The David Mackay thread

[Apsaalooke]

Someone has to teach our new coach our running patterns now Campo's gone. Who better?

 

[Jarman3]

I think I already said it elsewhere, but as it stands we've got 3 draft picks all inside 30 (before priority picks, academy picks, etc push them down). After that our next one is what... 5th round? So you're talking something around pick 90.

Now look at the number of players who have left or are leaving... we just don't have enough picks to replace them all. If we get a pick for everyone that goes then we might be able to, but I suspect some of them will turn into pick upgrades or future picks rather than getting in 1 pick this year per player.

You do not want to be digging around at pick 90 in the draft. You reckon DMac is a spud? I guarantee you that he'll be Malcolm ****ing Blight compared to the player you get at 90+. So the choice is give DMac a 1 year contract and cut him loose next year, or cut him now, draft a different spud at pick 90 and have to keep that spud for the minimum 2 year draftee contract. Better to keep DMac for 1 year than unknown spud for 2.

 

[Elite Crow]

What if it’s not a spud at pick 90?

 

[lamby]

You people just do not appreciate a role player. If we only had 22 role players who prepared and trained as well as this guy just imagine where we would be. Eh !

But. But in a normal club you give those ‘roles’ to the kids while they develop! Not to the 200 gamer 400k player!!!! FFS how can people not understand this?

There are about 10 blokes on the list who can do this ROLE and have more up-side when they develop.

 

[jackster83]

He better not be picked while our first round picks rot away in the SANFL. Our selection policy this year could only be described as imbecilic.

 

[CrowinNT]

What if it’s not a spud at pick 90?

The jury is still out on Rory Atkins ?

 

[DroppingTheBall]

....Now look at the number of players who have left or are leaving... we just don't have enough picks to replace them all. If we get a pick for everyone that goes then we might be able to, but I suspect some of them will turn into pick upgrades or future picks rather than getting in 1 pick this year per player.

You do not want to be digging around at pick 90 in the draft. You reckon DMac is a spud? I guarantee you that he'll be Malcolm ****ing Blight compared to the player you get at 90+. So the choice is give DMac a 1 year contract and cut him loose next year, or cut him now, draft a different spud at pick 90 and have to keep that spud for the minimum 2 year draftee contract. Better to keep DMac for 1 year than unknown spud for 2.

Easily solved, I predict we will trade our #4 pick for #40, 45 and 50. Ta-dah!

P.S. I have no problem with Mackay. Fans tend to massively over-rate (worship) or under-rate (vilify) players. Coaches see much more and in a more balanced way, and his record with (numerous) coaches speaks for itself. I would describe him as honest, hardworking, fit, fast, skillful, experienced, and willing to play a role. Significantly higher tackle rate this year than Atkins, Betts, Brown, Douglas, Keath, Laird, Lynch, Seedsman and Talia.

cheers

 

[Deaneus!]

Thank God we've got another MacKay thread.

*merged*

 

[Mego Red]

as soon as you match a RFA (or skip this step and go straight to a trade), you are in the same boat.

How is it different? You are trading 2 OOC players

Christ, why are we still talking about this.

LEVER. Out of Contract.

DANGERFIELD. Restricted Free Agent, who needs his contract offer matched to be Out of Contract.

CROWS AND GEELONG. Are talking for six months about a Dangerfield deal - Adelaide knows what Geelong WANTS to pay, and says they could match that. GEELONG decides to begin trade discussions instead of upping their offer to Dangerfield to a point where we couldn't match. GEELONG still wanted to sign other players, and in order to protect that flexibility, they gave up draft picks instead of outbidding us for Dangerfield, which they could easily have done.

We could easily have overplayed our hand. Instead, it was one of the few win-wins in trading history. People here still think we could have just played hard ball, without any understanding of how else it could have unfolded.

 

[DangerSloane]

Christ, why are we still talking about this.

LEVER. Out of Contract.

DANGERFIELD. Restricted Free Agent, who needs his contract offer matched to be Out of Contract.

CROWS AND GEELONG. Are talking for six months about a Dangerfield deal - Adelaide knows what Geelong WANTS to pay, and says they could match that. GEELONG decides to begin trade discussions instead of upping their offer to Dangerfield to a point where we couldn't match. GEELONG still wanted to sign other players, and in order to protect that flexibility, they gave up draft picks instead of outbidding us for Dangerfield, which they could easily have done.

We could easily have overplayed our hand. Instead, it was one of the few win-wins in trading history. People here still think we could have just played hard ball, without any understanding of how else it could have unfolded.

 

[Vhaluus]

Christ, why are we still talking about this.

LEVER. Out of Contract.

DANGERFIELD. Restricted Free Agent, who needs his contract offer matched to be Out of Contract.

CROWS AND GEELONG. Are talking for six months about a Dangerfield deal - Adelaide knows what Geelong WANTS to pay, and says they could match that. GEELONG decides to begin trade discussions instead of upping their offer to Dangerfield to a point where we couldn't match. GEELONG still wanted to sign other players, and in order to protect that flexibility, they gave up draft picks instead of outbidding us for Dangerfield, which they could easily have done.

We could easily have overplayed our hand. Instead, it was one of the few win-wins in trading history. People here still think we could have just played hard ball, without any understanding of how else it could have unfolded.

How was it a win-win.

We lost a player who went on to win a Brownlow the next year.

It was win-lose and we weren't the win.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Christ, why are we still talking about this.

LEVER. Out of Contract.

DANGERFIELD. Restricted Free Agent, who needs his contract offer matched to be Out of Contract.

CROWS AND GEELONG. Are talking for six months about a Dangerfield deal - Adelaide knows what Geelong WANTS to pay, and says they could match that. GEELONG decides to begin trade discussions instead of upping their offer to Dangerfield to a point where we couldn't match. GEELONG still wanted to sign other players, and in order to protect that flexibility, they gave up draft picks instead of outbidding us for Dangerfield, which they could easily have done.

We could easily have overplayed our hand. Instead, it was one of the few win-wins in trading history. People here still think we could have just played hard ball, without any understanding of how else it could have unfolded.

You still spinning the same garbage.

 

[DangerSloane]

How was it a win-win.

We lost a player who went on to win a Brownlow the next year.

It was win-lose and we weren't the win.

You still spinning the same garbage.

Here we go. The brains trust that still dont get how free agency works.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Here we go. The brains trust that still dont get how free agency works.

Given your level of posting you'd be the last person to give any advice.

 

[GrommoT]

Christ, why are we still talking about this.

LEVER. Out of Contract.

DANGERFIELD. Restricted Free Agent, who needs his contract offer matched to be Out of Contract.

CROWS AND GEELONG. Are talking for six months about a Dangerfield deal - Adelaide knows what Geelong WANTS to pay, and says they could match that. GEELONG decides to begin trade discussions instead of upping their offer to Dangerfield to a point where we couldn't match. GEELONG still wanted to sign other players, and in order to protect that flexibility, they gave up draft picks instead of outbidding us for Dangerfield, which they could easily have done.

We could easily have overplayed our hand. Instead, it was one of the few win-wins in trading history. People here still think we could have just played hard ball, without any understanding of how else it could have unfolded.

LOL! What's this post doing in this thread?

Poor Mods - really working hard for their money ... wait, wut?

 

[Vhaluus]

Here we go. The brains trust that still dont get how free agency works.

A restricted free agent is a player who is in the top 25% of salaries at their club who has played the for the club for 8 years. If another club makes an offer to the player, the players current club can match the offer. If they current club does opt to match the offer, the player can either chose to remain, enter the draft or ask for a trade.

So how exactly do I not understand how it works?

 

[Big Crow]

Honest question here:

Dangerfield was a restricted free agent. Why did we choose not to match the salary offered by Geelong and force a trade?

Was this to our benefit or as a gesture of goodwill to Danger?

 

[GrommoT]

Honest question here:

Dangerfield was a restricted free agent. Why did we choose not to match the salary offered by Geelong and force a trade?

Was this to our benefit or as a gesture of goodwill to Danger?

I think it's a case of Geelong not making a FA offer and went straight to making a deal for PD with us.

Geelong had a player list payment structure that was fairly even and making an FA offer keeping to that structure would have meant an offer the Crows could probably match easily (and hence hang on to PD**).

Geelong would have to have broken that pay structure and/or not re-contract a few of the veteran players (that they did) in order to make a mega offer to PD that Crows would not likely match.

But if Crows couldn't reach an agreement with Geelong for PD - say, insist on 2 2015 r1 picks - Geelong could have gone down the mega offer path.

Geelong & AFC would have been negotiating months before the trade period and both would have been aware of the possible outcomes so they probably ended up with the deal that was.


Ed. ** actually: if PD did not wish to remain with his original club, he must enter the draft or seek a trade

 

[Scrogdogg]

Thank God we've got another MacKay thread.

*merged*

Surely this will be his last year ? Surely............................

 

[FR0GGY]

You people just do not appreciate a role player. If we only had 22 role players who prepared and trained as well as this guy just imagine where we would be. Eh !

We’d have about 1.5 team brownlow votes per season.

 

[Southerntakeover]

How was it a win-win.

We lost a player who went on to win a Brownlow the next year.

It was win-lose and we weren't the win.

Don't forget Dean Gore...

 

[Red mist]

I believe David Mackay will be in our coaching fraternity.
You know it’s gonna happen.

 

[Tarasque36]

I think I already said it elsewhere, but as it stands we've got 3 draft picks all inside 30 (before priority picks, academy picks, etc push them down). After that our next one is what... 5th round? So you're talking something around pick 90.

Now look at the number of players who have left or are leaving... we just don't have enough picks to replace them all. If we get a pick for everyone that goes then we might be able to, but I suspect some of them will turn into pick upgrades or future picks rather than getting in 1 pick this year per player.

You do not want to be digging around at pick 90 in the draft. You reckon DMac is a spud? I guarantee you that he'll be Malcolm ****ing Blight compared to the player you get at 90+. So the choice is give DMac a 1 year contract and cut him loose next year, or cut him now, draft a different spud at pick 90 and have to keep that spud for the minimum 2 year draftee contract. Better to keep DMac for 1 year than unknown spud for 2.

I've heard this excuse come up since the spud got another year. But, what a crap excuse if you really think about it.
Look at the past 5 drafts only lasting into the 70s. Other teams start passing, so roughly at worst, we take picks at 72, 73 or however many extra we need. Not in the 90s. Almost like first dibs on rookie draft, where we have drafted better players than spudmac. Plus, promote a couple current rookies.

 

[Golumless]

I think I already said it elsewhere, but as it stands we've got 3 draft picks all inside 30 (before priority picks, academy picks, etc push them down). After that our next one is what... 5th round? So you're talking something around pick 90.

Now look at the number of players who have left or are leaving... we just don't have enough picks to replace them all. If we get a pick for everyone that goes then we might be able to, but I suspect some of them will turn into pick upgrades or future picks rather than getting in 1 pick this year per player.

You do not want to be digging around at pick 90 in the draft. You reckon DMac is a spud? I guarantee you that he'll be Malcolm ****ing Blight compared to the player you get at 90+. So the choice is give DMac a 1 year contract and cut him loose next year, or cut him now, draft a different spud at pick 90 and have to keep that spud for the minimum 2 year draftee contract. Better to keep DMac for 1 year than unknown spud for 2.

You'd be surprised to know a lot of good players have been unearthed in the rookie draft over the years

In the end, I disagree. In this case, the unknown is much better then DMac. We know DMac is going to be the same underperforming outside midfielder he has always been who is just going to be soaking up gametime whilst not offering much in return. The potential to get something better, even if it is likely this move end up in a nil all draw of picking up a spud with pick 90 is definitely worth exploring instead.

Perfect time for a high risk, high reward prospect which exist in the rookie draft.

 

[Golumless]

Honest question here:

Dangerfield was a restricted free agent. Why did we choose not to match the salary offered by Geelong and force a trade?

Was this to our benefit or as a gesture of goodwill to Danger?

Geelong never put in a FA offer for Dangerfield. Both clubs treated that step as a formality and just skipped it.

It may have led the awkward situation that Geelong may of had in their back pocket, however, we would have been better forcing an extra 500 k of salary cap stress on Geelong instead of a 1st + 2nd. After all, those are the margins which can sink a competitor.