I’m all for moving Stringer on. I think it’s the best for all involved.
But can we stop with the nonsense? He averaged more goals against teams in the top 8 than those out of it this year. He wasn’t just “beating up on poor teams”.
10 Likes
He kicked a lot of selfish goals last year. Yes, he took responsibility. But also looked to me like he just didnt do the team things most of the time.
Anyway. That miss from dead in front vs Sydney after the half time siren pretty much put a line through him in my opinion. I feel like it was the moment when the coach decided it’s time to move on.
Just an opinion.
1 Like
I was projecting (rather casually) into my fears of next season. It doesn’t matter if it’s GWS or North Melbourne, I don’t want to wait another 10-20 games for Stringer and his brilliant game-winning moments to end when he pings his calf, suddenly forcing us to reconfigure our forward setup - it starts now.
My view is that Stringer is a high-maintenence luxury item that offers very little defensive cover. I’d keep him if he was 24, but I reckon he has about 15 -30 influential games left in his career before he fizzles out.
We have the opportunity to build a new forward setup without him and start it now instead of 2025/6. It was the smart play, no more short term thinking.
14 Likes
That was just Jake trying to be trendy. I don’t think I‘ve ever seen more sodas sprayed than this year, but it does seem to have been a thing they’re teaching in recent years
2 onfield reason for me
-
I don’t think a fwd line with 3 mediums in Langers, Caddy and Stringer works.
-
we are not winning a flag in the next 2 years so Stringer is the one thad had to go and better to go with a different set up
That’s not including off field and professionalism concerns that surround him
22 Likes
This is the first, second and third reason!
When you throw Perkins in there as well, who I think is more a fwd pinch hitting mid, it’s just too many and no one is improving with that structure.
3 Likes
I agree. I didn’t have a problem trading Stringer; but, I did have a problem with only trading Stringer.
If we are to work towards a 3 year plan to build for the future, I would have liked to have seen Parish, Redman, Wright and Shiel (officially) on the table.
Laverde should have been cut, with the promise to Rookie him, if necessary.
As it stands, it looks to me as, Stringer has been a bit of a scapegoat for all of our failing this year.
8 Likes
Fixed!
There really is a variety of reasons why these players couldn’t/wouldn’t be traded (long contracts, lack of interest).
Seems it’s consistently overlooked that Stringer had a contract for one year but wanted two years, which in the end is why he left. Is the suggestion we should have enforced the contract? Or given in to his demands? Both those paths have issues.
I’m very much on board with trading Stringer for structural reasons, let alone the contract issue.
1 Like
As much as I hate Laverde in the team, he couldn’t be cut and rookies he has a contract.
He could have been delisted like we did with Stewart and pay him out but would be a silly thing to do
100% he could have been cut and rookied.
That’s what lots of clubs do to contracted players.
We don’t really need the list spots now though, so there’s no real benefit
2 Likes
Genuinely didn’t know you could do this.
You still have to actually take them in the draft (other clubs could pick them up before you).
But it’s 100% allowed.
Many clubs did it this year. Crows just did it with Burgess and Schoenberg. Both are contracted next year
1 Like
I’m assuming that would involve a negotiated payout as they are being delisted before their contract ends? Even with a rookie promise.
Haven’t been a Jake fan in terms of what he could continue to bring for a while and wished we moved him (like Shiel) on a couple of years ago after good seasons as he’s been trending poorly athletically for a while, but the fact is we sold very low on a guy that we could have had for little $ next year, so you have to think there was more off field than on to go that way and yes, thankfully another step to the rebuild that starts from 2026 given delay in draft satisfaction
Not necessarily. Whilst possible I’d say in most cases they just come back on the same deal they already had.
1 Like
As an aside, if you delist a contracted player and they’re then picked up by another club (on lower money), you’re responsible for paying the difference.
3 Likes
I just think we didnt want to give him two years.
Its not like his value to trade would have increased if we kept him on our books for 12 months.
Its not about “selling low”.
Its about a spot in the senior 22 which could go to someone else.
Same thing with Heppell really. He was one of the BOGs in his last match for us. But he aint the future.
Hopefully the guys playing vfl last season and the new draftees this year will be ready to step into the spots created.
4 Likes
My issue is Stringer is not the only structural problem we have. Woeful recruiting and list management have left us with many.
I understand the length of contracts with Parish, etc; But, it seems Parish and Shiel are not compatible in the same team. Redman has not shown the abilities we need down back, yes his long goals look good; but, defensively he can be exposed and Wright seems incapable of playing in the ruck. These players are either going to block younger players who suit our structure better, or play in the VFL.
1 Like
That’s why I would have delisted him. If someone took him in the draft great, if not, he will be good depth without taking a spot on the list.
1 Like