Port Adelaide can’t justify paying Chad Wingard more than $800,000 a season, writes Jon Ralph

PORT Adelaide would be negligent to pay Chad Wingard more than $800,000 a year after three average seasons, but for a club such as the Western Bulldogs he’s worth every dollar, writes JON RALPH.

Chad Wingard could be on the way out at Port Adelaide. Picture: Sarah Reed

PORT Adelaide would be negligent to pay Chad Wingard $800,000-$1 million a season based on his output on the past three seasons.

The Western Bulldogs should seriously consider handing over pick six and paying him a salary somewhere in that ballpark.

If those two sentences seem to be wildly conflicting, welcome to football 2018-style.

LOYAL DOG: WALLIS SAYS ‘BULLDOGS IN MY BLOOD’

DAVID KING: HOW BUCKS CAN TAKE JACK’S SPARROWS

MASON COX: I’M HAPPY BEING IGNORANT ABOUT FOOTY

Where often the price to stay at a club desperate to shake itself up after a 10th-placed finish is very different to one desperate for an ounce of class and goalkicking power.

On face value, Chad Wingard’s likely departure from Port Adelaide is the ultimate head scratcher.

Why would Port Adelaide allow him to assess his Melbourne options when he is a 25-year-old matchwinner who would surely be in the Power’s next premiership team?

Boil it down to one sentence — Port Adelaide isn’t prepared to pay extraordinary money for what they see as three seasons of average performances.

In seven completed seasons Wingard’s best is phenomenal, highlighted by two absolutely outstanding years.

He kicked 43.20 to go with 500 possessions in 2013 to win the best-and-fairest and win an All-Australian blazer, backing it up in 2015 with 53.27 and 422 possessions in another All-Australian year.

In between he kicked 43.31 in 2014, but his returns have diminished in the past three years.

His 2016 season was still solid — 38 goals, but last year he kicked 24.25 and this year 22.21.

Chad Wingard has had three below-average seasons after winning All-Australian honours in 2015. Picture: Sarah Reed

In 21 games he was eight times in the AFL coaches votes but only once in the top three in the ground, as voted by coach Ken Hinkley and the opposing coach.

Port Adelaide’s issue isn’t salary cap related — Ken Wood rated its wage bill this year as the second smallest in the competition.

It just can’t justify vast sums for a player who finished outside the top 10 in the 2016 best-and-fairest, eighth last year and is likely to finish outside the top 10 again this year.

Not when it has done that kind of thing with Hamish Hartlett and Matthew Lobbe before and seen it backfire.

The issue is whether Port Adelaide has tried to turn Wingard into something he is not.

In 2015 in that 53 goal season he played 74 per cent forward, averaging 98 rankings points for the season.

Last year he played 47 per cent midfield and this year 45 per cent in that role, becoming a jack of all trades and master of none.

Luke Beveridge is desperately in need of goal power and having drafted Aaron Naughton, Tim English, Ed Richards and traded for young tall Josh Schache they can this year justify trading an early pick.

Wingard has been linked to the Western Bulldogs. Picture: Sarah Reed

Only Fremantle, Gold Coast and Carlton kicked less goals than the Dogs this year, with the Dogs looking to replace the goal power of Luke Dahlhaus (which evaporated this year) and Jake Stringer.

Take Wingard as a small forward — effectively for a comparable wage to Dahlhaus and Jordan Roughead — then draft inside-midfielder Rhylee West as a father-son and your list is going somewhere.

Hawthorn is in a similar boat, pushing hard for Wingard and suddenly with the desire to replace Cyril Rioli plus the cap space from his retirement to afford him.

So is he worth the money?

Dan Hannebery, a player with a similar pedigree by dint of three All-Australian blazers — is going to be paid $800,000 a year for five years when there is clear uncertainty about whether his best is behind him at 27.

Based on Champion Data’s official player ratings Wingard is the 68th best player in the competition.

So if you rank him the 68th best player two years and he is paid $800,000 he’s only just getting overs.

Back in Round 12, 2016 he was the 10th ranked player in the competition, so you only need to believe he can recapture that form to pay him what he is asking.

Melbourne clubs will pay him on talent and potential and the Dogs on output, and in a market where plenty of clubs have cash to burn that means he is likely heading for the exit at Port Adelaide.