Bombertalk

nudder12 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:05 am ...
I reckon I saw enough from Zach Reid in his few games to say he's what we need, but....will he get on the field often enough???
He'll have a few weeks left this year once (if) his injuries are cleared, to show what he's got.
Put our patience and trust in him or recruit instead? Hmm...
PS - we've also got Hayes in the background who shows promise.
PPS - no, I haven't forgotten Montgomerie, but he's a fair bit shorter and more of an interceptor than a big key defender that we want right now.

Yes Reid shows promise as long as he shows physical resilience. He's working on that! I suppose that's the nature of talls sometimes, especially the skinny ones. Their core needs to keep up with the development!
Hayes seems similar.
They're the future really...2-3 years at least before established? BZT took that long. Ridley quicker. They're one size down though.

Essendon meet Ben McKay as North’s restricted free agent considers his future
By Peter Ryan
July 26, 2023 — 5.35pm

Essendon have spoken with North Melbourne defender Ben McKay as they target the restricted free agent to bolster their undersized defence.

The Bombers identified the 25-year-old as a player who could take on the big key forwards that have proved too much at times for the undersized but brave Brandon Zerk-Thatcher.

Sources familiar with trade discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the catch-up and said such meetings between players and clubs were increasingly common at this time of the year.
The Bombers are interested the North Melbourne big man.

The Bombers’ interest comes as North Melbourne continue to discuss McKay’s situation with his management, with the parties meeting before the Kangaroos played Hawthorn in round 18.

Despite their depleted back line, the Kangaroos are hopeful of receiving significant compensation in the form of a high draft pick if McKay chooses to leave, although trade sources who spoke on the condition on anonymity said clubs interested in the key defender would not be prepared to break the bank to secure McKay.

McKay’s age would help elevate the potential compensation as he would still be 25 at trade time if he chooses to leave North Melbourne, which is one of the variables (along with the size of the base pay and the length of the contract) the AFL uses in determining compensation.

The younger the player, the higher the compensation.

The fact that McKay is a restricted free agent shows the Kangaroos valued him highly when they re-signed him on a two-year deal midway through 2021, and it allows them to potentially match any offer from another club.

The Kangaroos, who have won just eight of their past 62 games and lost their past 16 matches, are expected to ask the AFL formally for draft assistance at the end of the season as they look to rebuild under Alastair Clarkson.

If they were granted assistance they could gain priority access to top-10 draft pick Ryley Sanders.

Port Adelaide have been monitoring McKay too, but have set their sights on Geelong’s Esava Ratugolea, while Sydney have been targeting West Coast’s contracted premiership player Tom Barrass as they look to strengthen their defence. Hawthorn are also in the market for a key defender to support intercept marking star James Sicily.

F111 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:36 pm Confirmed on C7 via #32!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1037114/in- ... -of-choice

s'dreams wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:11 pm Multiple reports that McKay has nominated us over Hawthorn

We have offered a $750K per annum, 6 year deal.

nudder12 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:50 pm

F111 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:36 pm Confirmed on C7 via #32!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1037114/in- ... -of-choice

Not happy Jan.
But hope I'm wrong.
Why?
Well, he's just not THAT good....for 6+ years on $750k+
That's for elite players - which he isn't.
Yes, we need a big defender, but paying overs just because he's the only one available seems rash to me.
I haven't checked what key defenders will be available in 12 months (but I will), but we don't need McKay right now, we have time on our side, and getting a really good key defender in 12 months would still be fine.

desmondo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 12:38 pm

nudder12 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:50 pm

F111 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:36 pm Confirmed on C7 via #32!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1037114/in- ... -of-choice

Not happy Jan.
But hope I'm wrong.
Why?
Well, he's just not THAT good....for 6+ years on $750k+
That's for elite players - which he isn't.
Yes, we need a big defender, but paying overs just because he's the only one available seems rash to me.
I haven't checked what key defenders will be available in 12 months (but I will), but we don't need McKay right now, we have time on our side, and getting a really good key defender in 12 months would still be fine.

I tend to agree with this, especially the NOT THAT GOOD. It smacks of desperation to get a 'big bodied' player into the backline and unfortunately McKay was the only one around and available. Six years on $750 per, should be a gun. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong but...

It should have been incentive based, start on $600 a season say, play well and 'earn' it you get a more next year and so on.

Mind you I think all contracts should be incentive based, perform, earn it, and you get more next year, DON`T EARN IT, then stay on lower contract and don`t fkng whinge till you actually perform.

BenDoolan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:09 pm

s'dreams wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:11 pm Multiple reports that McKay has nominated us over Hawthorn

We have offered a $750K per annum, 6 year deal.

Hmm… ok

We give McKay 6 years and didn’t accept Parish’s demands for the same?

This sort of deal can start eroding the loyalty and passion of current players.

Not that I think Parish should have got 6. I’m surprised we gave McKay that.

I suspect we are getting a bed ready in the casualty ward…