List Mgmt. 2016 Trade and Free Agency Targets Inner Sanctum Thread. Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

aussierulesrules

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Posts
26,980
Likes
45,796
Location
Heaven. I mean Victoria.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Woah woah ARR.... i dont feel that passionetly about it to argue it as strongly as you and like i said i havent seen him play much/paid attention to him
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!

Im not saying kickings not important but he has to have other attributes to go with it. Murdoch is a great kick but if he cant find the pill or fill a role whats the point
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.

I just feel its more of the same with him with no real WOW factor outside of what he will be paid and what it will cost

The cost benefit is missing for me and it feels like we have other younger players developing that will reach his level
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.

The big money should be reserved for match winning players and i feel hartlett isnt that. If he is, why is port offloading a player that doesnt wanna leave
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:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Diehard Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
6,427
Likes
19,705
Location
Melbourne
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.
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.
In addition to your good argument, the fact that Richo would have inside knowledge of him... what he is capable of, what type of person he is and whether he would benefit our team, would be good enough for me.
 

aussierulesrules

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Posts
26,980
Likes
45,796
Location
Heaven. I mean Victoria.
AFL Club
St Kilda
In addition to your good argument, the fact that Richo would have inside knowledge of him... what he is capable of, what type of person he is and whether he would benefit our team, would be good enough for me.
Yep, we're not going to get him unless Bains and co are very comfortable with what we're giving up for him as far as salary and a trade goes and also unless Richo is very comfortable with getting him in from a playing perspective, so if he's ticked all those boxes I'll be very happy to have him on board. No-where near as much as I would be if we landed a Fyfe/Shiel/Dusty/Kelly type, but happy nonetheless- as long as we don't get him for pick 10!
 

austinnn

Veteran GOP
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
4,435
Likes
12,700
Location
France
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Bristol City FC
Didn't Josh P Kennedy start off at Hawthorn? Isn't he the son and grandson of Hawks legends?

I bet they could do with him now! What happened, how did he end up at Sydney?
 

Keg on legs

Premium Gold
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Posts
13,571
Likes
44,026
Location
The beer fridge
AFL Club
St Kilda
He is going to the hawks tho
But seriously, how the hell are the Hawks going to be able to get both him and JOM I wonder? Both worth first rounders at least. And it's not like the Hawks have a low first either so that devalues it somewhat

I know they're experts at it but still, not gonna be easy
 

Sunnyjim

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Posts
375
Likes
696
AFL Club
St Kilda
But seriously, how the hell are the Hawks going to be able to get both him and JOM I wonder? Both worth first rounders at least. And it's not like the Hawks have a low first either so that devalues it somewhat

I know they're experts at it but still, not gonna be easy
True but even if the hawks don't get him I doubt we would be his second choice.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Posts
2,941
Likes
1,985
Location
Vermont
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Celtic, Glasgow Warriors, Wolves
Traded him and mcglynn for like pick 25 from memory? I think it was due to salary cap at the time.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
39, 46 and 70.

Damn good trading that year.

Jolly for 14 and 46. Hall got them 47. Upgraded that to 39 and got Seaby for Buchanon and sliding 22 to 28, then sent 28 to Geelong for Mumford. Entered the draft with 8, 14, 38 and 55.
 

Smoke_Me_AKipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
5,703
Likes
8,713
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Tottenham; Philadelphia Eagles
I'd love Titch but several folks have said either Hawks or he'll stay at Sydney. Shame as would have him at the Saints - pick 10 without thinking and run!!
 

Hayes4PM

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Posts
9,287
Likes
16,598
AFL Club
St Kilda
Kennedy's 2nd quarter was absolutely huge, felt like I was watching Lenny again. The Dogs were just fearless and completely committing and eventually Sydney fell away. Kennedy, Picken, Boyd, Hamling, Mitchell all very impressive today.
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
2,260
Likes
5,917
AFL Club
St Kilda
Reckon today shows just how important outside spread and pace is. All day Sydney looked slow and by the fourth quarter when they got tired the dogs were the only team able to make structured plays using their run. Swans were hardly able to link two consecutive kicks together without a 'chaos ball' that was just kicked to space with no player there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom