Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or they offer us SFA and we don’t accept it.IMO, there would only be one reason this would happen.
Setterfield feels unwanted and let down and will not do anything to assist us in getting the best deal.
If that is the situation, then again, we have failed.
Other than the last 2 of this year, the games Setterfield played for Carlton just haven't been good enough.IMO, there would only be one reason this would happen.
Setterfield feels unwanted and let down and will not do anything to assist us in getting the best deal.
If that is the situation, then again, we have failed.
Other than the last 2 of this year, the games Setterfield played for Carlton just haven't been good enough.
Not sure why and how "we" failed, as you put it?
Wish him well on whatever is next for him but offering a contract when he currently isn't best 22 probably wasn't on the cards, especially when we have identified we want to bring in youth to our club.
Contract offered but 1 year at a smallish amount.Other than the last 2 of this year, the games Setterfield played for Carlton just haven't been good enough.
Not sure why and how "we" failed, as you put it?
Wish him well on whatever is next for him but offering a contract when he currently isn't best 22 probably wasn't on the cards, especially when we have identified we want to bring in youth to our club.
Whys that
We haven’t failed. It’s all very obvious. He clearly wanted (and fair enough) 200k a year and we don’t want to pay it for a fringe player. Love him all you want he’s working ffs and and has a right to get a decent wage if it’s available.IMO, there would only be one reason this would happen.
Setterfield feels unwanted and let down and will not do anything to assist us in getting the best deal.
If that is the situation, then again, we have failed.
Ed would be happily on minimum wage on a one year deal. Who cares?So why did we offer Ed a new contract then? Was it a condition that Charlie asked for?
So why did we offer Ed a new contract then? Was it a condition that Charlie asked for?
The club won’t pay him 200k and we haven’t failed him......okWe haven’t failed. It’s all very obvious. He clearly wanted (and fair enough) 200k a year and we don’t want to pay it for a fringe player. Love him all you want he’s working ffs and and has a right to get a decent wage if it’s available.
He’s out of contract. Bombers badly need someone like him. They can pay him 200 a year for 2-3 years. He doesn’t owe us ‘helping us on the way out’. How the * can he do that anyway? Bluff Essendon? The club he’s going TO? “Oh if you don’t pony up then up gonna…I’m gonna….I’m gonna stay at Carlton for the s**t contract they haven’t even offered me….”
For *s sake. Get fair dinkum .
Need to add a protection clause to the Setterfield trade that allows Sheezal to slide through
Hell I’d trade him purely for access.
Do you know the difference in coin for both players going into 2023?So why did we offer Ed a new contract then? Was it a condition that Charlie asked for?
Not if we trade out F4.Hope the deal may look something like
Carlton > * Setterfield & (F4) if pushed)
Carlton < * F3
Then it gives us the flexibility to trade F1
I would not sacrifice 2nd and 3rd rounders for sheezel.
Phillipou, Hollands, Hewett, Hayes all fill a need at pick 10.
Will Sheezel's game translate against men? Do you spend such a high pick on a 3rd fwd?
Ed would be happily on minimum wage on a one year deal. Who cares?
Do you know the difference in coin for both players going into 2023?
I wouldn't trade two first rounders for a draftee unless we are talking a Walsh-like prospect.
When we think about draftees, we say 'he plays like Walsh, Cripps or McKay'. Or in Sheezel's case, something like Robbie Gray.
But really that's the best case scenario. Not unreasonable for that player to turn out like Dow, Setters, SPS (picks 3-6).
So these kids are really POTENTIALLY the next Walsh, Cripps, McKay or Gray.
Which makes a BIG difference to what you should pay for them. A first rounder could be a bust. Paying two first rounders for a kid could be a double bust.
Sheezel isn't the next Robbie Gray. Instead, he's
5% going to be better than Robbie Gray
10% going to be as good
35% going to be a good player
20% going to be an OK player
30% going to be a bust
I might pay two first rounders for prime Robbie Gray. I wouldn't pay two first rounders for an unproven kid who miiiight be as good as Robbie Gray, but probably won't be.
TL-DR; draft picks are overrated and using multiple picks to select one kid looks dangerous IMHO
We cannot trade our future first as we have already traded out our future third for Acres and the AFL wouldn`t allow it to happen, just as they knocked back Port in that four club trade when they wanted to use their future first and future second to get Rioli and H-Francis....Pick 10 + F1 (13?) probably gets us to the pick 5-6 range which I still think is too late for Sheezel. But even if he was still available then I'm not really a fan of trading away a F1st just to climb up the draft order, especially for a team like us who's contending.
Yes that`s true, but if we only get pick 62 or whatever for Setters then isn`t it better to keep him instead of just handing him over to bloody Dodo for bugger all as I cannot recall that * creep ever doing us any favours!!! I heard that we offered Setters a one year contract when he wanted two, so it`s not that he wants out so much but more about him just wanting some certainty....I hate any of our players going to those * dogs.....!!!Or they offer us SFA and we don’t accept it.
Either way, it’s not really about how Setters feels, it’s about the two list managers coming to an agreement.