Mega Thread All Things Tom Scully - Part II: "We can't lose Tom"

[Samsara]

Re: We can't lose Tom

Instead of 'compensating' Melbourne with two first round draft picks, why don't they just give them to GWS and let them take more great kids that they can develop over the next few years like every* other bloody club has too.

*Except GC who are also in the same boat.

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

Did anyone else hear Eddie fkwit Maguire on Triple M this morning?

Was bleating about Melbourne getting two compensation picks if Scully goes- claiming it''s grossly unfair and that we should only get one.

Seriously wtf is this guys problem with us? He is hellbent on Scully leaving us for bugger all. First to break the (now proven to be BS) story about Scully going and now this.

Go away Eddie you w***er.

does anyone necessarily disagree with what he is saying?

if sculls is worth say 2 mid 1st rnd picks in next years draft, then what is thomas or pendles worth, not only were they high draft picks but there also premiership players, and top 5 b an fs and also still got plenty of years.. surely then they are worth 3-4 picks!

 

[BigSexc]

Re: We can't lose Tom

I am now 100% convinced that we should cut our loses with Tom, the figures we are rumored to be paying him a outrageous and would without a doubt cause disharmony within the group (whether the players publicly voice it or not)

I say that the two first round picks and run.

And for those who say we cant win a flag without him..

CLUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING FLAGS FOR 150 YEARS WITHOUT TOM SCULLY.

 

[BETON5]

Re: We can't lose Tom

Did anyone else hear Eddie fkwit Maguire on Triple M this morning?

Was bleating about Melbourne getting two compensation picks if Scully goes- claiming it''s grossly unfair and that we should only get one.

Seriously wtf is this guys problem with us? He is hellbent on Scully leaving us for bugger all. First to break the (now proven to be BS) story about Scully going and now this.

Go away Eddie you w***er.

2Points:
1.Eddie (dog) Mcguire has about as much respect as Simon Overland.....meaning i would swerve to hit them in my car if they were on the road.
2.If there is no more Loyalty in afl then that means players arent playing for the club,junper,heritage and each other...ther playing for money and that is whats going to ruin the game.if 600K is not enough for a 20 year old....well TS can go an play for gws and i hope that patella gives hime hell.

 

[Demon 86]

Re: We can't lose Tom

does anyone necessarily disagree with what he is saying?

if sculls is worth say 2 mid 1st rnd picks in next years draft, then what is thomas or pendles worth, not only were they high draft picks but there also premiership players, and top 5 b an fs and also still got plenty of years.. surely then they are worth 3-4 picks!

Without opening up a huge can of worms again- Thomas and Pendles have spent 6-7 years at their clubs and won them a premiership (with another on the way). Collingwood have done very well out of these two and if one did leave Pies fans they can cry themselves to sleep in their 2010/11 premiers T-Shirts safe in the knowledge that they will also be adequately compensated.

My point is- why does Eddie keep flaming the Tom Scully situation at every opportunity? He started all the talk and he keeps poking at it anytime it looks like quietening down. Is he that worried about losing Thomas and/or Pendles? Does he fear/hate the Dees (highly unlikely)? Is it just a shameless grab at ratings? Eddie is a smart man and keeps bringing up Scully for a reason.

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

Scully's manager, Peter Blucher, said the Melbourne club had made an updated offer to keep Scully at the Demons 10 days ago. "It was a terrific offer, but in the best interests of my client, I went back to GWS," Blucher said. "They came back with a substantial counter-offer." Scully, 20, is in his second season of AFL football, having been taken by the Demons at No 1 in the 2009 draft.

interesting quote, basically saying that the melbourne offer is great and that he has done his JOB as a MANAGER and got a better deal somewere else, now its really up to scully to decide whether the idea of moving to sydney without family and friends, into afl obscurity, to play in front of hardly any people in a s**t hole is worth the extra 300-000 a season than it is to pull on a melbourne jumper in front of 50.000 and more fans for the oldest club in the land at the greatest stadium in the world with your junior footy mates

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Re: We can't lose Tom

I am now 100% convinced that we should cut our loses with Tom, the figures we are rumored to be paying him a outrageous and would without a doubt cause disharmony within the group (whether the players publicly voice it or not)

I say that the two first round picks and run.

And for those who say we cant win a flag without him..

CLUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING FLAGS FOR 150 YEARS WITHOUT TOM SCULLY.

I disagree with the figures being outrageous. Any offer the club puts to Scully will have been carefully thought out and how it affects the playing group would have been paramount to this. We front loaded a lot of contracts to prepare for this and I have full faith in the FD to do the right thing. Sure, Scully wouldn't be getting this sort of money if GWS didn't exist but they do and, therefore, clubs will have to do a few different things with contracts to keep certain players.

And Eddie is a knob - any club in our position would want the best deal possible and he would be asking for a s**t load of stuff if anyone from the Pies left. He's a hypocrite.

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

Without opening up a huge can of worms again- Thomas and Pendles have spent 6-7 years at their clubs and won them a premiership (with another on the way). Collingwood have done very well out of these two and if one did leave Pies fans they can cry themselves to sleep in their 2010/11 premiers T-Shirts safe in the knowledge that they will also be adequately compensated.

My point is- why does Eddie keep flaming the Tom Scully situation at every opportunity? He started all the talk and he keeps poking at it anytime it looks like quietening down. Is he that worried about losing Thomas and/or Pendles? Does he fear/hate the Dees (highly unlikely)? Is it just a shameless grab at ratings? Eddie is a smart man and keeps bringing up Scully for a reason.

ok but did you actually listen to him? are you sure he wasnt just asked a question about it and then the papers took hold of it just because its eddie mcguire?

the point is he isnt wrong, pendles and thomas arent even 24 and have way more currency than sculls at the moment , if you started lists from scratch you could guarantee they would both go before sculls

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

I disagree with the figures being outrageous. Any offer the club puts to Scully will have been carefully thought out and how it affects the playing group would have been paramount to this. We front loaded a lot of contracts to prepare for this and I have full faith in the FD to do the right thing. Sure, Scully wouldn't be getting this sort of money if GWS didn't exist but they do and, therefore, clubs will have to do a few different things with contracts to keep certain players.

And Eddie is a knob - any club in our position would want the best deal possible and he would be asking for a s**t load of stuff if anyone from the Pies left. He's a hypocrite.

can i please remind people that jim stynes and cam schwab said melbourne had front loaded its contracts so that it could target a gun player in the trade period in yrs to come, at worst we lost that ability but still have enough money for everyone else

 

[Crimson Azure]

Re: We can't lose Tom

CLUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING FLAGS FOR 150 YEARS WITHOUT TOM SCULLY.

If I extrapolate on that reasoning then, why bother with anyone. How about the team is picked from the crowd ever week, just go to the cheer squad & put your hand up when Bailey calls for players.

You could say the same about every player in our team & Gary Ablett Snr & thousands of others, every team that has won a flag did so without guns that played for other teams. It is players like Scully that help you win a premiership. Then you have LRT who is a premiership player, go figure, let's go get 22 just like him.

I'll take my chances with a gun.

Edit: the 1000th post.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Re: We can't lose Tom

can i please remind people that jim stynes and cam schwab said melbourne had front loaded its contracts so that it could target a gun player in the trade period in yrs to come, at worst we lost that ability but still have enough money for everyone else

I distinctly recall Schwab saying in his interview last night that the club has front loaded contracts and only used 92.5% of the salary cap to make sure we could re-sign a lot of our younger players. Targeting a gun player in the trade period may have been part of it but that certainly wasn't the only reason. In fact to target a big player who demands big money (eg Mitch Clark) would be out of character for the club as a whole.

 

[milkVealer]

Re: We can't lose Tom

does anyone necessarily disagree with what he is saying?

if sculls is worth say 2 mid 1st rnd picks in next years draft, then what is thomas or pendles worth, not only were they high draft picks but there also premiership players, and top 5 b an fs and also still got plenty of years.. surely then they are worth 3-4 picks!

Mate it is simply comes down to how much gws will offer. if they are willing to pay any player (even brett peake) 1 million a year then the compensation must match the contract value. this is why we stand to get an equal compensation to what geelong got for ablett.

other factors come in to the equation such as age of the player. the younger the better for melbourne in this case.

my personal opinion is we should get a number pick 1 in return because thats what we used to get tom and the draft is only 2 years gone + a 1st round pick. geelong got ablett with a late second round pick remember.

 

[Demon 86]

Re: We can't lose Tom

ok but did you actually listen to him? are you sure he wasnt just asked a question about it and then the papers took hold of it just because its eddie mcguire?

the point is he isnt wrong, pendles and thomas arent even 24 and have way more currency than sculls at the moment , if you started lists from scratch you could guarantee they would both go before sculls

The topic was on their run sheet and he knew what he would be saying in advance.

I agree that Pendles and Thomas are currently better players than Scully- however that's not the point.

Melbourne made an investment in Scully with a number one draft pick, and (if he goes) will have have received 35 games from him, zero finals (maybe 1 if we're lucky) and 2 first round compensation draft picks.

Collingingwood invested pick 2 or 5 depending on who goes, and will have received (approx) 130 games, multiple finals appearances, (likely) 2 premierships and then 1-2 first round compensation draft picks.

Collingwood get by far the better deal.

If you had asked ANY Collingwood supporter at the end of 2007, after Pendles and Thomas had played 30 odd games, whether they would trade one or both of them for 1-2 first round picks and 2 premierships the answer would be an emphatic yes.

I know if we're considering talent alone the way I'm looking at things is flawed. But it's a flawed system that gotten Melbourne to this point so the shoe fits.

 

[Crimson Azure]

Link to the old thread:

We can't lose Tom

 

[Crimson Azure]

Please keep all discussion about Tom to this thread.


If there is a post you want to quote from the other thread do so but I have copied the last page of posts from the last thread to this one, so for the most part that should be enough..

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

The topic was on their run sheet and he knew what he would be saying in advance.

I agree that Pendles and Thomas are currently better players than Scully- however that's not the point.

Melbourne made an investment in Scully with a number one draft pick, and (if he goes) will have have received 35 games from him, zero finals (maybe 1 if we're lucky) and 2 first round compensation draft picks.

Collingingwood invested pick 2 or 5 depending on who goes, and will have received (approx) 130 games, multiple finals appearances, (likely) 2 premierships and then 1-2 first round compensation draft picks.

Collingwood get by far the better deal.

If you had asked ANY Collingwood supporter at the end of 2007, after Pendles and Thomas had played 30 odd games, whether they would trade one or both of them for 1-2 first round picks and 2 premierships the answer would be an emphatic yes.

I know if we're considering talent alone the way I'm looking at things is flawed. But it's a flawed system that gotten Melbourne to this point so the shoe fits.

you make a pretty good argument but i disagree, cuz your in effect saying melbourne should be rewarded for someone who has done nothing and collingwood should be punished for being succesfull?

 

[Demon 86]

Re: We can't lose Tom

you make a pretty good argument but i disagree, cuz your in effect saying melbourne should be rewarded for someone who has done nothing and collingwood should be punished for being succesfull?

As per the basis of the free agency the AFLPA and the AFL have agreed upon- if a player gives due service to a club then they should be able to choose where they go (to an extent).

35 games and no success is not adequate service.

130 games and premierships success is.

I know it's flawed logic but this situtation call for it. Guess you and I will have to agree to disagree!

 

[Topkent]

Re: We can't lose Tom

As per the basis of the free agency the AFLPA and the AFL have agreed upon- if a player gives due service to a club then they should be able to choose where they go (to an extent).

35 games and no success is not adequate service.

130 games and premierships success is.

I know it's flawed logic but this situtation call for it. Guess you and I will have to agree to disagree!

i dont think we totally disagree, i agree sculls is worth quite a bit in compensation, but surely if pendles goes next year then he is worth even more, anyway lets hope sculls sings on an this is all just hot air

 

[Theseventhhamster]

If we are getting 2 first round picks I'm no longer in the panicking about him leaving crowd.

 

[Crusty Demon]

If we are getting 2 first round picks I'm no longer in the panicking about him leaving crowd.

So, the 2 first round picks have to be taken at the end of the first round, right? So in reality, we get pick 19 in 2 seperate years? I don't find that overly attractive to be honest. We are talking about losing a player who has the credentials to be up there with Judd, Ablett, Cousins as a gun midfielder! Plus a number 1 draft pick! Chance are, he will be a top ten player in this competition. Anything other than a number 1 pick for compensation is shite IMO.

And anyone saying losing Tom won't affect us having a tilt at the flag, maybe right, but it sure won't help our cause. Look at Carlton. Would they be where they are without Judd? Doubt it. Scully looks like he will have that Judd like ability to drag his team over the line when needed. Scully is that midfield gun we have been craving for since Robbie Flower retired. If our offer of $3 million over 5 years plus third party payments isn't enough for the 20 year old, then I really would question Scully's character and why he left this club! We have closed the gap between GWS offer and ours more than I thought we would.

 

[richskee]

If we are getting 2 first round picks I'm no longer in the panicking about him leaving crowd.

What two picks would we get?

 

[Demon 86]

I think the picks come directly after the pick we get from ladder position...

Geelong activated one this year and got Billie Smedts at pick 15 so I'm pretty sure they're not just end of round picks.

 

[sledbomber]

I don't see how it matters what Collingwood will or won't get for Thomas or Pendles if they leave. It is also irrelevent what Ablett was worth. This is about Tom and what he is worth.

For me Scully hasn't done anything to suggest that he wasn't worth the number 1 pick that we used to get him. I think the fairest way to compensate us (but this is purely using logic) would be to give us the number 1 pick to use in any of the next 5 years. I recognise that we will still lose (as we put 2 years into developing Scully for nothing) but it is the fairest way that I can see. I don't know how you would be able to judge what that 2 years of development is worth.

I also don't think it is fair (on us) to give us 2 first round picks for him. It obviously depends on where these picks would be but it seems likely that they would be 10 and 11 ish. I personally would rather pick 1 than 10 and 11. Remember back to the draft where it was rumoured that Port offered 8 and 9 for pick 2 (Trenners) and we didn't accept that.

 

[BigSexc]

I think the picks come directly after the pick we get from ladder position...

Geelong activated one this year and got Billie Smedts at pick 15 so I'm pretty sure they're not just end of round picks.

Geelong traded their compo pick back to the GC for pick 15 IIRC

 

[Chip_]

I think the picks come directly after the pick we get from ladder position...

Geelong activated one this year and got Billie Smedts at pick 15 so I'm pretty sure they're not just end of round picks.

Not quite correct, Geelong got 2 different picks. 1 that came directly after their first pick dependant on ladder position & another 1st round pick placed in the middle of the first round. One was traded to GC for pick 15.