#32 Travis Cloke

[Pies4shaw]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

[qldmagpie67]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

Very good points P4S

[thompsoc]

There is an option of trading Cloke to another club ( if there are any takers )
and we get a better pick and we pay a significant proportion of his salary in 2017 to his new club.

[CarringbushCigar]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

Very good points P4S

IMHO its a load of manure.

Bucks butchered Travis' best opportunities to regain his confidence, and thus damaged the relationship to the point where it is not sustainable he stays.

The axing for the Anzac Day match made NO sense.
I think he was one of our better players in round 3.

The second axing after the Port Adelaide game made no sense, where he clearly tried his ass off and was serviceable.

The axing after the Richmond game was bewildering to all.

As far as our other stars being impacted - give me a spell - Buck's has already destroyed the concept of loyalty with his amateurish exit interviews and boning stars in the name of culture change.

If Bucks did the honourable thing and walked tomorrow, Travis would be playing in B&W in 2017 and Marley, Blairy, Goldy, Browny would sign tomorrow. JDG and Marshy would be happy soldiers.
Sinclair and White would be on the trade table.

Let's just pay him out the year and move on.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Bulldogs have picked 54. I think that's minimum spend for Clokey. If they don't give that up, I say play hard-ball and shop him around to all other clubs. If that fails, then hold him to his contract. Enough of playing the nice guy. Cloke can play when he decides to pull his finger out. The GWS game is proof enough. He's a durable player that's hardly missed a game. We've paid him more than handsomely over his entire career, and the back-handed cheap shots at our club by suddenly praising the Dogs and their playing style is a bit rich. And the media can get stuffed too.

If my memory serves me correctly (tell me if I am wrong) wasn't the GWS game the one where he turned back the clock and started clunking marks again? If so, that was when he wore the "illegal"prohibited sticky glove. When the glove was removed, so was his marking ability. As he could not repeat that marking performance without the glove, I believe that performance has to be dismissed when considering what he is capable of, or even when considering what he has done.If a cyclist won a race when it was known that there was a hidden motor in the frame would you still be referring to that performance as being good form?

[mooretreloar]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

This is an extremely intelligent post Pies4Shaw.

[Pies4shaw]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

Very good points P4S

The upside from where you are looking, 67, is that it may mean that eventually Sidey is swapped for pick 143 and you will be able to tell me that was his true value all along.

Of course, you might have to sit out another 200 games from him, first.

[qldmagpie67]

If Cloke had any genuine trade value, he would be one of our two starting KPFs - it isn't like Cameron and Patton are keeping him out of the team. We have one tall forward (Moore) that we could reasonably expect to be performing well enough, week in and week out, to remain in the 22 of a finals-standard side throughout a season (provided he isn't hampered by injuries) but Cloke was and is still very much on the fringe of the team. Collingwood's message to the world in 2016 was that we perceive Cloke to be a player who isn't really worth a senior game, even when our forward-line is performing poorly and we have no serious alternatives. In those circumstances, what basis is there for expecting any useful trade offer? The Club was obviously concerned back in 2012 that Cloke wouldn't warrant a 5th year on that last contract. That concern seems to have been well-founded. Despite that view, we have held onto our (once) most marketable trade asset for 3 years while the team performed poorly. At the end of those 3 years, he struggled for a game in a barely-competitive rabble.

Travis was the most important player in our structure for a decade. We've told him - and the rest of the world - he's done. However, we do need to think about the message we send to the rest of the playing group - making Cloke stay to play out his contract would be both mean-spirited and shooting ourselves in the foot (since we apparently want the salary cap room and should, in any event, be looking to populate the list with players who might get a regular senior game). That's the kind of idiot decision that might well make other "stars" worried that they might not be treated respectfully when their time comes. I expect that the Club will steadfastly avoid such a course.

Very good points P4S

The upside from where you are looking, 67, is that it may mean that eventually Sidey is swapped for pick 143 and you will be able to tell me that was his true value all along.

Of course, you might have to sit out another 200 games from him, first.

Lol mate take the 143 it's a deal
On the serious side though I just Jack of the Cloke's bending us over like its there God given right
I'm still not convinced we should be trading him I understand it frees up cap space but unless we are able to land another tall forward then our list is marginally worse off in that regards.

[RudeBoy]

Very good points P4S

The upside from where you are looking, 67, is that it may mean that eventually Sidey is swapped for pick 143 and you will be able to tell me that was his true value all along.

Of course, you might have to sit out another 200 games from him, first.

Lol mate take the 143 it's a deal
On the serious side though I just Jack of the Cloke's bending us over like its there God given right
I'm still not convinced we should be trading him I understand it frees up cap space but unless we are able to land another tall forward then our list is marginally worse off in that regards.

I strongly disagree Q67. With Moore, White and Cox, we don't need any other key forwards. What we need is a Will Hoskin-Elliott, who has oodles of X-Factor, is an incredible mark, super fast and a good kick. To get him, we need the salary cap space which we get by off loading Cloke's salary off our books.

[sherrife]

I'm worried about our spine. Defence and offence look very weak right now. No A graders, or even B-graders, on either side.

[Cam]

At least if we got the beans we could grow something solid.

[qldmagpie67]

The upside from where you are looking, 67, is that it may mean that eventually Sidey is swapped for pick 143 and you will be able to tell me that was his true value all along.

Of course, you might have to sit out another 200 games from him, first.

Lol mate take the 143 it's a deal
On the serious side though I just Jack of the Cloke's bending us over like its there God given right
I'm still not convinced we should be trading him I understand it frees up cap space but unless we are able to land another tall forward then our list is marginally worse off in that regards.

I strongly disagree Q67. With Moore, White and Cox, we don't need any other key forwards. What we need is a Will Hoskin-Elliott, who has oodles of X-Factor, is an incredible mark, super fast and a good kick. To get him, we need the salary cap space which we get by off loading Cloke's salary off our books.

Rude Moore is a gun in the making but he's what 30 games into his career. Cox has had a handful of games and his pace or lack there of is telling. White at his best is good but certainly not in the star class hence my view. Agree WHE adds class to our forward line barring him not getting injured. Elliott we don't know what condition he will be back in. Fasalo played well in the first half of the year but the workload seemed to catch up on him.
I'm a believer in our midfield and there ability to kick gaols which will offset our forward line lacking a bit but I would still love another KPF just to shore up the spine. Personally and I've said it before I would chase Rance so we could free up either Keefe or Reid to go forward and take a defender away from Moore. I know it's a long shot but we have ample HBF pies and midfielders we just need a couple more talls in key posts.

[Piesnchess]

JUST remember folks, Demir Cloke pulls the strings, the puppet master, and his lad dances too his tune. !

[watt price tully]

At least if we got the beans we could grow something solid.

[Piesnchess]

Umm, freeing up the salary cap, ummm, with retirements of toovey, mc caffer, swan, probably goldsack, one would think our cap would be pretty free now. ????