Injury Brock McLean

[Sin City]

Or is it you who are the short sightedn know-it-all idiot?

I disagree with you as well, we're better off keeping him on the list than having a pick as low as you suggested in such a thin draft.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Trade at all costs. Even if we get a pick in the 60's from GWS.

He's right.

GWS will need some hardened bodies, it looks like our best chance.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I disagree with you as well, we're better off keeping him on the list than having a pick as low as you suggested in such a thin draft.

It's not about the pick.

It's about shedding the wage to give us flexibility else where.

We've a few players who have come up through the ranks who will be deserving of new contracts at a higher prices in seasons to come.

He's not been worth the money we are paying him since he arrived.

 

[HARKER]

Might?

Not having a shot at McLean - it's not his fault we gave up pick 12 - but this trade is a monumental stuff up by the club.

It's hard venturing into a thread with the name, "McLean" attached, for someone wanting to announce and then re-announce that the trade was a stuff up.

Admittedly it doesn't look great for Brock and that may well have something to do with the likes of Robbo, Ellard and Curnow coming on beyond anyones expectations, but no, as some would sooner bitch about what we haven't got instead of what we have.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

What would be the point of trading a player who has proven he has a unique ability to play a contested style of game, who yes, has not had an ideal start at his new club, mainly due to a string of injuries, for a pick in the 60's. The draft is thin this year, so a pick in the 60's is not going to be of much value at all. Why not give the player another pre-season to get his body right, and see and prove why he has been so highly regarded by the club for many years.

Anyway, if this injury is minor, as it sounds it will be, I would put some good money on Brock being in the team in the weeks before finals.

You're living in the past in regards to his performances.

We've seen nothing like the type of game he displayed at melbourne in his games with us.

Except the injured part of his game.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

It's hard venturing into a thread with the name, "McLean" attached, for someone wanting to announce and then re-announce that the trade was a stuff up.

Admittedly it doesn't look great for Brock and that may well have something to do with the likes of Robbo, Ellard and Curnow coming on beyond anyones expectations, but no, as some would sooner bitch about what we haven't got instead of what we have.

What do we have?

A frequently injured player who looks like he's way off the pace any time he's gotten into the senior squad?

 

[Sin City]

It's not about the pick.

It's about shedding the wage to give us flexibility else where.

We've a few players who have come up through the ranks who will be deserving of new contracts at a higher prices in seasons to come.

He's not been worth the money we are paying him since he arrived.

We can manage the wage side of things for next year. You don't even know the severity of this injury yet it would be worse getting a player that late in the draft and having to keep them on the list than having McLean on the list next year.

 

[HARKER]

What do we have?

A frequently injured player who looks like he's way off the pace any time he's gotten into the senior squad?

Our views on things can really be one-dimensional at times.
Brock had been terrific through last years pre-season and if you had have ventured out to training sessions you may have just agreed.
Roved the ruck-men brilliantly, spurred the rest of the boys on and generally brought about some extra vigour that, at least to me, seemed to permeate through the squad.

So what's happened since?
1. No questioning the injuries he's had have really hampered his progress to becoming our regular centre-man.
2. Others have come through and made it tougher for him to get his spot back after his injuries (not necessarily a bad thing is it?)
3. The coaches still have him in their sights and don't be surprised to see him back for finals.

Now if situations have conspired for him not meeting our hopes, then so be it.
Sh!t happens.

 

[crane6]

quote=Blueinblood;21578096]What would be the point of trading a player who has proven he has a unique ability to play a contested style of game, who yes, has not had an ideal start at his new club, mainly due to a string of injuries, for a pick in the 60's. The draft is thin this year, so a pick in the 60's is not going to be of much value at all. Why not give the player another pre-season to get his body right, and see and prove why he has been so highly regarded by the club for many years.

Anyway, if this injury is minor, as it sounds it will be, I would put some good money on Brock being in the team in the weeks before finals.[/quote]

 

[Beloved]

My theory is to never trade a man who is under-performing because you know that he can do better.

McLean's a much better player than what he has shown in the past two year.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

We can manage the wage side of things for next year. You don't even know the severity of this injury yet it would be worse getting a player that late in the draft and having to keep them on the list than having McLean on the list next year.

Even without the injury yesterday he hasn't ever looked like he could hold his spot in the senior team.

If we're paying him 300-350k a year it's not worth it.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Our views on things can really be one-dimensional at times.
Brock had been terrific through last years pre-season and if you had have ventured out to training sessions you may have just agreed.
Roved the ruck-men brilliantly, spurred the rest of the boys on and generally brought about some extra vigour that, at least to me, seemed to permeate through the squad.

So what's happened since?
1. No questioning the injuries he's had have really hampered his progress to becoming our regular centre-man.
2. Others have come through and made it tougher for him to get his spot back after his injuries (not necessarily a bad thing is it?)
3. The coaches still have him in their sights and don't be surprised to see him back for finals.

Now if situations have conspired for him not meeting our hopes, then so be it.
Sh!t happens.

I agree with all of that to a point.

Anybody who would be bothered to look back on old threads on Brock would see i've always supported him getting a fair crack at making the seniors.

But I just think if he's going to be constantly injured or not perform when he cracks a senior game we're better to cut our losses.

He looks a shadow of the player he once was and to be honest he hasn't been that kind of player for over 3 years now.

He way well have performed in practice matches, but he's been pretty ordinary for the majority of senior games.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

My theory is to never trade a man who is under-performing because you know that he can do better.

McLean's a much better player than what he has shown in the past two year.

So Richmond should have kept Tambling?

 

[Sin City]

Even without the injury yesterday he hasn't ever looked like he could hold his spot in the senior team.

If we're paying him 300-350k a year it's not worth it.

Yes he has actually, he was going very well until he was injured last year.

Again we can manage his salary for next year and he has a lot more to offer than a pick that late in such a skinny draft as this years one will be.

You don't knowingly trade to make the list weaker as this clearly would when the salary cap is not an issue.

 

[Captain Judd]

So Richmond should have kept Tambling?

No because Tambling has never performed. We have seen how good Brock can be but his run with injuries has been really bad.

 

[Sin City]

So Richmond should have kept Tambling?

Come on, you're capable of better posts than that. Completely different circumstances.

A) Tambling was demanding a trade.

B) The Tigers got away with daylight robbery in that trade acquiring a first and third round pick for a hack.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Yes he has actually, he was going very well until he was injured last year.

Again we can manage his salary for next year and he has a lot more to offer than a pick that late in such a skinny draft as this years one will be.

You don't knowingly trade to make the list weaker as this clearly would when the salary cap is not an issue.

He could end this year having played 8 games in 2 years.

He's slow, he's off the pace, he's not the player he once was.

You say he has a lot more to offer, but we've 2 years of basically nothing from him.

Given our recent record with late picks or rookie players a late pick could turn into something far more productive and at a far more reduced price than BM.

 

[Sin City]

He could end this year having played 8 games in 2 years.

He's slow, he's off the pace, he's not the player he once was.

You say he has a lot more to offer, but we've 2 years of basically nothing from him.

Given our recent record with late picks or rookie players a late pick could turn into something far more productive and at a far more reduced price than BM.

True, he could. He could also turn the corner next season or never play again but he's got a better chance of succeeding than a late pick in this draft.

Who exactly do you think would be a good choice at that pick?

We have done well in the recent drafts, but they've had much better talent pools than this year's crop.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Come on, you're capable of better posts than that. Completely different circumstances.

A) Tambling was demanding a trade.

B) The Tigers got away with daylight robbery in that trade acquiring a first and third round pick for a hack.

Nothing to do with the circumstances.

He said you never trade away a player that's under performing.

In this case and using hindsight Melbourne were right to trade him away.

It's why a great deal of players get traded away, under performing.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

No because Tambling has never performed. We have seen how good Brock can be but his run with injuries has been really bad.

Tambling had a few decent games along the way that made commentators think he'd turned a corner and could play.

We saw what Brock could do 4-5 years ago.

That's irrelevant to us though, we've barely seen 4-5 games from him.

 

[Sin City]

Nothing to do with the circumstances.

He said you never trade away a player that's under performing.

In this case and using hindsight Melbourne were right to trade him away.

It's why a great deal of players get traded away, under performing.

Where did I say he was right?

You are comparing the Tigers trading Tambling (when he was demanding it and they got paid overs for him) to us trading away McLean and getting way worse than unders. Poor comparison, starting to make yourself look silly again just for the sake of arguing as you did earlier this year with Gibbs.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Where did I say he was right?

You are comparing the Tigers trading Tambling (when he was demanding it and they got paid overs for him) to us trading away McLean and getting way worse than unders. Poor comparison, starting to make yourself look silly again just for the sake of arguing as you did earlier this year with Gibbs.

BM wanted a trade away from Melbourne.

We're almost the equivalent of Adelaide in this trade.

People hanging onto the past as justification of what he "can do" as compared to what he's been doing are the silly ones.

 

[Sin City]

BM wanted a trade away from Melbourne.

We're almost the equivalent of Adelaide in this trade.

People hanging onto the past as justification of what he "can do" as compared to what he's been doing are the silly ones.

Talk about people hanging onto the past, do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

The trade to get him from Melbourne is done, that's not what we're even talking about. You were suggesting we trade him for a pick in the 60s in this years draft. You were wrong and it seems you're just trying to keep your head above water now.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Talk about people hanging onto the past, do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

The trade to get him from Melbourne is done, that's not what we're even talking about. You were suggesting we trade him for a pick in the 60s in this years draft. You were wrong and it seems you're just trying to keep your head above water now.

I'm not wrong.

He's been awful/injury prone and I want his wage of our books.

I'd do it for a late pick to make it happen.

If I rate him now as a player who won't do stuff all for us then I'm correct.

Not sure how that equates to "wrong" other than it differs from your opinion on him.

 

[Sin City]

I'm not wrong.

He's been awful/injury prone and I want his wage of our books.

I'd do it for a late pick to make it happen.

If I rate him now as a player who won't do stuff all for us then I'm correct.

Not sure how that equates to "wrong" other than it differs from your opinion on him.

All you're doing each time you say it is highlighting your complete lack of knowledge.

Who would you take with a late pick that would be better to have on our list than McLean?

Who would you take with a late pick that has a better chance of succeeding than Mclean?

This is not the draft to be making poor trades like that, when we have no issues with our salary cap we don't need to make trades that will weaken our list.