WiganWarriorsFans.com

cherry.pie wrote: The current salary cap allows all teams to assemble a squad that has enough depth to see them through the season if they spend it wisely.

It allows then to sign 25 players who share the £1.6m cap and no more. You can't divide the £1.6m between 30 senior pros for example. Is 25 enough to assemble a squad with depth?

The point I was making was that each player who takes a wage that puts them into the clubs top 25 earners takes up a slot in that 25. If you sign too many grafters as part of that 25 you just do not have room to add the required number of star players even if you pay the grafters low wages.

It is obvious we can't have 25 star players but if for example we replace Lima with an average prop and keep all our other props as they are we can't excuse that by saying the new player is there to add depth.

I don't believe the club would at any point sign a player they thought was average. They'll sign players who they think can provide a real benefit to the team but I'm sure that sometimes bringing in an experienced player who isn't necessarily a superstar would add something even if they aren't at the top end in terms of ability. That's why I'd like to see Wigan taking an interest in Matt Diskin, but that's another story.

That depends on how many such players you sign. I can remember in the 80's and 90's Wigan had a knack of signing seemingly average players who went up to another level when they got here. They were however playing alongside some star players of real quality once in our team. My concern is that the average players we do sign won't be playing alongside the star players as they are in fact their replacements.

If, hypothetically, Wigan hadn't been able to sign Blake Green then I still think the club would have had to go out and sign someone with a reasonable level of ability, even if they weren't convinced about him. We just can't go into next year relying on Smith, Powell and two teenagers in Williams and Hampshire. At the very least more competition was needed so that the club had real options.

Then people need to lower their expectations. The fact we may have to sign a lesser half back may be due to the younger players not being ready doesn't really matter. It is the quality of the half backs we do sign that does.

That's what I meant by the club needing more depth. If there weren't any genuine quality players available the club would still have to minimise the risk in some way and would probably have gone out and signed an unknown NRL reserve grade player. It is better to sign a small amount of cap money on someone you aren't sure about who offers depth and potential value later on than not spend any and be short handed. That's what the club did with Gelling and he's showing good signs when playing at centre that the gamble may well pay off.

That is not my understanding of squad depth. The player would be (has been) being signed as the first choice half back.

As it stands the club has signed a very talented player who should offer a lot to the team next year. There are issues about his fitness and injuries this year but the club must be satisfied that he will be over them by next season and will be able to hit the ground running.

I think Blake Green is the best we were going to get.[/quote]

You seem to rate him so fair enough on that score but if he isn't as good as the player he replaces (as Smith isn't) being the "best we are going to get" is pretty uninspiring.

Who did Tommy replace when we signed him? I forget!

Kittwazzer wrote:Who did Tommy replace when we signed him? I forget!

Denis Moran!

God wrote:Signing players that are not as good because thats all thats available is an excuse imo.

EVERY player is available because contracts dont mean a thing in the modern game. If you dont ask you dont get imo and we will have cap space to burn with the ammount of top earners that are coming off contract.

Its asking teams if a certain player can become available or if a certain player is not quite happy with the current set up, there are plenty out there.

Of course it will be down to the willingness of the player in question if he wants to join the club etc but there is no harm in enquiring.

I think you are being a bit too simplistic God,do you think if we made enquiries about a clubs top player who was locked into a long term contract the response would be favourable i doubt it.Not only that,theres the dreaded Agent,especially if he's an Aussie.
You are far more clued-up on Green,but this may turn out to be good business,of what i have seen of him ,he appears a good player,with good hands,above all a good rugby brain,he's also quick.Lets not right him off yet which appears to be happening with Smith at the moment.

platt-warrior wrote: You are far more clued-up on Green,but this may turn out to be good business,of what i have seen of him ,he appears a good player,with good hands,above all a good rugby brain,he's also quick.Lets not right him off yet which appears to be happening with Smith at the moment.

There are no players available of the high quality of Tommy and Finch so anyone brought in ostensibly as a direct replacement will be on a hiding to nothing. Personally, I have seen nothing in Smith to suggest he won't reach our exacting standards. We didn't all rub our hands with joy when we learned we'd signed Tommy and as Josie reminded me, he only replaced Moran!!

i dont rate him that much,recientley he hasn't been playing well...id rather put trust into a wigan lad insted of an aussie who wouldn't play as wellas sam powell

Blake green has 2 years left yet we are buying him. If you want to be the technical mr right all the time cherry fair enough but I think your clever enough to know what was meant.

cherry.pie wrote:

29wes28 wrote:Blake green has 2 years left yet we are buying him. If you want to be the technical mr right all the time cherry fair enough but I think your clever enough to know what was meant.

What do you mean 'if' I want to be

The point is to say every player is available just isn't accurate. I know that players frequently break their contracts in rugby league but that still doesn't mean that all players are 'available' to be signed for next season.

God said "Signing players that are not as good because thats all thats available is an excuse imo". The point is that while there are certainly better players in the world of rugby it simply isn't the case that Wigan can sign whoever they want and the best players that the club can sign may in fact not be deemed as good as Finch and Leuluai.

If 'all players were available' I'd be looking at Billy Slater, Cameron Smith, Greg Inglis and Benji Marshall.

I appreciate the point that contracts mean little these days but that doesn't mean we can sign anyone and everyone because they're certainly NOT available in the true sense of the word.

With regard to Green, it looks awfully like this is going to happen so I say let's get behind him and offer some support. As I've said before both Lulu and Finch were both playing poorly when they started at Wigan but became great players for us. There's no reason why the Green/Smith combo can't work so let's just see.

Kiwiseddon wrote:With regard to Green, it looks awfully like this is going to happen so I say let's get behind him and offer some support. As I've said before both Lulu and Finch were both playing poorly when they started at Wigan but became great players for us. There's no reason why the Green/Smith combo can't work so let's just see.

Exactly. If it happens then they will be our players, part of our team. They deserve our support!

God wrote:

cherry.pie wrote:

29wes28 wrote:Blake green has 2 years left yet we are buying him. If you want to be the technical mr right all the time cherry fair enough but I think your clever enough to know what was meant.

What do you mean 'if' I want to be

The point is to say every player is available just isn't accurate. I know that players frequently break their contracts in rugby league but that still doesn't mean that all players are 'available' to be signed for next season.

God said "Signing players that are not as good because thats all thats available is an excuse imo". The point is that while there are certainly better players in the world of rugby it simply isn't the case that Wigan can sign whoever they want and the best players that the club can sign may in fact not be deemed as good as Finch and Leuluai.

Wes yes your spot on, Cherry...yeah your still not getting me.

Lets say for instance we go to Hull KR and approach Green who has 2 years left on his contract. According to you this player is classed as unavailable, yes?

We get a knockback because of said contract, we then come back with a new offer of say 200k transfer fee and suddenly he becomes available, shock horror
We could go to nearly any club in Super League bar Saints and possibly Warrington and throw abit of cash at a player who is "under contract" and he would become available.

Now when i said EVERYONE is available, technically that isnt true you would be a fool to even take that as gospel but all im saying is every player has a price regardless of contract length and obviously salary cap restraints.

So when are we rumored to be throwing cash at a player which i deem a fairly standard Stand off. If that same cash where to be thrown at certain other clubs for a player, maybe said club could give a little push towards the exit to the player in question for financial gain? I.E Soward at the Dragons.

And we would have a far better player than Blake Green.

Contracts meen diddly squat, and if Wigan want a player and all partys are willing, they will get said player end of story. Even if said player has a cast iron 10 year contract stammped in gold and signed by the Queen of England, it wont matter the deal will happen.

Do you think Salford hummed and ahhed over the sale of Smith to us? As soon as cash was mentioned he was in the DW faster than a fat lass chasing a walking sandwich with Salford rubbing there hands despite Smith still being under contract.

Its the year 2012 not the 80s where people actually honoured there deals.

I argued this point with you before. Are you seriously suggesting that Wigan are or should act like a "loadsamoney" club and simply wave blank cheques at clubs to force them to release players to us? Who's to say the players would want to join Wigan in the first place? Or are they forced to sign under the threat of being shot?

What is more likely to have happened (as usually does) is the club asks if the players is willing to move on (for whatever reason), he is then "made available" and his name circulated to clubs to pursue an interest and the agent acting on behalf of his client then contacts clubs to see if there is any money available to then interest his client enough to move.

What you suggest is that Wigan should just approach whomever they want and offer as much money as needed to force the club to sell (and the player knowing Wigan have paid big bucks to sign him would dance a jig of delight for sealing a contract that would financially make him secure for life - as any agent/player would expect nothing less)

Wigan do not have the money to do that and this is not the Premier League