E wrote:MJ23 wrote:E wrote:
In my opinion, you are making excuses for Nathan Buckley. If someone wants to leave, you have two choices.
1 - Do nothing (or worse, encourage them to leave).
2 - set about changing that players view of the situation. Address the persons concerns and engage.
Collingwood is not such a little child that it cant change minds. It was able to do that with Travis cloke - becasue at the end of the day Travis was more valuable to Collingwood than Daisy.
Daisy is not the first player who couldnt get along with Bucks. Witness the 1990 premiership team's reaction to him (Nathan even admitted this in his book). He is uncompromising and it has to be done his way.
All of this is just to say that if someone shows that he might want to leave a club at the start of a season, its never a done deal unless the club isnt willing to fight for that person and if you are right about him being played on the half back flank, that is harly going to have resulted in any outcome other than player Thomas continuing to want to leave the club. So ask yourself, why would Collingwood do that?
Actually heard a very credible story from a collingwood source that Trav was leaving because of Mick and didn't believe that the senior coach succession plan to Bucks would take place. It wasn't till it had happened that he event started negotiating a contract.
I think value though is still relative to affordability and commitment. There is no way Daisy was worth the dollars carlton offered and given his relationship with Mick - not Bucks there was a huge question over commitment.
As it is we lost daisy, got pick 6 and salary cap space and picked up a very committed potential 10 year contested ball winner in Adams that actively chose the pies over other clubs with Bucks a big reason for it.
Id say Bucks has done his Job and Well
I could easily be wrong (I am getting old and prone to memory lapses), but I thought the cloke saga played out during Nathan's first year as coach and not prior to his appointment.
I agree Bucks is doing a tremendous job of reshaping the list in a way he thinks can win. Very happy at all of the changes made to the list for this year, but especially for three years time. You have to give quality (Thomas and Shaw), to get quality and Collingwood (Scharenberg and Adams) and in a lot of ways, we may end up lucky that Bucks decided to go in a different direction while each of Thomas and Shaw still had super significant value.
For those who will argue that Thomas left as a free agent, I would like to point out that I am 100% certain that Collingwood took into account the fact that they would get a top 10 pick in deciding whether to pay up for Thomas. I digress.
I mean imagine what we could have gotten for Jolly, Didak and Wellers immediately after 2010 vs what value we got after 2010!!!!!! Of course, no club has the balls to trade premiership heroes like that, but you get the point.
anyway, pies looking great and I am a big Buckley fan.
Spot on in all accounts.
It did play out in Bucks first year however what I heard was Trav and his "manager" refused point blank to consider a contract negotiation in Micks last year and had sought offers from other clubs. When Mick left and Bucks took over they virtually started from scratch. Even then I agree it was drawn out however we were going in behind what he had already on the table and we had some other significant players also to consider.
I know a few of the fringe players at the time ( including Premiership players) were not happy with Mick and how he selectively treated players.
One had not had a one on one discussion with Mick in 2 years and was gone - he is still with us now and loves Bucks
Looking back Id say this was when the Daisy consideration in not re-contracting could have occurred and I guess what I was trying to say earlier would of been about maturity, commitment and attitude rather than the injury at that time. Not doing all he could to get himself right in the off season was probably a big factor also.
As you said, you have to give quality to get quality and the balance is around short term versus long. There is no doubt the decision on Thomas was "assisted" by the compensation we were able to get ( which was staggering)
In the end what I think they have tried to do is trade out and back in a skill level that does not leave us too far behind what we had short term with the ability to improve and be better medium term and at the same time take a huge leap in culture in the immediate term.
I cant help but think that Daisy leaving is ultimately what the club wanted and played it out as planned given all the circumstances. Better he leave then be traded given how popular he was. In saying that they would have had to know he would willingly go either for money or for Mick.
On wellers - I still wish we hadn't let him go and think the type of role he played is still what we are missing. Hopefully one of the young blokes can step into it.
As for eddie, im inclined to think his time as Pies prez must come to an end soon, twelve years is a long time, but its up to him I guess, when he retires. 
