Strategy Trade and List Management thread 2.(...the waiting for the hammer to fall edition)

[Turtle3]

Apparently hamling will get $1.2m over 3 years at Freo.. so $400k/year

I would imagine $350k would be a reasonable offer on our behalf and I wouldn't have thought he'd move for $50k a yr.
From his perspective however if we were offering only 2 yrs or he doesn't believe he will be first choice next yr then it makes sense for him to move.
Either way he was a significant contributor to one of the best months of my life - so I wish him all the best.

 

[Mattdougie]

I think MD has a point.

We seem to have re-contracted Jong at a good price - that's fine. I understand why it was done and am happy to have him on the list.

However it now seems that we will lose Hamling for financial reasons.

Whether you agree that $400k+ is too much or not, the question becomes whether moving Jong on would have put us in a position to up our offer to Hamling.

It's hard to know one way or the other - but on the surface, it appears that moving Jong for a second round selection would have cleared the cap space necessary to perhaps offer Hamling slightly more. Maybe not match their offer - but raise ours without compromising our list strategy.

As far as I see it, Hamling was a more crucial retention than Jong and I think it's fair to ask these questions. It's impossible to know the answer from the outside looking in, though.

This isn't just Jong

Resigning Campbell is moronic if we are bringing Cloke in. He will now be 5th in line.

So to keep a 3rd string average at best ruckman an lose a Kpb makes no sense to me.

And Jong for a 2nd rounder was a no brainer.

 

[ossie_21]

Really hope we have something in the pipeline for a KPD that can do a job, still felt we were short even with Hamling as Collins/Cordy are very inexperienced & Adams seems quality but not a good run with injury

Only seen Brand linked, good size attributes but that doesn't mean shit if he can't football

 

[BRWB]

I think MD has a point.

We seem to have re-contracted Jong at a good price - that's fine. I understand why it was done and am happy to have him on the list.

However it now seems that we will lose Hamling for financial reasons.

Whether you agree that $400k+ is too much or not, the question becomes whether moving Jong on would have put us in a position to up our offer to Hamling.

It's hard to know one way or the other - but on the surface, it appears that moving Jong for a second round selection would have cleared the cap space necessary to perhaps offer Hamling slightly more. Maybe not match their offer - but raise ours without compromising our list strategy.

As far as I see it, Hamling was a more crucial retention than Jong and I think it's fair to ask these questions. It's impossible to know the answer from the outside looking in, though.

No doubt keeping Hamling was preferable to Jong

But the cost of retaining Hamling and the flow on cap effects as Fletch, Adams and Cordy see Hamling probably more than double their wage shouldn't be underestimated.

Hamling just isn't good enough to warrant that risk IMO.

Meanwhile Clay and others see Jong taking relative unders to stay.

I don't have a problem with how we are going about it. Although I wish Jong was gone instead Hamling.

 

[mambavino]

Hamling was definitely a strong contributor during the finals, but didn't exactly set the world alight.
He is 100% replaceable, and I wouldn't want to see us overpay significantly purely on the back of a few good performances, albeit in the finals.

 

[Tommycash]

I would imagine $350k would be a reasonable offer on our behalf and I wouldn't have thought he'd move for $50k a yr.
From his perspective however if we were offering only 2 yrs or he doesn't believe he will be first choice next yr then it makes sense for him to move.
Either way he was a significant contributor to one of the best months of my life - so I wish him all the best.

He's really good mates with Kersten, and Perth is a lovely place to live. I reckon the draw of home is more important now he has achieved glory. I am loathe to blame our list managers when it is a matter of an interstate player.

 

[Dogsman16]

This isn't just Jong

Resigning Campbell is moronic if we are bringing Cloke in. He will now be 5th in line.

So to keep a 3rd string average at best ruckman an lose a Kpb makes no sense to me.

And Jong for a 2nd rounder was a no brainer.

How is Campbell 5th in line. He's third in line for the two ruck spots. Acquiring Cloke makes absolutely no difference to Campbell.

Cloke fills Cordys role anyway. Not sure about that one MD.

 

[footyfan000001]

If Hamling leaves - I wonder if that'll give us the chance to potentially keep Stevens with a better offer? Ideally would rather keep Hrovat but he seems gone for opportunities.

 

[TommyD13]

How is Campbell 5th in line. He's third in line for the two ruck spots. Acquiring Cloke makes absolutely no difference to Campbell.

Cloke fills Cordys role anyway. Not sure about that one MD.

yeah totally agree mate

 

[Turtle3]

He's really good mates with Kersten, and Perth is a lovely place to live. I reckon the draw of home is more important now he has achieved glory. I am loathe to blame our list managers when it is a matter of an interstate player.

I get your point and I'd be with you if he was from Perth but he is from Broome (maybe he moved to Perth when he was younger?). But Perth to Broome is like Melbourne to Cairns so I would imagine a move is more about tenure, financial security and perceived opportunity

 

[TommyD13]

If Hamling leaves - I wonder if that'll give us the chance to potentially keep Stevens with a better offer? Ideally would rather keep Hrovat but he seems gone for opportunities.

probably not, just mean we will take an extra draft selection or bring in a new KPD. Hrovat and Stevens likely to nominate preffered destinations in the next couple of days

 

[Dogsman16]

If Hamling leaves - I wonder if that'll give us the chance to potentially keep Stevens with a better offer? Ideally would rather keep Hrovat but he seems gone for opportunities.

I only wanted to keep one of Jong, Stevens, Hrovat, Honeychurch.

So I'd let stevens go now. Mainly because Jong re-signed.

 

[glenashley]

At the point where I don't want Stevens regardless. Was a big fan but he's already been overtaken by Dunkley.

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk

 

[Doggy]

He's really good mates with Kersten, and Perth is a lovely place to live. I reckon the draw of home is more important now he has achieved glory. I am loathe to blame our list managers when it is a matter of an interstate player.

"Go home" factor isn't big here.. he is from Broome not Perth or Fremantle.. it's all about the $$

 

[Boristown]

Yep, Campbell signing is 'moronic' considering Roughead and Boyd are both super durable and not prone to injury.

Except for the post season hip surgery Roughead has just had and the shoulder surgery Boyd is booked in for.

Oh, wait...

 

[Big Wal]

No doubt keeping Hamling was preferable to Jong

But the cost of retaining Hamling and the flow on cap effects as Fletch, Adams and Cordy see Hamling probably more than double their wage shouldn't be underestimated.

Hamling just isn't good enough to warrant that risk IMO.

Meanwhile Clay and others see Jong taking relative unders to stay.

I don't have a problem with how we are going about it. Although I wish Jong was gone instead Hamling.

If, like it has been reported we have paid under the salary cap for the last 2 seasons, then there is zero reasons why we could not match or come close to matching the offer from Freo even with Jong staying as we can go over. If Hammers is to leave, then it looks like it is entirely his choosing and not due to the offer from our club. Hate to see him go as he is one of the chosen 22, but home and family is important.

 

[Zephiisdaman]

And how many of the players who played in the GF were from aggressive trades other than T. Boyd?

The media and supporters get sucked in to the trade period, yet reality is a very small percentage of player trades make a significant difference to success. The Hawks traded little for Lake and Frawley was a free agent. Other than Burgoyne their dynasty was built. Other than Ottens Geelong's Dynasty was built. Surprisingly as was Sydneys.

Our list has a large upside. Adams, Collins and Cordy all can replace Hamling if he goes. We will still trade some depth then regenerate with quality drafting, which not surprisingly got us the flag this year.

Gunston, McEvoy, Ceglar, Hale,

 

[Dogsman16]

Yep, Campbell signing is 'moronic' considering Roughead and Boyd are both super durable and not prone to injury.

Except for the post season hip surgery Roughead has just had and the shoulder surgery Boyd is booked in for.

Oh, wait...

Exactly right.

Campbell is an essential player IMO. Could easily end up playing 15+ games through injury alone.

 

[Golden_6]

This isn't just Jong

Resigning Campbell is moronic if we are bringing Cloke in. He will now be 5th in line.

So to keep a 3rd string average at best ruckman an lose a Kpb makes no sense to me.

And Jong for a 2nd rounder was a no brainer.

To me Campbell is clearly second in line. If either Roughy or Boyd get injured, he's in.

 

[TommyD13]

To me Campbell is clearly second in line. If either Roughy or Boyd get injured, he's in.

definetly

 

[Turtle3]

The list management team will not be looking at the cost of Hamling or others of his type in isolation - they will be looking at what impact matching offers for these players will have on our ability to extend all the guns we have coming out of contract at the end of 18 / 19. That's the fine line they need to balance off and this is all impacted by decisions made now.

 

[Super Hans]

Hope we're having a chat to Sam Mitchell's management. Three year deal going into coaching would give us a huge boost.

 

[Dogsman16]

Hope we're having a chat to Sam Mitchell's management. Three year deal going into coaching would give us a huge boost.

Think his family wanted to move to Perth though for some time.
I'd certainly enquire though.

 

[Royale]

I think MD has a point.

We seem to have re-contracted Jong at a good price - that's fine. I understand why it was done and am happy to have him on the list.

However it now seems that we will lose Hamling for financial reasons.

Whether you agree that $400k+ is too much or not, the question becomes whether moving Jong on would have put us in a position to up our offer to Hamling.

It's hard to know one way or the other - but on the surface, it appears that moving Jong for a second round selection would have cleared the cap space necessary to perhaps offer Hamling slightly more. Maybe not match their offer - but raise ours without compromising our list strategy.

As far as I see it, Hamling was a more crucial retention than Jong and I think it's fair to ask these questions. It's impossible to know the answer from the outside looking in, though.

Disagree. Our midfield, indeed our strategy masks the deficiencies in our backline. There's a reason why we are able to continually go in undersized vs other teams. Hamling has done some nice things, and I would hate to see him go. But the fact of the matter is when our midfield is running at full tilt, we completely strangle opposition ball going inside our defensive 50's. Or at least the ball that go in are chaos balls. Pressure kicks and oft high or wayward. Hamling has done some nice jobs 1 on 1 and has shown he can take a grab. But our backline has been a rotating door through injury and form with only Moz the mainstay Key Position player all year I dont see Hamling as more crucial than Jong. Particularly since we are likely to lose Stevens and Hrovat now.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that Jong (at his best) would have been harder to replace than Hammer (at his best)?

We have Adams set to come back, Collins developing nicely and Cordy that can swing back in a pinch. We dont have any other tall, strong speedy mids that are good overhead. Jong's upside is huge.

I think your second line is bending the truth a little. Collins was ok this year but his body of work was hardly enough to proclaim him as the answer in the future. He is a young key defender who could become a player, but might not. There isn't enough to suggest that either answer is correct at this point. Adams' early season form was genuinely extraordinary but his output dropped from week to week in my view - I have him in our best side for next year at this stage, but time will tell whether that drop was fatigue or something else. Let's also remember that lingering navicular injuries have ended careers. I have great confidence in Cordy but we have yet to see any of him as a #1/2 key defender at AFL level.

The above may seem overly negative but I'm simply countering your glowing assessment of our key defensive stocks in 2017 and beyond. I think a key defender that is capable of the performances we saw in three out of four finals is extremely hard to replace - and when you're naming relative unknown quantities as the solution it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.