Source for "Mackay 4 years, $1.6m"?

[adelaidecrows]

The base wage for a player as experienced as him is around 250K, if the 400K figure is correct it's only 150K more than what he probably should have been signed to, while overs, it's hard to think that any club list would be crippled by such a deal.

I think its the length that's the issue more so than the amount. While I can see why the club did it, I don't understand the thought of a 4 year deal. If it was a 3 year deal it probably would have been a lot more palatable. I honestly cant see him surviving until the end of the contract unless he plays a blinding season next year.

 

[Macjoe]

Which talent are you referring to?

David Mackay: 27 yrs old, 144 games including 20 this year under both Walsh and Campo. 2015 has not been his best year, and has dropped his averaages. They are 8.7 kicks and 8 handballs per game for 16.6 disposals, with 3.3 marks and 3.2 tackles.
That is a rough statistical overview of his 'talent' - he can do his role in an AFL team. There are many players in all AFL teams on a par or below.
Even some of the acknowledged good players in good teams only shade his averages a little. For example, consider multi-premiership player Grant Birchall of the Hawks - he is 27 and has played 216 games including 22 this year: 12.7 kicks and 9.5 handballs for 22.1 disposals. He averages 5.8 marks but only 1.2 tackles.
Mackay's talent is real, and his best is very good. That is why he is regularly in our best 22, and hasn't been discarded on the back of a poor year. He could always be traded, but I hope he is retained, has a good pre-season and plays better next year.

 

[King Elvis]

The only people who should make decisions are those who have only had 100% successes.

My threshold isn't 100% accuracy; but 3 massive blunders, which were clearly that at the time, should be enough to invalidate someone from that position.

Turning your deliberately flawed logic back at you, how many poor decisions before we change it?

 

[Elite Crow]

You still do not comprehend the talent drain by Tippettgate do you and that the club felt it had to protect itself? Like it or not, a lot of clubs in our position would have done the same. The club was hamstrung. Wright, Mackay, VB and Reilly like it or not are good quality depth players that you aren't going to ditch from the squad without replacement talent coming into the squad. The loss of those 4 picks really hurt our ability to make "ELITE" list management decisions giving players longer footy lives than what is expected.

Oh I do. I also understand that signing average players or good quality depth players to decent term contracts you don't do.

Ask your self this question, would we have lost Reilly, Dmack and VB if we signed them to shorter contracts?

But the club didn't sign these players as depth, they signed them as first 18 players. Despite this year being dropped for a couple of games they were brought straight back at the expense of Grigg, CEY and the like. Poor list management, not even close to good list management.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Oh I do. I also understand that signing average players or good quality depth players to decent term contracts you don't do.

Ask your self this question, would we have lost Reilly, Dmack and VB if we signed them to shorter contracts?

But the club didn't sign these players as depth, they signed them as first 18 players. Despite this year being dropped for a couple of games they were brought straight back at the expense of Grigg, CEY and the like. Poor list management, not even close to good list management.

I am not saying it's great and that I can see why they did it, but I am not sure you aren't looking for perfection in exceptional circumstances.

 

[Elite Crow]

David Mackay: 27 yrs old, 144 games including 20 this year under both Walsh and Campo. 2015 has not been his best year, and has dropped his averaages. They are 8.7 kicks and 8 handballs per game for 16.6 disposals, with 3.3 marks and 3.2 tackles.
That is a rough statistical overview of his 'talent' - he can do his role in an AFL team. There are many players in all AFL teams on a par or below.
Even some of the acknowledged good players in good teams only shade his averages a little. For example, consider multi-premiership player Grant Birchall of the Hawks - he is 27 and has played 216 games including 22 this year: 12.7 kicks and 9.5 handballs for 22.1 disposals. He averages 5.8 marks but only 1.2 tackles.
Mackay's talent is real, and his best is very good. That is why he is regularly in our best 22, and hasn't been discarded on the back of a poor year. He could always be traded, but I hope he is retained, has a good pre-season and plays better next year.

That last sentence is something that's said at the end of every year.

Oh he was dropped in 2014.

 

[mistylake]

He's a reindeer.

Which one is he?
Not Nipper or Nimble, must be one of either flotsam and jetsam.

 

[Golumless]

David Mackay: 27 yrs old, 144 games including 20 this year under both Walsh and Campo. 2015 has not been his best year, and has dropped his averaages. They are 8.7 kicks and 8 handballs per game for 16.6 disposals, with 3.3 marks and 3.2 tackles.
That is a rough statistical overview of his 'talent' - he can do his role in an AFL team. There are many players in all AFL teams on a par or below.
Even some of the acknowledged good players in good teams only shade his averages a little. For example, consider multi-premiership player Grant Birchall of the Hawks - he is 27 and has played 216 games including 22 this year: 12.7 kicks and 9.5 handballs for 22.1 disposals. He averages 5.8 marks but only 1.2 tackles.
Mackay's talent is real, and his best is very good. That is why he is regularly in our best 22, and hasn't been discarded on the back of a poor year. He could always be traded, but I hope he is retained, has a good pre-season and plays better next year.

I have no doubt. I mean that semi-final in '09 was superb.

Shame i can't think of a single game since then that he was at his best since then...

 

[Macjoe]

I have no doubt. I mean that semi-final in '09 was superb.

Shame i can't think of a single game since then that he was at his best since then...

25 disposals (17 kicks, 6 handballs plus a goal and an IMMENSE 13 tackles vs Melbourne in round 3 this year is not too shabby.
Or his 29 disposal game (14 kicks and 15 handballs) with 8 marks and 2 goals in our round 4 win vs St Kilda last year.
Look, I have no issue with anyone suggesting they don't feel he is current best 22. Your privledge. I also hope our list is improved to the point that even at his best he is not best 22.
But it is just wrong to say he has no talent, or has no right to be condidered in our current team.

 

[Stiffy_18]

David Mackay is the new Chris Knights of this board when it comes to salary.

Remember the time when it was a "widely known fact" on BigFooty that Chris Knights was on some ridiculous coin after his 2009 season and was in top 5 paid players at the club?! Only to be proven completely wrong as he was unrestricted free agent after 8 years of service indicating he was not in the top 25% of the highest paid players at the club!

Yeah well, that's Mackay now!

 

[Miss Vanessa]

David Mackay: 27 yrs old, 144 games including 20 this year under both Walsh and Campo. 2015 has not been his best year, and has dropped his averaages. They are 8.7 kicks and 8 handballs per game for 16.6 disposals, with 3.3 marks and 3.2 tackles.
That is a rough statistical overview of his 'talent' - he can do his role in an AFL team. There are many players in all AFL teams on a par or below.
Even some of the acknowledged good players in good teams only shade his averages a little. For example, consider multi-premiership player Grant Birchall of the Hawks - he is 27 and has played 216 games including 22 this year: 12.7 kicks and 9.5 handballs for 22.1 disposals. He averages 5.8 marks but only 1.2 tackles.
Mackay's talent is real, and his best is very good. That is why he is regularly in our best 22, and hasn't been discarded on the back of a poor year. He could always be traded, but I hope he is retained, has a good pre-season and plays better next year.

Birchall's numbers are significantly more impressive than MacKays. 5.5 extra disposals a game equates to over 100 extra possessions over the course of the year - and Birchall is a more damaging player with the ball than MacKay. This year alone, Birchall had 7 games where he had 25+ possessions this season, including 2 30+ possession games. His worst output for the season were 2 17 possession games - still better than MacKay's career average. Even discounting his sub affected games, MacKay had 2 sub 10 possession games, failed to reach 25 disposals once and had only 4 games where he reached 20 disposals this year.

The truth is, barring 2009, his output has been well below what you would expect from a running half back flanker/wingman. If it were true that other clubs were sniffing around him we should have simply let him go... Instead we panicked and offered him a long term deal well above what he was worth.

 

[Golumless]

Oh I do. I also understand that signing average players or good quality depth players to decent term contracts you don't do.

The only way you could justify giving them longer term contracts is if you had players that needed to be cut prior and we needed to stagger the cuts. An unfortunate by-product of a post sanctions list re-jig.

Ask your self this question, would we have lost Reilly, Dmack and VB if we signed them to shorter contracts?

But the club didn't sign these players as depth, they signed them as first 18 players. Despite this year being dropped for a couple of games they were brought straight back at the expense of Grigg, CEY and the like. Poor list management, not even close to good list management.

The other question is if we went the shorter route, would it end up costing us more of the cap? The unfortunate state of both Rielly and Mackay is both of them were going to be on our list up until this point due to the amount of cuts we needed to do, even VB post captaincy is in this category.

The other point, is at the time all three were starters with minimal competition for their spot. (Not that i am a fan mind you).

Mackay literally had 0 competition for an outside spot, due to the real lack of them on our list, and our inability to get good linebreakers in. We can both deliberate why this happened, but that's the unfortunate truth of it. So there was justification for the years, despite my dislike of us having Mackay in the side.

That said, i'm hoping it's a 3+1 despite what Metric said.

Reilly again had little competition for the spot at the time of signing. Jaesnch was well on the way to being delisted, Smith was on the other flank and Henderson was an enigma whether he would make it (and still is, to a degree). Again, a very bare cupboard come 2013.

VB was captain at the start of that deal, so unfortunately he was always going to get a longer contract due to us wanting to avoid bad PR. That said, he was a player who always ended up filling holes whenever we needed him.

The bad list management here isn't the fact that these three players were signed to longer deals, it's more to do with the conditions leading up to it, and seeing Noble and co. had their hands tied firmly behind there back, i'm willing to be lenient here.

With Grigg and CEY, and at a risk of sounding Vader like here, perhaps they aren't good enough? Plus it's a role thing, for instance CEY isn't competing with Mackay and VB for a spot in the side, he's competing with Crouch and Thompson. Grigg however, is.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

25 disposals (17 kicks, 6 handballs plus a goal and an IMMENSE 13 tackles vs Melbourne in round 3 this year is not too shabby.
Or his 29 disposal game (14 kicks and 15 handballs) with 8 marks and 2 goals in our round 4 win vs St Kilda last year.
Look, I have no issue with anyone suggesting they don't feel he is current best 22. Your privledge. I also hope our list is improved to the point that even at his best he is not best 22.
But it is just wrong to say he has no talent, or has no right to be condidered in our current team.

In 2008, Nick Gill had a game in which he had 22 possessions, 11 marks, kicked 5.3, had 3 goal assists and 7 inside 50s. He received 2 Brownlow votes - doubling MacKays entire career total in the process. If you gave him 144 games he would no doubt have bunch of other games you could point to where he would have similarly dominated. He was a talented footballer... Just not consistent enough. This is probably true of most players on an AFL list. You don't hang on to them at all costs though. Again, MacKay has under achieved for the Crows given how much the club no doubt rate him. It's disappointing but we bollocksed up signing him onto a long term deal.

 

[Mego Red]

It's funny when he refers to whose judgement he'd trust.

On one hand some us were critical of:

Reilly, Dmack and VBs contracts

On the other hand some supported the decisions becauses they were made by the club.

Which side of the argument do you think has been proven correct?

I think there are some flaws in your logic.

List management means maybe 100 significant decisions every six years, with each player on the list being signed/resigned, players being delisted, signed from opposition teams, etc.

Let's say they got six wrong in that time. Mackay is probably one, even if at the time resigning a young interstate footballer who filled a gap during draft sanctions at slightly above average pay seemed like a reasonable decision.

They get six wrong, maybe. Maybe less, but even six is a 94% strike rate.

You're viewing the mistakes assuming the alternative is 100% right, which it never is. And you're viewing it without looking at other clubs errors, which of course every club has, from failed free agents to players extended too early or for too much.

 

[Mego Red]

In 2008, Nick Gill had a game in which he had 22 possessions, 11 marks, kicked 5.3, had 3 goal assists and 7 inside 50s. He received 2 Brownlow votes - doubling MacKays entire career total in the process. If you gave him 144 games he would no doubt have bunch of other games you could point to where he would have similarly dominated. He was a talented footballer... Just not consistent enough. This is probably true of most players on an AFL list. You don't hang on to them at all costs though. Again, MacKay has under achieved for the Crows given how much the club no doubt rate him. It's disappointing but we bollocksed up signing him onto a long term deal.

Who's MacKay?

Edit: I'm being a bit of a dckhead pointing that out, but getting player names wrong bothers me. That's an understandable one, I guess.

 

[Elite Crow]

I think there are some flaws in your logic.

List management means maybe 100 significant decisions every six years, with each player on the list being signed/resigned, players being delisted, signed from opposition teams, etc.

Let's say they got six wrong in that time. Mackay is probably one, even if at the time resigning a young interstate footballer who filled a gap during draft sanctions at slightly above average pay seemed like a reasonable decision.

They get six wrong, maybe. Maybe less, but even six is a 94% strike rate.

You're viewing the mistakes assuming the alternative is 100% right, which it never is. And you're viewing it without looking at other clubs errors, which of course every club has, from failed free agents to players extended too early or for too much.

You think we've only made 6?

If you're going to include every decision made in list management then you have to include every player and there are a lot of players who don't make it.

MacKay is probably one? You still not convinced? Do you think if we hadn't signed him for 4 years he would have left? And he wasn't young when we have him that contract, we had seen enough of him to know he had not justified a 2 year contract let alone 4.

 

[Interloperer]

Is it possible we "owed" him some goodwill after he was one of the few to take a pay cut to keep Tippett?

I'd just assumed this was the case when it was announced. Although, I've also considered that it may not be what he's owed, but rather what he, or more importantly, his manager knows.

 

[creme_fraiche]

I'm not of the opinion that Otten being signed for 2 years will be a catastrophic mistake, but surely logic would suggest 1 year would have been ample to
Establish whether his body was up to the rigours of AFL?

People get angry because the overly cautious nature of our list management (and in some cases the downright baffling decisions) hampers us from turning over our list at a more rapid rate.

Nobody in their right mind would have re-signed Mackay for 4 years. I don't care if it's 100K per season, the guy is plain and simple not an AFL calibre footballer and him being on our list means we start the season 1 down. Harsh? Yes. Accurate? Absolutely.

 

[1970crow]

I think there are some flaws in your logic.

List management means maybe 100 significant decisions every six years, with each player on the list being signed/resigned, players being delisted, signed from opposition teams, etc.

Let's say they got six wrong in that time. Mackay is probably one, even if at the time resigning a young interstate footballer who filled a gap during draft sanctions at slightly above average pay seemed like a reasonable decision.

They get six wrong, maybe. Maybe less, but even six is a 94% strike rate.

You're viewing the mistakes assuming the alternative is 100% right, which it never is. And you're viewing it without looking at other clubs errors, which of course every club has, from failed free agents to players extended too early or for too much.

You're assuming the over-extensions are the only errors. What about the flow on that costs existing players through under paying. Or not being able to be gotten due to over expense of salary cap.

What you're doing is defending a clear culture of over-contracting experienced and mediocre plodders. That is the discussion topic at hand and they're batting 0.00. And yes, I agree that amongst all the other decisions that we don't know they're making that they're probably screwing up a few of those as well. Although, perhaps you are right and we've just been unlucky these last few years.

 

[Mego Red]

Mackay for four years was a clear mistake. It would have been hard to find anyone at the time at any AFL club who would have thought it needed more than three years.

We don't have any evidence of salary cap being a reason that's stopped us getting a player, do we? Not having players choose us over the last three years seems like more of an issue, but hopefully we're working to change that.

The Reilly decision was fine. He'd just been AA nominated, and it's hardly bitten us on the ass. I don't see how VB still being in our squad is an issue.

Mackay for four years is an issue.

Making the club attractive to outsiders is a big issue.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

Who's MacKay?

Edit: I'm being a bit of a dckhead pointing that out, but getting player names wrong bothers me. That's an understandable one, I guess.

Nope. Fair enough. Will endeavour to get it right in the future. In my defense, footywire has him listed as a MacKay, which is where I was pulling my stats from.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I'm not of the opinion that Otten being signed for 2 years will be a catastrophic mistake, but surely logic would suggest 1 year would have been ample to
Establish whether his body was up to the rigours of AFL?

People get angry because the overly cautious nature of our list management (and in some cases the downright baffling decisions) hampers us from turning over our list at a more rapid rate.

Nobody in their right mind would have re-signed Mackay for 4 years. I don't care if it's 100K per season, the guy is plain and simple not an AFL calibre footballer and him being on our list means we start the season 1 down. Harsh? Yes. Accurate? Absolutely.

And how do we know that the club is not convinced that his body can stand up to rigours of AFL football?

Fact is that the club would know a lot more about these things than the average fan who probably has not seen him play once after his latest injury. With how professional the clubs are these days both in terms of medical assesments, monitoring, list management planning as much as 5 years ahead, I find it laughable that people can point to some cases as being * ups despite having no idea of any analysis, metrics or data that was used to arrive at the decision.

People make mistakes and no doubt we as club have along the way but its easier to pot it with the benefit of hindsight and when compared to other clubs we have made far less than majority of the clubs out there. Judging by some of the comments on this board, one could be forgiven for thinking we are the worst run club in the country.

For the record, given the restrictions placed upon them, Noble and Oglvie have done an outstanding job in recent years. Many other clubs would have folded in those circumstances.

 

[Mego Red]

Nope. Fair enough. Will endeavour to get it right in the future. In my defense, footywire has him listed as a MacKay, which is where I was pulling my stats from.

Yeah, I just saw that, when comparing Mackay to Murdoch. You have a very good excuse, as that's unlike them.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Get used to plenty of silly contracts for average players. With free agency the player managers are having a ball. The alleged Mackay contract looks silly but there would be outrage if we let him go and he played good footy. Rather than continually bash Mackay which as Kristof said is boring , I'd be interested to know how much Henderson is on as I'm sure Melbourne we also into him.. And he isn't much better himself

 

[Wright Away]

25 disposals (17 kicks, 6 handballs plus a goal and an IMMENSE 13 tackles vs Melbourne in round 3 this year is not too shabby.
Or his 29 disposal game (14 kicks and 15 handballs) with 8 marks and 2 goals in our round 4 win vs St Kilda last year.
Look, I have no issue with anyone suggesting they don't feel he is current best 22. Your privledge. I also hope our list is improved to the point that even at his best he is not best 22.
But it is just wrong to say he has no talent, or has no right to be condidered in our current team.

Woah Melbourne and St.Kilda, powerhouses of the competition. Watch out for the big game player, woah!!!