News Shane McAdam traded to Melbourne for F2

[FR0GGY]

Why would Melbourne want this chump?

They aren’t immune to doing silly things bringing in Grundy and about to ship him out.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So is he a lazy bones who gets on the beers, doesn't rehab properly and clashed with Burgess over training standards... or is that all horseshit and he's someone we offered a two year deal to?

 

[Bearded Clam]

They aren’t immune to doing silly things bringing in Grundy and about to ship him out.

Mcadam and fritch would be a pretty dangerous lead up forward combo.. and both play taller than they are.

then they have pickett and spargo as their two true small forwards.

Thats a bloody dangerous forward line even before you add the talls in.

 

[Bearded Clam]

So is he a lazy bones who gets on the beers, doesn't rehab properly and clashed with Burgess over training standards... or is that all horseshit and he's someone we offered a two year deal to?

Looks increasingly like..

 

[Southerntakeover]

I think he's unhappy at Adelaide, because he was unwilling to do the work that Burgess demanded.

... and given that he wanted out, Melbourne appear to have made him the most attractive offer (when his player manager went calling).

How convenient, a narrative that puts all of the fault on the player, none on the club, and finally exposes those Melbourne losers who might be lining up for their second premiership in three seasons but have none of the relentless training standards and professionalism of our winners.

 

[Southerntakeover]

The way that this board turns on players when it's convenient to the club's narrative is something to behold.

 

[CromradeCromulent]

The way that this board turns on players when it's convenient to the club's narrative is something to behold.

What's more impressive if the ability of people on this site to bash the club for every decision they make, always filling in the gaps with the most negative possible version of what could happen.

 

[PeterSalt]

The way that this board turns on players when it's convenient to the club's narrative is something to behold.

The clash with HP staff came from Rucci via Mark Williams by the sound of it. And is quite possibly valid, at least from from McAdams perspective.

But the pile on over it has been piss poor

 

[dogs105]

What's more impressive if the ability of people on this site to bash the club for every decision they make, always filling in the gaps with the most negative possible version of what could happen.

I think some people "defending the club" are just pointing out that it's not necessarily 100% the way the naysayers think it is.

 

[Southerntakeover]

What's more impressive if the ability of people on this site to bash the club for every decision they make, always filling in the gaps with the most negative possible version of what could happen.

It's almost like we follow a club with a premiership drought that's going to stretch beyond 30 years.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I think some people "defending the club" are just pointing out that it's not necessarily 100% the way the naysayers think it is.

Because McAdam is a lazy bludger who just couldn't be retained because he's unprofessional?

 

[Amacca 23]

What's more impressive if the ability of people on this site to bash the club for every decision they make, always filling in the gaps with the most negative possible version of what could happen.

Yup and the same people everytime

On SM-G996B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Southerntakeover]

I mean, we know it's not the case that he refused to negotiate- we put out the details of an offer. A guy storming out doesn't wait to check the offer first.

 

[dogs105]

Because McAdam is a lazy bludger who just couldn't be retained because he's unprofessional?

Wasn't the report that he wanted to leave because of disagreements with fitness staff? Not the same as being lazy

 

[dogs105]

The way that this board turns on players when it's convenient to the club's narrative is something to behold.

Depends on the player and personal preferences I think. Some of the McAdam defenders are laying into Doedee in the other thread.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Depends on the player and personal preferences I think. Some of the McAdam defenders are laying into Doedee in the other thread.

Maybe they like talented players?

 

[dogs105]

Maybe they like talented players?

Nah, they blamed Fog for being unfit and lacking confidence

 

[Southerntakeover]

Nah, they blamed Fog for being unfit and lacking confidence

Nah, different cohorts. Almost to a rule the people who defended Fogarty are sceptical of the club favourable narrative being spread here.

 

[FR0GGY]

Depends on the player and personal preferences I think. Some of the McAdam defenders are laying into Doedee in the other thread.

Imo Doedee has brought the contract situation all on himself, by the sounds we had a very generous offer on the table and he still wanted more.
Now he’s trying to play it out publicly.
Poor form imo.

 

[dogs105]

Nah, different cohorts. Almost to a rule the people who defended Fogarty are sceptical of the club favourable narrative being spread here.

I'm sceptical of any claims made here without proof - unprofessional, and low-balling.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I'm sceptical of any claims made here without proof - unprofessional, and low-balling.

Why does it have to be low balling?

The simple proposition: that we would have more money available to re-sign better players had we not re-signed players that are not AFL standard is basic budgeting.

 

[dogs105]

Why does it have to be low balling?

The simple proposition: that we would have more money available to re-sign better players had we not re-signed players that are not AFL standard is basic budgeting.

It doesn't have to be lowballing. But some one here are pushing that as fact. It could be there wasn't enough for McAdam, or it could be that there was money available and he's going anyway. People just shouldn't be saying it definitively one way or the other.

 

[FR0GGY]

Why does it have to be low balling?

The simple proposition: that we would have more money available to re-sign better players had we not re-signed players that are not AFL standard is basic budgeting.

Maybe the issue is not lowballing but talent id?
Maybe we just don’t rate him as much as other teams?
I’m sure if we wanted to pay him more we would.
It sounds like we have at least 700k from the Doedee offer available.

 

[Southerntakeover]

It doesn't have to be lowballing. But some one here are pushing that as fact. It could be there wasn't enough for McAdam, or it could be that there was money available and he's going anyway. People just shouldn't be saying it definitively one way or the other.

If there was no chance of retention, we wouldn't have gotten to putting an offer on the table.

If we accept that occurred, we also have to accept that there was an offer capable of reaching a deal.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Exactly. Our forward 6 will have guaranteed spots to Fog, Walker, Rash & Rank. No one should be upset with this.

We then have the following players who can play the other two, which I would not be upset about either: Thilthorpe (though would prefer him up the ground/ruck), Gollant, Keays, Pedlar (though would prefer him more in the middle). So thats 8 suitable players to fill 6 spots.

And thats not even counting Murphy or McHenry.

McAdam is the very definition of a player whose value as a trade is greater than his value in the team.

Disagree. We want to move Rachele and Pedlar into the midfield and having McAdam keeps the forward line strong while we do that