- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts
- 37,671
- Reaction score
- 79,485
- Location
- Heaven. I mean Victoria.
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
That's a bit of a strange thing to say, D, when all I did was respond to your post and you then go and follow that up with a post that's as long as mine was!
He does have other attributes to go with it though, I didn't say he didn't! I was simply responding to your post that said he had "no point of difference" and argued that his kicking was his point of difference. That's not to say it's all he has going for him though. He had 17 contested possessions in a semi final against Fyfe, Mundy, Neale, Barlow and co. at Subi and has had a couple of 16's, a few 15's and so-on, as an example of what else he can do, to go with his decent tackling numbers and ability to win clearances and kick midfield goals. There's no comparing him and what Murdoch (who has a career-high of 15 disposals) has done to this point of his career.
We don't even know exactly what he would cost though because there are varying reports on what he's being paid and then you'd have to wonder whether Port will pick up some of the tab if it is a lot, or whether we'd get him for a discount at the trade table if we paid all or most of his contract.
We may have others who will reach his level, but he's someone who we could plug straight in and who would immediately make us a better team, with better disposal and hopefully would for the next 5 or more years, when we hope to be contending for a flag.
I don't think Hartlett would be on really "big" money though and you get what you pay for. If you want a matchwinning type, they'd cost a lot more than Hamish, probably closer to a mil a year. If you pay a mil, you'll probably get someone who's worth a mil, if you pay $500 or $600K, you'll probably get someone who's worth $500 or $600K and so-on. These matchwinning types also don't grow in trees. If you hold out for one of them you could be waiting for a while. In the meantime, you can get a Hartlett type, front-end his contract and by the end of it he might not be on much more than the average AFL salary (especially once they go up, by the end of his 5 year deal).
As for why Port are looking to offload him- if it's true that they are- that is a good question and the answer is apparently very similar to why we were OK with BJ leaving us a few years ago. My understanding of the situation is that Port's salary cap is a stinking hot mess, somewhat like ours was when we started letting the likes of BJ go.
Apparently they've given these big and long contracts to their top handful, leaving very little for the rest and thought they had a premiership quality list and as such have a bulging salary cap, but now they've realised they are well short of a premiership quality list and need to go out and bring more talent in, but won't be able to until they shed one or two of these inflated, long term contracts.
So I imagine- if it's true- that they've identified Hartlett as the main one who they feel is on too much and who they won't miss as much as they would a Gray, Ryder, or Wines type- if they let them go instead- and as such have put out the feelers to see who is willing to take on Hamish and his contract.
This means that if they do trade him, the club he goes to will be in a good position though, because one way or another, they're going to get him relatively cheaply, because Port are in a must-sell situation, like a store that's going out of business. If a club like us have plenty of salary cap space free and are willing to take on all of his contract, then we'd get him at a discounted rate at the trade table. On the other hand, if we demanded that they pay a % of his contract, but paid full price for him at the trade table, then we'd probably be getting him for less money than we'd normally have to pay someone like him, if we wanted him to leave his current club and play for us. (ie. normally for a club like us to get someone talented like him to leave his club we'd have to offer him a fair bit more than his own club are willing to pay him, yet in this instance we'd actually be getting him for considerably less than his current club felt he was worth and were willing to pay him).
So one way or another, if we trade in Hartlett, we'd almost certainly be winning on the deal, either as far as his wage goes, or the price we pay in the trade. If we feel we can afford to splurge in one of those areas then we could make a situation like this work for us.
Last edited:
