sue

I admit my recollection of all that is fuzzy, but is it not possible that the MFC doctors knew there was a problem but we were hardly likely to tell Richmond that and hoped they wouldn't find out. Not very ethical, but..... Or is this interpretation incompatible with the know sequence of events at the time?

If anyone has anything NEW to say about Watts can they please start a new thread because this one is best put on ignore (do we have that option?)

Denis Pagan's review - New Daily http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2017/10/19/afl-trades-2018/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171020_TND Melbourne: Lever in is a big plus but did the Demons give away too much to get him? The Dees didn’t handle the Jack Watts situation well, either. Port Adelaide: The Power lost several players – but none of them were walk-up starts in the first 22. Rockliff, Steven Motlop and Watts are great ins. A super trade period.

No need to get personal jnrmac. There was certainly an earlier post, presumably from someone else, which tried to put the boot into Watts for dropping himself. I just hastily read that into your post. My humblest apologies. Just because someone disagrees with you on some points is no reason to write your last sentence. If you actually read my posts for content rather than simply dismissing them as 'fanboy' remarks (what an insulting phrase that is by the way) you will find there is little emotion in my comments other than disgust with some of the over-the-top rude and unecessary posts made about Watts. You might also find I was not religiously opposed to Watts being traded though I question how well this was handled.

I've lost the original post but it was from one of the more enthusiastic "remove Watts" camp. The comment was that the Club was under no obligation to inform the players of the reason for Watts removal and anyway they were all on holiday and would be told when they got back. I sincerly hope the Club is smarter than that. Just telling players what's in the media is not enough (or worse letting them only see it in the media). They have to have an opportunity to discuss it with the FD and work through it. Players will have more meaningful questions than us on the outside. Leaving that discussion till they got back would be a mistake since there may be a lot of players who would have questions rattling in their heads for weeks which can't be a good thing. I'm hoping that the report of Sam W's comments is wrong, but it sounded less tenth-hand than most rumours posted here. But as I said earlier, I can't believe the FD would be so stupid not to do that properly, so I'm comforted a bit that the report is wrong. Those who support the decision most strongly should be able to see that one can support the decision and still be concerned with its implementation.

If it was any other player you would have said that was a professional thing to do showing great self-awareness and maturity. There are many good arguments in support of removing Watts, but that is not one.

Yeah, so would I. But if that report is true (note the if) then it would appear that the FD has not given the lesson to the players. The only reason I'm not too depressed (yet) is that I can't imagine the FD being so stupid as to not have made it clear to the players why this is happening well before now.

Yes he may be trying to change the culture. But surely the FD should make sure that the other players are informed on why Watts was moved on before now. Sam should not be confused if the CLub had explained the decision to the players. Yeah. I said "If it is true". I'm hoping it's not true, because I'll be depressed if it is. But surely good communciation to the players should have happened already. Sam should know before now why the Club was moving Watts on. If he is bewildered then there is a big communcation failure. What's the point of sending a message if you don't send it?

The depressing thing is that Sam does not understand why he was moved on, thought Watts was doing OK. Surely you see that? If this is true, then the communciation of the 'message' to the younger team members is a disaster.

It's depressing if that is true. Very depressing.

Arguing on this forum is like boxing with shadows. Your post put all the blame on Watts. I pointed to some errors the club must have also made (if you accept the 'must trade Watts line as you do) and your response is to defend Goodwin. We don't know if he was happy or otherwise with Watts' contract so how do you know he is not at fault as much as the rest of the club.

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then. Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

The fact that some players succeed at a pick greater than 30 does not affect S Schultz's point. It's not definitive, but listing the outcomes of all the players taken at a certain pick is meaningful. The more years you include the better of course. But if you find that only 10% of players taken at pick 31 end up 'good' and only 2% of those taken at 61 do, then surely that tells you something. Until someone does a similar analysis, preferably over many more years that shows a different result, his data is indicative that around pick 30 only 10% of picks will work out. Of course his sample is too small to be definitive. If there was just 1 more 'success' in the list it would be 20%.

That's true, however I thought the phrase meant that after the first few picks none of the other players looked impressive. So unless you have a high pick, it is even more pot luck than usual as to whether pick 20 wil be any better than pick 40. If no one stands out at all (though that never seems to happen), then the whole thing is a lottery.

umm... perhaps they are not the same people. It is possible to support the club's decisions on some issues and not on others.

Nothing wrong with most of your points. But a crap player wouldn't score as well as he did even with all those factors - there were lots of other players whose votes would have been boosted by the absence of Hibber and Lewis for example. Where were they in the votes? As for the 6th before he was injured issue, I recall seeing it on the screen (and being very surprised at the time). But you only have my word and bad eyesight for that. I'm happy for people to put their faith in the FD's decision since they know more than us. But I don't see the need to rewrite history or dismiss anything said in favour of Watts to help justify their decision. If Watts is as bad as some make out, then the Port Adelaide FD must be a bunch of fools.

It is a fantasy that the FD's voting in the B&F seem to have believed over the window Jibroni quoted. Maybe they changed their minds for all sort of reasons, but you can't just dismiss it as you have.

Before this becomes accepted as fact, would you care to explain your arithmetic?

Of course. So either Mahoney was just too embarrassed to say we were paying or there is something else in the wings, eg. we will pay some if Port gives us something else but it's not yet agreed. God knows what they could give us.

I assume you are not referring to me, but in case so, I've not bagged the footy dept. If anything I've said they know more than we do. But I have bagged those whose negative remarks about Watts have been totally over the top. I was arguing that Watts' recent performance may well be sufficient for Port. He doesn't have to have a dramatic improvement to have an impact. I think his recent B&F performances (and don't give me that 21st post-injury rubbish) would be seen as acceptable to Port though of course they'd hope for more. They did take him it seems. So where is the silly argument?

How does that in any way a knock on Watts' recent performance? Or are you saying the FD are a bunch of idiots when they vote on the B&F? He's gone, give it a rest.

Whatever his mis-match and failings at MFC, he doesn't have to have a transformed performance to do well at Port. Whatever your view of the benefits of trading him, don't forget where is was in the B&F 2016 and where is was in the count before he was injured this year.

This is the sort of snipe that really annoys me. Whatever you think of Watts, he provided a lot more than Toumpas under a lot more scrutiny.

Feel free to argue that the club has handled it well, but my point was that your previous post muddled your view of the desirability of removing Watts with the issue of how it was handled which was the subject of the post you were quoting. I can't see how I can make that any clearer to you than I had, so I surrender.

I don't think those saying the club has handled this badly are referring to the decision, but the implementation of it (whatever one thinks of either issue).