David Haynes

[Fall Out Boy]

Safe to assume he's a required player?

There have been more then a few whispers (both from Geelong and in the papers) that Brian Cook is targetting Haynes for the pre-season draft as our uncontracted player.

I wouldn't think the Eagles would leave him uncontracted for too long, unless he is thinking about coming home to Geelong.

Anyone heard anything about this?

Whilst he is undersized, he would give my lot some much needed goal kicking power.

 

[The Passenger]

Most would know around here that I think he is a very talented player, but in the same token not neccesarilly a required at all costs player.


If the right trading choice come up, I'd definetaly consider it, and I don't think the club would let him leave for nothing in the PS draft.

Whilst according to the new rules, if we sign him this year, then he isn't available to be traded away in the trading period.......

We'll keep him I'd think...... and I'd say he'd rather stay at the club because there aren't too many clubs that would give him the chance to play FF I wouldn't think.....

 

[Goldenblue]

I think he is required by the club and I think with maybe success around the corner, Haynes will stay with the club.

Cook can bugger off.

 

[Sera]

Geelong had a chance to draft Haynes but they overlooked him. Haynes is going nowhere.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Black Thunder

If the right trading choice come up, I'd definetaly consider it, and I don't think the club would let him leave for nothing in the PS draft.

We wouldn't trade for him, would merely be a pre-season pick.

Whilst he is talented, we have a very similar player who kicks as many goals and is two years younger.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Sera
Geelong had a chance to draft Haynes but they overlooked him.

Instead drafting Joel Corey and David Spriggs.

I'm comfortable with that.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
We wouldn't trade for him, would merely be a pre-season pick.

not much of a chance of that happening i wouldn't think..... I'd be damn opposed to letting a fairly good young guy like Haynes go for nothing.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Instead drafting Joel Corey and David Spriggs.

I'm comfortable with that.

And we're comfortable with Haynes and thats where it ends my friend.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
not much of a chance of that happening i wouldn't think..... I'd be damn opposed to letting a fairly good young guy like Haynes go for nothing.

Oh, no doubt.

I'd think we'd only be able to get him if he felt the urge to return to Geelong/Warnambool.

You certainly wouldn't leave the Eagles for any other reason.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Sera
And we're comfortable with Haynes and thats where it ends my friend.

Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I'd have thought a player of his ability would have been re-signed by now, so it seems either the Eagles, or Haynes management are holding back.

 

[noodle]

we've put up with him during his hack phase so i would like to get some return out of him. worsfold rates him as an on field leader so i would think that he would be in the eagles long term plans.

west coast have always waited a while before re-signing players. i believe ben cousins is yet to re-sign this year.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by noodle
we've put up with him during his hack phase so i would like to get some return out of him. worsfold rates him as an on field leader so i would think that he would be in the eagles long term plans.

west coast have always waited a while before re-signing players. i believe ben cousins is yet to re-sign this year.

Yep, we do things in a priority order. Haynes didn't even go back to Victoria during his break, he went to Margaret River instead. Shows how much he misses the place.

 

[TheRealBuzz]

I'm a Haynes fan. I hope he stays.

Sounds as though he's pretty happy in Perth and enjoys Woosha's coaching, if this article is anything to go by.

Phat, why doesn't Cameron Ling get more of a run up forward?

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by TheRealBuzz

Phat, why doesn't Cameron Ling get more of a run up forward?

Two reasons:

a) he is our only consistent ball winner and our only hard runner. He gets 25 touches a week (nearly 28 over the last month), whilst working his arse off.
Without that, we'd get smashed weekly.

b) he is playing on a badly injured ankle (has been advised to have an operation) and thus wouldn't have the necessary speed to play as a leading FF.

 

[chrisjudd3]

Ben Cousin's dad handles all th negotiation - while the Eagles and COusins know that they will come to an agreement eventually, they are not even close to the terms of agreement.

The only thing known is that COusins might possibly take a 300,000 dollar paycut to fit Judd - the fact that we have to reach paycuts considering the average age of our players worries me.

Are some players overpaid?

And why do we sign players for 2 years? The smaller the contract the more we have to shell out more cash later when they become good players. I would of thought 3 years is the long term contract. 2 years is too short and miserly for long term plans.
Just look at Judd - we only got him to sign for 2 years - and we risked a 1st round pick for 2 years + speculation if he becomes a gun midfielder - if he isn;t already.

I hope he signs a 3-4 year contract or better yet do a Brisbane and sign Alistair Lynch for 10yrs, like they did in 1995 - next year is his last year on the contract.

Judd for 10 yrs??

400,000 per annum = 4,000,000 + 1,000,000 for inflation + 2,000,000 endorsements + 2,000,000 for media contracts.

9,000,000 for 10 yrs.

One more thing - I hate Leigh Mathews - he suggested Judd being worth 500,000 - what the hell is wrong with him - why can't he mind his own business instead of trying to put presssure on our salary cap? Maybe because Brisbane has a "salary cap" concession that they can flaunt it around. Him and his damn mind games.

 

[TheRealBuzz]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
He is our only consistent ball winner and our only hard runner. He gets 25 touches a week (nearly 28 over the last month), whilst working his arse off.

No doubt about that, he's turned himself into a bloody good midfielder (just ask Ben Cousins). It's just a shame you don't have 2-3 of him, because I reckon he'd make a great forward as well.

 

[Jabber]

Originally posted by chrisjudd3
...why do we sign players for 2 years? The smaller the contract the more we have to shell out more cash later when they become good players. I would of thought 3 years is the long term contract. 2 years is too short and miserly for long term plans.
Just look at Judd - we only got him to sign for 2 years - and we risked a 1st round pick for 2 years + speculation if he becomes a gun midfielder - if he isn;t already...

Any player manager with half a brain will make sure youngsters with heaps of potential sign shorter contracts, and older established players sign longer contracts. It's common sense - why lock yourself into a contract that may undervalue you in 2 or 3 years.

 

[chrisjudd3]

Any player manager with half a brain will make sure youngsters with heaps of potential sign shorter contracts, and older established players sign longer contracts. It's common sense - why lock yourself into a contract that may undervalue you in 2 or 3 years.

When u invest in a player like Judd you have faith he will produce the goods for the long term future - look at Freo, they invested 4th pick in Pavlich and signed him for 3 years, if he signed for 2 yrs, he would of gone to South Australia already.

A 3 year contract allows a club relative security of your gun players - but it allows u to trade them even if they have a year or two remaining. Just look at Croad, he had a year remaining, Pickett, also a year remaining but traded after signing a new contract. Clubs nowadays are playing with contracts often with a year to spare.

The contract is 2-3 years in length and often broken with a year to spare.

A long term contract benefits the club in that it offers security and flexibility but I add the word "relative" in that it is influenced by other factors too.

Common sense doesn't determine contracts.

Theres no code of practice that influences how contracts are managed, it is quite fluid in operation.

 

[Jabber]

Originally posted by chrisjudd3
When u invest in a player like Judd you have faith he will produce the goods for the long term future - look at Freo, they invested 4th pick in Pavlich and signed him for 3 years, if he signed for 2 yrs, he would of gone to South Australia already.

A 3 year contract allows a club relative security of your gun players - but it allows u to trade them even if they have a year or two remaining. Just look at Croad, he had a year remaining, Pickett, also a year remaining but traded after signing a new contract. Clubs nowadays are playing with contracts often with a year to spare.

The contract is 2-3 years in length and often broken with a year to spare.

A long term contract benefits the club in that it offers security and flexibility but I add the word "relative" in that it is influenced by other factors too.

Common sense doesn't determine contracts.

Theres no code of practice that influences how contracts are managed, it is quite fluid in operation.

You are missing the point. There is no doubt that a long contract benefits the club, but there are 2 parties in every contract. The player and his manager ultimately determine the length of contract they sign, not the club.

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I'd have thought a player of his ability would have been re-signed by now, so it seems either the Eagles, or Haynes management are holding back.

Im pretty confident that Haynes will stay with the club, their is no way the Eagles would invest so much time into Haynes, particularly all his games at FF, for him to then up and leave. Im also half confident that Judd will stay, I wouldnt read too much into who has signed and who hasnt just yet.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by jod23
Im pretty confident that Haynes will stay with the club, their is no way the Eagles would invest so much time into Haynes, particularly all his games at FF, for him to then up and leave.

That's all true, but should he want to leave, there isn't much the Eagles could do.

As i said earlier, the only reason you'd leave the Eagles is if you were homesick.

Originally posted by jod23

Im also half confident that Judd will stay, I wouldnt read too much into who has signed and who hasnt just yet.

I'm sure he'll stay too.

I'm certain he's intelligent enough to realise that playing for the Eagles, in Perth, makes him look that bit better of a footballer.

Put him in a weaker midfield, on the softer grounds, and i don't think you'd see the same player.

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
That's all true, but should he want to leave, there isn't much the Eagles could do.

As i said earlier, the only reason you'd leave the Eagles is if you were homesick.

And as someone else mentioned, in the mid season bye, he didnt even return to Victoria which suggests he isnt homesick at all. I think you will see him sign another contract with the Eagles before the season is out.

Originally posted by phatandphreaky

I'm sure he'll stay too.

I'm certain he's intelligent enough to realise that playing for the Eagles, in Perth, makes him look that bit better of a footballer.

Put him in a weaker midfield, on the softer grounds, and i don't think you'd see the same player.

I dont know about that, Judd plays just aswell in Melbourne as he does in Perth. Sure in a weaker midfield he would recieve more attention and being behind Cuz, Fletch and Kerr no doubt gives him more freedom. But you could play Judd on the moon and he would be just as good.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by jod23
And as someone else mentioned, in the mid season bye, he didnt even return to Victoria which suggests he isnt homesick at all.

You're reading too much into it.

If a player does go home for the week, does it mean they are homesick?

Joel Corey is the most content player at Geelong, yet he went home during the break.

Corey Enright is missing his family, yet stayed in Geelong to be with his girl.

Their destination during their break doesn't mean much IMO.

Originally posted by jod23

I dont know about that, Judd plays just aswell in Melbourne as he does in Perth.

Much easier to perform well when playing here once every few weeks, rather then every week.

Originally posted by jod23

Sure in a weaker midfield he would recieve more attention and being behind Cuz, Fletch and Kerr no doubt gives him more freedom.

Absolute champions still struggle when placed in weaker midfields, so i can't see why Judd wouldn't struggle.

Not doubting his talent, but it's much easier to perform with a midfield like that, then it is in a midfield like ours.

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
You're reading too much into it.

If a player does go home for the week, does it mean they are homesick?

Joel Corey is the most content player at Geelong, yet he went home during the break.

Corey Enright is missing his family, yet stayed in Geelong to be with his girl.

Their destination during their break doesn't mean much IMO.

Perhaps I am reading too much into it but surely you would think that if a player was homesick they would take every chance they got to return home. He had that chance in the bye and didnt go home.

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Much easier to perform well when playing here once every few weeks, rather then every week.

Absolute champions still struggle when placed in weaker midfields, so i can't see why Judd wouldn't struggle.

Not doubting his talent, but it's much easier to perform with a midfield like that, then it is in a midfield like ours.

Case in point, Des Headland. Looked a million dollars last season, this year just a run of the mill midfielder. So you make a good point but I think Judd has enough class to overcome that. Sure he would struggle for a while but his class would eventually rise to the top.

Having said that, you can look at it both ways. Look at the Headland point and then you can look at Buckley at Collingwood. For years, Collingwood sucked, their midfield was pretty bad yet he shined. Same for Ben Cousins and two years ago in the Judge era, our midfield was pretty bad, the whole team was really yet he regularly dominated. Goes both ways, and Im not keen to find out which way Judd would go, let's just leave him at WC

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by jod23
Having said that, you can look at it both ways. Look at the Headland point and then you can look at Buckley at Collingwood. For years, Collingwood sucked, their midfield was pretty bad yet he shined. Same for Ben Cousins and two years ago in the Judge era, our midfield was pretty bad, the whole team was really yet he regularly dominated.

Key difference is that both of them are/were champions.

Chris Judd, despite his brilliance, is far from a champion yet.

Definitely has the ability to become one, but isn't there yet.