Forget contracts, just employee him fulltime with a clear job description that's easily judged.

No point SB. Where Madhouse is concerned ... he can do no wrong. We need to give him a 20 year contract ... after all ... he has the runs on the board. Lets get the process right.

Thats not what I am saying. Of course he is accountable. But I guess I have a more in depth analysis than you.

Explain that clear strategy to me again - As I'm a little confused after last night

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Bring in average players for below average teams for an immediate impact for a few extra wins next season.
A show of improvement = mickys contract extension
Job well done

We all know Mick can coach and we all know what his coaching record is.

But was he washed up when we signed him in in 2012?

Is he finished, gone, a spent force, down the drain, it's all over, too late.....?

We shall soon find out Ladies and gentlemen

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

First of all lets not ignore what was paid for these players . Most if not all have a high QPR .

2013
Docherty "average player" well he was drafted at #12 in 2011. Paid #33. Bargain
Everitt "average player"drafted at #11 in 2006. Came from "average" swans. paid pick upgrade from #39 to #32 , Virtually nothing . Bargain
Thomas "average player" from Collingwood premiership side. Quality player . Paid Zilch a restricted free agent.


2014
Jaksch "average player" #12 in 2012 draft. Paid Downgrade of our pick from #7 to #19 along with Whiley
Mark Whiley see above. Two for One in exchange for a pick downgrade.
Dick from "äverage " swans paid zilch delisted free agent.
Liam Jones. Paid zilch
Blaine Boekhorst. Paid our first round draft pick for a 21 year old

In summary 2013 we have had 3 from 3 wins. thomas a win because his dodgy ankle turned out to be not so dodgy. The other two have played well and were cheap.
2014 Dick and Jones were free (cant complain) . Jaksch and Whiley for a pick downgrade seems good value.
Boekhorst seems a reasonable punt.

Overall I dont see too many average players from average teams that we have paid for.

I think we have a much more promising list than when Mick took over.

_________________
dane's trolling again

- Agree that docherty/everitt were good pickups and to some extent 'proven'.
- Thomas wasn't free - he cost a fair chunk of salary and betts compo (likely 2nd round).
- jacksh for a pick downgrade is fine
- dick, jones, tutt, whiley are speculative atm.

Whether or not you agree with the strategy depends on where you see the list and how soon we are likely to contend. though I expect finals I dont think we are in the picture for a flag in 2015.

In 2016 we'd have thomas (29), wanock (29), walker (30), jamison (30), simpson (32), armfield (29), judd (33), carazzo (32) <- ages at midpoint of season.

Of that list of 8, there is a good chance that 5 will probably be gone before the start of 2016 (carazzo, judd, armfield, simpson, warnock) - I'd expect all 8 players to be gone by the end of 2017.

The question then comes down to whether or not the recruitment of older/mature bodies is largely focused on short term results at the expense of longer term planning.

Imo, we'd have been better off going for a full rebuild as soon as it became apparent that malthouse couldnt get the list he inherited to perform (ie contending) - in my book that should have meant not picking up thomas, trading out a host of older senior players for picks/pick upgrades (walker, simpson, jamison, wanock, waite)

You would really want malthouse to be retained from 2016-2020, thomas to be in peak form and jones, tutt, boekhurst, dick, whiley, everitt to be all firm best 22 players from 2017-2020 to have justified our recruitment strategy over the past 2 seasons (docherty/jacksh excluded from list given age profile/draft selection/exposed form at time of trades).

If malthouse doesnt continue from 2016-2020, then we risk needing another significant list restructure as a new coach tries to implement a preferred gamestyle/plan.

A bit rambly, but summary of the above - let's hope malthouse gets the team performing at a high level and contending from 2016-2020 - any hiccups and we are @#$@# list management wise.

I agree about the state of our list and the older players. But the question seems to be should we be recruiting 18 year olds or 21 year okds? We are doing both. We have turned 1 speculative 18 year old pick into 3 speculative 21 yo ish picks. That to me sound more like rebuilding than going the 18 yo route.
If we are to rebuild that is never going to happen with the limited number of picks that the system gives us in the ND unless we fluked every pick panning out well...something that even the best sides cant do. And so it comes down to trying to generate extra picks any way we can and having a higher list turnover in the hope that we uncover the diamonds in the rough.
As i outlined above that has been done over the past two draft campaigns. Coincidentally they have been MM first two drafts where he has had real influence. No doubt this is a mick strategy, and, as such , is drawing criticism from the mick doubters.
But what are the alternatives? Look at our list demographic, there is an urgent need to replace the retiring experienced players with emerging leaders. This cannot be done with 18 year olds alone. We need to fill the hole formed by the ratten disastrous recruiting years. This cannot be done with national and rookie picks on their own. Hence the continuation and expansion of the diamond mining program. As i have said before I believe that the 2013 "diamonds" have provided brilliant value in Docherty and Everitt. Predictably you have focused on the Thomas recruitment and i can certainly see your point, and we MAY have been better off with using the betts compensation pick on an 18 yo. But we lost a lot of experience, leadership and goal kicking power with betts, and i think it was also a reasonable strategy to try to replace that with thomas. Thomas brings leadership experience, but also a more flexible multi positional player which imo makes up for the loss in goal kicking.
I think it then comes down to whether or not the 2014 "diamonds" are up to it vs the alternative picks foregone in the ND. And that cant be answered yet.
Is the crowd favourite Laverde as good as everyone thinks and will "do a Talia" on us? That is pure rampant speculation to be honest. He could equally "do a lucas".
What if Laverde plays up to expectations but also Jaksch, Whylie and Blaine B all play next year? What if Whylie and Blaine B are busts but Jaksch is a better player than Laverde? The only scenario where we lose is if all three are busts, and i have faith that MM has better judgement over picking from afl exposed players that i feel that this is a highly unlikely scesnario. To me the odds are in our favour that this pick ie #9 has been utilised better than if laverde alone was chosen.

Dick and jones could be considered quick non cost ( in picks) to the necessary moving on of garlett, robinson, . Not the same player types of course, but they were unplanned departures and we could not replace them via the ND.
Effectively we have expanded our picks and list turnover from say 5 to roughly 10, and in the process addressed some age and skill imbalances.

I am with Blaine Broekhurst on the Malthouse question

Wow. Did not know that.

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

I'm shocked to be sitting here reading that.

_________________
dane's trolling again

Not quite true - we have to pick up players regardless to fill up the list - it would then come down to how pick 7 + 2 other picks compared to jaksch, whiley + 28 -or jacksh + 23/28 + another pick

Not at all - the hawthorn model of trading out older players that still have value for picks could be used. hawthorn also had some failures with early picks-> thorpe, dowler, muston, ellis (yes, he got a flag but for pick 3 he is a failed pick)

The issue with thomas is the risk profile - the combination significant recent injury history, the length of time that would be expected for him to get back to consistent form/fitness/peak abilities (>1 yr) and age profile relative to when we might expect to contend. It was, and remains a high risk pickup.

FA is a dogs breakfast but given where betts age/contract we might have expected anywhere from 1st to 2nd round compo -> pick 14, 20 or 34.

That pick could have been used in the ND, it could have been traded for more picks (i.e. saints 19 -> 24 + 59) or for a player of interest (another everitt/docherty type trade)

For me it isn't about whether individual pick/players work out or not - it is about the consistency of message coming from the club (coach, match committee, rescruiters etc) - If there is a belief that we need a rebuild, it should be identified early and done properly (i.e. trading out older players with value), not picking thomas, etc
- If there is a belief that we are not that far off and only need a touch up to the list, then sell that message and manage the list appropriately (i.e. not turning over 25 players in 2 yrs).

Of course we could pick up replacements - and its not an all or nothing thing - we could still have picked up dick and used pick 46 in the main draft - will jones be better than any other player from 46 onwards in the ND/PSD/Rookie drafts?

Again, part of this comes down to consistency of message - if we are rebuilding, then back your recruiters to find some gems late in the draft - if we are close, reduce your list turnover so that you don't have a huge gap on your list.

Well ratten sent us back 10 years, let's see if mm can send us back only 5 , money well spent.
I would back mm , before an unproven given top 3 draft picks at nauseum.

So your philosophy would be go with the lowest picks that you can and make up the extra picks by trading out ageing players eg waite betts murphy judd or add from the free agents pool or rookie draft? Lets look at this year how would you have done it differently to get the same number of new players in and still retain some leadership?

4th your other ones are around about the mark, but Judd will turn 33 in September 2016.

I honestly think he can be coaxed to play until he's 35 if we manage him right and the side starts performing well.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

At the end of the day, malthouse was brought in with the intention of providing the finishing touches and to get us to a flag - I think it became pretty clear early on to most people that this wasnt going to happen due to a conflict b/n player types that we had on the list and the game style being pursued.

If the club felt the list wasnt good enough/didnt suit the coach - then a full/proper rebuild should have been done at the earliest opportunity.

With respect to list turnover that would have meant that at the end of 2013 a thorough assessment of the list should have been made and the following...
- not picking up thomas in order to get betts compo
- trading waite, walker, robinson (limited upside) at the end of 2013 (also potentially jamison + one of kreuzer/warnock)
- making it known that all players are tradable for the right price (none of this player X is untouchable)
- copping a larger drop down the ladder in 2015
- not encouraging judd to play on in 2016
- leadership group focussed around judd, simpson, carazzo, henderson, murphy, gibbs in 2013/14

On murphy, if he wasnt captain, he would be looked at as one of the tradables - much more difficult to do if he is captain.

noted on judds age

I'm sure judd could contribute at 35 - it is whether or not he wants to. The point of that particular post was more around the fact that if we felt a rebuild was required, then we should be planning for when we expect to peak (ie 2017) - and not factoring the contributions of older players. If they end up being there great, if not - doesnt matter too much.

I personally think that the finishing touches argument is full of holes. If that were the case I really dont think that we would have slipped back the way we did in Rattens last year. Its not what a quality side does. We were there abouts in terms of the 8 but nothing more. Supporters may have been hoping that we just needed a few touches but the reality was different. What we needed was a change in mental application . A new coach was meant to bring this. Malthouse i believe , thought that we had a decent (not brilliant) list and was looking forward to bringing the best out of our underperforming players. The problem was that we had very little leadership besides Judd. But there was little that Mick could do to improve on Judds output and leadership, and so he began working on those with the potential ie Murphy Gibbs Yarran Hendersen etc . Now if you cast your mind back to our list back in Micks first year
Murphy - was a shadow of his late 2014 self in leadership terms
Gibbs- Was nothing special
Hendersen- was an emerging leader
Yarran- was sooking
Betts - was half way out the door
Waite- was IMO no leader. But i think from memory injured. Should have been traded whilst he had value (but injured)
Scotland- was slowing down and not going to last
Carazzo injured
Kreuzer injured
McLean was on the nose
Simpson good

Fast forward to today and after the 2014 season, we can see green shoots of leadership everywhere.
Judd- is Judd
Murphy - breakout captaincy year
Gibbs- Fantastic Year
Yarran - Has bounced back with a vengeance
hendersen- had a patchy year due to injuries. But remains a good leader
Menzel Showing his real potential
Thomas - great leadership
Buckley- passion
Simpson great year
Rowe- a malthouse favourite

The missing spark (leadership) in 2013 is there now and ready to go once our injured players get back in 2015. The addition of thomas in 2014 was needed due to our lack of leadership in 2013 and the loss of Betts. I believe it was recognised that Murphy and Gibbs needed some help and someone like Thomas was recruited not just for his ability but also his leadership.

getting rid of some mentally fragile players in Waite, Garlett, Robinson , Lucas, Bootsma (this year) and replacing them with new blood is going to allow us to take that element of our game away and replace it with hopefully more determined, solid, predictable performances.

So in essence I am disagreeing with your starting premise that we didnt have the list to work with and therefore we should have been rebuilding. Yes we had some holes, yes we lacked leadership, yes we were mentally soft. But the Leadership and Mental softness is without doubt a major focus of the coaches and recruitment department. There are some very positive signs emerging IMO. Only time in 2015 will tell, but if the leadership and Mental softness problem is solved then that will influence the whole playing group and could be THE SINGLE most influential factor in our rebound. Of course to this we have to add some well targeted recruiting that has the potential to fill those gaps - particularly the Waite, Betts , McLean, Scotland departures.
I am also amazed at HOW LITTLE importance people place on the size of the injury list. A solid core of fit players that have played together for extended periods is invaluable. When half of them are not playing, there is a real disruptive effect on the team performance as newer younger players try to learn and emulate their older more senior injured team mates. I am hopeful that this stability will also add to our performance in 2015

Padre we won 7 games FFS it was our worst season since 2007
How can you say we are improving. The results dont stack up

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws