Prediction Michael Barlow

[The Sloane Ranger]

A lot of players at his stage look for financial reward before they lose the opportunity. He will earn more at GC so I think he will nominate them.

Do we actually know that GC has offered more $$$$

We are in a position to match a GC offer it just comes back to the value the AFC puts on him

 

[CrowinNT]

As we are know seeing with Thommo and Mitchell there could be more on offer with a development into coaching at the end of his career, giving him greater financial security. Pretty sure Mitchell wouldn't be playing for West Coast if that wasn't offered

Good point.
However I would prefer it was Mitchell at the AFC to provide some external "fresh" ideas into our midfield. Our coaching staff in this area are stale.
Thommo to WA to learn the trade and gather experience outside of the AFC.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Do we actually know that GC has offered more $$$$

We are in a position to match a GC offer it just comes back to the value the AFC puts on him

GC lost Prestia and O'Meara. They are likely to offer him more everything than us. We will offer him the opportunity for success. Plus even if the offers are similar, match payments and guarantees of selection may be enough of a difference. Pyke probably could offer no selection certainties where as he is a laydown to play every game at GC.

 

[adelaidecrows]

As we are know seeing with Thommo and Mitchell there could be more on offer with a development into coaching at the end of his career, giving him greater financial security. Pretty sure Mitchell wouldn't be playing for West Coast if that wasn't offered

Mitchell is 34 and Thommo 33. Barlow is 28 so I don't think offering incentive deals that include coaching would be on his radar unless it accompanied a 5 year playing deal.

 

[feenix67]

Do you not see the obvious implications?

Lyons didn't impress Pyke. I think that's a fair conclusion to draw from post-season events. Lyons was clearly preferred, ahead of CEY, when it came to the weekly selections. So what does that say about how much CEY has impressed Pyke?

You spin harder than the club post trade period.

Lyons didn't impress Pyke so much, he played him for all bar a couple of games, preferred him to a more experienced player in the middle (and before you suggest Douggie was more effective as a forward, dont bother), and was traded because he had market value, unlike most of our other midfielders. Noone is saying Lyons is a gun, but to suggest he was selected for 20 games for no reason is ridiculous. Your personal bias colours your opinions and posting far too much. Is it because you're too emotionally invested in certain players? Or is it that you're too emotionally invested in your own opinions?

CEY plays a different role to Lyons, so he wasn't kept in the two's because of Lyons, he was in the two's because of Thommo and, to some extent, M Crouch.

Someone had a crack at marty36 the other day for posting repetitively. I think it was Kane McGoodwin ... Im telling you Vader, you're just as bad.

 

[CrowinNT]

Mitchell is 34 and Thommo 33. Barlow is 28 so I don't think offering incentive deals that include coaching would be on his radar unless it accompanied a 5 year playing deal.

On his Freo player profile Q&A he states that
"If you weren’t a footballer, what would you like to be: Not a coach"
I guess that rules out that incentive

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Barlow might look at our list and see all those young players in the twos and think he might get squeezed out fairly soon. His lack of local knowledge may push him towards another option.

 

[CrowinNT]

Barlow also is making a decision on location as well. Adelaide v Gold Coast are very different.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

When is he expected to announce ?

 

[marty36]

Mitchell is 34 and Thommo 33. Barlow is 28 so I don't think offering incentive deals that include coaching would be on his radar unless it accompanied a 5 year playing deal.

3 or 4 year playing deal followed by 3 year coaching deal seems pretty attractive to someone looking to secure up their future. As NTcrow said west coast definitely thought outside the box imagine if we did that with Mitchell hawthorns b and F winner playing next year for the crows with a coaching job on offer. Talk about premiership window that would be better than Gibbs

 

[Vader]

As we are know seeing with Thommo and Mitchell there could be more on offer with a development into coaching at the end of his career, giving him greater financial security. Pretty sure Mitchell wouldn't be playing for West Coast if that wasn't offered

Not sure this is true for Barlow. It's definitely true for Thompson & Mitchell.

 

[Vader]

You spin harder than the club post trade period.

Lyons didn't impress Pyke so much, he played him for all bar a couple of games, preferred him to a more experienced player in the middle (and before you suggest Douggie was more effective as a forward, dont bother), and was traded because he had market value, unlike most of our other midfielders. Noone is saying Lyons is a gun, but to suggest he was selected for 20 games for no reason is ridiculous. Your personal bias colours your opinions and posting far too much. Is it because you're too emotionally invested in certain players? Or is it that you're too emotionally invested in your own opinions?

CEY plays a different role to Lyons, so he wasn't kept in the two's because of Lyons, he was in the two's because of Thommo and, to some extent, M Crouch.

Someone had a crack at marty36 the other day for posting repetitively. I think it was Kane McGoodwin ... Im telling you Vader, you're just as bad.

Yep.. the club valued Lyons so highly that they pretty much forced him out the door. Gave him a low ball contract and traded him for a proverbial handful of beans.

And you're accusing me of spin?

 

[Wood_Duck]

I am just wondering where was this support for Lyons 2 years ago or even a year ago?

Was his 2016 really that much better than Wright's best year?

Lyons is a handy, solid footballer and this is from someone that has been a fan since we got him. All of a sudden BF thinks he is irreplaceable. Give me a break. There are plenty of more talented players on our list that will get a chance to play and develop because Lyons is not here anymore.

He is nowhere near as good as BF is making him out to be!

I think we all need to accept that there are 2 ends of the scale with regard to support for Lyons. I dont think it matters how many times we go over it, people are not going to change their opinions. Clearly many people have been watching a different Jarryd Lyons to the one I've been watching. I have no problem with people having a different perspective but the rest of us are not going to buy the rewritten history that keeps popping up.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

When is he expected to announce ?

As per the post from WW previous page, 6PR Sports has said likely announcement today. They also said its between GC and us....who knows though.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Do we actually know that GC has offered more $$$$

We are in a position to match a GC offer it just comes back to the value the AFC puts on him

Yes ......however there's a line between a "Free Hit" and improvement to the list, and a must have at any cost .......still think it'll be the contract length that will sway Barlow

Seems to be a few contracts being offered at present that appear at face value to be 1-2 years longer than reasonable ?

 

[footy4ever]

As per the post from WW previous page, 6PR Sports has said likely announcement today. They also said its between GC and us....who knows though.

Either way - this board - it will be an AFC fail.

LOL

 

[WaynesWorld19]

GC lost Prestia and O'Meara. They are likely to offer him more everything than us. We will offer him the opportunity for success. Plus even if the offers are similar, match payments and guarantees of selection may be enough of a difference. Pyke probably could offer no selection certainties where as he is a laydown to play every game at GC.

GC lost some midfield pace ......these plus Bennell

If our midfield is called slow ......is Gazza, Lyons, Swallow, Lonergan & Barlow slower?

The advent of Hanley, Touk Miller, and Hall will be needed to standup to provide much needed pace

 

[feenix67]

Yep.. the club valued Lyons so highly that they pretty much forced him out the door. Gave him a low ball contract and traded him for a proverbial handful of beans.

And you're accusing me of spin?

You cant ignore that he was played for 20 games Vader. You also cant dismiss the fact that lowballing him forced a first 22 player who wanted to stay, to look elsewhere.

Now, there's a possibility that you're correct, that the club played him despite not rating him, and despite there being options in the 2's. But there's also a possibility that the club rated him right where he sits, as a decent mid tier mid-fielder who would attract interest in the trade market. It's doubtful that the club would have been terribly happy with the trade outcome - Im sure they would have rated him at equal or greater value to Hampton, for whom we traded a future second. But it's also reasonable to deduce that the Crows were stymied by their own actions, in that lowballing him diminished his trade value as it forced him out and gave GC the option of saying "low pick or no pick, we'll take him in the PSD".

My problem with your posting is that it's written as definitive, it ignores or shapes facts to suit your opinion, and it's utterly repetitive.

 

[Vader]

If the club rated him, then they would have stated that he was a "required player" and made him an acceptable contract offer. They did neither. There is no indication at all, that Lyons was rated at all by the coaches & selectors.

Why did he play 20 games? Because of a lack of alternatives in the SANFL. VB was in terminal decline. Grigg & CEY, despite both finishing in the top-5 in the SANFL B&F, were never in the running. Wigg, Milera, Doedee, Gore & Greenwood are still very much in the development phase. Knight & Hampton were injured. Menzel wasn't fit and/or performing at a consistently high level. Henderson was relegated to "break glass in case of emergency" status. Seedsman played most AFL games, but finished the season in the SANFL as Mackay was preferred.

Lyons wasn't particularly wanted, he was just the least worst option that the selectors had available to them.

In the past I, and many others on BigFooty, have been critical of the club for holding onto fringe & mediocre players for far too long. In Brodie Martin's case, about 3 years too long. This time they got it right, getting rid of Lyons despite him having played arguably his best ever season. I say arguably, because his performances were no better than what he produced in 2014 (by which time he'd already hit his ceiling), the only difference is that he got more game time due to the end of the sub rule. Lyons is a mediocre player, who hit his ceiling several years ago. The club did the right thing by moving him on, freeing up a position in the senior team for a player with greater potential.

 

[feenix67]

Im not arguing that the club did the right thing - albeit for different reasons. You say they got rid of a player they didnt really rate, nor want. I say they got rid of a player that was mid tier and had market value, in an effort to gain a pick which, in the end, wasn't as high as they expected.

When you look at the Lyons move in the broader context of the club's stated desire to strengthen their midfield via whatever means, and their activity during trade week, it's clear that it was part of a bigger plan. Now, whether that was part of a move on Gibbs (if you assume they knew prior to trade period), or whether it was in an effort to trade in picks, who knows. But it's undeniable that, in isolation, the Lyons trade was a failed exercise that diminished our strength in an area of the ground where we are weakest, by the club's own admission.

If, as you suggested earlier, the outcome is that we shift Douggie back to mid and bring Milera/Menzel in at half forward, then Douggie would want to have a fair look at himself over pre-season, because he hasn't produced Lyons' consistent numbers for quite a while. As it stands, on recent form, that move represents an uplift up forward (where we are already strong) and a downgrade through the midfield (where we are already weak). Given that we are supposedly at 11 o'clock on the premiership clock, this strategy doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

In any event, looking at the Lyons trade as an isolated event, based on your perception that he held no value to the coach or selectors, is quite narrow minded in my opinion. It's obvious that the trade was part of a bigger strategy that didnt come off, and Lyons inclusion in that strategy was a reflection on his market value, contract status, and the fact that he was the only one of our best 22 mids (the one's we were willing to lose) who had any value - which says a hell of a lot more about Douglas' value than that of Lyons.

 

[Jack is Back]

If the club rated him, then they would have stated that he was a "required player" and made him an acceptable contract offer. They did neither. There is no indication at all, that Lyons was rated at all by the coaches & selectors.

Why did he play 20 games? Because of a lack of alternatives in the SANFL. VB was in terminal decline. Grigg & CEY, despite both finishing in the top-5 in the SANFL B&F, were never in the running. Wigg, Milera, Doedee, Gore & Greenwood are still very much in the development phase. Knight & Hampton were injured. Menzel wasn't fit and/or performing at a consistently high level. Henderson was relegated to "break glass in case of emergency" status. Seedsman played most AFL games, but finished the season in the SANFL as Mackay was preferred.

Lyons wasn't particularly wanted, he was just the least worst option that the selectors had available to them.

In the past I, and many others on BigFooty, have been critical of the club for holding onto fringe & mediocre players for far too long. In Brodie Martin's case, about 3 years too long. This time they got it right, getting rid of Lyons despite him having played arguably his best ever season. I say arguably, because his performances were no better than what he produced in 2014 (by which time he'd already hit his ceiling), the only difference is that he got more game time due to the end of the sub rule. Lyons is a mediocre player, who hit his ceiling several years ago. The club did the right thing by moving him on, freeing up a position in the senior team for a player with greater potential.

Vader, Vader, Vader................

When Lyons was dominating the SANFL and rarely given a game, you said he was not AFL quality.
When Lyons was picking splinters out his arse as the sub you said he was not fit enough to play a full AFL game.
Last season Lyons played 22 full games, almost everyone agreed that he played his role as a forward/ part-time mid well, but now he was the Bradbury.

Why was he traded instead of Mackay, Douglas, Thompson, CEY, Grigg etc? Because he was the only one of that group that had any currency.

IMHO he will flourish in a team that needs a quality inside mid. Many teams (hopefully including us) do not want to play more than one slowish inside mid. I believe that all evidence (check Lyons stats when he has been in the midfield) indicates he is a good inside mid. Fortunately for us Matty Crouch is a better slowish inside mid. We played three slowish inside mids for most of the season (Matty Crouch, Thommo and Lyons).

To all the posters who said no other team would want Lyons, You were wrong. Suck it up and start picking on a new whipping boy.

P.S.
And they are magnificent.................

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You cant ignore that he was played for 20 games Vader. You also cant dismiss the fact that lowballing him forced a first 22 player who wanted to stay, to look elsewhere.

Now, there's a possibility that you're correct, that the club played him despite not rating him, and despite there being options in the 2's.

This is where everyone fails to understand players position on a list, and the needs of a team make-up / role

Wright played most games in 2015, yet was delisted at years end ........Lyons similar

So it's more a list management issue ......have to make 3 changes, players coming through needing to be played, and bigger upside .....this doesn't mean players aren't rated, just list management decisions

 

[Vader]

Im not arguing that the club did the right thing - albeit for different reasons. You say they got rid of a player they didnt really rate, nor want. I say they got rid of a player that was mid tier and had market value, in an effort to gain a pick which, in the end, wasn't as high as they expected.

When you look at the Lyons move in the broader context of the club's stated desire to strengthen their midfield via whatever means, and their activity during trade week, it's clear that it was part of a bigger plan. Now, whether that was part of a move on Gibbs (if you assume they knew prior to trade period), or whether it was in an effort to trade in picks, who knows. But it's undeniable that, in isolation, the Lyons trade was a failed exercise that diminished our strength in an area of the ground where we are weakest, by the club's own admission.

If, as you suggested earlier, the outcome is that we shift Douggie back to mid and bring Milera/Menzel in at half forward, then Douggie would want to have a fair look at himself over pre-season, because he hasn't produced Lyons' consistent numbers for quite a while. As it stands, on recent form, that move represents an uplift up forward (where we are already strong) and a downgrade through the midfield (where we are already weak). Given that we are supposedly at 11 o'clock on the premiership clock, this strategy doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

In any event, looking at the Lyons trade as an isolated event, based on your perception that he held no value to the coach or selectors, is quite narrow minded in my opinion. It's obvious that the trade was part of a bigger strategy that didnt come off, and Lyons inclusion in that strategy was a reflection on his market value, contract status, and the fact that he was the only one of our best 22 mids (the one's we were willing to lose) who had any value - which says a hell of a lot more about Douglas' value than that of Lyons.

The only bit of this I'd argue with is your statement that he's "mid tier and had market value". Even that, I think, is overstating where Lyons is/was at. Lyons is a mediocre player, who was one of the last players selected each week, and who had reached his ceiling with no remaining upside. As I see it, that's below "mid tier" - though you might be using a different definition of "mid tier". Market value is whatever the market is willing to pay, but I wouldn't have thought that #43 + chump change (#67) is a good argument for him even being rated as "mid tier".

 

[Vader]

Vader, Vader, Vader................

When Lyons was dominating the SANFL and rarely given a game, you said he was not AFL quality.
When Lyons was picking splinters out his arse as the sub you said he was not fit enough to play a full AFL game.
Last season Lyons played 22 full games, almost everyone agreed that he played his role as a forward/ part-time mid well, but now he was the Bradbury.

Why was he traded instead of Mackay, Douglas, Thompson, CEY, Grigg etc? Because he was the only one of that group that had any currency.

IMHO he will flourish in a team that needs a quality inside mid. Many teams (hopefully including us) do not want to play more than one slowish inside mid. I believe that all evidence (check Lyons stats when he has been in the midfield) indicates he is a good inside mid. Fortunately for us Matty Crouch is a better slowish inside mid. We played three slowish inside mids for most of the season (Matty Crouch, Thommo and Lyons).

To all the posters who said no other team would want Lyons, You were wrong. Suck it up and start picking on a new whipping boy.

P.S.
And they are magnificent.................

Come on.. he was never more than mediocre and barely AFL standard. Mackay & Douglas weren't traded because they're contracted and are "required players". Grigg was delisted, and CEY is odds-on to share the same fate in 12 months time - the only thing which saved him this year was the contract he holds for 2017. That leaves Thompson, who is 34 years old.

To suggest that pick #43 + #67 represents "currency" is really reaching.

He was traded because he was out of contract and wasn't a required player. The fact that we got something back is almost a bonus, it's not the reason why he was traded in the first place.

Will he get games at GC? Probably, given the way their midfield has been decimated in recent seasons. Will he flourish? Depends on your definition of "flourish". I think he reached his ceiling in 2014, and his ceiling is/was mediocrity.

For the record, I said that Grigg wouldn't find another team (maybe as a DFA) - and I was proven correct. I didn't make that claim about Lyons.

 

[JPetro83]

Anyone know what time the deadline is today for the first delisted free agency period?