I think we would all prefer to keep him over Tom Campbell.I've got no issue with the Roos wanting to hold him to his contract if they genuinely see him as their first ruckman once Goldy retires.
He's a contracted player and the ball is in Norths court.
If he still wants to leave in 12 months time though he will have next to no value.
If Goldy retires by then he may decide to stay though.
North fans seem to be split about him. Some seem very happy to let him walk while others are wanting to hold him to his contract.
Looks like Rawlings is currently in the camp ofnthe latter.
A reasonable analysis. Outside of posturing in an attempt to get a better trade, maybe the club are reluctant to let him leave as we don't really have mature backup in the no.1 ruck position. Campbell is not up to it and the others outside of Xerri are too raw. If Goldy goes down we are screwed but on the other hand, does that matter as we are last anyway. I'm sure North will explain their rationale after the trade period ends.The mixed messaging from supporters is astounding - well which way is it?
You bought CCJ across with promised ruck time, as he sees himself as a ruckman first and foremost, so is he your No. 2 Ruck to pair with Goldy in 2022?
Does the 12-18 month timeframe you have stated for Edwards line-up with when Goldy is going to retire so that he can become your No. 2 Ruck?
If CCJ is in your plans moving forward, where is the need for Xerri in all of this?
He already has issues playing the 2nd ruck role and sees himself as a ruckman first and foremost as well
The only possible reason to hang on to him is to try and get some value draft pick wise because he is contracted, but frankly I don't see anything changing in the next year playing wise to suggest that he is going to be given the opportunity to ultimately replace Goldstein.
You can't play all of Larkey, CCJ, and Edwards in the forwardline, and thats not even factoring in Comben who is spoken of fondly.
Xerri doesn't fit in, so it seems counterintuitive to be blocking his movement to try and get a Pick 30 over a Pick 60.
I think instead of setting a dollar amount it should be when you get offered a deal that’s worth less than your previous deal, or not offered one at all.There might be an argument to be made for unrestricted free agency to apply to anyone offered a deal below a certain value - to lubricate deals like this where contracted depth players are seeking other opportunity.
Assuming North don't offer him the (let's make up a number) $250,001 a year extension so he doesn't qualify as an unrestricted free agent then North would be more inclined to trade him to get some value now over no compensation next year as he moves - but then St Kilda would look at all options there too.
I'm not sure whether a player should need to be paid above the unrestricted free agency threshold in order for the player to qualify, I lean towards that being the case because otherwise depth can flee clubs to even worse deals just to be closer to home and the spirit of a rule like this would be that the AFLPA has decided that a club not valuing you above a certain $ figure means they don't value you enough to hold a contract over you.
I like that. It would add a lovely layer of complexity to list management. Imagine a first round pick signing their two year extension on $450,000 a year and then not playing as much as they would like, like you said potentially injured, and then their next offer being $400,000 - Free agent. First round pick walks to another club.I think instead of setting a dollar amount it should be when you get offered a deal that’s worth less than your previous deal, or not offered one at all.
So young ones that get hit by the injury stick and don’t get the pay rise they were hoping for, older ones that come off their last big contract, whatever.
Would mean like Ben Brown would be a free agent last year after the offer was rescinded, and anyone who was traded at some point and only spent 4 years at their second club before their salary dropped off would also be eligible, like maybe an O’Meara or something?
Only issue then is when a club decides they don’t want a good player because of off-field issues and don’t offer a contract, they might not get full value in a trade coz they’re a free agent.
Not sure either of these things help a contracted Xerri though
Extremely unlikely I would have thought.
Beveridge still going with this one not going to get done. Was saying it this morning but you'd think there would be some movement since then... apparently not enough.
No current season stats available
We clearly see him replacing Goldy 34 next yearGive me what North are smoking wanting a 2nd round pick. Xerri is up there with one of the lost uncoordinated footballers I have ever seen.