Player Watch Nathan Freeman

[good4footy]

Kidding yourself with Beams and Shaw, IMO.

To see Shaw have his best and most consistent season at another club after the decade he spent with us is not only disturbing, but hurts a little as well. Beams speaks for himself without injury he wins his second AA gig and is a clear winner of the B&F.

Yeah the compensation was good, but we cant deny their good deeds simply on the basis of what we received in return, IMO. Also:

Stanley - disturbing? Nah
R Shaw - disturbing? Maybe.
Paine - disturbing? Nah

Those last 3 based on 2015 with Shaw already gone and the other two to possibly follow.

I know this wasn't the question but would you swap:

Adams for Shaw
DeGoey, Greenwood and Crisp for Beams

My leaning to having who we have, helps with any angst about Beams & Shaw paying well.

 

[spartan-magpie]

You'll be singing a different song, after Bucks orgistrates a Premiership.

I'm the last person that can pick on grammar or spelling mistakes.....

But could you explain to me what orgistrates is?

Are you saying that bucks is in the same mold as his mate sando? Apparently his orgistrating got him sacked from Adelaide.

Maybe that's why we are having so many players leaving.

 

[Mick39]

If he truly wanted the best for the club, then he would have controlled his own behaviour. He's not a child.

AHD is a difficult 'disease' or condition to control. You need senior figures who have life experience and the ability to deal with contrasting personalities.

Heath needs to take a lot of blame himself. He did some stupid acts no one can condone.

But he wanted the best for the club. He comes from a great Collingwood family, he spoke up at Leading Teams meetings because at heart he wanted Collingwood to be better.

It's very sad that Heath is finishing his career elsewhere. He needs to accept responsibility for that, but at the same time the club and coach do too.

A good coach gets the best out of a range of characters and personalities.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Love Adams as a player but GWS have won that trade. Tay is hard at it but his foot skills are terrible, a player with such poor skills wouldn't get a game at Hawthorn. We are ranked 16th for foot disposal for a reason.

It's really sad that Heath Shaw isn't still at Collingwood. He was a flawed person but he was Collingwood to the core. He wanted the best for the club and the coach was unable to control him.

Having a team full of choir boys like our current coach is trying to implement doesn't always produce results.

Taylor Adams is no choirboy

 

[Unknown Identity]

Yep pretty true. But don't give us the BS that it isn't about maximising you earnings.

His manager actively shopped him to all Victorian clubs and St.Kilda bit with the best deal. The injury management is total BS. He's concerned about getting a spot in our best 22, thinks his greatest asset (his burst speed) may be gone and therefore getting what he can out of footy. Dale Thomas all over again without performing at AFL level.

My information is that it most certainly centres around his injury management.

If it comes out then I'm sure some people will feel a little sheepish.

Anyways, continue the Freeman bashing.

 

[Ant85]

Absolutely not. We have to prove our behaviour is above that of Freemans and Connors, to establish that we are a club of integrity that players would want to be at. Why stoop to their level?

Besides, we might need that pick to land a decent player or help land Treloar. Something is always better than nothing, so as long as StKilda value Freeman trade value in line with how they value his just-under-a million dollar salary contract, let a deal be done.

Timmy, there needs to be a line drawn between clubs respecting the desires of players, and players respecting their clubs.

We can't develop and pay for a player for two seasons, then have him walk out. We are getting zero return from our investment in Freeman.

Players who are ineligible for free agency are walking out and clubs are obliged to "honour" the trade with the nominated club. Why? Why are clubs, who are already getting screwed over by required players walking out (ala Freeman), then obliged to bend over again to ensure the player gets his desired trade outcome? It's all about the players, and it shouldn't be.

Freeman is a required player at Collingwood, and if he wants out, then the priority should be what the club deems as an equitable trade. Freeman can "prefer" St.Kilda, but it should ultimately be up to the club. If North offer a better pick, for example, then we should be able to send him there. At present, the player has to sign on the deal, which gives the player too much power and constrains the club. Our only alternative is to send him to the draft, which is a poor outcome for us.

If we're going to have free agency, then the rules need to be tighter on those who are not eligible. At the moment, everyone is operating like a free agent because the rules are lax, easily exploitable and tilted in favour of the player. Clubs need to bite back, and I hope we do.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Injury management mistakes or misjudements can occur at any club. If he has spat the dummy because somehow he thinks he has been badly managed, well perhaps he will learn that the grass is not any greener on the other side.

 

[Robroy22]

Timmy, there needs to be a line drawn between clubs respecting the desires of players, and players respecting their clubs.

We can't develop and pay for a player for two seasons, then have him walk out. We are getting zero return from our investment in Freeman.

Players who are ineligible for free agency are walking out and clubs are obliged to "honour" the trade with the nominated club. Why? Why are clubs, who are already getting screwed over by required players walking out (ala Freeman), then obliged to bend over again to ensure the player gets his desired trade outcome? It's all about the players, and it shouldn't be.

Freeman is a required player at Collingwood, and if he wants out, then the priority should be what the club deems as an equitable trade. Freeman can "prefer" St.Kilda, but it should ultimately be up to the club. If North offer a better pick, for example, then we should be able to send him there. At present, the player has to sign on the deal, which gives the player too much power and constrains the club. Our only alternative is to send him to the draft, which is a poor outcome for us.

If we're going to have free agency, then the rules need to be tighter on those who are not eligible. At the moment, everyone is operating like a free agent because the rules are lax, easily exploitable and tilted in favour of the player. Clubs need to bite back, and I hope we do.

Well said sir.

 

[Ant85]

My information is that it most certainly centres around his injury management.

If it comes out then I'm sure some people will feel a little sheepish.

Anyways, continue the Freeman bashing.

To be fair, we've seen contradictory claims from people on this forum with "information".

PieBeast says he spoke to Freeman last week, and said nothing of the injury management.

Others and the Aints forum are saying his dad is adamant we screwed up his hammies. You're now validating that claim.

What are we to believe?

 

[Unknown Identity]

Injury management mistakes or misjudements can occur at any club. If he has spat the dummy because somehow he thinks he has been badly managed, well perhaps he will learn that the grass is not any greener on the other side.

But if you and your family were of the belief that a person was responsible for the reoccurring injury which has potentially altered the remainder of his career would you look elsewhere for a guaranteed contract?

I know i most certainly would.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Timmy, there needs to be a line drawn between clubs respecting the desires of players, and players respecting their clubs.

We can't develop and pay for a player for two seasons, then have him walk out. We are getting zero return from our investment in Freeman.

Players who are ineligible for free agency are walking out and clubs are obliged to "honour" the trade with the nominated club. Why? Why are clubs, who are already getting screwed over by required players walking out (ala Freeman), then obliged to bend over again to ensure the player gets his desired trade outcome? It's all about the players, and it shouldn't be.

Freeman is a required player at Collingwood, and if he wants out, then the priority should be what the club deems as an equitable trade. Freeman can "prefer" St.Kilda, but it should ultimately be up to the club. If North offer a better pick, for example, then we should be able to send him there. At present, the player has to sign on the deal, which gives the player too much power and constrains the club. Our only alternative is to send him to the draft, which is a poor outcome for us.

If we're going to have free agency, then the rules need to be tighter on those who are not eligible. At the moment, everyone is operating like a free agent because the rules are lax, easily exploitable and tilted in favour of the player. Clubs need to bite back, and I hope we do.

As much as we are not happy about it, players are free to walk after their contracts have ended so calling him a required player is pointless. It would be idiotic to spite him now, so unless the Saints insult us with a third or fourth round pick as compensation, then we should accept a second round pick, which is a pick in the mid 20's....plenty high enough to land a good player or help land Trelaor

The option is nothing at all. Just makes zero sense at all just to gain some ridiculous sense of high moral ground. He is gone and the club is obliged to get the best deal avialable for Collingwood, not the worst deal available for Freeman

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But if you and your family were of the belief that a person was responsible for the reoccurring injury which has potentially altered the remainder of his career would you look elsewhere for a guaranteed contract?

I know i most certainly would.

Hes definitely taken the soft option of a longer contract with a lower base wage. Clearly he doesnt have faith in his body...so thats a meeting of the minds with Collingwood who prefer a perfomance based contract. Whether or not his injuries are the clubs fault (either in reality or in his imagination) will be something nobody will ever know.

 

[Unknown Identity]

To be fair, we've seen contradictory claims from people on this forum with "information".

PieBeast says he spoke to Freeman last week, and said nothing of the injury management.

Others and the Aints forum are saying his dad is adamant we screwed up his hammies. You're now validating that claim.

What are we to believe?

I don't often claim i have info like that of Pie Beast and Beeg. I very rarely have the inside lane but on this I'm pretty certain with the specific details I was given that his injury management was not ideal.

I wish i could go into more detail but ive been asked not to but I promise you that your opinion of Nath would soften.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

We will take a pick which should be a second rounder. We have to fill list spots and I doubt we will want to use late picks in this draft.

 

[Ant85]

As much as we are not happy about it, players are free to walk after their contracts have ended so calling him a required player is pointless. It would be idiotic to spite him now, so unless the Saints insult us with a third or fourth round pick as compensation, then we should accept a second round pick, which is a pick in the mid 20's....plenty high enough to land a good player or help land Trelaor

The option is nothing at all. Just makes zero sense at all just to gain some ridiculous sense of high moral ground. He is gone and the club is obliged to get the best deal avialable for Collingwood, not the worst deal available for Freeman

Look, if we are so determined to spite Freeman, then I'm sure Eddie can do that outside of the club - deny Freeman a media spot, for example - if Eddie is that kind of guy.

But you at least have to agree that the system we have at the moment is unfair for the clubs, and while we should process this trade as you've suggested (and probably will), I do think we should be pushing for tighter rules to prevent players who are ineligible for free agency from operating as if they're free agents. Uncontracted and free agent should not have the same meaning, and at the moment it does.

 

[Melksham2Siposs]

And I had to wait until the final line....but yes I got it. See you guys get it too?
Saints wanted to move Lukey Ball on....yep you lost out to stubborness. WE (CFC) didn't want to move Freeo on, we offered him very reasonable terms for a young man that had never played a game.
See the difference? See why that pick better come through?

Hey mate, I'll try my best to see.

The situations are irrelevant (though, there is a lot of moral high ground being taken, when I think we'd all do the same in Freeman's position - taking out our obscene obsessions with AFL footy and our clubs).

I was just detailing that losing a player for nothing is not worth it in the long run.

Sure, you'd get a kick out of seeing Freeman at Carlton, but 2-3 years down the track, I think you'd take a Lewis Taylor/Billy Hartung/etc breathing down the neck of your starting 18, forcing 'em to bring consistency and excel further as footballers (which is a middle ground scenario).

 

[Wayne Arnold]

I don't often claim i have info like that of Pie Beast and Beeg. I very rarely have the inside lane but on this I'm pretty certain with the specific details I was given that his injury management was not ideal.

I thought yesterday you said you weren't going to add anything further and that the rest of us should read between the lines? Yet in almost every post since you've continued to talk about Freeman's reasons for leaving.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Look, if we are so determined to spite Freeman, then I'm sure Eddie can do that outside of the club - deny Freeman a media spot, for example - if Eddie is that kind of guy.

But you at least have to agree that the system we have at the moment is unfair for the clubs, and while we should process this trade as you've suggested (and probably will), I do think we should be pushing for tighter rules to prevent players who are ineligible for free agency from operating as if they're free agents. Uncontracted and free agent should not have the same meaning, and at the moment it does.

No I think the trade period works fine. You cant force an uncontracted player to go to a club he doesnt want to go to, unless he opts for the draft lottery. Thats always been the way. Off topic though, but you win some and you lose some.

 

[Ant85]

No I think the trade period works fine. You cant force an uncontracted player to go to a club he doesnt want to go to, unless he opts for the draft lottery. Thats always been the way. Off topic though, but you win some and you lose some.

It's completely on topic.

It was the way before we had free agency, and was used as a means for players to have flexibility at a time when clubs had more power.

Free agency has reversed that situation and negates the need for the "uncontracted" loophole.

Adapting to free agency means tweaking the other parts of the system to ensure a fair balance between clubs and players. One tweak should be to remove the option for uncontracted players to dictate a trade deal to a club, as Freeman is doing to us now.

It is not working, the Freeman case shows that, and he is only one of many.

 

[Unknown Identity]

I thought yesterday you said you weren't going to add anything further and that the rest of us should read between the lines? Yet in almost every post since you've continued to talk about Freeman's reasons for leaving.

People have continued to call out Nath.

I'm giving as much as i can with respecting the requests of the person that passed on the information.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Freeman is not a free agent. Hes an uncontracted player. Uncontracted players have always had the right to quit and go to a club of their choice, or failing that use the draft.

Uncontracted players NEVER end up at clubs they dont want to be at. Thats the case now in the days of free agency, and it was the case in the past.

 

[Ant85]

Freeman is not a free agent. Hes an uncontracted player. Uncontracted players have always had the right to quit and go to a club of their choice, or failing that use the draft.

Are you even reading what I'm writing, or do you just want to stubbornly stick to your point of view?

 

[Apex36]

AHD is a difficult 'disease' or condition to control. You need senior figures who have life experience and the ability to deal with contrasting personalities.

Heath needs to take a lot of blame himself. He did some stupid acts no one can condone.

But he wanted the best for the club. He comes from a great Collingwood family, he spoke up at Leading Teams meetings because at heart he wanted Collingwood to be better.

It's very sad that Heath is finishing his career elsewhere. He needs to accept responsibility for that, but at the same time the club and coach do too.

A good coach gets the best out of a range of characters and personalities.

Most coaches don't have to deal with former coaches actively trying to unndermine their efforts. And yes, I know for a fact that MM was still in contact with Heath and encouraging his misbehaviour right up until the end of his time at the Pies.

 

[TW Sherrin]

I don't often claim i have info like that of Pie Beast and Beeg. I very rarely have the inside lane but on this I'm pretty certain with the specific details I was given that his injury management was not ideal.

I wish i could go into more detail but ive been asked not to but I promise you that your opinion of Nath would soften.

I find the line that the club mismanaged his injury interesting. Who decided the club fcked it up? Freeman or his dad? or someone else? It was reported it was a severe injury yet he did a full pre season, played pre season and then 4 VFL games before he decided it wasnt right.

A lot of this doesnt make any sense.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Are you even reading what I'm writing, or do you just want to stubbornly stick to your point of view?

Happy to respond when you actually say something. Clubs have always had little control over what clubs their uncontracted players want to go to. The introduction of free agency hasnt changed that.