buck_nekkid

He is getting a finger and an ankle. The finger because it has been stuck up his ahrse. Ankle because he has had his foot in his mouth. Back in time to sook about Sloane in the pre-season.

Really finished the year off poorly. Could have imposed himself but failed to do so. Doubt he has any currency. Thanks, ans see ya. Seems the drinking session was a bit of a line in the sand for the club.

Seems no one wants him, at the price. Could be interesting to low ball them and see what happens. At this stage, the game isn’t being dominated by teams with monster forward lines - but it could be if they are a) freaks b) apply heaps of pressure c) are bullocks who smash their way through or d) super quick. Not sure Love Shack is any of these things. I would think, unless it was for a bag of chips and a used band-aid, it would be a no from us.

DO you think Rory Sloane will tell the Cows that he is off at the end of next year? Imagine the conversation: “What are your plans, Rory” - “I’m not telling you guys, you might shave my balls whilst I’m asleep!”. Cows have absolutely won the “Sook it up” medal for 2017! Who would want to go there? Fragile culture, by the looks of things.

At least Jack is getting a nice holiday out of all of this touring!

The Bluey is a look into the way the coaching team is thinking. Whilst we on the ‘outside’ can see merit in his game (and perhaps he pulls off a blinder and wins the QB after the siren), it is interesting that the coaches are not seeing what they need to see in his play to earn him higher votes. To finish in 21st gives a real indication that he is not performing for the club in ways that is setting the coaching team alight. I imagine that all of the 100’s of pages of posts here dissecting his performance from outside - and guessing at what is happening inside - could be summed up in this result. Here is a player with so much talent who - against the metrics set by the club - was 21st best. We bring in 2 players and he isn’t even best 22....

I need a few emotional sherberts just for reading this site!

Thought this, too. Bit I was left with was (to paraphrase) - If he stays he knows exactly what is required of him.

Here is a rumour - something exciting is going to happen. Nah, just more tumbleweeds. They should make the trade period 2 hours, not two weeks, long - that would be entertaining!

They still want two first rounders, but will speak ‘only to us’ for now (how nice of them...). These pricks have no idea. I was hoping this would be done quick so we could get on with other things, but it looks like this one may drag over the two weeks.

Best wishes to the young man on a full and fast recovery.

Is there a team in Byron? Jack apparently is looking for a trade there....

Adelaide know you have to pay overs to lure talent. The Jake Lever thread will show you how fans view such things...

So he met some guy with a man bun. Melbourne unaware of meeting (dont need to be), not aware of wanting to be traded (because he doesn’t?). No news. Jesse is always going to attract the go home story, I have seen nothing to suggest he will not be contracted and playing next year.

This thread will be glorious if he stays!

Maybe as he wins ‘most loved and must never be traded’ award? Apparently, everyone loves him so much that the team will implode, Hoges will be off and everyone will wear black armbands for a year. or maybe he will win ‘most diligent preparer’ award?

If Hogan walks because of Watts being told he would be better served elsewhere, then he is a fool and a sook. His job is not list management. He can be unhappy for his friend, but still be a professional. maybe we are landing Fyfe?

And HE wanted out!

If he was as good/valuable as people suggest, there would be no way of this would be going on. according to posters here, we ‘shoulda’ had Dusty, Nic Nakkers, etc etc. you have to make your decision and stick to it. What players show elsewhere is not our concern. If Jack goes elsewhere and is a superstar (good for him), so be it. If what we see is that in this environment we will not get what we need from him, then it is absolutely time to part company - irrespective of what he could/will achieve elsewhere.

Isn’t he 30 or 31 or something???? Might smash it, but the clock is running...

4th rounder and get it done - boom!

Then look him up on tinder/grinder

The media are paid to speculate - and to create controversy and click bait. At the end of the day, our FD isn’t sitting there saying “wow! We got that so wrong! Because Weaful Wee said he is worth a first rounder, we need to change our thinking”. Ignore the idiots, ignore the chaff.

Wow. If true, I can understand MFC having some angst. His priorities seem out of whack. Be different if he was going back to family for a week or so, with rehab instructions etc. To ask to go to Byron for a break instead of being around the team is not a leadership or team first act. No wonder the leadership group were cranky. Very different to Hogan (father dying) or Garlett (family bereavement). ‘Surfs up, can I go, coach?’

I have been thinking on ‘what is he worth’ (and it extends to Watts, and everyone else). A draft pick takes effort and resources to develop into a player. The pick has ‘potential’ but no evidence of performance capability. So when we think of Lever, he was a first round pick that has had investment in his development, and we believe that he has long term potential and demonstrated performance capability. We can get in draft picks and pay them a lower salary. Or else we can bring in players and pay for their development elsewhere (and hopefully decrease the risk that we take in getting them ready to go). In terms of salary, bringing in a low risk, low cost to develop option is definitely worth more than a developing young player who has yet to deliver on their potential. Players that pass through development and show that they can play move into the category of lower risk assets, and are worth additional salary. (This is where it looks like Adelaide screwed up). From a ‘trade value’ scenario, it really depends where you are relative to your list development. If there is a scarcity for specific talent that we need to complete a part of our list, then paying ‘overs’ is acceptable. If the list is shoddy or full of holes, then going for young potential through the draft is higher risk - but if you are not a serious contender is a lower cost strategy that makes sense. This is where we have been for the last decade. If you know there are higher quality talent (risk, but lower risk) in the draft, and you dont have immediate need, then trading for the right picks seems wise. List management also requires a continuous back fill of talent so that you have ‘depth’. So return to the issue at hand: What should we pay Lever and pay for Lever? Probably overs in terms of contract, and overs in terms of pure replacement pick (so a first and a second). What should we get for Watts? Probably unders - we wont get a first pick, and probably a second round pick would be appropriate. That is, unless we can find a suitor that has a specific need that they are trying to fill. He is worth more to us (if he puts the shoulder to the wheel) than his market value because of his 9 years of demonstrated ‘performance’ and unfulfilled ‘potential’. Dealing between clubs is not about ‘winning and losing’ (outcome bias), but about serving our needs. If the club determines that getting Lever for two first round picks is value to us, then so be it. It is not about the deal for Danger, Mitchell, or whomever. This just biases the conversation (and why Burton from Adelaide is a clown). Get the best you can, relative to current need, and get on with chasing the flag. Between filling a few holes in the list, and seeing some significant development in talent on the way up, I think we are well placed. We dont need too much from the draft, so the picks are better used traded out to get what we need in terms of already developed and performing talent.