Player Watch Lachie Schultz

[stormskye]

Both were contracted and in our best 23. It's literally that simple. We should have had the upper hand in any trade negotiations if we were any good at negotiations. We've just become accustomed to accepting unders and paying overs for any best 23 players for some reason.

You can’t be objective. That’s your issue. What did bobby hill cost us again? Mitchell?

Hawks handed us Mitchell for free and we won a flag with him. But people on here view that club can’t do anything wrong….
We got hill, the norm smith medalist for a second round pick..

Like any club we’ve had wins and losses at trading. That’s the game

 

[Ugene41]

You can’t be objective. That’s your issue. What did bobby hill cost us again? Mitchell?

Hawks handed us Mitchell for free and we won a flag with him. But people on here view that club can’t do anything wrong….
We got hill, the norm smith medalist for a second round pick..

But keep looking through that non stop negative lens

I've stated on the record that GWs made two great trades for us - Mitchell and Hill. Even then Hill only broke out with us and had less exposed form when he was traded than Henry/Ginnivan.

Meanwhile, we've got unders for Henry, Ginnivan, Grundy, Adams and paid way overs for Schultz. The net result is basically the draft cost of Schultz is more than what we got for those 4 players combined. That puts a significant dent on our depth of talent and makes it much harder to regenerate quickly post this era to make sure we don't waste too many of Naicos years

 

[localfootylegend23]

I've stated on the record that GWs made two great trades for us - Mitchell and Hill. Even then Hill only broke out with us and had less exposed form when he was traded than Henry/Ginnivan.

Meanwhile, we've got unders for Henry, Ginnivan, Grundy, Adams and paid way overs for Schultz. The net result is basically the draft cost of Schultz is more than what we got for those 4 players combined. That puts a significant dent on our depth of talent and makes it much harder to regenerate quickly post this era to make sure we don't waste too many of Naicos years

We will get a potiental top 10 pick in Tommy Mcguane soon with father son, Also i heard Josh frasers young lad is quite good (and tall) the year after.

Not the end of the world.

 

[Ugene41]

We will get a potiental top 10 pick in Tommy Mcguane soon with father son, Also i heard Josh frasers young lad is quite good (and tall) the year after.

Not the end of the world.

Yea agree if we can start playing our cards right our future is still bright because we have Naicos. And very much looking forward to Mcguane next year who hopefully gives us flexibility with our F1 if we can stack F2s to match next year.

But we just can't continue to pay overs for non-elite role players and accept unders when we trade out our best 23 talented core. Eventually it will catch up.

 

[eddiesmith]

Stephenson
Henry
Macrae
McInnes
Allan
De Mattia

So, how does Schultz stack up against those superstars?

 

[SchuPie]

Stephenson
Henry
Macrae
McInnes
Allan
De Mattia

So, how does Schultz stack up against those superstars?

So keep trading out our first because we may pick a bust?
How does he stack up against

• Daisy
• JDG
• Pendles
• Steele
• any other first-round superstar

...

Trade out a future first because we need a back pocket - may as well, our pick might be a bust.

I'm done with this argument. Our pick isn't guaranteed good player.
I'm done with the "it's basically a second rounder" (where have these arguments gone?)

Posters believe the trade should have been done, he's a great pressure player, but that it should have involved anything but a future first.

We have Schultz, great.
* But if you want posters to stop criticising Schultz and criticise the trade or to stop crying over a lost pick, then you and others need to stop this narrative of "yeah, but the pick might..."

Just for thought:
- We missed finals: we'll never know if our mix without Schultz may have made finals (I know it's a stretch, but possible)
But the entire cause and effect chain is altered if we don't trade for him

- If he hadn't found another club willing to pay Freo's trade demands, we could have now brought him in for $$ not picks and be exactly where we are right now...except still have our first

- If the trade didn't go through, couldn't we argue that the 2023 2nd rounder be used to sneak back in at the end of first to grab Morris?

- Could we not argue that having the trade collateral to bring in Smith / Trac etc be of more benefit to the team and therefore vindicate not doing the trade? (...but SchuPie, how can possibly predict...FMD)

- Could we not argue that having the draft collateral to bring in a KP or top-end mid be more beneficial to the team?


Some love the trade (that's ok, I don't understand it but this is an opinion board - some will have you believe otherwise.)
Some hate this trade - that's just our opinion. I just don't know how to reconcile it with where we're at or get past it.


Shut this thread.

 

[cakewalk06]

Forward pocket is called starvation corner for a reason. I admit I was against the cost for Schultz, but not the player. He’s been ok.

Ps on 2024 form Bobby trade price was about right! Again starvation corner.
I think we need to get Bobby involved further up the field. Get some pace in the middle, shai Bolton

29

Shai Bolton

Age

25

Ht

176cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.3

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

12.7

3star

K

9.2

4star

HB

3.5

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.7

4star

CL

1.8

4star

D

9.2

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.0

1star

style. Wasn’t he more midfield in the juniors?

 

[Ugene41]

Stephenson
Henry
Macrae
McInnes
Allan
De Mattia

So, how does Schultz stack up against those superstars?

Would you trade our F1 plus Schultz for the superstar Petracca?

 

[eddiesmith]

So keep trading out our first because we may pick a bust?
How does he stack up against

• Daisy
• JDG
• Pendles
• Steele
• any other first-round superstar

...

Trade out a future first because we need a back pocket - may as well, our pick might be a bust.

I'm done with this argument. Our pick isn't guaranteed good player.
I'm done with the "it's basically a second rounder" (where have these arguments gone?)

Posters believe the trade should have been done, he's a great pressure player, but that it should have involved anything but a future first.

We have Schultz, great.
* But if you want posters to stop criticising Schultz and criticise the trade or to stop crying over a lost pick, then you and others need to stop this narrative of "yeah, but the pick might..."

Just for thought:
- We missed finals: we'll never know if our mix without Schultz may have made finals (I know it's a stretch, but possible)
But the entire cause and effect chain is altered if we don't trade for him

- If he hadn't found another club willing to pay Freo's trade demands, we could have now brought him in for $$ not picks and be exactly where we are right now...except still have our first

- If the trade didn't go through, couldn't we argue that the 2023 2nd rounder be used to sneak back in at the end of first to grab Morris?

- Could we not argue that having the trade collateral to bring in Smith / Trac etc be of more benefit to the team and therefore vindicate not doing the trade? (...but SchuPie, how can possibly predict...FMD)

- Could we not argue that having the draft collateral to bring in a KP or top-end mid be more beneficial to the team?


Some love the trade (that's ok, I don't understand it but this is an opinion board - some will have you believe otherwise.)
Some hate this trade - that's just our opinion. I just don't know how to reconcile it with where we're at or get past it.


Shut this thread.

The reigning premiers had a gap on the list due to their current small forward being soft and not willing to work hard.

Schultz was available and the club decided it was a smarter bet to bring on a player to fill a gap that is ready now rather than take a gamble on a future pick 15-20 that won’t be ready whilst we are in the premiership window.

The fact that the only successes we’ve had were top 5 picks and F/s over the last 20 years shows the club made the smart move.

Is Schultz worth a first round pick in isolation? Probably not, but when you need them and they’re not out of contract then you may have to pay overs.

Sure, we could have got him for nothing after this season, but who predicted the injury crisis the club would face this year?

But at least now he has had a year in the Collingwood system, has performed better than the player he replaced and will be ready to get even better when we get players back.

In 2025 he’ll have a far bigger impact than a potential pick 10-15.

 

[sam_e]

Stephenson
Henry
Macrae
McInnes
Allan
De Mattia

So, how does Schultz stack up against those superstars?

this is hilarious.

so trade** instead of draft cos the guy with the full-time remit to ID decent talent with 1st round draft picks has failed consistently in recent years to do just that, even though quality /gun players were selected AFTER the draft picks he was holding.

cracking argument. you do realise there is another option?

**ps: now go look at the value we extracted from our most recent trades end-2023

 

[stormskye]

this is hilarious.

so trade** instead of draft cos the guy with the full-time remit to ID decent talent with 1st round draft picks has failed consistently in recent years to do just that, even though quality /gun players were selected AFTER the draft picks he was holding.

cracking argument. you do realise there is another option?

**ps: now go look at the value we extracted from our most recent trades end-2023

What’s hilarious is you Non stop whining about drafting and trading of the reigning premiers. Go down and tell the reigning premiers how bad they are at drafting and trading.

If you want to mock drafting and trading head to the freo, blues or bombers board

 

[Ugene41]

The reigning premiers had a gap on the list due to their current small forward being soft and not willing to work hard.

Schultz was available and the club decided it was a smarter bet to bring on a player to fill a gap that is ready now rather than take a gamble on a future pick 15-20 that won’t be ready whilst we are in the premiership window.

The fact that the only successes we’ve had were top 5 picks and F/s over the last 20 years shows the club made the smart move.

Is Schultz worth a first round pick in isolation? Probably not, but when you need them and they’re not out of contract then you may have to pay overs.

Sure, we could have got him for nothing after this season, but who predicted the injury crisis the club would face this year?

But at least now he has had a year in the Collingwood system, has performed better than the player he replaced and will be ready to get even better when we get players back.

In 2025 he’ll have a far bigger impact than a potential pick 10-15.

A potential top 10 pick you mean. And would he have more impact in 2025 than a Smith/Petracca which we could've being in contention for if we still had this year's pick?

 

[stormskye]

A potential top 10 pick you mean. And would he have more impact in 2025 than a Smith/Petracca which we could've being in contention for if we still had this year's pick?

How many years are you going to dwell on something that’s been done?

 

[Ugene41]

How many years are you going to dwell on something that’s been done?

Its been less than a year and the Schultz trade has a massive direct impact on our trading and drafting this year.

How many years are you going to trot out the reigning premiers can do no wrong line?

 

[sam_e]

What’s hilarious is you Non stop whining about drafting and trading of the reigning premiers. Go down and tell the reigning premiers how bad they are at drafting and trading.

If you want to mock drafting and trading head to the freo, blues or bombers board

strong emotional response

fwiw, your incessant 'puppy dog' applause is equally annoying.

you're probably still cheering at the altar of ed and bemoaning his classy departure

different folks ..

ps: for accuracy, i'm on record as stating that 'value-trading' in GW's short'ish tenure (excl end-23, which was poor by anyone's standard) has been 'v.good' and has, in some ways, papered over the cracks /holes in the list, whilst trading over the last 5+ years (excl F/S) 'poor' to 'v.poor' (car crash)

you do realise a single premiership + poor drafting (list management) are not mutually exclusive?

if you're satiated with one premiership, excellent! but we should be striving for more ..how do we get better, where have we not extracted value ..we're not in the top quartile for how we've managed our list /cap over a period of time (even you couldn't argue that, irrespective of the flag)

go check out the club's charter /constitution, "we are collingwood"!

floreat thy pica

 

[sr36]

you do realise a single premiership + poor drafting (list management) are not mutually exclusive?

We've only missed finals 5 of the last 18 seasons, with 2 very different groups of players winning flags in that time. Which also means that we've been given well below average recruiting chips from the AFL. Pretty hard to imagine that that has occured with poor recruiting or list management..

 

[eddiesmith]

People want to complain that one premiership is not enough whilst criticising the club for trading for ready made players to deliver another premiership.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

People want to complain that one premiership is not enough whilst criticising the club for trading for ready made players to deliver another premiership.

There are just some people who never want to be happy. I wouldn't change a single thing.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I'm curious. Who would take picks 10 and 34 for Bobby Hill?

 

[sam_e]

We've only missed finals 5 of the last 18 seasons, with 2 very different groups of players winning flags in that time. Which also means that we've been given well below average recruiting chips from the AFL. Pretty hard to imagine that that has occured with poor recruiting or list management..

excellent.

check two other stats:

• 1991, 2011, 2024 performances .. why?
• GF conversion / success rate since 1960 ..why?

i'm not talking transactional, i'm talking through-line / cultural / endemic .. bloated, satiated, complacent, hubris ..why?

collingwood always kills collingwood!

fly's words should resonate ..how can we get better .. we should strive for more

 

[eddiesmith]

I'm curious. Who would take picks 10 and 34 for Bobby Hill?

Who wouldn’t?

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

So keep trading out our first because we may pick a bust?
How does he stack up against

• Daisy
• JDG
• Pendles
• Steele
• any other first-round superstar

...

Trade out a future first because we need a back pocket - may as well, our pick might be a bust.

I'm done with this argument. Our pick isn't guaranteed good player.
I'm done with the "it's basically a second rounder" (where have these arguments gone?)

Posters believe the trade should have been done, he's a great pressure player, but that it should have involved anything but a future first.

We have Schultz, great.
* But if you want posters to stop criticising Schultz and criticise the trade or to stop crying over a lost pick, then you and others need to stop this narrative of "yeah, but the pick might..."

Just for thought:
- We missed finals: we'll never know if our mix without Schultz may have made finals (I know it's a stretch, but possible)
But the entire cause and effect chain is altered if we don't trade for him

- If he hadn't found another club willing to pay Freo's trade demands, we could have now brought him in for $$ not picks and be exactly where we are right now...except still have our first

- If the trade didn't go through, couldn't we argue that the 2023 2nd rounder be used to sneak back in at the end of first to grab Morris?

- Could we not argue that having the trade collateral to bring in Smith / Trac etc be of more benefit to the team and therefore vindicate not doing the trade? (...but SchuPie, how can possibly predict...FMD)

- Could we not argue that having the draft collateral to bring in a KP or top-end mid be more beneficial to the team?


Some love the trade (that's ok, I don't understand it but this is an opinion board - some will have you believe otherwise.)
Some hate this trade - that's just our opinion. I just don't know how to reconcile it with where we're at or get past it.


Shut this thread.

No need to shut the thread. Just take all this trade angst to the draft and trade threads where it belongs. Leave the Lachie Schultz thread for opinions about the player and his performance which has zero to do with perceived trade value either way.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Who wouldn’t?

Lots of people after he kicked 5 goals and the rumour was that he was looking for a trade to WA.

 

[sr36]

excellent.

check two other stats:

• 1991, 2011, 2024 performances .. why?
• GF conversion / success rate since 1960 ..why?

i'm not talking transactional, i'm talking through-line / cultural / endemic .. bloated, satiated, complacent, hubris ..why?

collingwood always kills collingwood!

fly's words should resonate ..how can we get better .. we should strive for more

So you've gone from recruiting and list management to something else?

 

[leon123]

So you've gone from recruiting and list management to something else?

E sam i think, not sam e