Jury is in on MacMahon

[TOT70]

I'm sorry but we could have had him for nothing. It was a possibility. I understand that it was not very probable but you must admit that is would have been possible to get him for nothing via the PSD. This is what gave us the upper hand in negotiations. I have no problem with getting MacMahon, I just believe given the circumstances (uncontracted, wanting to leave the bulldogs, committing to Richmond, Richmond having first pick in the PSD) we massively overpaid for his services.

This is in no way a knock on MacMahon. He is not responsible for what Richmond gave up to secure his services. This is a knock on Miller.

How do you get a player for nothing?

You have to trade or draft him onto the list and then he takes up just ONE spot on the list like everybody else does. Trade pick 19 for McMahon and you are able to use the PSD pick on Gourdis. Or you keep the PSD Pick for McMahon and use pick 19 on someone else. You still end up with McMahon and one young player. It is the same thing. Cost is irrelevant.

The perceived value of each draft pick is bunkum. Each pick is worth exactly one player. Who is to say that a player picked at 19 will end up having a better career than one picked much later?

There are plenty of early picks who turn out to be busts and plenty of late picks or rookies who turn out to be excellent players. Let them concentrate on building a squad. For the record, I probably would not have chosen McMahon at all but it is undeniable that our disposal when rebounding out of the backline has improved dramatically since he has been at the club.

Surely most would agree that lack of skill has been a huge problem. Recruiting McMahon, Morton and Cotchin has improved us immensely in this area.

The whole McMahon controversy is a mountain in a molehill. If GM had traded picks 2, 18 and 19 to WC so he could pick up Judd in the PSD like he wanted to that would have been the disaster.

 

[Tiger74]

How do you get a player for nothing?

You have to trade or draft him onto the list and then he takes up just ONE spot on the list like everybody else does. Trade pick 19 for McMahon and you are able to use the PSD pick on Gourdis. Or you keep the PSD Pick for McMahon and use pick 19 on someone else. You still end up with McMahon and one young player. It is the same thing. Cost is irrelevant.

The perceived value of each draft pick is bunkum. Each pick is worth exactly one player. Who is to say that a player picked at 19 will end up having a better career than one picked much later?

There are plenty of early picks who turn out to be busts and plenty of late picks or rookies who turn out to be excellent players. Let them concentrate on building a squad. For the record, I probably would not have chosen McMahon at all but it is undeniable that our disposal when rebounding out of the backline has improved dramatically since he has been at the club.

Surely most would agree that lack of skill has been a huge problem. Recruiting McMahon, Morton and Cotchin has improved us immensely in this area.

The whole McMahon controversy is a mountain in a molehill. If GM had traded picks 2, 18 and 19 to WC so he could pick up Judd in the PSD like he wanted to that would have been the disaster.

You have a good point in saying IF you want McMahon in the PSD, the comparison becomes Gourdis vs Selwood (for instance). The only issue with this though is most who don't like McMahon didn't want him at the club for pick 100 (argument being too many of that type of player already).

 

[IanG]

I'm sorry but we could have had him for nothing. It was a possibility. I understand that it was not very probable but you must admit that is would have been possible to get him for nothing via the PSD. This is what gave us the upper hand in negotiations. I have no problem with getting MacMahon, I just believe given the circumstances (uncontracted, wanting to leave the bulldogs, committing to Richmond, Richmond having first pick in the PSD) we massively overpaid for his services.

This is in no way a knock on MacMahon. He is not responsible for what Richmond gave up to secure his services. This is a knock on Miller.

Yes it was possible he would fall to us in the PSD, but like TOT said the cost of getting McMahon in the PSD was Gourdis which further depletes our KPP stocks. But it wasn't likely to happen anyway because he would have chosen Port, we didn't have the upper hand because he had 2 offers.

 

[TheUmpire]

Yes it was possible he would fall to us in the PSD, but like TOT said the cost of getting McMahon in the PSD was Gourdis which further depletes our KPP stocks.

Specious argument Ian. The pertinent question is would we have better placed to pick up a young KPP at pick 19 or first pick in the PSD? I am not arguing that we should have picked him up in the PSD, just that we had the opportunity to do so which gave us great leverage in negotiations. Unfortunately, and not for the first time, GM/TW had us drop to our knees and let the bullies have their way with us. It leaves a very sour taste in ones mouth.

But it wasn't likely to happen anyway because he would have chosen Port, we didn't have the upper hand because he had 2 offers.

No, he had committed to the Tiges, and who wouldn't at the money we offered. It's a similar method that we got a commitment for Simmonds, except that for him it was the length of contract that earned his commitment.

 

[GoodOne]

No, he had committed to the Tiges, and who wouldn't at the money we offered. It's a similar method that we got a commitment for Simmonds, except that for him it was the length of contract that earned his commitment.

Is that a fact? Part of the inner sanctum are we? Friends of McMahon perhaps? Simmonds was a different kettle of fish. He had committed to the Tigers as no-one else were willing to offer the contract length. McMahon was not committed 100% and there was another offer on the table otherwise the Tigers would have taken him in the PSD, or with a much higher pick, its as simple as that. Why else would they take him at 19?

 

[AngryAnt]

No, he had committed to the Tiges, and who wouldn't at the money we offered. It's a similar method that we got a commitment for Simmonds, except that for him it was the length of contract that earned his commitment.

IIRC Macmahon is not being paid particularly over the odds for players of his experience. I stand to be corrected though.

 

[IanG]

Specious argument Ian. The pertinent question is would we have better placed to pick up a young KPP at pick 19 or first pick in the PSD?

We weren't going to pick a KPP at 19, we would have picked Sellwood. So it would have been either McMahon and Sellwood or McMahon and Gourdis assuming we could get him in the PSD. I know which option is better for us structurally. The third option was of course Sellwood and Gourdis plus a cash saving which still is my preferred option.

I am not arguing that we should have picked him up in the PSD, just that we had the opportunity to do so which gave us great leverage in negotiations. Unfortunately, and not for the first time, GM/TW had us drop to our knees and let the bullies have their way with us. It leaves a very sour taste in ones mouth.

Our next pick was 35, what else were we supposed to offer? (and I repeat yet again I think the trade was a bad one) 35 was committed to Morton anyway. Port probably offered their second round pick how were we supposed to beat that?

No, he had committed to the Tiges, and who wouldn't at the money we offered. It's a similar method that we got a commitment for Simmonds, except that for him it was the length of contract that earned his commitment.

Like Goody said put up or shut. How can you be so certain about this? What I remember is Port and we were bidding for him and he was tossing up between the offers.

 

[Baloo]

Agree with the two offers. Port was appealing because that's where his daughter now lives and he could have spent more time with her.

 

[Leysy Days]

We weren't going to pick a KPP at 19, we would have picked Sellwood. So it would have been either McMahon and Sellwood or McMahon and Gourdis assuming we could get him in the PSD. I know which option is better for us structurally.

Selwood whilst being far from proven is light years ahead of Gourdis as a prospect Ian.

 

[GoodOne]

on this one i agree and disagree. picks 30 and 38 were a huge price to pay for a 29yo.but unlike us wb must have felt they were in a window of opportunity ithnk this is being borne out so for them they got it right.

Agree here, Western Bulldogs had different motives for picking Hudson up. But for us would have been pointless at 19. It is going to end up costly for them though if they don't make the most of this window of opportunity. In 3 or so years, Hudson will be gone most likely and two 21yo's that won't be running around for them.

 

[TOT70]

You have a good point in saying IF you want McMahon in the PSD, the comparison becomes Gourdis vs Selwood (for instance). The only issue with this though is most who don't like McMahon didn't want him at the club for pick 100 (argument being too many of that type of player already).

I probably didn't want him for pick 100 either. Having said that, I'm prepared to accept what he brings to table. He is a very good quality running player with experience, is a likely 5-6 season Tiger and has already been very influential in a couple of wins. He wouldn't be the most highly paid player on the team, he is certainly not the laziest.

Yeah, we have dozens of half-back flankers. He is currently the best of them and has helped improve our disposal. Let them compete for the few spots in the team and crawl over the top of McMahon, if they are good enough. Moore and McGuane have already done this to Bowden and Morton has put an end to Pettifer.

How else do you build a successful team?

 

[Tiger74]

Yeah, we have dozens of half-back flankers. He is currently the best of them and has helped improve our disposal. Let them compete for the few spots in the team and crawl over the top of McMahon, if they are good enough. Moore and McGuane have already done this to Bowden and Morton has put an end to Pettifer.

I think this is an important point. Petts is cab one off the rank, but there will probably be 1-2 other flankers leaving with him at seasons end.

 

[TheUmpire]

We weren't going to pick a KPP at 19, we would have picked Sellwood. So it would have been either McMahon and Sellwood or McMahon and Gourdis assuming we could get him in the PSD. I know which option is better for us structurally. The third option was of course Sellwood and Gourdis plus a cash saving which still is my preferred option.

Our next pick was 35, what else were we supposed to offer? (and I repeat yet again I think the trade was a bad one) 35 was committed to Morton anyway. Port probably offered their second round pick how were we supposed to beat that?

Like Goody said put up or shut. How can you be so certain about this? What I remember is Port and we were bidding for him and he was tossing up between the offers.

I have already put up some options we should have proposed. 19 for MacMahon and 22 or 19 and 35 for MacMahon , 22 and 38. As for put up or shut up, your scenario is that we traded for him then made sure that he wanted Richmond above Port. Wrong he committed to us then we traded for him. Check out http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/mcmahon-picks-tigers-over-port/2007/10/11/1191696082792.html. MacMahon picks Tigers over Port.

 

[TheUmpire]

Is that a fact? Part of the inner sanctum are we? Friends of McMahon perhaps? Simmonds was a different kettle of fish. He had committed to the Tigers as no-one else were willing to offer the contract length. McMahon was not committed 100% and there was another offer on the table otherwise the Tigers would have taken him in the PSD, or with a much higher pick, its as simple as that. Why else would they take him at 19?

You assume that Footscray could simply trade him to Port (or Richmond) without his conscent. He had to agree to the trade and was traded to his CLUB OF CHOICE. Richmond were his club of choice.

 

[IanG]

I have already put up some options we should have proposed. 19 for MacMahon and 22 or 19 and 35 for MacMahon , 22 and 38. As for put up or shut up, your scenario is that we traded for him then made sure that he wanted Richmond above Port. Wrong he committed to us then we traded for him. Check out http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/mcmahon-picks-tigers-over-port/2007/10/11/1191696082792.html. MacMahon picks Tigers over Port.

And why did he agree, because we assured him that we would do a trade trade for him with the dogs. As for the picks, were you involved? Do you know what was offered and refused?