Matt Crouch Oct Last year reported on the 14 but believed he sign a few days earlier.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Well they were, not so much this year.
Knight and Hampton? Players that missed the majority of the year and a heap of fitness through significant injury?
Sorry, Matty, I know you hate Mackay, but IMO your credibility suffers a little suggesting those 2 as the replacements, because IMO that would have been an unnecessary gamble. As you saw, the speed and intensity of finals is not the place to bring in under-done players unless you have to absolutely do so.
You and I are never going to agree re Mackay, but at least that argument should now be over, with Mackay either traded or replaced by the players you've nominated after a full pre-season.
Thank god for that.
Not sure why this surprises you. This is the same mob that defended the action of banana throwing lady because Eddie provoked her by celebrating too hard!It's clear that many of them aren't able to tell the difference between a repetitive troll and a person with an alternative opinion plus the willingness to debate it, argue long enough and you'll certainly be branded. Perhaps it really is the result of being reared on their board.
I wasn't aware of the thread in question until your post so I decided to take a quick look at the last few pages and here are some of my observations;
1. You asked why Hartlett was being singled out as trade bait and no one else of note. An answer you got was that it wasn't just him but "numerous" others as well. Obviously this was an attempt to eliminate the idea that there are any negative circumstances unique to Hartlett that would motivate Port to want to get rid of him, which in turn would also diminish his worth on the market. However even if we were to assume that it is true that they have said the same to other players, it still ignores the fact that Hartlett isn't just some ordinary Joe. He's a player on a sizeable and lengthy contract which makes him very difficult to move and therefor an atypical choice for trade bait, and he's a prominent member of the leadership group as well, the Vice Captain no less! No matter how they try to spin it, this is a very unusual situation in the AFL.
2. Again, if we're to assume that the club has indeed placed many of their players up for trade, then I can't see that as being conducive to a harmonious locker room. Not when there is a force sweeping through them threatening to tear them apart.
3. I've noticed that there seems to be an underlying view within their supporter group that they are free to ship their players off to the highest bidder because a contract allows them to refuse offers, but what about the player's themselves? Don't they get a say in it, aren't they also allowed to refuse? Sounds to me like some of them are so caught up in the fairy tale that all their players love Port so much that they'd happily uproot their lives to move interstate to the club of Port's choosing just to help them out. Funnily enough after effectively being told that the club would prefer to see them walk out the door.
No matter how you look at it Vice Captains on big deals aren't commonly offered as trade bait. Something stinks in Port Adelaide, and we'd be stupid not to look deeper to find out what it is before doing any deal with them.
Oh come on man, Mackay for Gibbs and your first. Seems fair.
The irony!
Mate don't take Mackay suggestion seriously, we are just hoping someone will take him off our hands. But seeing Triggy signed off on it you owe us
A two for one?
Sorry but that's not how this is going to work.
