Operation Human Shiel


#121

I’d suggest Laverde is being requested by GWS as part of the deal. Possibly Hartley thrown in. I’d suggest the losses of Baguley and Green would be to balance the salary cap at our end


#122

That would leave a lot of list spots available with Jerrit and Goddard already out the door.

Assuming we got Shiel with pick 8, pick 30ish and maybe Hartley/Laverde trade pick we would be havin to use very late picks in the draft to top up the list.


#123

If we reframe the question to ask, “Would you trade Lav, Bags, Harts, Green and pick 8 for Shiel?” then the answer is pretty obvious imo.

Lav hurts based on potential, but if we’re honest, the hurt is more based on wanting the story of farking Carlton at the draft to become an all time great story. It is also the fact he and his family are fellow supporters which we feel affinity for.

Bags deserves a year, but if we’re going up the ladder players like Begs and Lav need to improve past him.

Harts is tradable despite his popularity. And Green should be delisted anyway.


#124

It we’re honest? For me the hurt would be based more on what he is capable of, the Blooos don’t even enter into the equation. Could be as good as Langford, if he can remain injury free, albeit in different roles.


#125


#126

Does that include all the times he is kicking out of a pack etc…?
Because if it does, it can be deceiving as some players on the inside are disposing of the ball under more intense pressure/in congestion.


#127

I’d take that, but I’d personally find a way to do it without losing Lav, and I don’t for a second think that would be that hard.
The rest, no problem.


#128

I’d have both players in our best 22 in a heart beat.


#129

he will fit right in then


#130

Oh well that lowers his trade value then.
Pick 8 and Hartley for Shiel


#131

Singing with the choir, but yes. But as others have said, if it’s just to free up cap I’d prefer to move Colyer on, who as a saga player I assume is on decent coin.

That said, I doubt it’s just for cap as I would think Bags would play on at rookie wages if it got him another year and maybe a chance at a premiership.

Unless GWS want him as well??? :thinking: They’ve taken fringe players before, and he would add pressure to the forward line, but seems unbelievable.


#132

Who’s going to take him though? He’s getting on, isn’t that good, and despite blitz posters often putting him in their forward lines isn’t a forward. Bottom teams won’t want him as he would be too old and wouldn’t really improve them much and he wouldn’t make top teams midfield, and they’d probably prefer to draft a kid/mature state league player anyway as it is less of a burden on the salary cap with more upside.


#133

I dont like the rules around rookie selections, this kind of thing should not be allowed. Rookie spots are about giving a chance to someone in my opinion.


#134

Like a chance to keep you job??


#135

He didn’t say rookie spot, he said rookie wages i.e. Bags would probably accept a contract that put him in the lowest levels of player salaries if it meant a chance to play on (hence cutting him doesn’t really save any cap space).


#136

Fair enough.


#137

I said wages, not on the rookie list.


#138

It’s hard to imagine that Bags’ salary is going to be a tipping point.


#139

Or greens and Hartly for that matter.


#140

True.

I can understand not wanting to spend too much of the cap on depth players, but bags is still best 22 for mine.

I guess it’s the cumulative effect of all of them combined that will add up.