The Chad Thread

[Axe Man]

Adams can't get on the park and from rumours might want out.

Roberts clearly isn't in our plans given he has hardly played since early 2017... If he wasn't contracted he would've been delisted and probably is exploring his options.

Morris is about to enter his final year.

Trengove was only passable in defence and is clearly more suited in the ruck or ruck/forward.

I think Young should be still very much in our plans.

I understand all their limitations and caveats. You said our KPD stocks are extremely thin if Young leaves - I'm wondering how many we need as part of the overall list balance. At present our KPD stocks are far deeper than our KPFs and this season I thought our lack of midfield depth was our greatest concern. I don't think we can afford to carry as many KPDs as we did this year as it leaves other areas too thin.

I would like to keep Young too but he isn't untouchable if it helps gain someone like Wingard.

[mjp]

1/. I love logging on and seeing that there are updates on this thread.

2/. I don't know what defines the 'top 10 players in the AFL' BUT.

If 'Top 10' means the 10 guys who you are actually capable of winning a game off their own boot - whether as a mid or a forward - then Wingard is 'Top 10'. He is top 10 in my 'man, I wouldn't want to have to play on HIM!' list (which mostly consists of guys who can take freakish marks despite being outpositioned and kick 5-goals in a quarter even if beaten comprehensively in the other 3) AND he is top 10 in the 'I wish he was on a team I liked 'cos I love watching him play.'

Get it DONE. Chad to the DOGS!

[EasternWest]

1/. I love logging on and seeing that there are updates on this thread.

2/. I don't know what defines the 'top 10 players in the AFL' BUT.

If 'Top 10' means the 10 guys who you are actually capable of winning a game off their own boot - whether as a mid or a forward - then Wingard is 'Top 10'. He is top 10 in my 'man, I wouldn't want to have to play on HIM!' list (which mostly consists of guys who can take freakish marks despite being outpositioned and kick 5-goals in a quarter even if beaten comprehensively in the other 3) AND he is top 10 in the 'I wish he was on a team I liked 'cos I love watching him play.'

Get it DONE. Chad to the DOGS!

Cyril Rioli was like that and he was a subject of constant ridicule on this board.

[chef]

Top 10 in the league? I’d say that’s a stretch, even at his best.

Not for me, I'd have him in the top 10 when he's on song. He can win games off his own boot 'at his best'..

[GVGjr]

1/. I love logging on and seeing that there are updates on this thread.

2/. I don't know what defines the 'top 10 players in the AFL' BUT.

If 'Top 10' means the 10 guys who you are actually capable of winning a game off their own boot - whether as a mid or a forward - then Wingard is 'Top 10'. He is top 10 in my 'man, I wouldn't want to have to play on HIM!' list (which mostly consists of guys who can take freakish marks despite being outpositioned and kick 5-goals in a quarter even if beaten comprehensively in the other 3) AND he is top 10 in the 'I wish he was on a team I liked 'cos I love watching him play.'

Get it DONE. Chad to the DOGS!

I think there is a massive difference between how you are seeing him and who coaches plan around keeping quiet when we play Port.
For us, it's typically been about keeping Dixon and Gray under control and while that may have led to Wingard getting off the leash on occasions I think we have taken that option.

He's a very good player when switched on but I can't come at having him rated a top 10 or elite player in the competition
He can hurt teams quickly not consistently in my opinion but that is the price you pay for those laconic but brilliant types who turn it on for a quarter or so.

More than happy to part with pick 6 but if he is a top 10 player I question why Port aren't paying him as an elite player.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Still don't understand why Port are considering moving him on. They have lost Polec which frees up cash, after recruiting heavily last year. Now all of a sudden they want to rebuild and hit the draft?

The argument about them being interested in SA talent doesn't match up. Wingard is SA talent. He's 25 and coming into his peak. He's proven. He probably has some issues in his game/prep but why would Port be happy to lose a proven (but maybe slightly inconsistent) star to take a gamble on the draft?

The other argument about them getting in a 'year early' to avoid free agency is also bizarre. If he's happy enough to be there (sounds like he was/is) and he's from SA, why wouldn't they back themselves in to re-sign him beyond next year?

If they are worried about the $$ then there are quite a few others they could ship off before Wingard.

Perhaps there's something else to it but on face value this looks a dumb move by Port.

[bornadog]

Still don't understand why Port are considering moving him on. They have lost Polec which frees up cash, after recruiting heavily last year. Now all of a sudden they want to rebuild and hit the draft?

The argument about them being interested in SA talent doesn't match up. Wingard is SA talent. He's 25 and coming into his peak. He's proven. He probably has some issues in his game/prep but why would Port be happy to lose a proven (but maybe slightly inconsistent) star to take a gamble on the draft?

The other argument about them getting in a 'year early' to avoid free agency is also bizarre. If he's happy enough to be there (sounds like he was/is) and he's from SA, why wouldn't they back themselves in to re-sign him beyond next year?

If they are worried about the $$ then there are quite a few others they could ship off before Wingard.

Perhaps there's something else to it but on face value this looks a dumb move by Port.

Maybe the player has told them he wants to move on and they just accepted it.

[mjp]

I think there is a massive difference between how you are seeing him and who coaches plan around keeping quiet when we play Port.
For us, it's typically been about keeping Dixon and Gray under control and while that may have led to Wingard getting off the leash on occasions I think we have taken that option.

If PA kicked the ball to Wingard as often as they kicked it to Gray (or CD) then how would we be looking at this? Gray is either DEEP i50 or mid - he isn't (or rarely) asked to play that graveyard link-up role across the HF line that Wingard plays every week. Dixon just loves playing against us because our defenders don't play with aggressive starting points and he is allowed to dictate terms...hence he comes out of the blocks thinking he is going to kick 5 and plays with that intent. If our coaches and players are putting 'real' time into combatting Dixon's approach then they are keeping it pretty well hidden once the siren goes.

Don't get me wrong - I love Robbie Gray. But if you want me to give up pick 6 for a deep forward come sometime mid coming off 2x knee recons or instead give it up for a motivated Chad Wingard (still only 25 and with 1/10th of the injury history) I am taking Wingard every day.

Dixon? Good player. Zero finals wins in his entire career. I think that says it all about the influence he has on games...his best game all year was versus us (a non-contender) at Ballarat (with a crowd of 1100 and tv audience of even less). No thank you.

(p.s. I am not saying Gray or Dixon are trade 'alternatives' to Wingard as I am sure they aren't...just that of the three Wingard is the one we SHOULD be targetting - and by happy chance the one who MIGHT be available).

[jeemak]

I think there is a massive difference between how you are seeing him and who coaches plan around keeping quiet when we play Port.
For us, it's typically been about keeping Dixon and Gray under control and while that may have led to Wingard getting off the leash on occasions I think we have taken that option.

He's a very good player when switched on but I can't come at having him rated a top 10 or elite player in the competition
He can hurt teams quickly not consistently in my opinion but that is the price you pay for those laconic but brilliant types who turn it on for a quarter or so.

More than happy to part with pick 6 but if he is a top 10 player I question why Port aren't paying him as an elite player.

Who we try and keep quiet when we play Port shouldn't be the barometer. I would think our attention probably goes towards who we don't have natural match-ups for rather than who we do, and I'd suggest this is why we plan more thoroughly for Gray and Dixon than we might Wingard.

Wingard plays the hardest role to play in the modern era, and sometimes is elite when doing so and other times is extremely effective when doing so. However, I agree with you that pick six is about right for a player who has been elite but has tapered off for whatever reason over recent years.

This thread seems to be going around in circles, nobody's willing to budge and I just wish this deal would get done one way or another so we can all move on!

[Axe Man]

Maybe the player has told them he wants to move on and they just accepted it.

Unless all the media reports are way off and Wingard himself is lying that certainly isn't the case.

[Sedat]

Still don't understand why Port are considering moving him on. They have lost Polec which frees up cash, after recruiting heavily last year. Now all of a sudden they want to rebuild and hit the draft?

The argument about them being interested in SA talent doesn't match up. Wingard is SA talent. He's 25 and coming into his peak. He's proven. He probably has some issues in his game/prep but why would Port be happy to lose a proven (but maybe slightly inconsistent) star to take a gamble on the draft?

The other argument about them getting in a 'year early' to avoid free agency is also bizarre. If he's happy enough to be there (sounds like he was/is) and he's from SA, why wouldn't they back themselves in to re-sign him beyond next year?

If they are worried about the $$ then there are quite a few others they could ship off before Wingard.

Perhaps there's something else to it but on face value this looks a dumb move by Port.

I reckon Port still have no salary cap room even after letting Polec go. They spent big last year and they still have the likes of Hartlett on fat contracts.

I think it's madness that Chad is even gettable (because of the precise points you raised) but I am certainly applauding our club for going hard.

[GVGjr]

Who we try and keep quiet when we play Port shouldn't be the barometer. I would think our attention probably goes towards who we don't have natural match-ups for rather than who we do, and I'd suggest this is why we plan more thoroughly for Gray and Dixon than we might Wingard.

Wingard plays the hardest role to play in the modern era, and sometimes is elite when doing so and other times is extremely effective when doing so. However, I agree with you that pick six is about right for a player who has been elite but has tapered off for whatever reason over recent years.

This thread seems to be going around in circles, nobody's willing to budge and I just wish this deal would get done one way or another so we can all move on!

I quite like the debate so far, strong and differing opinions are OK for discussions. One or two are willing to part with 2 first rounders, I think someone has suggested a first and second rounder and most think pick 6 is about right.

Port have also upped the ante with anyone trying to get Wingard and are placing a huge expectation on a deal to get it done.
Then there is also the issue now of Wingard being regarded as a top 10 player in the competition meaning he should be commanding a yearly salary of 1.1 to 1.2M perhaps even more. That adds even more complexity to the potential player movement and probably rules out some clubs from being in the mix.

I'm yet to be convinced that he is worth 2 first round picks unless you are willing to pay that on potential more so than recent 'on field' results. He's been very good but a long way off exceptional in my opinion and the type of investment being mooted to acquire his services is huge.
Perhaps 2 first round picks from the range of 14 to 18 might be an option but not if one of them is in the top 6 in what is also regarded as a strong draft.

I'm more than open to acquiring Wingard and I will be interested to see if his intention to leave is serious and what might have to be offered to get a deal done. There is plenty to play out.

I don't expect we will get a consensus on here but I'm looking forward to reading the more thoughtful comments.

[bornadog]

This thread seems to be going around in circles, nobody's willing to budge and I just wish this deal would get done one way or another so we can all move on!

Trade period starts October 8

[Twodogs]

Wouldn't Wingard be worth about the same as we got for Stringer last year?

[Axe Man]

I reckon Port still have no salary cap room even after letting Polec go. They spent big last year and they still have the likes of Hartlett on fat contracts.

I think it's madness that Chad is even gettable (because of the precise points you raised) but I am certainly applauding our club for going hard.

If that's the case they must have structured their contacts poorly. They apparently had one of the lowest payrolls in the league this year. Perhaps next year they are in trouble but then why on earth didn't they front load some contacts this year? The whole thing doesn't make sense to me.