Bastinac knows he's being played out of position, the club finally does too.
Both parties also know that he is about 5th in line in his best position and is not going to be given ample opportunity to play that role.
Both parties have him in the surplus category, or another term could be "no man's land".
There are plenty of valid arguments to suggest that 20-30 is selling him at unders, but there is also the flipside that he want's an opportunity to show his best, we can't provide that and are happy to let go a guy that can't give what we need.
It's for this reason that I believe we will accept a pick in the 20's, back ourselves to get a young guy in who meets a more pressing need in outside pace/skill, free up some cap space on a guy who for various reasons isn't delivering and both parties will walk away happy.
This is the crux of the problem with the club. We play too many players out of position. We recruit too many players who play the same role and we have nowhere to play them. Most of the kids recruited haven't been developed to understand they need to perform and play with consistency, we have never demanded it under Scott for so many years and it is a shock to the system now.
But if you justify getting rid of Bastinac then how can we value Ziebell and give him 6 years, based on what output? Is he better or more consistent than Bastinac? I'm a huge fan of Ziebell but we have manufactured a position for him, he isn't any good in the middle, not consistently. In the finals he had 23 disposals @ 52.2% DE vs Richmond, 25 @ 52% vs Swans and 16 @ 56.2% vs Eagles, that is 64 disposals, 34 effective @ 11 per game.
Based on the criteria we judge Bastinac we could justify pushing out most of the players developed by Scott since he came here.
If Bastinac is shit he is symptomatic of a shit system of development and that should be an alarm bell for the club that someone who has played 6 years and racked up 121 games and was one of our core players is washed up. Is Bastinac the exception or is he the canary in the coal mine?
Why is he washed up? Why weren't we able to get the best out of someone who averaged 22 disposals and kicked 20 goals the year prior to getting Dal Santo in? This to me is a bigger problem and dilemma than what value we can salvage from a trade.