Leadership Group 2018

[PaulP]

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Overall he is well above being the worst in the 22, in fact when fans are able to divorce their evaluation of his performance from his remuneration he sits comfortably in the top half of the squad in just about any terms they choose to measure except value for money. Which is in itself an indictment on our list and our recent history. But again, the performance of those around him isn't his problem.

Given the points I made in my reply #129, it's not just the money, the whole idea of getting him to the club was wrong.

He's finished in B+F top 10 once in his time with us (in 2014, when he finished 10th).

IMO, the attraction for Bolts is that Daisy is a very smart, natural footballer, and Bolts knows that he can rely on Daisy to reinforce the coach's voice on match day, and that's really his value IMO - as the coach's voice in-game. His actual match day work (tackles, goals, running etc) is limited.

[mateinone]

His recruitment wasn't terrible, his remuneration was!

Connecting the two is unrealistic, it's not Daisy's fault, the anger should be directed elsewhere.

Are you serious?
Of course the two are connected. It was Daisy that was demanding the salary that was to be paid.
The recruitment of him absolutely is tied to his remuneration. An integral part of the recruitment of any person to any organization is their salary.

His recruitment was terrible because there is no way he was coming on half the money which is still more (bu much closer to the mark) than the value he has given the club over the course of that 1st contract.

I am flabbergasted as to how anyone could consider the recruitment of Daisy wasn't a disaster. I would be far more stunned if there was any list manager in the competition who would consider it anything but.

When you bring a player in on top 3 wages to a club and they sit somewhere around 18-25 on the list for effectiveness that is a disaster.
Perhaps (despite the public comments to the contrary) we keep Betts if we don't pay that sort of money for Daisy and perhaps we try and throw that sort of money at an Ollie Wines or some other player (remember this was huge coin).

Anyway it is obvious that as clear as it is to me that Dasiy was a recruiting disaster, to others it is just as clear it wasn't and nothing said is making any difference on changing opinions.
So I am going to actually not reply to the Daisy stuff here, except in direct relationship to the leadership group, because despite saying I wouldn't only a few posts back.. I have really helped get this topic way off track.

[flyboy77]

Spot on MIO.  O0

[Professer E]

Cost us Betts compensation as well.  As others said, if it wasn't a disaster it was a very costly mistake.

[cookie2]

Agendas aside, we paid far too much for Daisy but we are making the best of it and trying to extract the best possible value from him that we can. Daisy, for his part, is trying to give the best value that he can, including not pressing his contractual claims for his final year. Yes, the club made a big error up front, and some errors need time to correct or to minimise their effects, ending up being costly ones. I don't lose any sleep about Daisy now tbh - we can't go back and change it. Onward and upward!!

[DJC]

If Ollie Wines comes east next year is he a leadership type?

Rockliff went straight into Port's leadership group.

Given that Wines is Port's vice-captain, he would have to be considered for our leadership group if he was in navy blue in 2019.  Of course, his approach to leadership would have to be consistent with what we now have.

[Thryleon]

There are two things at play.

Value for money is one.

Value is another.

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.

People will question it, but I see it for what it is.  Value:

1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes.  you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer. 

2.  He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone.  Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.

3.  He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing.  Pressure.  Vocal.  Leadership.  Rehab.  Proffesionalism. 

finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed.  They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons.  Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects.  They havent had a good kid come on since he left.

If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.

These are intangible things.  ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them.  We havent had all that many over the journey either.

[LP]

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.

A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!

[Gointocarlton]

There are two things at play.

Value for money is one.

Value is another.

What I see happening is people have seen no value for money, and then extrapolated that into no value.

Im a glass half full sort of person, and I can see the value that we have gotten for Daisy, and whilst it hasnt been fair value, we have paid a premium for the sort of leadership that our playing group has lacked for a long time.

People will question it, but I see it for what it is.  Value:

1. Daisy was once the premier mid in the competition according to scribes.  you can't buy that sort of respect readily in the market for an AFL footballer. 

2.  He plays footy in a way that sets an example for everyone.  Cripps thanks Daisy in his B+F speech for giving him guidance when it came to rehab from injury.

3.  He seems to have rubbed off on many of his teamates in the sort of avenues we have failed in as a group for a long time and is a unifying presence at the club.
Workrate. Role playing.  Pressure.  Vocal.  Leadership.  Rehab.  Proffesionalism. 

finally, have a look at what has happened at the place he departed.  They havent had a good season since he left, irrespective of the fact that he wasnt a good contributer in his last couple of seasons.  Thats partly to do with the way they changed things up at the club, but mostly to do with the fact that they have too many doing too few and leaving all the hard work to the usual suspects.  They havent had a good kid come on since he left.

If our blokes get even half the selflessness, proffesionalism and workrate that Daisy gave, we will get much more from him than any acts he could perform on the field.

These are intangible things.  ive played with some good players over the years, but there were very few that were revered for being good footballers and good workers at the same time, and Daisy is one of them.  We havent had all that many over the journey either.

Well said Thry. More importantly than how scribes rated him is that Ross Lyon rated him the best player in the comp in 2011. In any case, not sure it was a terribly good decision, too late to look in the mirror.

[PaulP]

There is no doubt this is the case, which is why I wrote my post.

A players worth has little to do with their role. A spud who can tag an Ablett Jnr, in some specific Premiership phase or moment, might be more valuable to a club than a player like Judd! It's all a matter of what you have and what you lack, who is available and what they will cost!

That's why lesser lights like Tom Bell and Kerridge can finish top 10 in the B+F, and why Daisy can't.

Daisy = Einstein's brain + Montgomery Burns' body.

It's a shame, because in his day he was a gun.