List Mgmt. AFL Article linking Cats and Frawley

[Cataholic]

But Frawley is not a Cats player.

Hence his qualifier 'I am the eternal optimist'.

 

[The rabbi]

I would suggest then that it is a fine line between being an eternal optimist and being deluded.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I am the eternal optimist.

The premiership is ours for the taking. And how could it not be with a fully fit team with everyone back to their best like this.

-- Rivers -- Frawley -- Enright
-- Mackie -- Taylor -- Guthrie
-- S Selwood -- Dangerfield -- Christensen
-- Simpson -- J Selwood -- Caddy
-- Ablett -- Vardy/Walker -- Motlop
-- Bartel -- Hawkins -- Johnson

Int: Blicavs, Duncan, Stokes
Menzel

No body will come close to heading us.

Not sure about Dawson playing as a HFF or Joel playing as our CHF.
Jimmy as a small mobile Ruckman working with Tommy as the biggest Ruck Rover in history would be interesting to see as well.

 

[Teriyakicat]

.

That edit of yours is bloody hilarious, YOTC

 

[darren forssman]

But Frawley is not a Cats player.

out of the whole team listing you picked out frawley?

 

[strauchnyy]

From the draft board:

All indications @Fremantle_FC will pip GeelongCats for James Frawley. Couple of sources say he's gone back to Perth for more fitness tests

— Tom Browne (@TomBrowne7) September 20, 2014


If freo have upped their offer to 7, cats should up theirs to 6. If we don't and consequently miss out, we are going to be in a world of pain from 2016 onwards. The extra year is definitely worth it.

 

[catempire]

No upping of offers. If he wants us it's for what we offer as a club, not for the dollars and tenure.

If we miss out, so be it.

 

[Catweazel]

why do we miss out on players adam to collingwood shaw stayed at gws another one I cant think of now ,bloody freo

 

[Catatonic Shock]

No upping of offers. If he wants us it's for what we offer as a club, not for the dollars and tenure.

If we miss out, so be it.

Unfortunately the AFL world isn't like that anymore.
If we want to compete in the FA stakes we HAVE to start playing the game.

 

[Baudolino]

Usually agree with you catempire, but I'm with strauchnyy on this one. We can't decide not to throw good money at Frawley based on the hypothetical possibility that we will need more space in the cap should Dangerfield become available. Frawley would be a huge get for the future of our club and, importantly, he's a player we know is available. I'm also not convinced that a 6k per year offer would preclude us from landing Danger anyway, especially given the spate of retirements due to come at the end of next year, which will surely free up considerable cap space.

Up the offer.

 

[catempire]

Unfortunately the AFL world isn't like that anymore.
If we want to compete in the FA stakes we HAVE to start playing the game.

We are playing. We just don't go all-in on the second hand.

 

[BUSTER29]

No upping of offers. If he wants us it's for what we offer as a club, not for the dollars and tenure.

If we miss out, so be it.

I agree.
* him.
He's not that good anyway.

 

[strauchnyy]

No upping of offers. If he wants us it's for what we offer as a club, not for the dollars and tenure.

If we miss out, so be it.

Overall yes, that should be our long term view. But there are also times when we need to be flexible and treat some situations differently.

The afl, especially recently, is a ruthless competition and if we refuse to budge and be flexible and adapt to situations, we get left behind.

If we refuse to move a tiny bit on frawley, that tiny bit will cost us dearly.

2016 there will be no lonergan, no rivers, probably no mackie and a 30 year old Taylor.. With a 5 gamer in kolo to take the no.1 forward. Hamling I doubt will even be on the list.

That backline will not only be leaking goals, but it will leave it extremely hard to develop young players and are next generation. We can risk more inexperienced players in the side now because our defence is strong and it takes more inside 50s to score against us.

Without frawley, we have no one to play on the no.1 forwards.

All because we refuse to give frawley an extra year because we don't want to be flexible. Pfft. Do that and we will go backwards and get overtaken by every body.

In the long term I agree, keep the pay structure as is, but when a dangerfield comes along or a very good player who fits our most dire need comes along, you adapt and go hard for them.

 

[catempire]

Usually agree with you catempire, but I'm with strauchnyy on this one. We can't decide not to throw good money at Frawley based on the hypothetical possibility that we will need more space in the cap should Dangerfield become available. Frawley would be a huge get for the future of our club and, importantly, he's a player we know is available. I'm also not convinced that a 6k per year offer would preclude us from landing Danger anyway, especially given the spate of retirements due to come at the end of next year, which will surely free up considerable cap space.

Up the offer.

Overall yes, that should be our long term view. But there are also times when we need to be flexible and treat some situations differently.

The afl, especially recently, is a ruthless competition and if we refuse to budge and be flexible and adapt to situations, we get left behind.

If we refuse to move a tiny bit on frawley, that tiny bit will cost us dearly.

2016 there will be no lonergan, no rivers, probably no mackie and a 30 year old Taylor.. With a 5 gamer in kolo to take the no.1 forward. Hamling I doubt will even be on the list.

That backline will not only be leaking goals, but it will leave it extremely hard to develop young players and are next generation. We can risk more inexperienced players in the side now because our defence is strong and it takes more inside 50s to score against us.

Without frawley, we have no one to play on the no.1 forwards.

All because we refuse to give frawley an extra year because we don't want to be flexible. Pfft. Do that and we will go backwards and get overtaken by every body.

In the long term I agree, keep the pay structure as is, but when a dangerfield comes along or a very good player who fits our most dire need comes along, you adapt and go hard for them.

I know what you are both saying, and to be clear, I'm not advocating rigidity and inflexibility. I'm saying, if what has been reported is true - that we have offered something like 5 years @ $500k - then that is close to the upper ceiling of what we should be offering. If Freo wins his services because they pay more than what the club believes is reasonable, then so be it.

As an aside, perhaps Frawley is taken by some other, non-financial aspect of Freo's offer. Who knows?

But it's important to remember that we have needs all over the ground, most obviously in the midfield. We can't be putting all our eggs in the Frawley basket. I'm confident the club will do all it reasonably can to secure his services.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Maybe Frawley see's the shockers are more in premiership window than us plus there extra $$$$.Which out weights playing with hes old mate in rivers for one year inc whatever else he liked about our club.
14'000k posts woot.

 

[strauchnyy]

We have needs all over the ground, I agree.

But a very good full back is one if, if not the most important for a successful team. And one is on offer. It is easier to get mids.

And if its a smidgen we have to move to get him, and even if its a bit over his worth, we need to do it.

We have zero options (full back), coming through, kolo is more a third tall like rivers. We will have guys like cloke, buddy, tippet kicking 6 on us every time and we will lose games because of it.

I trust the club sees this and if we need to go 1 extra year, I think we will do it.

 

[TheJimmyCartel]

No upping of offers. If he wants us it's for what we offer as a club, not for the dollars and tenure.

If we miss out, so be it.

I like that in theory but the reality is if we take that approach to all our top-end trade targets, we won't land many....if any. (Apologies for the Scribe lyric)

And how often do you go to the negotiation table with your best offer? If that's how Geelong are conducting business than I'm very concerned. You've got to allow yourself wriggle room to increase your offer otherwise our hand is continually face up to opposition clubs and we'll repeatedly get trumped. Give yourself room to move or make an offer that nobody can/will match if it's desperately what you need.

 

[catempire]

I like that in theory but the reality is if we take that approach to all our top-end trade targets, we won't land many....if any. (Apologies for the Scribe lyric)

And how often do you go to the negotiation table with your best offer? If that's how Geelong are conducting business than I'm very concerned.

See above Scott. I think I've given a bit more context since the quoted post to explain it.

The club will offer as much as it thinks is reasonable. I think we can be happy with that knowledge.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Someone posted we are looking at A.corr from GWS maybe a backup plan,but who knows.

 

[Jagshemash]

Someone posted we are looking at A.corr from GWS maybe a backup plan,but who knows.

Riewoldt kicked 11 on him this year. We might as well play Hamling. Similar physique.

 

[Jagshemash]

I don't necessarily agree with Kolo as only being suited to a 3rd tall either. Perhaps if he was to line up Round 1 next season, then yes, a 3rd tall would be a good starting point. But he certainly has the capabilities to play full back in the future, no doubt.

Let's remember the position is about technique more so than pure size - for example, Frawley is 193cm and has played the position well in the past to an AA level; Kolo is 194cm and in his first season...what's to say he can't develop the technique to play the position? He will put on size as he has that sort of body unlike Hamling and Brown. He demonstrates enormous defensive ability for such a young age, even if it's only at VFL level. His body positioning is very good from the times I've watched him this season.

I'd be more than happy to bring Frawley in. I'd perhaps up our offer slightly, but I wouldn't go near Freo's. Besides I kind of like the idea of having to playing the younger defenders, we may actually find a player out of it.

 

[Claude Balls]

The timing of Freo's desperation for their inaugural flag is unfortunate. At any other time we get our man for a reasonable price.

 

[dazbroncos]

I'd push the money a little for chip.. Maybe to 550 for 5 but if freo are going really big.. 600 for 7 or so the let them.

We can't bury the ethos of out existence and success of the last 8 years for one player. Yes the landscape is changing and we must with it but not by blowing it up on one player

Go Catters

 

[Claude Balls]

I'd push the money a little for chip.. Maybe to 550 for 5 but if freo are going really big.. 600 for 7 or so the let them.

We can't bury the ethos of out existence and success of the last 8 years for one player. Yes the landscape is changing and we must with it but not by blowing it up on one player

Go Catters

Yep agree Daz, I'd push it a little, but not drastically. Would add a year or keep it at 5 but increase the $ to equal Freo's amount per year.

 

[dazbroncos]

Yep agree Daz, I'd push it a little, but not drastically. Would add a year or keep it at 5 but increase the $ to equal Freo's amount per year.

I think we can stay under their total money and years offered as the tyranny of distance comes at a price. IF they are 7 and 600 per year, us at 5 and 550 is reasonable.

Rest is up to him and his wallet…

Go Catters