Tom Scully vs Mitch Clarke + 2 first rounders

[LouisCK]

I'm of the opinion that the Demons made out like bandits in this scenario.

By not retaining Scully, they were able to take a free swing at Clarke (and will be paying the bulk of his contract in year 1) as well as secure two first round picks (one of which is likely to be used on Jack Viney).

Considering Scully's injury problems, and that talls are always more valuable than mids - I really can't see anyway any Demons fans could be unhappy weith this outcome. I think it is fine to be unhappy with Scully's behaviour, and certainly with GWS' blatant rule manipulation - but the actual outcome looks to be a big win for the Dees.

Thoughts?

 

[Lord_Travis]

...as well as secure two first round picks (one of which is likely to be used on Jack Viney).

My understanding was that compo picks were exempt from father son. So we will actually use our earliest pick (first round unless traded) to secure Jack Viney, and then also have another 2 first round compo picks AS WELL. Assuming we use all 3 picks end of this year, we could potentially end up with 3 first round midfielders and come out way ahead of just keeping Scully. And we've picked up a good big body for our forward line along the way!
What was an ugly thing has actually turned out to be insanely beneficial for us

 

[Black Diamond]

Voted Scully because Mitch Clarke has always seemed a little fragile to me.

 

[Black Diamond]

My understanding was that compo picks were exempt from father son. So we will actually use our earliest pick (first round unless traded) to secure Jack Viney, and then also have another 2 first round compo picks AS WELL. Assuming we use all 3 picks end of this year, we could potentially end up with 3 first round midfielders and come out way ahead of just keeping Scully. And we've picked up a good big body for our forward line along the way!
What was an ugly thing has actually turned out to be insanely beneficial for us

Pretty sure it will have to be the first rounder you get as per your ladder position. Whether that is before or after the comp picks is irrelevant, and you will be unable to use a pick you trade for e.g. if you got a first rounder trading another player away.

 

[FRUMPY]

Melbourne had no choice so it doesnt matter does it?

Clarke is an overated player. One good year when he played Ruck, has shown nothing as a fwd.

2 first round picks might be duds. Like all these discussions, you wont know until 7-10 years.

Scully may captain a premiership side.

 

[LouisCK]

So you voted 'even' then?

 

[CrippsonBlue]

There is a reason that clubs who secure the number 1 draft pick don't trade it for 2 lower first round picks - clubs would fall over themselves to get such a deal done if it was thrown up as an option.

Also, ideally a 3rd year player shouldn't be the difference in having the cap space to chase someone like Clarke, who isn't a superstar, especially considering the Dees current position.

Having said that, I don't think its the sort of set back that will stop you rising to the top - the net outcome was definitely reasonable, and it takes a team effort to get there.

Individual performances can prove to be the difference in actually getting to a GF/winning a premiership though, so that is where it may potentially cost Melbourne one day.

 

[Mayestro]

So you're ignoring the pick 12 you had to give up for Mitch Clark?

Hence shouldn't the equation be 'Tom Scully vs Mitch Clark and 1 first rounder'?

Evens things up a touch.

If Mitch Clark improves to his potential and the first rounder you pick is decent, then you've come out ahead. But if Mitch is one of those players that is forever tantalising without delivering (I'm looking at you Brennan), you're probably behind.

In either case there's no banditry present.

 

[blitzer]

I said Clarke + 2 first rounders but its unclear by how much. It all depends on what quality they pick up and how good Scully ends up. I don't really rate Clarke as a forward but as a ruckman I like him a lot. Two first rounders though is very good compensation and with Clarke thrown in on top of that then yeah probably worth more than Scully. Of course the value of the two first rounders can only be assessed in years to come, whereas Scully was a sure thing or as close to it as you can get drafting youngsters.

 

[LouisCK]

There is a reason that clubs who secure the number 1 draft pick don't trade it for 2 lower first round picks - clubs would fall over themselves to get such a deal done if it was thrown up as an option.

I agree, and if we'd traded pick 1 for two first rounders, I'd feel silly.

But we traded a 3rd year Tom Scully, who in hindsight probably shouldn't have gone pick 1 (more to do with his injury problems than anything - though his size and lack of talent in disposal is obviously a concern too).

Knowing what we know about Scully, I think two first rounders is great compensation. Adding in the ability to land Clarke as well, is where I think it helped us come out ahead. And yeah we gave up pick 12 in a very weak draft for Clarke. Those compo first rounders are worth a LOT more than a regular first rounder too, because of the flexibility in using them any time over the next 5 years.

 

[tacopavlich]

So you're ignoring the pick 12 you had to give up for Mitch Clark?

Hence shouldn't the equation be 'Tom Scully vs Mitch Clark and 1 first rounder'?

Evens things up a touch.

If Mitch Clark improves to his potential and the first rounder you pick is decent, then you've come out ahead. But if Mitch is one of those players that is forever tantalising without delivering (I'm looking at you Brennan), you're probably behind.

In either case there's no banditry present.

Yeh poll is misleading. It's realy Scully + 1st rounder vs Clarke + 2 first rounders. At this stage depends whether Clarke finally meets the expectations put on him.

Also his 800K salary isn't limited to just the first year. Freo were offering upwards of 600K a year for 4 years and that wasn't enough. He's getting paid big bucks through out his contract.

But who knows, maybe Scully won't overcome his injuries and Clarke actually plays like an A grade player and melbourne come out on top anyway.

 

[LouisCK]

Yeah I didn't say it wasn't 800k per year, only that we're paying the majority of the total contract in the first year. You know, front ended contracts?

And maybe it should be Scully + first rounder in a very weak draft vs Clarke + 2 first rounders that can be used at any stage over the next 5 years?

 

[tacopavlich]

Yeah I didn't say it wasn't 800k per year, only that we're paying the majority of the total contract in the first year. You know, front ended contracts?

And maybe it should be Scully + first rounder in a very weak draft vs Clarke + 2 first rounders that can be used at any stage over the next 5 years?

From what I heard from the draft boards, it was considered a weak draft because of depth past picks 25+, but the first rounders were still as strong as previous drafts, so a redundant point in this poll. Could be wrong though.

 

[Donakebab]

From what I heard from the draft boards, it was considered a weak draft because of depth past picks 25+, but the first rounders were still as strong as previous drafts, so a redundant point in this poll. Could be wrong though.

Bingo. 2011 draft didn't run deep, but still had sufficient talent in the top end.

Should be Scully + pick 12 vs Clarke + 2 first round compo picks.

 

[LouisCK]

Fair to say the compo picks have more value than pick 12 though, due to the flexibility of being able to use them any year over the next 5.

 

[thebulldog]

I'd take Clarke and 2 first rounders over Scully, but not over Scully and pick 12 which is the reality, so i'd say we lost.
However since he wanted to leave and was dishonest all year for me brings it back to being even.

 

[BrownPearHookers]

Bingo. 2011 draft didn't run deep, but still had sufficient talent in the top end.

Should be Scully + pick 12 vs Clarke + 2 first round compo picks.

Scully + pick 12, Scully will be a fantastic player, and a decent chance of getting somebody else with pretty good ability at 12.

I am not of the opinion that Clarke is that great a pick up for Melbourne.

 

[Tulip]

Scully

 

[Demon 16]

Melbourne could have afforded Clark whether Scully was there or not..

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Don't care anymore, well and truly over it.

 

[00Stinger]

About even.

Look Scully will turn out a better player than Clark. However with Clark in the team he will free up Watts & Jurrah and if the each increase by 10-20% in output that will swing the balance in our favour

 

[Donakebab]

About even.

Look Scully will turn out a better player than Clark. However with Clark in the team he will free up Watts & Jurrah and if the each increase by 10-20% in output that will swing the balance in our favour

You would expect an improvement of about that from Jurrah and Watts regardless.

 

[Jade]

Whilst Scully IMO does not equal the other side of the coin (hence my vote); the fact scully was so eager to leave in the first place speaks volumes for Melbourne as a club (ie. It's internal workings). They'd want to make sure they get the house in order prior to using those compensation picks.

 

[Old Skool]

There's too many unknown variables to make an opinion.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Whilst Scully IMO does not equal the other side of the coin (hence my vote); the fact scully was so eager to leave in the first place speaks volumes for Melbourne as a club (ie. It's internal workings). They'd want to make sure they get the house in order prior to using those compensation picks.

I think that was kind of the idea behind the significant cleanout at the end of the season.

It was reported to be very much a coach vs admin situation.