Redleg

I have another slant on this situation. WHAT IF Sheedy, who we overlooked, knew that it was unlikely that he could get Scully, so puts the story around that they are offering Scully $6m over 6 years to cause the Dees grief. We have this uncertainty and a higher contract price to sign Scully. Nice bit of revenge for knocking back Sheeds. It also draws other managers out to test the waters and hides some of the real targets GWS are after. Of course I could be wrong.

That's how I read it.

The reality is that GWS may have made an offer to Tom's management and I am sure if that is the case, it gives them a good bargaining position to get a good contract for him from us. Gary Ablett only left when the Cats said they could not get anywhere near GC's offer. A few other interesting things are that Nathan Ablett is now on the GC list and I believe Gary Senior is also living up there. Gary was also offered something like $1.9m a year with 80% up front for the whole 5 years. If we were in danger of losing Tom I am sure we would be jumping up and down screaming. That is not the case at the moment. Hopefully in time we will re-sign Tom and all other players we wish to keep. As another poster said, lets enjoy this season and let our FD deal with this problem, if it is in fact a problem. I suspect it is not one.

The AFL could gain a bit of respect by admitting their mistake and changing the GWS concessions to only applying to players over 22.

For this to be even a possibility shows the absolute incompetence and hypocrisy of those that run the AFL. No player under 21 or 22 should have been allowed to be involved in this. It makes an absolute mockery of the draft and the reason for it.

Glad I didn't go. How hurtful.

Would love 3.00 PM locally as a personal preference.

I get the feeling that if Mick was offered more than the Pies contract and wanted to go, Bucks would be happy to oblige and lean on Eddie to let him go, rather than have him there overseeing his work.

Logical. We have a good list of players all trying to get a game at the moment and there is no reason not to wait and see if a rookie shines and deserves a game in the seniors. It would be disappointing to promote someone who has no impact while a rookie is starring and cannot get uplifted. Sorry OX 5 didn't see your post while I was typing.

I have even heard the unbelievably way out "greeny" used for, guess who, wait for it, yes Brad Green.

Ross is correct, sledging should now be limited to " chewy on your boot". Anything else should be a life AFL suspension. Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good post.

WJ, please don't mention the former number 32 again or we will get another 10 pages of posts on him.

Not sure if the forgotten Stef Martin has been mentioned in this thread, but Chip's injury may create a place for him and I have a feeling he may be in for a good year. He is training well and is in good condition. With Warnock, Rivers, Garland and Stef we should be right for height in the backline until Chip's return.

And so it starts. It would be be nice to get through a pre season for once without losing a couple of star players.

Just watched the Dees v Swans game again and for those who want to see improvement, both individual and as a team, watch the game if you have a copy.

I'd rather have the best person.

Got me thinking about how many players are pigeon holed. Often heard said "oh he is a backman or he is a mid or a forward" when in reality we don't really know, because the player hasn't been given a chance in another position. I am sure that most players can play in several positions and it becomes a mindset with the club and fans, without much basis, that they can only play in one position. A perfect example is our games and goals record holder who started as a brilliant CHB. PS. Before people jump down my throat, I am not saying every player can play in every position, just that there is more versatility to most players than they are given credit for.

Correct.

Fair enough.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that wins are a simplistic measure of improvement. I think they are an indicator along with many others. I just wonder how long our fans would continue to be happy if players improved but the team didn't win games. I think one goes hand in hand with the other. Would we call Bails a good coach if we win 3 brownlows, get 3 AA's and hardly win a game in the next few years? I know that you can say if players get better we will win more games but that is not necessarily true. Remember the old adage, a champion team will beat a team of champions. I just believe that the winning should start as soon as possible as along with that comes the feeling of success and competing well against the best. That is an enormous benefit to any sportsman. PS. I have been and still am as patient as one can be waiting for our next period of success and I do see the bigger picture. No one was more vocal than me about losing games and getting draft picks.

Well actually I repeated his statements and asked if that result would satisfy him. I know exactly what he is saying and you don't need to add condescendingly that "you" expect better of me. I understand that there are many indicators of progress in a footy side. One of which no doubt is the team winning games. I have put his indicators back to him to ask if in the absence of winning games he would be satisfied with progress in other ways such as individual improvement. While many would be happy with that I am sure that most would still want more games won. Further if next year is not about winning games then is 2011 or 2012 or 2013? Who says when the winning games button is turned on as being a key indicator of improvement or for that matter failure. In my view winning games is an indicator of team improvement to the rest of the footy world and while inside the club there may be joy at individual improvement, there would be also be disappointment if less games are won. Just ask the Board, the members and the Sponsors.

So if I follow your premise you would not care less if we were winless, as long as certain players start to dominate opposition and the side dominates the opposition, even if only for short periods here and there. You have got to be joking Bob. Do you not think there is any benefit in a few ugly wins and some pretty ones that get us into the finals and give the players some finals experience and belief that they can mix it with anyone?

Well if the three, or any of them, have poor years, their position on the list would be at risk, as we have to delist at least three at the end of the season.

Agree. There are so many variables. For example, Colin gets best on the ground from all media outlets, but it is against the scum and Judd gets the umpires votes with his 15 possession, hardly noticed display. Second example, Colin kicks five goals, assists with three more and has 35 possessions absolutely dominating the game, but argues with the umpires and does not get their votes. I actually think Colin has taken the next step and is one of our best players.