List Mgmt. Dan Hannebery - 5 year deal & Pick 28 to St.Kilda for Pick 39 & 2019 2nd Round Pick

[Joffaboy]

So I am reading from many 'I am so much more comfortable attracting C grade players like Logan Austinn than having a crack at a bloke who was A grade'.

Who would have thought footballers get injured.
Hannebery opened the door.

Would we have had 5 first 22 players nominate us if the club wasn't heading in the right direction? Was he the only reason? Nope, we had money, we had opportunity, we had a new coach and a good solid admin.
If it doesn't work and Hanners is finished, that is disappointing, but that is one poor trade.
I will concentrate on the Jack Steele's and the 5 from last year and what will surely come this trade period.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Beggers can't be choosers.
NO ONE wanted to come to stkilda (seaford).
If Dan is a small piece in righting the ship, then that's all he needs to be.
The SC burden is almost irrelevant when taken in context, and we'll have a good clean out in the next 2 years to afford some more talent.
It's a bloody shame his hammies are stuffed, but the team just pulled off 2 of the best wins we've had in years without him.

Time to blood some fresh talent.
No looking back and moaning about what could have been.

The salary cap is irrelevant. You have to spend it - we spent it on getting a quality player which helped us get access to other players. Prefer that than ending up having to overpay GOP's simply to meet our SC obligations.

 

[Diehard Saint]

The salary cap is irrelevant. You have to spend it - we spent it on getting a quality player which helped us get access to other players. Prefer that than ending up having to overpay GOP's simply to meet our SC obligations.

Yep.
I was a bit iffy about getting a broken-down Hanners with a reputation for enjoying the nightlife, so to speak.

But, with the leadership he has brought to the club, added to the recruits that more than likely were attracted to the club because of him, and getting him in with money we had to spend anyway, I think he’s paid his way.

Even if he doesn’t play a lot more (and I’m not writing him off for next season just yet) we could do a whole lot worse than use him as a coach while we are still paying him for the next few years.

 

[kernelT]

The fact we got Dan, enable us to entice others to come
Jones/Butler/howard/ryder etc etc etc
We may have paid over the odds for him at the moment
but the investment will pay dividends ,
already membership record numbers /i am sure sponsors are up as well

Who else was prepared to come,??
NO A, B C graders

Using the word FACT doesn’t make an opinion a fact.

I haven’t heard or read any of those players mention that Hannebery was a factor in them choosing to come to us.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Using the word FACT doesn’t make an opinion a fact.

I haven’t heard or read any of those players mention that Hannebery was a factor in them choosing to come to us.

Dan coming to us was in fact a fact.
The rest is clearly opinion.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

10 games in the first 2 seasons from a big name, big money recruit is a disaster. Especially considering that these were the last years of his twenties. If he can't get on the park as a 28/29 year old it seems unlikely that the next 3 years are going to be fruitful. May well be a great leader and good for locker room morale but this has been a very bad result thus far. Fingers crossed his contract was heavily front-loaded

He’s nowhere near a disaster.

Bryce Gibbs for 2 1st rounders??? Disaster

We basically gave up Tom Hickey for Hanners, which barely rates on the meh scale let alone being a disaster.

Dan has cost us some coin that we had to spend anyway & given us veteran leadership that we desperately need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mad-saint-guy]

He’s nowhere near a disaster.

Bryce Gibbs for 2 1st rounders??? Disaster

We basically gave up Tom Hickey for Hanners, which barely rates on the meh scale let alone being a disaster.

Dan has cost us some coin that we had to spend anyway & given us veteran leadership that we desperately need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really hoping he's not costing us big coin while he's injured for the next 3 years. The likes of Billings, Steele, King, Clark, Coffield etc will all be expecting big raises in the coming years, and we're still a couple of pieces shy of a 22 that is a genuine contender IMO. Need a star inside mid and a quality small forward.

 

[Premium]

Really hoping he's not costing us big coin while he's injured for the next 3 years. The likes of Billings, Steele, King, Clark, Coffield etc will all be expecting big raises in the coming years, and we're still a couple of pieces shy of a 22 that is a genuine contender IMO. Need a star inside mid and a quality small forward.

He is contracted for 5 but he has to play x amount of games to make the 5th year which I doubt he will get.

Anyway talking about salary cap we now have a management that actually has a plan and system which something I wish we had in the past.

Head of list management is James Gallagher who was at Macquarie Bank, where he performed the role of Victoria Head of Professional Services Banking.
So we now have a accountant in charge of list management who has played AFL football with the Crows (38games) and played well over 200 games with Norwood where he won there fairest and best a couple years in a row.

So every contract would be over looked with management and laid in place for the big picture of keeping all the players we require.
Having elite management is something we can now boast having a CEO who is a Bachelor of Law (Honours) and a Master of Business Administration and runs SEEK which employs 1,000 people in Australia and over 10,000 people around the world.

Also not to be forgotten the general manager of football at the St Kilda Football Club / Simon Lethlean was a commercial solicitor who had worked for the AFL from 2004 where he was involved in the legal department, broadcasting, fixturing, and game development. As general manager of game development at the league he was involved in the creation of the AFL Women's league, and oversaw its inaugural season.
Lethlean would replace outgoing football operations manager Mark Evans , however it was short lived because It emerged that Lethlean had been involved in an extra-marital relationship with a younger female staff member from the AFL's New South Wales office.

So he resigned from his position and lucky for we picked up the once highly touted future CEO of the AFL who knows everything about operations.

Basically I would say we no are in very safe hands and the only way to go now is up , no doubt he would know everything going on in the AFL and would have a template on how the team should be set up contract wise , also he has brought some of the best football managers to the club.
Rath , Ratten , Roughead , Lade , Brereton , Slater - amazing most of them have come from Hawthorn where he played 2nds for - most probably how we got hold of Hill as well.

 

[Ricmel]

If it doesn't work and Hanners is finished, that is disappointing, but that is one poor trade.

Poor trades/recruiting happens. We all know that. What is frustrating is that before the Hannebury trade and likewise the McCartin draft, so many were sounding the warning bells or advocating a different route. Everyone in the AFL knew Hannebury was 50/50 proposition in terms of making it through a season. Recruit him sure. Give him 5 years at $800k per year - in the corporate world the board would be investigated for inking that kind of deal.

 

[BrutThough]

Poor trades/recruiting happens. We all know that. What is frustrating is that before the Hannebury trade and likewise the McCartin draft, so many were sounding the warning bells or advocating a different route. Everyone in the AFL knew Hannebury was 50/50 proposition in terms of making it through a season. Recruit him sure. Give him 5 years at $800k per year - in the corporate world the board would be investigated for inking that kind of deal.

The Herald Sun list over the weekend showed Hanners is on between 600-650k this year which is completely fair for a player of his standing within the game.

Remember, part of the reason we got him so cheaply trade wise was because we agreed to take over his current contract. And we had the money that we would lose whether we spent it or not, so we just spent it because it was taken away.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Really hoping he's not costing us big coin while he's injured for the next 3 years. The likes of Billings, Steele, King, Clark, Coffield etc will all be expecting big raises in the coming years, and we're still a couple of pieces shy of a 22 that is a genuine contender IMO. Need a star inside mid and a quality small forward.

Hardly big coin.

He was contracted till 2021 with the Swans on a definite $800k so getting extra years would have been the key for him especially given the injury issues.

So I can't see that we will have paid more than $800k for years 1 & 2, years 3 & 4 will have a lower base (say $500k) with bonuses for games played and year 5 is simply an option ATM so not worth worrying about $'s wise

We will have front loaded the first 2 years simply because we had shedloads of spare money - don't forget we had so much money we were paying out contracts (McCartin, Young) and payed part of Stuv's salary to get him to Geelong.

So in the worst case scenario (which see's him never playing again) I reckon we'd be up for about $300 - 400K a year for the next two years.

 

[Ricmel]

The Herald Sun list over the weekend showed Hanners is on between 600-650k this year which is completely fair for a player of his standing within the game.

Remember, part of the reason we got him so cheaply trade wise was because we agreed to take over his current contract. And we had the money that we would lose whether we spent it or not, so we just spent it because it was taken away.

Any way you cut it and almost whatever he is being paid, it is very hard to see the sense of giving him a 5 year contract. You have to remember, some were doubting he would ever play again at the Swans. That may have been an extreme view but the chance of him getting through 5 years was just about zero.

So I will declare that at the time I posted that he wasn't a player we needed and I am not having an "I told you so moment". I thought if he was cheap and the deal was well structured he was worth a shot. A bit like Freeman. It is just really hard to comprehend how he came to be given 5 years.

And this "we just spent it or it was taken away"....how does that work? Where does the 650k a year come from and where would it have gone had we not spent it on Hannebury? Does it mean that in 2021 we would have had $650k less to spend?

 

[Masquerade]

I think we should state the facts of the Hannebery deal:

1. Had injury issues at the Swans, but the Saints assured us they had done due diligence and could get him right. All evidence so far says that has not happened, considering they suddenly needed to ‘rebuild’ him few weeks into his first year. Should have 2 years left in his deal.

2. Signed a 4 year deal with a trigger clause for 1 more year. Reportedly worth around 800k per year but the HS has reported he’s on about 600k per year. Seems like deal was front-ended.

3. Not in leadership group this year. Was on it last year but removed because his rehab session was at the same time as leadership group meetings (what?)

4. Lethlean has some personal connections with the Hannebery family that seems to have played a factor in him joining. Could be completely above board, up to you guys on the optics of the deal.*

5. We had a lot of salary cap at the time. We may not have as much anymore based on Lethlean’s comments last year but seemingly still in an ok position.

Then people have added some parts to this, that isn’t necessarily supported:

1. Hanneberry attracted the 5 players to the club. No real proof of this but it has become some of sort of legend here. Happy to move this up to the facts section if there is proof.

2. He has helped boost leadership. Again no real proof but the club tends to put up propaganda articles everytime he’s injured saying what an amazing leader he is. Seems odd to me based on point 3 above but again I suppose you can form your own judgment.

I think based on the above it’s clear why people are upset with the Hanneberry deal. Most of them criticizing the deal are stating facts, while those defending it are sprouting hearsay.

You are definitely allowed to defend the club but to say people who are frustrated by this deal are wrong is rubbish.

* - I personally think it’s probably okay but I can see why people could have an issue with this, considering Dan’s output so far

 

[pebblesofsand]

Any way you cut it and almost whatever he is being paid, it is very hard to see the sense of giving him a 5 year contract. You have to remember, some were doubting he would ever play again at the Swans. That may hav been an extreme view but the chance of him getting through 5 years was just about zero.

So I will declare that at the time I posted that he wasn't a player we needed and I am not having an "I told you so moment". I thought if he was cheap and the deal was well structured he was worth a shot. A bit like Freeman. It is just really hard to comprehend how he came to be given 5 years.

Well its actually its easy - he only has 4 year contract (unless he playing most games). The first two years were front loaded are now done and dusted and have had ZERO impact on our ability to attract players - and the next two years he will be at substantially lower rates.

If he gets the 5th year - that's actually great for the club because that means he's fit and playing most weeks.

 

[Ricmel]

Well its actually its easy -

Sorry, what is actually easy?

 

[Saintbloke]

I think we should state the facts of the Hannebery deal:

1. Had injury issues at the Swans, but the Saints assured us they had done due diligence and could get him right. All evidence so far says that has not happened, considering they suddenly needed to ‘rebuild’ him few weeks into his first year. Should have 2 years left in his deal.

2. Signed a 4 year deal with a trigger clause for 1 more year. Reportedly worth around 800k per year but the HS has reported he’s on about 600k per year. Seems like deal was front-ended.

3. Not in leadership group this year. Was on it last year but removed because his rehab session was at the same time as leadership group meetings (what?)

4. Lethlean has some personal connections with the Hannebery family that seems to have played a factor in him joining. Could be completely above board, up to you guys on the optics of the deal.*

5. We had a lot of salary cap at the time. We may not have as much anymore based on Lethlean’s comments last year but seemingly still in an ok position.

Then people have added some parts to this, that isn’t necessarily supported:

1. Hanneberry attracted the 5 players to the club. No real proof of this but it has become some of sort of legend here. Happy to move this up to the facts section if there is proof.

2. He has helped boost leadership. Again no real proof but the club tends to put up propaganda articles everyone he’s injured saying what an amazing leader he is. Seems odd to me based on point 3 above but again I suppose you can form your own judgment.

I think based on the above it’s clear why people are upset with the Hanneberry deal. Most of them criticizing the deal are stating facts, while those defending it are sprouting hearsay.

You are definitely allowed to defend the club but to say people who are frustrated by this deal are wrong is rubbish.

* - I personally think it’s probably okay but I can see why people could have an issue with this, considering Dan’s output so far

Another case of having a highly paid player sitting in the stands for the season. Hanners was never going to see out a full season, otherwise he would still be at the Swans, or other clubs would have put up big money chasing him. All efforts should have been put into developing young midfielders, so now we're a year behind with that, and need to get games into Byrnes and Bytel. The Hanners move is a fail.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Another case of having a highly paid player sitting in the stands for the season. Hanners was never going to see out a full season, otherwise he would still be at the Swans, or other clubs would have put up big money chasing him. All efforts should have been put into developing young midfielders, so now we're a year behind with that, and need to get games into Byrnes and Bytel. The Hanners move is a fail.

Bullshit.
Hanneberry has played a total 5 games per season for the Saints.
How has he stopped any effort going into developing young midfielders.

Bytel : Not available in 2019. Not pushing for selection earlier in 2020.
Phillips : Has played 11 games , his 2019 was worse than his 2018.
Langlands : got some games in 2019.

That's all the "young midfielders" we have that were there in 2019 season.

 

[kernelT]

I think we should state the facts of the Hannebery deal:

1. Had injury issues at the Swans, but the Saints assured us they had done due diligence and could get him right. All evidence so far says that has not happened, considering they suddenly needed to ‘rebuild’ him few weeks into his first year. Should have 2 years left in his deal.

2. Signed a 4 year deal with a trigger clause for 1 more year. Reportedly worth around 800k per year but the HS has reported he’s on about 600k per year. Seems like deal was front-ended.

3. Not in leadership group this year. Was on it last year but removed because his rehab session was at the same time as leadership group meetings (what?)

4. Lethlean has some personal connections with the Hannebery family that seems to have played a factor in him joining. Could be completely above board, up to you guys on the optics of the deal.*

5. We had a lot of salary cap at the time. We may not have as much anymore based on Lethlean’s comments last year but seemingly still in an ok position.

Then people have added some parts to this, that isn’t necessarily supported:

1. Hanneberry attracted the 5 players to the club. No real proof of this but it has become some of sort of legend here. Happy to move this up to the facts section if there is proof.

2. He has helped boost leadership. Again no real proof but the club tends to put up propaganda articles everyone he’s injured saying what an amazing leader he is. Seems odd to me based on point 3 above but again I suppose you can form your own judgment.

I think based on the above it’s clear why people are upset with the Hanneberry deal. Most of them criticizing the deal are stating facts, while those defending it are sprouting hearsay.

You are definitely allowed to defend the club but to say people who are frustrated by this deal are wrong is rubbish.

* - I personally think it’s probably okay but I can see why people could have an issue with this, considering Dan’s output so far

You nailed it, a quick read through this thread from the beginning and it's pretty clear that a lot of people thought that giving a long term, multi-million dollar deal for a player who was already clearly cooked was a bad move.

If people want to blue sky about a guy taking home one of the biggest salaries at the club to rehab for 5 years, go for it. It seemed like a stupid trade at the time and is proving as much two years on.

I would rather give Geary 3-4 million extra than a giant retirement fund for a washed up Sydney player.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Poor trades/recruiting happens. We all know that. What is frustrating is that before the Hannebury trade and likewise the McCartin draft, so many were sounding the warning bells or advocating a different route. Everyone in the AFL knew Hannebury was 50/50 proposition in terms of making it through a season. Recruit him sure. Give him 5 years at $800k per year - in the corporate world the board would be investigated for inking that kind of deal.

There's a little bit of re-writing history here. Hanners had barely missed a game for the Swans up until the 2018 season. He still played 15 games in 2018 so I don't know how anyone can state that he was a coin toss to get through a year.

As many others have also stated, the 5th year is an optional based on games played. The $800k seems to be a bit of a media guestimate too.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

You nailed it, a quick read through this thread from the beginning and it's pretty clear that a lot of people thought that giving a long term, multi-million dollar deal for a player who was already clearly cooked was a bad move.

If people want to blue sky about a guy taking home one of the biggest salaries at the club to rehab for 5 years, go for it. It seemed like a stupid trade at the time and is proving as much two years on.

I would rather give Geary 3-4 million extra than a giant retirement fund for a washed up Sydney player.

How was a bloke who played 15 games the season before deemed to be 'cooked'?

 

[jwikked]

I’d rather have Hanners on the books on decent money than fill up the salary cap by overpaying blokes like Newnes, Young and Hickey.
If Hanners can give our younger guys a helping hand in what they need to do every week to get the most out of their careers he is worth every cent.
If he influences Max King to spend more time on post match recovery, that is immeasurable. It’s all what if’s, but there is still a massive upside to Hannebery that we just didn’t have 3 years ago.

Hopefully he’s showing the future leaders of the club that it’s okay to be vocal and to call out guys who aren’t doing the right thing.

 

[CaptainRisky]

I think we should state the facts of the Hannebery deal:

1. Had injury issues at the Swans, but the Saints assured us they had done due diligence and could get him right. All evidence so far says that has not happened, considering they suddenly needed to ‘rebuild’ him few weeks into his first year. Should have 2 years left in his deal.

2. Signed a 4 year deal with a trigger clause for 1 more year. Reportedly worth around 800k per year but the HS has reported he’s on about 600k per year. Seems like deal was front-ended.

3. Not in leadership group this year. Was on it last year but removed because his rehab session was at the same time as leadership group meetings (what?)

4. Lethlean has some personal connections with the Hannebery family that seems to have played a factor in him joining. Could be completely above board, up to you guys on the optics of the deal.*

5. We had a lot of salary cap at the time. We may not have as much anymore based on Lethlean’s comments last year but seemingly still in an ok position.

Then people have added some parts to this, that isn’t necessarily supported:

1. Hanneberry attracted the 5 players to the club. No real proof of this but it has become some of sort of legend here. Happy to move this up to the facts section if there is proof.

2. He has helped boost leadership. Again no real proof but the club tends to put up propaganda articles everyone he’s injured saying what an amazing leader he is. Seems odd to me based on point 3 above but again I suppose you can form your own judgment.

I think based on the above it’s clear why people are upset with the Hanneberry deal. Most of them criticizing the deal are stating facts, while those defending it are sprouting hearsay.

You are definitely allowed to defend the club but to say people who are frustrated by this deal are wrong is rubbish.

* - I personally think it’s probably okay but I can see why people could have an issue with this, considering Dan’s output so far

Love the highlighted bits , so true

 

[puppy_dog7]

So I am reading from many 'I am so much more comfortable attracting C grade players like Logan Austinn than having a crack at a bloke who was A grade'.

Who would have thought footballers get injured.
Hannebery opened the door.

Would we have had 5 first 22 players nominate us if the club wasn't heading in the right direction? Was he the only reason? Nope, we had money, we had opportunity, we had a new coach and a good solid admin.
If it doesn't work and Hanners is finished, that is disappointing, but that is one poor trade.
I will concentrate on the Jack Steele's and the 5 from last year and what will surely come this trade period.

Well is it even a poor trade? In terms of money you could say yes but in terms of picks we didnt give up much.
I'd say his experience, knowledge and professionalism has helped our side heaps. Steeley and gresh are already performing better in the midfield, which could be in part because of his influence. If the trade doesnt work out in terms oh Hanners breaking down then im completely fine with that. We had to pay someone the money anyway, and there weren't many other players of his quality wanting to come to the club.

 

[Ricmel]

There's a little bit of re-writing history here. Hanners had barely missed a game for the Swans up until the 2018 season. He still played 15 games in 2018 so I don't know how anyone can state that he was a coin toss to get through a year.

2012 - 16 are regarded as his best years - average 23/24/25 disposals. Started to decline in his impact on game sin 2017. By 2018 he was down to average 17 disposals per game, missed 8 games in the year with soft tissue injuries, industry vibe was he was cooked. Read any opinion commentary on the Hannebury trade at the the time and the main discussion point is around his ability to get his body back to AFL standard. Most saying it was going to be difficult.

That is not re-writing history - go back and read the Hannebury thread in BF, it is all about body, body, body. And that is not a guy you give a 5 year deal to.

 

[CaptainRisky]

There's a little bit of re-writing history here. Hanners had barely missed a game for the Swans up until the 2018 season. He still played 15 games in 2018 so I don't know how anyone can state that he was a coin toss to get through a year.

As many others have also stated, the 5th year is an optional based on games played. The $800k seems to be a bit of a media guestimate too.

He did also drop off the cliff in 2018 with his disposals , its when the body had given up on him