Levi Greenwood [Wants to go to Collingwood]

[Mr Magic]

Well lets just wait 12 months then and get him FA, Just tell him to take the 12 month deal and expect his 'BIG'Deal next year

Exactly if any good he will do it again and doubtful he would improve again after 25 commanding more!

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Why would anyone live in South Australia....

Cos it's heaps good.

 

[Morro]

How illuminating.. thanks for sharing

I say no to bullying.

 

[Mogwai]

Woop de ******* doo for our so-called 'war chest'. One step closer to field a team full of just consisting of 'contested' 'ball winning' 'pressurizing' 'hard at it' 'playing for the jumper' 'desperate' 'extraction' midfielders.

 

[The Dice Man]

Very confident he will sign on with the roos. Thread will be closed soon I would say.

Where you been mate?

Wrenny doesn't post unless it's well sourced. Unfortunately in this case.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is why the AFL brought in Free Agency rules to allow greater player movement when clubs are stuck like this.
Seeing as Greenwood is out of contract, if North are not able to offer him a suitable contract, but we are, he walks to us as a restricted free agent??

If rumors are true and North get Waite and Higgins, I'm sure this will push their salary cap, and will be limited to what they can offer. We offer a greater deal, North have a few days to meet that offer, cant.. so he walks to Tigers!

News will be announced when he wins the best and fairest.
We have plenty of coin so Wiggins and Waite won't impact our cap. Dal incoming only just got us to the minimum allowed and a few are on front loaded contracts.

Best of luck elsewhere

 

[Tas]

I think he'll stay, but the curious bit for mine is the money.

For all the insistence that he's worth a first rounder...If his own club doesn't even rate him as being worth $350K/yr (or about 1/30th of the salary cap), then he can't have a lot of trade value.

It is not uncommon for us to only give players one year deals for any player who consistently hasn't been in our best 22 or are 30+ years old. It really isn't a lack of confidence, just the way we manage players. Boomer has been on one year deas for the last 5 odd years, he knows that as long as he is going okay, he will get another one year deal.

I am sure they will find some common ground and iron out a new deal, we had a similar issue with Hansen last year and it was resolved, eventually. If some players want more money and more security then the contract has to wait until the club has a better idea about what it has in the kitty after trades, free agency and delistments. We usually have a good idea by the best and fairest time, but it might drag on longer than that.

Typically 2/3rd of a list is secured on 2 year or longer deals and the remaining third is in limbo. If someone's new contract is likely going to be way over what was budgeted then it usually has to wait until the club has a better idea of what the outlay is going to be in 2015 and 2016 and structure a contract that fits in.

As to his trade value, it is probably a better idea to look at the clubs in draft order and ask if he was in the draft which club would take him first and with what pick, that tends to be a better idea of a player's ballpark value. Imo a club like Port, Geelong or Collingwood who are short on inside mids might be tempted to go with a late first round pick, worst case scenario is that one of the cellar dwellers would likely leap at him with a very early second round pick imo. That is purely on a needs type of basis rather than thinking what is he worth.

 

[tigs2010]

It is not uncommon for us to only give players one year deals for any player who consistently hasn't been in our best 22 or are 30+ years old. It really isn't a lack of confidence, just the way we manage players. Boomer has been on one year deas for the last 5 odd years, he knows that as long as he is going okay, he will get another one year deal.

I am sure they will find some common ground and iron out a new deal, we had a similar issue with Hansen last year and it was resolved, eventually. If some players want more money and more security then the contract has to wait until the club has a better idea about what it has in the kitty after trades, free agency and delistments. We usually have a good idea by the best and fairest time, but it might drag on longer than that.

Typically 2/3rd of a list is secured on 2 year or longer deals and the remaining third is in limbo. If someone's new contract is likely going to be way over what was budgeted then it usually has to wait until the club has a better idea of what the outlay is going to be in 2015 and 2016 and structure a contract that fits in.

As to his trade value, it is probably a better idea to look at the clubs in draft order and ask if he was in the draft which club would take him first and with what pick, that tends to be a better idea of a player's ballpark value. Imo a club like Port, Geelong or Collingwood who are short on inside mids might be tempted to go with a late first round pick, worst case scenario is that one of the cellar dwellers would likely leap at him with a very early second round pick imo. That is purely on a needs type of basis rather than thinking what is he worth.

I think he will stay but it would be interesting if he did nominate us as I agree with you about where he'd likely get picked up which falls in the middle of our 2 picks which makes it awkward.

 

[theflea]

It is not uncommon for us to only give players one year deals for any player who consistently hasn't been in our best 22 or are 30+ years old. It really isn't a lack of confidence, just the way we manage players. Boomer has been on one year deas for the last 5 odd years, he knows that as long as he is going okay, he will get another one year deal.

I am sure they will find some common ground and iron out a new deal, we had a similar issue with Hansen last year and it was resolved, eventually. If some players want more money and more security then the contract has to wait until the club has a better idea about what it has in the kitty after trades, free agency and delistments. We usually have a good idea by the best and fairest time, but it might drag on longer than that.

Typically 2/3rd of a list is secured on 2 year or longer deals and the remaining third is in limbo. If someone's new contract is likely going to be way over what was budgeted then it usually has to wait until the club has a better idea of what the outlay is going to be in 2015 and 2016 and structure a contract that fits in.

As to his trade value, it is probably a better idea to look at the clubs in draft order and ask if he was in the draft which club would take him first and with what pick, that tends to be a better idea of a player's ballpark value. Imo a club like Port, Geelong or Collingwood who are short on inside mids might be tempted to go with a late first round pick, worst case scenario is that one of the cellar dwellers would likely leap at him with a very early second round pick imo. That is purely on a needs type of basis rather than thinking what is he worth.

Tas thanks for the post. Just on you rating a players worth, that might be applied if logic is used, but when clubs try to get a player in, they rarely pay what they should. Just ask the lions.

 

[telsor]

It is not uncommon for us to only give players one year deals for any player who consistently hasn't been in our best 22 or are 30+ years old. It really isn't a lack of confidence, just the way we manage players. Boomer has been on one year deas for the last 5 odd years, he knows that as long as he is going okay, he will get another one year deal.

I am sure they will find some common ground and iron out a new deal, we had a similar issue with Hansen last year and it was resolved, eventually. If some players want more money and more security then the contract has to wait until the club has a better idea about what it has in the kitty after trades, free agency and delistments. We usually have a good idea by the best and fairest time, but it might drag on longer than that.

Typically 2/3rd of a list is secured on 2 year or longer deals and the remaining third is in limbo. If someone's new contract is likely going to be way over what was budgeted then it usually has to wait until the club has a better idea of what the outlay is going to be in 2015 and 2016 and structure a contract that fits in.

As to his trade value, it is probably a better idea to look at the clubs in draft order and ask if he was in the draft which club would take him first and with what pick, that tends to be a better idea of a player's ballpark value. Imo a club like Port, Geelong or Collingwood who are short on inside mids might be tempted to go with a late first round pick, worst case scenario is that one of the cellar dwellers would likely leap at him with a very early second round pick imo. That is purely on a needs type of basis rather than thinking what is he worth.

So you think a player who "consistently hasn't been in our best 22" is worth a late first, early 2nd?

 

[Tas]

Tas thanks for the post. Just on you rating a players worth, that might be applied if logic is used, but when clubs try to get a player in, they rarely pay what they should. Just ask the lions.

Definitely, there are a lot of factors which can cause significant variance in a player's value.

 

[Tas]

So you think a player who "consistently hasn't been in our best 22" is worth a late first, early 2nd?

He hasn't been consistently in our best side from season to season, but we don't really have a shortage of inside midfielders. He has stepped up this year though. I am just saying there are several wannabe contenders who are lacking the inside depth and there are some struggling clubs who want to become more competitive, he would be of more value to those clubs than he is to my team at present in my opinion.

I think those clubs need a player like him much more than they need a speculative young kid in the draft. Would they be willing to trade that to get him? Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea, they might feel their club is doing okay on the inside despite reality saying that isn't the case.

 

[Blinger]

He won't be long term with Cotch and Miles because Cotch is a centre, Miles a rover so we need a ruck rover and 181cm is too short. See Swans v Hawthorn in the GF!

We need inside guys 188cm plus which we have lacked for years!

For me this is the type of player we need in the rotations. As I see him to be very similar to Miles, so when Miles is being rested we have Greenwood step into the midfield & we don't lose anything in the middle & the same when Greenwood is rested. So it just completes part of the puzzle, we still need to continue to build our midfield depth so we replace our best with someone similar. As at the moment when we move the main mid's out for a rest, we are replacing with lesser quality. Too become a better outfit we need to keep building a better quality team with more & more depth.

 

[Tas]

I think he will stay but it would be interesting if he did nominate us as I agree with you about where he'd likely get picked up which falls in the middle of our 2 picks which makes it awkward.

Yeah, that is what makes trading difficult, but if other players get shuffled around with other clubs then both clubs might end up with something closer. I guess we will wait and see if he signs and if not then see what happens, clubs tend to lose some bargaining power if a player nominates a particular club.

I am pretty confident a deal will be done and he extends for a couple of years.

 

[wart101]

Why would he live there if he was playing AFL?

Because he come from whyalla.

 

[wart101]

Afl website is saying he will stay.

 

[wart101]

Why would anyone live in South Australia....

I know right, I have been here for 30 years................

 

[SteveRFC]

There was a FB photo of Dusty and Levi up the other day with the Tiges fan page saying "Maybe Dusty can convince him".
Aaron Edwards and Levi are housemates highlighted by Edwards sister, saying Dusty was over Aaron's for the GF. Levi will be signing with Norf. He wouldn't have any intentions to leave the club.

 

[tigerz18]

havent we just delisted Azza edwards? Why the f* would Greenwood come now? the only thing he may have come for was to play with Azza again.

in saying that, i would like to see Greenwood in Richmond colours. He would free Cotch to become a more outside receiver, as opposed to needing to get the in and under again. If we sign him, Thomas' papers will be stamped

 

[Groupie_]

Afl website is saying he will stay.

Good, he's not worth what we'd have to give up imo

I back him in to be s**t again in 2015

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Would be a great get but can't see it happening sadly. Hope we at the very least drive up his market price though!

 

[wart101]

Cos parmi

Well that

 

[Rubber Hips]

I hate Levi Greenwood now

 

[Tigerland]

News will be announced when he wins the best and fairest.
We have plenty of coin so Wiggins and Waite won't impact our cap. Dal incoming only just got us to the minimum allowed and a few are on front loaded contracts.

Best of luck elsewhere

Yep I'd be surprised if North are near the cap. Their best players are 30+ year old veterans.
Harvey, Petrie, Wells. How old is Swallow?

 

[Tiger71]

News will be announced when he wins the best and fairest.
We have plenty of coin so Wiggins and Waite won't impact our cap. Dal incoming only just got us to the minimum allowed and a few are on front loaded contracts.

Best of luck elsewhere

No doubting your info mate, you know your club better then me im sure but the noise around is that you dont have plenty of coin and salary cap is an issue. You saying that's rubbish ?