Unofficial Preview Sack Hinkley 2: Septic Portaloo

[Grave Danger]

Until I got to the last sentence I thought you were talking about Ken

Maybe he's talking about himself

 

[Us against the rest]

Hinkley's contract.

 

[Don_Kay]

If anyone can explain how Motlop was a “moneyball” signing, I’d like to see it.

 

[RossFC]

If anyone can explain how Motlop was a “moneyball” signing, I’d like to see it.

Free Agent signing so we don't trade anything, but the bad part is we paid him 500k and put him on the wing so he got worse.

 

[Lagooner]

Free Agent signing so we don't trade anything, but the bad part is we paid him 500k and put him on the wing so he got worse.

Yeah the wage kinda blows the Moneyball analogy out the window I think. It’s about finding undervalued players, bang for your buck so to speak, and while he didn’t cost us anything to acquire his higher than average wage may prevent us from attracting (or retaining) other talent. Not in isolation of course, but incrementally.

 

[Lagooner]

Jack Watts is probably a better one to throw the Moneyball tag on to (if we absolutely must). Relatively low cost to bring in (Pick 31) and on a low wage from our POV with Melbourne picking up some of the tab.

 

[Us against the rest]

Free Agent signing so we don't trade anything, but the bad part is we paid him 500k and put him on the wing so he got worse.

To me Motlop is a genuine forward, another Hinkley **** up.

 

[tribey]

Free Agent signing so we don't trade anything, but the bad part is we paid him 500k and put him on the wing so he got worse.

But obviously the manner of acquisition is irrelevant.

Footy journos like Rucci and Ralph think ‘Moneyball’ is just a catchy synonym for acquiring existing players from other teams.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

Moneyball, Astroball more like Crazyballs on Queen Street.

 

[Jason K]

But obviously the manner of acquisition is irrelevant.

Footy journos like Rucci and Ralph think ‘Moneyball’ is just a catchy synonym for acquiring existing players from other teams.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure they know it's trash. They also know paying audience will think its smart and insightful

 

[Jason K]

To me Motlop is a genuine forward, another Hinkley fu** up.

I know I am ultra cynical. I was all over Peter Rhode in 2011/12 only to be proved wrong. Lobbe bit me on the arse for his 1 decent year.

I know I can be wrong.

But this (Motlop played as a mid), Boak wasting his best years in no mans land. Ryder ove Lycett. AJ over any other player available, Sutcliffe over Frampton/Cox/........

It's pretty hard evidence. Thats not even touching gameplan or gameday energy levels. Or physical appearance and media smarmyness. Or..........

 

[simba_]

Jack Watts is probably a better one to throw the Moneyball tag on to (if we absolutely must). Relatively low cost to bring in (Pick 31) and on a low wage from our POV with Melbourne picking up some of the tab.

that kind of logical, sensible thinking isn't welcome in SA Journalism. Tweet Rucci that and he will block you

 

[Duck Farmer]

Moneyball, Astroball more like Crazyballs on Queen Street.

Waiting for Bazza Windowtreament to show up as Thunderball.

 

[Contested Marx]

Waiting for Bazza Windowtreament to show up as Thunderball.

Hallo my name is Thunder...er... Blinds

 

[PAFC66]

A guy who only had 2 coaches, 1 a Williams 1 Ken Hinkley, says Hinkley was his worst coach.

WhOAaAaAa GuYz

Yeah, wrong

 

[simba_]

Yeah, wrong

he was around with johnny cahill?! cripes!

 

[Jonts]

What metric did Motlop tick that we were missing?
He wasn't moneyball at all.

 

[RossFC]

Jack Watts is probably a better one to throw the Moneyball tag on to (if we absolutely must). Relatively low cost to bring in (Pick 31) and on a low wage from our POV with Melbourne picking up some of the tab.

How about Schulz? Traded for pretty much nothing and original contract value wouldn’t have been much and became our best key forward post-Tredders.

 

[Lagooner]

How about Schulz? Traded for pretty much nothing and original contract value wouldn’t have been much and became our best key forward post-Tredders.

Definitely, even moreso than Watts considering his eventual output. I was just thinking of current players.

Jack’s an interesting one for next year though. He started last season with a bang before being randomly struck down. Here’s hoping he picks up where he left off. Russell knows we need him to fire down back now that our D50 only consists of Clurey and Smarmy McSmarmface.

Oh and Sack Hinkley.

 

[Papa G]

Schulz wasn't moneyball. Schulz was just dumb luck that he came good.

 

[tribey]

What metric did Motlop tick that we were missing?
He wasn't moneyball at all.

Don’t you remember the scene where Jonah Hill convinces Brad Pitt they need to throw $6,000,000 at a coveted free agent who could just as easily choose the SF Giants?!

MoNeYBaLL

 

[Steve Dore]

View attachment 776900
Rucci doing his best spinning the new narrative covering Hinkley deficiencies

As I said in the other thread where I posted about this article on Saturday, Rucci is just reinforcing the club's claims of playing youf and that we shouldn't expect to play finals in 2020. Softening the members and supporters up for a Hinkley contract extension.

 

[Schulzenfest]

As I said in the other thread where I posted about this article on Saturday, Rucci is just reinforcing the club's claims of playing youf and that we shouldn't expect to play finals in 2020. Softening the members and supporters up for a Hinkley contract extension.

I see this train of thought a lot on this forum, and it really is a non sequitur.

Even if the entire supporter base fully accepted and embraced the spin that "Port are a yOuNg TeAm and shouldn't expect to make finals this year", that still would absolutely not lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't sack Hinkley. He was gifted an even more talented young team in 2013, and he spectacularly squandered it.

He is not the man who should be leading our next young team. If he does, the Port Adelaide careers of Rozee/Butters/Duursma/Houston/Burton/DBJ/Marshall/SPP/Drew etc will be squandered, the same way that the careers of Gray/Boak/Ebert/Wines/Wingard/Westhoff/Ryder/Dixon/Polec/Hartlett/Hombsch/Pittard etc have been squandered over the last 7 years.

 

[Steve Dore]

I see this train of thought a lot on this forum, and it really is a non sequitur.

Even if the entire supporter base fully accepted and embraced the spin that "Port are a yOuNg TeAm and shouldn't expect to make finals this year", that still would absolutely not lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't sack Hinkley. He was gifted an even more talented young team in 2013, and he spectacularly squandered it.

He is not the man who should be leading our next young team. If he does, the Port Adelaide careers of Rozee/Butters/Duursma/Houston/Burton/DBJ/Marshall/SPP/Drew etc will be squandered, the same way that the careers of Gray/Boak/Ebert/Wines/Wingard/Westhoff/Ryder/Dixon/Polec/Hartlett/Hombsch/Pittard etc have been squandered over the last 7 years.

I'm not saying the majority of the supporter base will accept it. The majority that post here clearly don't.

The club has shown that it doesn't care what the members think. They tried to sell us half-captains and despite that being an epic fail have launched a campaign to polish the turd so to, in the club's eyes, lessen the backlash when we again have half-captains in 2020.

I believe I have made my position on Hinkley's tenure quite clear but that doesn't prevent me from seeing what the club is attempting to do. If the club thought rationally about Hinkley as a head coach he would already have been sacked.

Sack Hinkley.

 

[Grave Danger]

Selling hope...

"I like to think we're seeing a time when things are beginning to get worse a little bit more slowly..."