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


