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

[pebblesofsand]

I suppose instead of getting Hanners we could have traded our 2019 first round selection (Max King) to get someone like Jared Polec or Chad Wingard on $800k a year because they were about the next best players available in the 2018 trade period.

 

[Joffaboy]

Which is why it's maxed out now. If you took Hanners $800,000 per year out you could use it on Josh Kelly or another younger less injured player.

If we had not used it, we would have lost it.

This is not hard to understand.

People say we should have got a high profile player who can get on the park.

1) no player is guaranteed to get on the park.
2) which player did we miss out on?

It really doesn't work that way.

 

[Joffaboy]

You’re right.
And I bet we’ll look a lot more attractive to anyone we are chasing if we end the season the way we are heading now than we would have a couple of years ago.

When we had cho, no decent assistants (Ratts hadn't come on board yet) and an ordinary admin just moved back to Moorabbin we managed the coup of the trade period in Logan Austinn.

Back home, Ratts on board, we get Hanners over to the club.

Last year, we have Ratts as new coach a raft of assistants including Roughy and Lade and Slater, and a strong admin, we get everyone nominating us.

Money wasn't the issue, direction of the club and the coaching was. We weren't getting amyone until we changed that.

 

[Diehard Saint]

When we had cho, no decent assistants (Ratts hadn't come on board yet) and an ordinary admin just moved back to Moorabbin we managed the coup of the trade period in Logan Austinn.

Back home, Ratts on board, we get Hanners over to the club.

Last year, we have Ratts as new coach a raft of assistants including Roughy and Lade and Slater, and a strong admin, we get everyone nominating us.

Money wasn't the issue, direction of the club and the coaching was. We weren't getting amyone until we changed that.

Exactly!

( Love the “coup of the draft period” bit.)
In those good ol’ days we were just excited that someone - anyone - nominated our club

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Oh his off field leadership is great. We have coaches & leadership consultants that fill that role.

He’s been coaching the boys during injuries? Yea nah we have coaches to fill those roles.

It it wasn’t for Hanneberry we wouldn’t have got Hill & the other recruits? Nothing to do with offering Hill 800k x 5 years. Sack Gags, Dans our man.

He’s employed to play football something which he’s struggled with.

Exactly. We essentially have a very expensive assistant coach who takes up a list spot and a big chunk of cap space

 

[mad-saint-guy]

I suppose instead of getting Hanners we could have traded our 2019 first round selection (Max King) to get someone like Jared Polec or Chad Wingard on $800k a year because they were about the next best players available in the 2018 trade period.

I'd have targeted Dahlhaus as a free agent. Would have been happy to get Will Setterfield or Jack Scrimshaw who were both going cheap at GWS. Cost very little in trades and some of that Hanners money could have enticed them to St Kilda.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

I'd have targeted Dahlhaus as a free agent. Would have been happy to get Will Setterfield or Jack Scrimshaw who were both going cheap at GWS. Cost very little in trades and some of that Hanners money could have enticed them to St Kilda.

Would take Hanners over all 3, easily

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Would take Hanners over all 3, easily

I'd take the guys who can get on the park. Dahlhaus doesn't really have a prominent role at Geelong (behind too many star mid/forwards), but when played as an inside mid averages 25-26 touches and just under a goal a game. Setterfield is a former pick 5, 22 year old 192cm mid who is just starting to put some good form together. Scrimshaw went at pick 7, 193cm, is still 21 and developing. Dahlhaus and Setterfield would have been my preference. Hanners is 29 and cooked

 

[Dard Ball Get]

I'd take the guys who can get on the park. Dahlhaus doesn't really have a prominent role at Geelong (behind too many star mid/forwards), but when played as an inside mid averages 25-26 touches and just under a goal a game. Setterfield is a former pick 5, 22 year old 192cm mid who is just starting to put some good form together. Scrimshaw went at pick 7, 193cm, is still 21 and developing. Dahlhaus and Setterfield would have been my preference. Hanners is 29 and cooked

Scrimshaw is * all. Setterfield we already had a glut of, Dahlhouse was never going anywhere but Geelong

 

[PostmanBish]

If we had so much money spare then I don't know why we didn't throw it a player who can get on the ground.

I think the number of monster deals we offered in previous years without getting so much as a sniff of anyone decent, spoke volumes about the appeal of being recruited by St Kilda.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Plus dalhaus is a complete knob by all accounts

Kelly didnt want to come
Dusty said no
Shiel said no
Fyfe said no

Its cost us nothing
Tbh im more pissed we had to pay some of stuvs wage

Was he going to get on the park?
Prob not and we could all see it.
Has it stopped us getting somwone of decent calibre?
No, they didnt want to come as money isnt everything.

Id take the knowledge and coaching nous of hanners and ten games in 2 years over settlefield ffs

 

[gringo2011]

If we had not used it, we would have lost it.

This is not hard to understand.

People say we should have got a high profile player who can get on the park.

1) no player is guaranteed to get on the park.
2) which player did we miss out on?

It really doesn't work that way.

I get the theory, but it hasn't worked out. I have no problem with having a go but you hope we learned something form it. Hopefully we front loaded the contract so that he doesn't cost us getting hold of top talent. Stewie said we don't have money to chase a big FA or contracted player, to me that's an indictment on the deal. You really can't say we missed any player because you would have to actually know what negotiations were going on and with who. No player is guaranteed to get on the park but I think most of us knew he was higher risk than a lot of players in his pay range.

I don't really care than much now that we are actually getting some rewards on field and hopefully the players that come in next want to be part of something and not after a retirement fund. Saying it was a good idea is disingenuous and saying it was an unmitigated disaster is over the top hyperbole. It is what it is and we live with it. Hopefully we can use him like Daniel Wells.

 

[goodie23]

Do you think a… Gaff/Crouch/Kelly type would be more likely to come if we offer up 900k per season or 1.5 million per season?

I think their managers probably would've viewed that as lipstick on a pig. During that time it was almost take who we could get.

 

[PostmanBish]

I get the theory, but it hasn't worked out. I have no problem with having a go but you hope we learned something form it. Hopefully we front loaded the contract so that he doesn't cost us getting hold of top talent. Stewie said we don't have money to chase a big FA or contracted player, to me that's an indictment on the deal. You really can't say we missed any player because you would have to actually know what negotiations were going on and with who. No player is guaranteed to get on the park but I think most of us knew he was higher risk than a lot of players in his pay range.

I don't really care than much now that we are actually getting some rewards on field and hopefully the players that come in next want to be part of something and not after a retirement fund. Saying it was a good idea is disingenuous and saying it was an unmitigated disaster is over the top hyperbole. It is what it is and we live with it. Hopefully we can use him like Daniel Wells.

Would be nice if we could get him on the park for 10 straight games ... Round 17-22, plus a massive finals run, next season.

Hopefully this surgery, plus a full recovery, with no expectation of trying to get back on the ground this year, will finally get him right, because if it does, he's definitely still got some footy left in him.

It's a shame, because I do think he's helped a lot of the youngsters to grow as people and footballers (and no doubt mentored on skills extensively), but without getting on the ground consistently, he'll have to be judged as a "bust".

 

[kernelT]

I think their managers probably would've viewed that as lipstick on a pig. During that time it was almost take who we could get.

I'm talking about in the next two years… we have a permanent rehabber soaking up around 600k that could be used to bring in a player or two.

 

[kernelT]

I'd love us to get heeennnnneyyyyyy.

He'd come at a discount you would think given his lacklustre recent form and now injury, but is young and has shown that his best is truly A+ elite.

I really reckon he has been played out of position at sydney because parker and kennedy get the inside roles.

He would be a massive weapon as a fulltime inside mid which is where we could play him.

I'm hearing Brett Kirk is looking to come out of retirement… highy regarded in AFL circles, trains the hosue down, oozes leadership and needs a little financial top-up.

WE CAN REBUILD HIM.

 

[jwikked]

I'm hearing Brett Kirk is looking to come out of retirement… highy regarded in AFL circles, trains the hosue down, oozes leadership and needs a little financial top-up.

WE CAN REBUILD HIM.

I think we can go one better:

 

[StCicatriz]

You should listen to your 3 year old more often.

Quit being biased & look at things objectively. This trade hasn’t worked out & won’t likely improve over the next 2-3 years. Same with drafting Paddy. Own it & move on.

I’m not upset, just stating facts based on the information available. As I said earlier, the contrary is spin.

Oh his off field leadership is great. We have coaches & leadership consultants that fill that role.

He’s been coaching the boys during injuries? Yea nah we have coaches to fill those roles.

It it wasn’t for Hanneberry we wouldn’t have got Hill & the other recruits? Nothing to do with offering Hill 800k x 5 years. Sack Gags, Dans our man.

He’s employed to play football something which he’s struggled with.

 

[StCicatriz]

(Under the AFL's cap banking system)
We were in a position to be able to pay 105% of the salary cap off the back of only paying 95% of the salary cap for a number of years.
We did this in anticipation of using the extra 5% cap space to help land a shiel, dusty, kelly level big fish but that didnt happen.

Under the banking system, if you don't use the extra 5% if you have it, then you lose it.
(Ie you cant 'bank' it to use in another year)

only problem is your assumption is we used it on hanners or when we acquired him.

i've been hearing since 2015 we have had this allocation and every year we talk about spending it. we more than likely spent that allocation before hanners even got to the club. given the club told me the big issue they had with trout was that he overpaid what we already had and low balled players they wanted to get.

which adds up given we got literally nothing past ameets work with carlisle.

 

[StCicatriz]

the new footy dept soft cap is going to push clubs to do more hodges, hanners etc. as the soft cap on footy dept spend is going down but the player TPP will not go down by much due to how hard it is to wind back. you have clubs who manage a TPP up to 5 years out. but mostly between 2-4 years. you also have a players union not willing to budge. so it's really hard to reduce player costs.

so instead the footy dept soft cap will almost be halved to 7 million vs the player spend of 13m.

so clubs will use that 13m on players who can do some of the footy dept stuff. atleast that's what i foresee happening. similar to when schneider was on our rookie list and running sessions.

so i reckon it will become more common to see these ageing veteran types retained on the list, just for development coaching roles.

roughy is probably a really good example of someone you would keep on the rookie list and spread him across a number of different depts to see what he's keen on.

unless of course the AFL puts a line through that. i dunno how they stop the development coach approach given its a very blurred line to overall player leadership.

 

[The_Steadier]

only problem is your assumption is we used it on hanners or when we acquired him.

i've been hearing since 2015 we have had this allocation and every year we talk about spending it. we more than likely spent that allocation before hanners even got to the club. given the club told me the big issue they had with trout was that he overpaid what we already had and low balled players they wanted to get.

which adds up given we got literally nothing past ameets work with carlisle.

You can underspend in any 2 year period and then overspend up to 105% in the following year.

We could have done this multiple times in the last 6+ years.

AFL statement: Competitive Balance Policy

League details its Competitive Balance Policy to the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

 

[The_Steadier]

I'm talking about in the next two years… we have a permanent rehabber soaking up around 600k that could be used to bring in a player or two.

So you're jumping at shadows.
Ok.

I'll join you in your outrage of this 'dumb' trade if the unlikely ever occurs and we miss a trade target because of lack of cap space.

We aren't tight for cap space, even after bringing hill in on mega bucks etc and paying hanners- lethers has described our cap space as average.

If josh kelly came on the market today we wouldn't be constrained by $$.
We would simply do what all the top flag contending teams do- move money around.

The tigers won a flag and THEN paid for tom lynch. The magic of front and backending and long term deals.

Rest your head, we aren't gonna miss anyone we really want because of $$.

 

[StCicatriz]

You can underspend in any 2 year period and then overspend up to 105% in the following year.

We could have done this multiple times in the last 6+ years.

AFL statement: Competitive Balance Policy

League details its Competitive Balance Policy to the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

it would depend on the timing on when we used it.

so the rule came into affect in 2014 with it's first use in 2015. which apparently had already qualified for. which makes it very hard to determine the timing on the payments.

if we paid 105% in 2015, we would then qualify in 2018, then back down to 100% in 2019. hanners joined in 2019. so can't be that.
if we paid 105% in 2016, we would then qualify in 2019, then back down to 100% in 2020. it could be this. this would mean paying 95% in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018.
if we paid 105% in 2017, we would then qualify in 2020, then back down to 100% in 2021. it could also be this. this would mean paying 95% in 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019.

its very very hard to know unless you can actually see our TPP.

it could very well be we were still at 95% with hanners there, then enacted the 105% this year with everyone we brought in.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I'm talking about in the next two years… we have a permanent rehabber soaking up around 600k that could be used to bring in a player or two.

But he won't be soaking up $600K a year. Front loaded so less in the second lot of two years.

Probably $350/400K max and if he plays 10 games that will be a bargain rate.

 

[StCicatriz]

So you're jumping at shadows.
Ok.

I'll join you in your outrage of this 'dumb' trade if the unlikely ever occurs and we miss a trade target because of lack of cap space.

We aren't tight for cap space, even after bringing hill in on mega bucks etc and paying hanners- lethers has described our cap space as average.

If josh kelly came on the market today we wouldn't be constrained by $$.
We would simply do what all the top flag contending teams do- move money around.

The tigers won a flag and THEN paid for tom lynch. The magic of front and backending and long term deals.

Rest your head, we aren't gonna miss anyone we really want because of $$.

the fact the majority of your list are on 1-3 year deals means you can basically afford any player you want. you just put them on a buddy type deal for 10 years and the last 7 years of the deal they make up the short comings of the first three.

the problem is trying to acquire the player and not upsetting the existing ones you have.