are trying to create and I applaud our FD for making an unpopular call. Thanks for your service Jack, see you on the other end of the pitch next year. Lever is going to destroy Watts next year and I can't wait.

I find it very strange that these days people think they somehow have intellectual property rights over content they didn't create, but shared it to a social platform before others did. (not a personal attack on you, just an observation)

Kent?!?!?!

Kind of agree, although Stringer has a few less years of bad habits under his belt. He's young enough to be changed, and I feel Watts is too far gone. I'd accept this trade in a heartbeat.

Does he have any trade value?

Way off the mark here. It's actually baffling that us recruiting a marquee player has resulted in an attack on JM. Only on DL ...

Interesting comment given you were present for none of the conversations between the clubs with regard to this trade

Good deal, great acquisition Damn our backline is looking magnificent next year now. And I think thats really important given our attacking game plan. I suspect our turnovers will hurt less next year.

Well I guess there's no room in here for a light-hearted comment or two Lighten up guys ... its only Jack Watts ...

Ok lets give him a hug and order some overpriced board shorts instead