Kittwazzer wrote:I'm sure they look at the big picture when reviewing contracts. Can't wait to see how DaveO works his Hanson argument into this thread though!:)
Oh that is easy
In a nutshell we sold a player we need and are negotiating to keep a player we don't.
We have two injuries in the back row, Lockers and Faz and we have gone from a wealth of talent there to hoping we can clone Bateman.
With the half backs we already have three players who look with this season under their belt they could take over so in contrast Green isn't vital.
Ignoring the contrast with the back row for the moment I did post some time ago I thought the club had given both Green and Smith two year deals as part of a clear plan of progression that would see the young half backs ready to take over when Smith and Green's contracts expired.
None other than Whelly Warrior agreed with this idea.
I'd be surprised if Green wants anything shorter than three years and if he gets it we will lose one of the younger players IMO and from what I have seen of those I don't think he is worth it.
As with the o/p I think he is a solid player who occasionally does something good but is not enough of a threat enough of the time. His mere presence does not worry anyone whereas a top 6 has the opposition guessing.
If the plan was to have him here just for two years while the kids matured and that plan has changed I'd love to know why because I don't think it can be due to his quality as a player.
Maybe we are about to lose one or more of the young players and keeping Green will be put forward in a similar way to recruiting Bowen was used to sugar the bitter pill of losing Sam? I sincerely hope I am wrong with that notion.
Or if Wane wants to use Hampshire as Bowen's replacement I think this will prove a mistake. I think we would be far better off letting Green go, having Hampshire at 6 and recruiting a full back (Kevin Locke would have been ideal and I am gobsmacked we didn't use our "special relationship" with the NZW to sign him ) or even getting Sargenson up to speed there (he won't make a centre IMO but might do well at 1).
Dave O some good points there.
Is it possible we are just offering Green a one year extension to allow Rocky/GW time to develop gradually into regular first team players?
If we are unable to hold onto two 19 year olds without regular first team experience we are well and truly rubber ducked!!!
Like DaveO says it's improbable that green would be only looking for a 1year deal he is 27 and at 28 he won't want to be fighting for a contract he will want something to take him into his 30s I would imagine
It's funny as we'll DaveO should bring up about the "special relationship" with nsw. I remember someone arguing with my black is white that this was a real thing, and I mentioned the Saracens "deal" I think Kevin Locke to Salford shows how these are merely PR tools and there is nothing at all in them. Basically the deal was they got our player we got a chunk of cash like every other deal.
The maximum I would give green is 1 more year but in truth I'd take my chances with our youth players over him already.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
Kittwazzer wrote:I'm sure they look at the big picture when reviewing contracts. Can't wait to see how DaveO works his Hanson argument into this thread though!:)
Oh that is easy
In a nutshell we sold a player we need and are negotiating to keep a player we don't.
We have two injuries in the back row, Lockers and Faz and we have gone from a wealth of talent there to hoping we can clone Bateman.
With the half backs we already have three players who look with this season under their belt they could take over so in contrast Green isn't vital.
Ignoring the contrast with the back row for the moment I did post some time ago I thought the club had given both Green and Smith two year deals as part of a clear plan of progression that would see the young half backs ready to take over when Smith and Green's contracts expired.
None other than Whelly Warrior agreed with this idea.
I'd be surprised if Green wants anything shorter than three years and if he gets it we will lose one of the younger players IMO and from what I have seen of those I don't think he is worth it.
As with the o/p I think he is a solid player who occasionally does something good but is not enough of a threat enough of the time. His mere presence does not worry anyone whereas a top 6 has the opposition guessing.
If the plan was to have him here just for two years while the kids matured and that plan has changed I'd love to know why because I don't think it can be due to his quality as a player.
Maybe we are about to lose one or more of the young players and keeping Green will be put forward in a similar way to recruiting Bowen was used to sugar the bitter pill of losing Sam? I sincerely hope I am wrong with that notion.
Or if Wane wants to use Hampshire as Bowen's replacement I think this will prove a mistake. I think we would be far better off letting Green go, having Hampshire at 6 and recruiting a full back (Kevin Locke would have been ideal and I am gobsmacked we didn't use our "special relationship" with the NZW to sign him ) or even getting Sargenson up to speed there (he won't make a centre IMO but might do well at 1).
Dave O, I always understood that the plan was for Green to be here for only two seasons, but it looks as if Wane is of the opinion that younger players within the club earmarked as his replacement are not ready yet. The problem now is retaining those younger players, especially if any new contract for Green is above one season.
The saddest aspect re Green is that he has never been allowed to play in his optimum position. It was no coincidence that the 2 fine breaks he made v Leeds came when he was away from his left side half position. Green always has been a left to right, righty!
Should he be given another contract? The original plan was NOT but maybe the team has lost too much experience; maybe as WW states, Wane believes the younger players are not ready OR that Rocky is a FB not a half. We certainly have to get these decisions right as IMO we have 3 fantastic young half backs (2 if Rocky goes to FB) and 1 slightly older half back, Sam P, who cannot wait forever.
A caveat; nobody knows how Lockers is and as somebody suggested elsewhere Green to LF ?
At what point does the club give Hampshire or Powell the responsibility of being first choice players ?
I don't like any club stockpiling good young players because they eventually get disillusioned.
Time to let Green go imo.
It's a hard one this. Certainly less clear cut than Sam for Smith.
If there is no risk of losing Rocky, Williams or Powell, then I am happy enough with this either way.
What would make a change would be to have a bit of continuity about the team, rather than starting each year with a new spine. For that reason, I would tend to marginally prefer to keep him.
(On Hansen, if we'd kept him we wouldn't have signed bateman, so we would surely be roughly where we are now, but with an older player with fewer strings to their bow?)
) or even getting Sargenson up to speed there (he won't make a centre IMO but might do well at 1).
