Recommitted Jay Schulz [re-signed]

[Schulzenfest]

There's always the chance that if no trade gets arranged he stays at Port rather than risking the PSD. It's happened before. Hawthorn not offering up what Ryan O'Keefe was worth arguably cost them a premiership.

Lake was contracted. If no deal was done the Bullies keep him.

The Dogs didn't want to keep him, they wanted to free up his contract. Port want to keep Schulz, we just might not be able to afford to.

Schulz won't get get a game next year if he stayed at Port.

Completely laughable comment. Going at more than 2 goals a game again this year, as he has in every year at Port except 2011 where he went 1.9 goals a game. One year removed from a 66 goal season. Port have offered him a 2 year contract. Clubs tend not to offer 2 year contracts to 30+ year olds who they don't think would get a game for them.

It's clear that you have absolutely no comprehension of how good Schulzy is, so for your sake I hope that the people in charge at Freo are smarter than you and give up a fair price for his services, because given Freo's list profile he could very easily be the difference between Freo winning and losing a premiership. For my sake I hope that they're as ignorant as you, because my preference is to keep him, and if Freo go into trade talks with the same attitude as you there's a fair chance that'll happen.

Will Dixon play forward with Lobbe and Ryder around?

If Schulz stays at Port, Lobbe is far more likely to be the one who makes way for Dixon than Schulz. He's already been dropped for a few games this year.

 

[Malibu#27]

At least a reduced role. At the very least. You know that.

You said no spot ... So you were playing down his worth to fit your argument.

We are currently playing him, butcher, westhoff, ryder, and lobbe and next year there's no sub. Swap him for butcher and structure is identical.

 

[Jello_B]

Strange post. Clearly Fremantle has the best shot at a premiership this season, not next season.

Also, Port have effectively shown Schulz the door, and you would think that they would show the same class Geelong have with unwanted senior players and assist them to get to their next club with a bit of dignity instead of trying to profit from a champion player they have just taken the hatchet to.

Why are you being unfair in your posting. PAFC and their supporters highly respect Schulz and we want to keep him.
If Freo offer more money then we can justify with our current strategy for a premiership then good for Freo and Schulz. Most PAFC supporters would respect his decision.
And PAFC and Freo don't have any bad blood from what I know. Sure we compete, but I don't see why we wouldn't look at trying to get a win win on this one.

 

[raffrox]

You said no spot ... So you were playing down his worth to fit your argument.

We are currently playing him, butcher, westhoff, ryder, and lobbe and next year there's no sub. Swap him for butcher and structure is identical.

Let me ask you this.

You go to work on Monday morning and they have employed a younger person into the same position as you and they are paying them almost double. Would you see that as a ringing endorsement of your job?

You won't even concede a thing which to demonstrates that you talking the big talk without any real foundation. Schultz is a required player blah, blah, we offered him a contract blah, blah you'll have to pay for such an amazing talent blah, blah. Port is orchestrating him out the door and you just sound like the Port list manager on day one of trade week.

Good luck to you then. No point arguing further. We aren't going to change the others mind but I guess we'll see.

 

[Jello_B]

Let me ask you this.

You go to work on Monday morning and they have employed a younger person into the same position as you and they are paying them almost double. Would you see that as a ringing endorsement of your job?

You won't even concede a thing which to demonstrates that you talking the big talk without any real foundation. Schultz is a required player blah, blah, we offered him a contract blah, blah you'll have to pay for such an amazing talent blah, blah. Port is orchestrating him out the door and you just sound like the Port list manager on day one of trade week.

Good luck to you then. No point arguing further. We aren't going to change the others mind but I guess we'll see.

Succession planning happens all the time in business. Your question doesn't prove your point.
If I was 2 years off retirement (say 63) and my role in the business was critical to its function I would expect younger people coming up to take over my role.
Schulz and Dixon would be great together in our forward line.

 

[philthy05]

Let's play a game of yes or no.

Do you think Port is recruiting Dixon?
Will it cost Port a heap in a trade and contract amount and length to do this?
Will Dixon play forward with Lobbe and Ryder around?

So even if they haven't shown him the door even blind Freddy can see that part is clearly devaluing the role and influence Schulz would have atort at the least.

Denying this is just big footy pigheadedness. Port is saying with its actions,"We really don't need you as much any more Jay."

You can't deny this.

Firstly

There is a huge difference between "shown the door" as you earlier said and what you are now saying is not having the same opportunity with the arrival of dixon ..

They are not the same at all

 

[Schulzenfest]

Let me ask you this.

You go to work on Monday morning and they have employed a younger person into the same position as you and they are paying them almost double. Would you see that as a ringing endorsement of your job?

You won't even concede a thing which to demonstrates that you talking the big talk without any real foundation. Schultz is a required player blah, blah, we offered him a contract blah, blah you'll have to pay for such an amazing talent blah, blah. Port is orchestrating him out the door and you just sound like the Port list manager on day one of trade week.

I'm not sure Port have ever offered a 30+ year old a 2 year contract before. It's against club policy. Players like Tredrea, Wanganeen and both Cornes brothers were never offered 2 year contracts beyond 30. We broke that policy and offered one to Schulz. If that's 'orchestrating him out the door', then we've orchestrated every 30 year old who's ever been on our list out the door at the end of every season since we've been in the AFL.

 

[raffrox]

Firstly

There is a huge difference between "shown the door" as you earlier said and what you are now saying is not having the same opportunity with the arrival of dixon ..

They are not the same at all

Firstly, I didn't say "shown the door" unless you mean where I said even if he wasn't been shown the door. Great argument formulation.

I'm not sure Port have ever offered a 30+ year old a 2 year contract before. It's against club policy. Players like Tredrea, Wanganeen and both Cornes brothers were never offered 2 year contracts beyond 30. We broke that policy and offered one to Schulz. If that's 'orchestrating him out the door', then we've orchestrated every 30 year old who's ever been on our list out the door at the end of every season since we've been in the AFL.

Considering you compared the value of Schultz to Pav three years ago its obvious you love the guy so if that's how you see it. Still a clanger of a post though. No doubt.

 

[Malibu#27]

Let me ask you this.

You go to work on Monday morning and they have employed a younger person into the same position as you and they are paying them almost double. Would you see that as a ringing endorsement of your job?

You won't even concede a thing which to demonstrates that you talking the big talk without any real foundation. Schultz is a required player blah, blah, we offered him a contract blah, blah you'll have to pay for such an amazing talent blah, blah. Port is orchestrating him out the door and you just sound like the Port list manager on day one of trade week.

Good luck to you then. No point arguing further. We aren't going to change the others mind but I guess we'll see.

Your the one that said he would not get a game and then said in the next post he would - but reduced. Your the one thats making shit up.

I showed Dixon could play butchers role with no impact on Jay or structure, and nobody with half a brain wouldn't know that at thirty it's likely that he is in the twilight.

But of course you are trying to turn this into a port treating him like shit offering him nothing and having no place for him thing -because it makes the deal you spout about him having no value more acceptable to the masses.

I wish him well if he leaves as he's been a warrior for us and hope the club helps him get there fairly as he deserves a final payday, but let's face it - freo was also chasing Dixon with more $$$ so both clubs see value in younger players - it doesn't mean Jay doesn't have a role - but logic says he's got two years left at most.

 

[philthy05]

Lake was contracted. If no deal was done the Bullies keep him.

Schulz won't get get a game next year if he stays at Port.

Do you remember the circumstances of lake leaving the dogs ? There was a huge amount of noise around what was going on with him there and it is very very clear the dogs were happy to send him off for reasons aside from on the field.

Also , since when are you picking ports team to line up on game day? As if port cannot line up two key forwards. Ryder would make three if he wasn't in the ruck and was resting up forward while we also played lobbe. If you count westhoff as a key forward then you haven't seen port play live too often. Westhoff is a tall flanker who runs all over the ground and plays like a small. He spends most of his time on the wing or floating back in defence. He only floats forward at times. Is not a liability as a tall. So at the very tallest we could line up its not that tall.

At least a reduced role. At the very least. You know that.

What do you mean reduced? You mean less responsibility ? Less what? Would be be playing 2nd fiddle to Charlie ? Do you think that would bother Schulz ? does it bother every other key forward in the afl?

Let me ask you this.

You go to work on Monday morning and they have employed a younger person into the same position as you and they are paying them almost double. Would you see that as a ringing endorsement of your job?

You won't even concede a thing which to demonstrates that you talking the big talk without any real foundation. Schultz is a required player blah, blah, we offered him a contract blah, blah you'll have to pay for such an amazing talent blah, blah. Port is orchestrating him out the door and you just sound like the Port list manager on day one of trade week.

Good luck to you then. No point arguing further. We aren't going to change the others mind but I guess we'll see.

What the hell is this argument? Firstly it makes no sense. Who the hell hasn't ever worked with someone that is younger and earned more money? Unless you are the youngest millionaire in the world we all have to deal with this. It's a non issue I'm not sure where you were going with this

Hilariously you are also setting yourself up for a huge contradiction.

You are directly saying port are saying Schulz is worth nothing because they are bringing in a player and paying him more money...

So are freo spitting in the face of their own players who would be earning less then Schulz ? Would you be expecting a please explain from them? Are freo showing them the door? Or disrespecting them by offering them less responsibility ?

 

[philthy05]

Firstly, I didn't say "shown the door" unless you mean where I said even if he wasn't been shown the door. Great argument formulation.

You said even if he hasn't been shown the door blah blah blah then went on to say that port bringing in dixon is the same thing as showing him the door.

I have pointed out why that is a silly argument.

You have really backed yourself into a corner here and I don't know why your continuing to try to talk around it

 

[FallingLiefs]

A 33 year old Barry Hall was traded for a pick in the 40's despite not reaching Jay Schulz's goal tally from this season in any of his last 3 attempts at the swans. That pick will be close to Freos second rounder. Was also on significantly less dollars.

 

[Defacto]

'Declining over the last few years' lol. How many times do I need to post that he kicked 66 goals a year ago before you read it?

To answer your question, pick 21 + 41 for Brian Lake + 27. And Lake was coming off of a significantly, significantly worse year than the year that Schulz has just had.

Great comparison with using lake and also the previous poster on pav. Couldn't agree more, that's a fair trade!!!!

 

[Defacto]

Surely Adelaide would look at schulz, especially if he enters the PSD

 

[Schulzenfest]

Surely Adelaide would look at schulz, especially if he enters the PSD

Would probably neck myself if I ever saw Jay Schulz in a Crows jumper.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Surely Adelaide would look at schulz, especially if he enters the PSD

Why? they don't need a Key forward

 

[Defacto]

Why? they don't need a Key forward

lynch is the third tall. tex the CHF. whos the FF?

 

[raffrox]

Hilariously you are also setting yourself up for a huge contradiction.

You are directly saying port are saying Schulz is worth nothing because they are bringing in a player and paying him more money...

So are freo spitting in the face of their own players who would be earning less then Schulz ? Would you be expecting a please explain from them? Are freo showing them the door? Or disrespecting them by offering them less responsibility ?

Spitting in the face! So emotive. I love it.

To answer your question I'd suggest that Zac Clarke is in real danger. If we got a decent deal I wouldn't be surprised if he was elsewhere.

Tabener is one who will need to improve to get a regular game. Ross even said as much about a month ago.

Unlike you in fantasy land I acknowledge that you don't make big moves to bring in a key forward if you are completely happy with what you've got. Getting Dixon on big cash is saying to current Port key forwards that they should watch their back. It's saying the same to Freo key forwards (all 2 and a half of them) exactly the same thing.

Contradiction!? It proves my point.

 

[Traveling_Power]

I'm not sure Port have ever offered a 30+ year old a 2 year contract before. It's against club policy. Players like Tredrea, Wanganeen and both Cornes brothers were never offered 2 year contracts beyond 30. We broke that policy and offered one to Schulz. If that's 'orchestrating him out the door', then we've orchestrated every 30 year old who's ever been on our list out the door at the end of every season since we've been in the AFL.

Port only offer 1 year contracts to those over 30 .... apparently Schulzy wants more ..

the reason Schulzy wants more is his wife's business has failed

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

I think port will get nothing for him. Freo don't have to trade, they can get him for nothing.

 

[Defacto]

I think port will get nothing for him. Freo don't have to trade, they can get him for nothing.

and how do they get him for free?

 

[CasuallyDressed]

lynch is the third tall. tex the CHF. whos the FF?

Jenkins?

 

[Defacto]

Jenkins?

Isn't he their number 1 ruck?

 

[CasuallyDressed]

Isn't he their number 1 ruck?

No.

That'd be the red nut.

 

[apuchar]

I'm sure Port will respect Shultz's decision whatever it is. I'm sure if he wants to take Freo's offer Port will facilitate the move in good faith. He has been a great sevant but has now been replaced by someone more long-term, that's all. Unless I have missed something?