Matty White [merged]

[the claw]

Matty White weighing up a one year deal from Richmond vs. 3 year deal from another club.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-rumour-discussion.1031264/page-80#post-30340005

This fits in with the word going around that Whitey wants a two-year deal from us but we are offering just one year.

BF saying Port is the club with the three-year offer.

ah so old santa wasnt far off the mark about this rumour.
 we would look ridiculous if we offered more than one yr based solely on whites yr this yr.
 16 games just 10 of them full games,  a role player with still the same short comings he has always had.

hes done enough to save himself from being delisted nothing more and good on him if push came to shove id cut him in the blink of an eye.

 we have seen this often at richmond hevent we, below standard players have reasonable yr and then being given multiple yr contracts.  to only see them then slip back into mediocrity because they dont have the tools to maintain a thing over a decent length of time.we then cop all and sundry bemoaning the fact said player is contracted and we cant cut em. ffs lets learn from our mistakes.

if he wants two yrs let him show next yr he can string two decent seasons together, sound fair to me.  maybe then it would be warranterd offering him two yrs at the end of next yr.

[tony_montana]

Matty White weighing up a one year deal from Richmond vs. 3 year deal from another club.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-rumour-discussion.1031264/page-80#post-30340005

This fits in with the word going around that Whitey wants a two-year deal from us but we are offering just one year.

BF saying Port is the club with the three-year offer.

ah so old santa wasnt far off the mark about this rumour.
 we would look ridiculous if we offered more than one yr based solely on whites yr this yr.
 16 games just 10 of them full games,  a role player with still the same short comings he has always had.

hes done enough to save himself from being delisted nothing more and good on him if push came to shove id cut him in the blink of an eye.

 we have seen this often at richmond hevent we, below standard players have reasonable yr and then being given multiple yr contracts.  to only see them then slip back into mediocrity because they dont have the tools to maintain a thing over a decent length of time.we then cop all and sundry bemoaning the fact said player is contracted and we cant cut em. ffs lets learn from our mistakes.

if he wants two yrs let him show next yr he can string two decent seasons together, sound fair to me.  maybe then it would be warranterd offering him two yrs at the end of next yr.

If we would look ridiculous offering 2 years, what does that make port and Hinkley?

As usual pretty extreme

[the claw]

Matty White weighing up a one year deal from Richmond vs. 3 year deal from another club.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-rumour-discussion.1031264/page-80#post-30340005

This fits in with the word going around that Whitey wants a two-year deal from us but we are offering just one year.

BF saying Port is the club with the three-year offer.

ah so old santa wasnt far off the mark about this rumour.
 we would look ridiculous if we offered more than one yr based solely on whites yr this yr.
 16 games just 10 of them full games,  a role player with still the same short comings he has always had.

hes done enough to save himself from being delisted nothing more and good on him if push came to shove id cut him in the blink of an eye.

 we have seen this often at richmond hevent we, below standard players have reasonable yr and then being given multiple yr contracts.  to only see them then slip back into mediocrity because they dont have the tools to maintain a thing over a decent length of time.we then cop all and sundry bemoaning the fact said player is contracted and we cant cut em. ffs lets learn from our mistakes.

if he wants two yrs let him show next yr he can string two decent seasons together, sound fair to me.  maybe then it would be warranterd offering him two yrs at the end of next yr.

If we would look ridiculous offering 2 years, what does that make port and Hinkley?

As usual pretty extreme

extreme no. common sense yes. what does it make hinkley and port ill informed  or short sightyed or both id say.
white is at richmond we should know what he can and cant do.
sometimes you have to take a blokes career as a whole when offering a contract. based on his whole 8 or 9 yr  career to date he is a one yr player.

if we wish to take what his  half  a good yr this yr in isolation he would probably just earn two. ffs hes 27 at the start of next yr. his skills are at best average and his over all performances have been barely good enough for us to keep him.  hes a role player and average one at that you dont offer em 3 yr deals so id say port have got there assesment wrong somewhere.

id say common sense says he needs to show he can perform at the level consistently and over a decent period.  ffs he was a sub for so many games for a reason.for us one yr deal is the right way to go if he can for the only time in his entire career string 2 seasons together then yes at the end of next yr give him the two yr contract. lets for once see if a player hasnt had a fluke of a period.

[tony_montana]

Id back Hinkley and ports view over yours

just sayin

[gerkin greg]

Mail is Kochie has just had some flames tattooed on his ankle 

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Matty White fit is our best sub option, at times a great starting 18 player. Not sure why he wouldn't get a year with a mutual option of a 2nd year. These types of players prove the point of player development and playing a team orientated role.

[Andyy]

^

X2

Assertions that a player can't improve in his mid-20's is laughable.

Cheap player. Does his job. Contributes well.

[gerkin greg]

Someone better tell the swans to stop recruiting middle aged under valued fringe players in the hope of improving them into serviceable role players.

It won't work!

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Someone better tell the swans to stop recruiting middle aged under valued fringe players in the hope of improving them into serviceable role players.

It won't work!

Don't let facts get in the way of claw's theories!

[tony_montana]

Claws problem is hes so black and white, it just doesn't work that way. 1 year with an option for a second if he meets KPI's is fair and reasonable.

[Judge Roughneck]

Matty White is a massive Tiger fan (his whole family are) so cannot imagine him going anywhere unless we told him he wasn't required. Can't see that happening after his season this year.

So when he finally has trade value - he's now non tradable ?

[tony_montana]

Matty White is a massive Tiger fan (his whole family are) so cannot imagine him going anywhere unless we told him he wasn't required. Can't see that happening after his season this year.

So when he finally has trade value - he's now non tradable ?

Dont think ppl are saying that,

as hes a free agent, he can walk for nothing which would be a shame given he's finally shown some worth. Im sure if a suitable trade was put up most wouldn't baulk at it

[the claw]

Id back Hinkley and ports view over yours

just sayin

thats fair enough.
me i dont back any of em in as they all get their fair share wrong.

some of us called for tamblings head for yrs when adelaide gave us their then compensation pick 25 ithink was you backing craig and adelaide in then too.
there are numerous cases of players being over rated by opposition clubs much to their chagrin in the end.

do you really think a battling 7 yr player whos struggled to stay on the list in that time should get a 3 yr contract based on  a decent run in his 8th yr  playing mostly as a sub.
that imo is madness.
hes earnt 1 yr and one yr only. everything about matt white screams one yr contract.
you know once again id back myself in over so called experts.

[Tigeritis™©®]

Id back Hinkley and ports view over yours

just sayin

thats fair enough.
me i dont back any of em in as they all get their fair share wrong.

some of us called for tamblings head for yrs when adelaide gave us their then compensation pick 25 ithink was you backing craig and adelaide in then too.
there are numerous cases of players being over rated by opposition clubs much to their chagrin in the end.

do you really think a battling 7 yr player whos struggled to stay on the list in that time should get a 3 yr contract based on  a decent run in his 8th yr  playing mostly as a sub.
that imo is madness.
hes earnt 1 yr and one yr only. everything about matt white screams one yr contract.
you know once again id back myself in over so called experts.

As of 6pm Sunday 8th September 2013, everything "the claw" says makes sense to me 

[Yeahright]

Pity neither party has mentioned 3 year contract, only another club. Why so negative all the time?