Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

John Wren wrote:

MagpieBat wrote:This one can be unlocked again, at least for now, given its topical nature.

Regardless of whether or not you've been here five minutes, five years or five terms, suppress your instinct to go for the player and instead direct your energies into going for the ball. And if you think you've been unfairly targeted or treated by the other side, you are strongly encouraged to make use of the Report button and accompanying complaint form. The Ignore button feature is also available for those who want to tailor their browsing experience.

Alright then. Play nice, play on...

pick 59 looking likely. as i have said before, i hope he does well. he helped give us a premiership. no ill feelings on my part. he's a professional footballer and if his current club doesn't see a need for him then he goes to one that does.

Good luck to him but a 4 th round pick? Seriously unders & about as logical as a 5 year plan for Bucks of which 2017 is year 6.

Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

I would've thought that cloke was worth more than just a 4th round pick at 59!! Unless of course the dogs are prepared to take over his contract which would release the financial burden from us; then that would make sense.

And are we seriously going to use that pick to acquire WHE? Wasn't he a top 10 pick a few years ago? Why would the giants accept that?

I was initially annoyed that the club couldn't work harder to entice cloke to stay but the more I think about it (and read about it) particularly the latest interview with his old man, the more I think: good riddance. This guy is not willing to do what the club expects of him in order to improve and is taking the easy way out.

We would be absolutely stupid to accept anything over pick 38 for Cloke.
He didn't play overly well this year but he is still contracted.

Considering hoskin Elliott has played magoos most of the year, his value should be no different to clokes. But I can't see GWS accepting a pick in the 50's for him.

Clokey would like to go the the doggies, but that means diddly squat if it isn't beneficial for both teams

WarrenerraW wrote:I would've thought that cloke was worth more than just a 4th round pick at 59!! Unless of course the dogs are prepared to take over his contract which would release the financial burden from us; then that would make sense.

And are we seriously going to use that pick to acquire WHE? Wasn't he a top 10 pick a few years ago? Why would the giants accept that?

I was initially annoyed that the club couldn't work harder to entice cloke to stay but the more I think about it (and read about it) particularly the latest interview with his old man, the more I think: good riddance. This guy is not willing to do what the club expects of him in order to improve and is taking the easy way out.

Yes, the article states he is taking more than a 50% pay cut. Connors said it isn't about the money, he has had a good career and made his money along the way.
Pick 59 for a guy that essentially paid 50% of games in the AFL and 50% of games in the AFL. If the shoe was on the other foot we would argue the opposite.

WHE, apparently the GWS need to get his salary off their books, so this deflates what they are willing to take.

The pick was always not going to be much. It seems low, but with both parties agreeing part ways, its as about as good as it going to get.

I think the issue is, are we paying for any of his salary in our salary cap? Now that would be a bridge too far.

buzzlightyear wrote:The pick was always not going to be much. It seems low, but with both parties agreeing part ways, its as about as good as it going to get.

I think the issue is, are we paying for any of his salary in our salary cap? Now that would be a bridge too far.

No, taking more than a 50% pay cut.

mooretreloar wrote:Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

I'm a Buckley fan and I'll be glad to see the back of the Cloke clan, but I've got to disagree with what you said about 5 yr plans. Seriously, the Bulldogs showed you can go from boiled lollies to scorched almonds in 2 years.

mooretreloar wrote:

WarrenerraW wrote:I would've thought that cloke was worth more than just a 4th round pick at 59!! Unless of course the dogs are prepared to take over his contract which would release the financial burden from us; then that would make sense.

And are we seriously going to use that pick to acquire WHE? Wasn't he a top 10 pick a few years ago? Why would the giants accept that?

I was initially annoyed that the club couldn't work harder to entice cloke to stay but the more I think about it (and read about it) particularly the latest interview with his old man, the more I think: good riddance. This guy is not willing to do what the club expects of him in order to improve and is taking the easy way out.

Yes, the article states he is taking more than a 50% pay cut. Connors said it isn't about the money, he has had a good career and made his money along the way.
Pick 59 for a guy that essentially paid 50% of games in the AFL and 50% of games in the AFL. If the shoe was on the other foot we would argue the opposite.

WHE, apparently the GWS need to get his salary off their books, so this deflates what they are willing to take.

I just watched some highlights of WHE and this bloke is exactly what we need up forward. If we can nab him for pick 59 then it could well be the steal of the century.

I just watched some highlights of WHE and this bloke is exactly what we need up forward. If we can nab him for pick 59 then it could well be the steal of the century.[/quote]

I haven't seen him (or if I have I can't remember), can you elaborate on what he had that was impressive? Thanks.

mooretreloar wrote:Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

Why do you keep posting your opinion as a fact!
Because young man it is not a fact it is an opinion.

thompsoc wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

Why do you keep posting your opinion as a fact!
Because young man it is not a fact.

Why do people on this forum (not just you) always become agitated about whether what is posted is a fact or an opinion?

Can't people just read what is posted and make up their own minds?

WarrenerraW wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

WarrenerraW wrote:I would've thought that cloke was worth more than just a 4th round pick at 59!! Unless of course the dogs are prepared to take over his contract which would release the financial burden from us; then that would make sense.

And are we seriously going to use that pick to acquire WHE? Wasn't he a top 10 pick a few years ago? Why would the giants accept that?

I was initially annoyed that the club couldn't work harder to entice cloke to stay but the more I think about it (and read about it) particularly the latest interview with his old man, the more I think: good riddance. This guy is not willing to do what the club expects of him in order to improve and is taking the easy way out.

Yes, the article states he is taking more than a 50% pay cut. Connors said it isn't about the money, he has had a good career and made his money along the way.
Pick 59 for a guy that essentially paid 50% of games in the AFL and 50% of games in the AFL. If the shoe was on the other foot we would argue the opposite.

WHE, apparently the GWS need to get his salary off their books, so this deflates what they are willing to take.

I just watched some highlights of WHE and this bloke is exactly what we need up forward. If we can nab him for pick 59 then it could well be the steal of the century.

He definitely looks like a star in the making, but before we get too carried away, let's remember he has been plagued by injuries the past couple of years, so he may need some good luck going forward to live up to his potential. That's why he hasn't played much senior footy at GWS, and presumably why the Giants are keen to have his salary off their books. Having said that, if his body does hold up, he oozes X factor and could be just what we need up forward.

Watching the grand final I reckon Cloke will be very good for the Doggies. Grundy took mark after mark in defence which wouldn't happen with him having to mind Cloke.

Leigh Matthews said he didn't think Cloke could have a role as he can't ruck as well as play forward. I don't think that's necessarily correct. Sure if he could ruck that would be better but he provides a contested marking target with good small players around him.

5 from the wing on debut wrote:

thompsoc wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

Why do you keep posting your opinion as a fact!
Because young man it is not a fact.

Why do people on this forum (not just you) always become agitated about whether what is posted is a fact or an opinion?

Can't people just read what is posted and make up their own minds?

fair point.
But most people do post in a way that at least appears to be put as an opinion.