Senior 27. Marc Pittonet

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jeremias said:
Wow.

I’m amazed by this.

I am a Pitto fan and think he is judged harshly by many, and I have no issue with him signing on beyond 2023, but a 4 year deal seems crazy.

The only way I can make sense of this one is if it’s in effect a shorter deal spread over more years.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm thinking that the club is expecting this to be a 'Good news article' but I suspect it will be the opposite with a lot of people calling it outright madness. I'm not that cynical, but I don't think this is a good decision.

I like Pitto, and wish him the best, but wow, this would want to be a bargain.
 
Look congrats to Marc, but this is a cowardly contract from the club. List management team are all over the shop, Crazy Vossy meter is about to peak in the red. The former need to be reigned in or fired before they opt into the latter's viewpoint.

Seems like SOS and/or TDK are off at the end of the year, along with the enormous gutting of our midfield.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I like this deal.

He is a solid ruck who does everything ok - tapwork and follow up afterwards, ok around the ground, can be ok when he pushes forward (not something that ever happens on our current toilet game plan...).

He is also effective against all opposition rucks too - really tall ones, athletic jumpers, beefy monsters - he does pretty well.

He also seems like a good bloke and aolid clubman.

Given we have spent our salary cap on magic beans elsewhere on the field, and that you need ruck depth, this is a very sensible signing. If a better ruck falls in our lap then he is a good reserve and we havent committed too much cash. If not, then he can at least compete against all opposition amd do his job.

Good job by the list team!
 
btdg said:
He is a solid ruck who does everything ok - tapwork and follow up afterwards, ok around the ground, can be ok when he pushes forward (not something that ever happens on our current toilet game plan...).
Click to expand...
He's only good at one of the four things you've nominated.
 
Jimmae said:
He's only good at one of the four things you've nominated.
Click to expand...
He is fine. Average. Competent. Not 'good' or a standout, but by ruck standards, he is ok.

AFl stats benchmarking rates him 'average' in disposals and overall, and 'above average' in hitouts and clearances. He also doesn't really have a weakness.

He doesn't really stand out or dominate any area, but that isn't his job. We need foot soldiers as well as stars.

And even if you gifted us prime NicNat, it would still be worth having a Pitto equivalent to cover injuries or for matches where you want a second legit ruck. Assuming the money is sensible, why not lock him down ?
 
Arr0w said:
Back to Pitto, thought 3 max was more appropriate, but we don't know the size of the contract
Click to expand...
I also wouldn't be surprised if his management didn't push back as well for some level of security, even if the size of the contract wasn't large. And if the club are already aware of TDK's decision, it does give Pitto's management some leverage.

Even Geelong traded in a 31yo Ceglar on a 2 year deal as back up a few years back, so I'm not that phased about the length. What I am nervous about is if TDK decides to jump ship, it leaves us with Mirkov and O'Keefe as the back ups.
 
berisha said:
The whispers I've got from someone close to a source in the know is that the club expects TDK to leave
Click to expand...
Seems like a done deal doesn’t it.

Probably a good move to lock Pitto down - although he’s pretty limited.

Interesting trade & draft period to look forward to.
 
I’ve got nothing against Pitt, he is a very good tap ruckman, my issue is he does very little around the ground. 4 years just seems way too many years. Our list management continues its woes with dumb contracts imho. Truly hope I’m proven wrong. If he went security at cheap as chips rate then I’m ok with it though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blueballs38 said:
I’ve got nothing against Pitt, he is a very good tap ruckman, my issue is he does very little around the ground. 4 years just seems way too many years. Our list management continues its woes with dumb contracts imho. Truly hope I’m proven wrong. If he went security at cheap as chips rate then I’m ok with it though.
Click to expand...
I think your last line is on point. Security for player, but also for club given uncertainty on TDK. I wouldn't imagine a 4 year contract for Pitto would be at ridiculous pay. Thanks to Pitto for being a servant of the club. Seems to me he plays with heart.
 

Jimmae said:
We won't be gutting the starters, we're gutting it of depth and variety, leaving a bunch of kids to pick up the pieces.

Ed, Philp and Cuningham probably gone, Dow and O'Brien likely to follow. That would leave Cottrell and Fisher retained by default, though Fisher could leave instead of O'Brien, who knows.

Some of these names need to go, but not 5+ at once.

Coming back to Pittonet, totally respect we're giving up on Mirkov, but we're going to chuck TDK in the bin because we can't figure out a system that suits him, because we're 18th in strategy. We should be reinvesting the list spot and retaining TDK, then clearing out a bunch of general defenders and forwards.

Smells of a desperate rebuild.
Click to expand...


Not the thread for it Jimmae.

This is Marc's player thread.

Take it to List Management.
 
Kruezing said:
It may be that TDK is only signing for a couple now and they wanted to ensure we had someone who resembled a ruckman beyond that …
Click to expand...
yeah. at the end of the day I dont know if TDK will develop into a ruck, or ruck/forward, or forward/ruck or forward, or the defensive variants thereof. TDK is not there yet to be able to carry the full ruck load, sorry Pittonet on 4 does not seem unreasonable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top