Jesse Hogan Contract Negotiations (Titus O'Reilly)

[Arcassius]

Cutting of our nose to spite our face ,is that being ruthless? We need Cams talents and if its next years second or a second that we manage to grab this year then so be it. I'm probably in the minority but I would rather use the Mayne compo on Cam than Hill.

It's not at all like that. If we get Hogan, i'd pay GWS the minimum possible for the trade to happen - and nothing more. I agree that Cam is more important than Hill - but there are two separate lists here. The list of players we need (and the order in which we should get them), and the list of what they will cost. Cam we need more, but shouldn't cost as much if we get Hoges. That's my point here. Filling a need reduces the value of other players who also fill that need. Hill we need less, and would cost more.

 

[salim malik]

It's not at all like that. If we get Hogan, i'd pay GWS the minimum possible for the trade to happen - and nothing more. I agree that Cam is more important than Hill - but there are two separate lists here. The list of players we need (and the order in which we should get them), and the list of what they will cost. Cam we need more, but shouldn't cost as much if we get Hoges. That's my point here. Filling a need reduces the value of other players who also fill that need. Hill we need less, and would cost more.

But the Hogan deal will have no impact on getting Cam. First round pick would not be used on Cam. If Cam is more important than Hill why not use the Mayne compo on a player we really need and make sure of it. If Hogan is gettable we can have both Cam and Jesse. Like I said those 2 in the forward half will set us up for years and give us a huge lift in a flag charge.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

IF what's proposed above is true, it's funny what can happen in a year. Last year we were offering two first rounders for Cam and no Jesse. This year, potentially, we could get both Jesse and Cam for the same offer last year plus maybe a second/third rounder (Mayne compo pick).

I also think GWS have shot themselves in the foot in that they didn't believe Cam would sit the year out and they also have his contract taking up $400k - $500k of their cap while sitting on the sidelines. On top of this, following their refusal to let him go last year citing family reasons and then have Grubby leave for those exact reasons just stinks from the outside looking in.

 

[Dump Truck]

Agreed. I think people are forgetting what Cam can do..

Quite a few people mention he was a taller version of Fyfe in his first year. He was originally going to be our pick but GWS got him (we ended up getting Apeness) which could work out quite well for us in the long run.

 

[mike91]

There's a difference between doing a Ferris Bueller and kids who simply don't attend school. So I'm talking about kids whose parents facilitate their staying at home, kids whose attendance drop below a certain percentage, kids who when parents are notified continue to not attend school.

So if you didn't attend school at an average of 80% over an extended time, had a school that didn't contact your parents to see what was going on and you got away with it? Then you went to a school that simply didn't follow normal practice

You possibly went to a private school where skipping a day here or there is reasonably normal and kids feel hardcore. I'm talking rock bottom socioeconomic school where attendance drops below 60% and parents excuses range from they need help with the new baby and so Johnny stays at home or they're helping with the family business, which is bagging weed and no I'm not even kidding.

Oh I gotcha, I agree with you then. Ew, nah I went to a public school. The bagging weed bit happens (never me though), in fact it happens far more often than parents realize.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Agreed that Hogan should have no impact on Cam, if GWS manage to trade their way further up the draft they may actually need some second round picks to help lock in players, and I like that we are not that keen on Hill. Sounds like we'll grab him only if we cant get Hogan, because I dont see how we can get Hogan, Cam and Hill unless Hawks or GWS take pick 39 for one of them which is optimistic at best

 

[Arcassius]

But the Hogan deal will have no impact on getting Cam. First round pick would not be used on Cam. If Cam is more important than Hill why not use the Mayne compo on a player we really need and make sure of it. If Hogan is gettable we can have both Cam and Jesse. Like I said those 2 in the forward half will set us up for years and give us a huge lift in a flag charge.

It should have an impact on what we pay for Cam, not whether we get him. He's less of a priority if we get Hogan, and the trade value should reflect that.

 

[Scootyb]

That's the question though. If he has an adjustment disorder then it's not something he put himself through to get to Freo. If the adjustment issue and refusing to return to Freo was a ploy devised by his managed to get him home - then that's also not on us (and is a little questionable ethically).

It's great that he bleeds purple, and would be a good get - but the scenario that played out shouldn't obligate us to take him (although we still should out of goodwill to get him home, and as he's a quality player). If anything, bleeding purple diminishes his trade value as he'd be less likely to accept a trade to any other team.

GWS are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Getting Hogan reduces what GWS can get out of us for McCarthy - and we should leverage that.

Agree with your sentiments mate, McCarthy has done nothing for us, other than signal his intention to come home last year. Taking a year away from GWS to be closer to home was his choice for himself not for us. We do need him and he would be a great get at a reduced price, but its up to GWS to come to the party to offload a player who won't contribute for them, not for us to give up market value for him.

 

[Arcassius]

Agree with your sentiments mate, McCarthy has done nothing for us, other than signal his intention to come home last year. Taking a year away from GWS to be closer to home was his choice for himself not for us. We do need him and he would be a great get at a reduced price, but its up to GWS to come to the party to offload a player who won't contribute for them, not for us to give up market value for him.

You've said it far better than my bumbling attempts.

 

[salim malik]

It should have an impact on what we pay for Cam, not whether we get him. He's less of a priority if we get Hogan, and the trade value should reflect that.

I can't agree , Cam is a priority with or without Jesse. The trade value of Cam is more important to Freo than Hill in my humble. Hill is neither here or there in our cup push. A forward half containing both is a Buddy ,Roughhead moment. With the midfield we are building its a top 4 spot next season.

 

[mike91]

Haven't bothered to trawl through 65 pages - caught up with my ketchup sauce last night and said we are going incredibly hard for Hogan; offered pick 3 and our first round pick for next year. Melbourne are considering this hard - WCE are no where in the vicinity to make offers like that.

He also said all other players are secondary to Hogan; and that interest for Brad Hill is not massive at this stage and will be left to the last minute.

You mustard been happy hearing that! Happen to hear anything else, players we're targeting (Kersten, McCarthy) players that are leaving etc?

 

[Arcassius]

I can't agree , Cam is a priority with or without Jesse. The trade value of Cam is more important to Freo than Hill in my humble. Hill is neither here or there in our cup push. A forward half containing both is a Buddy ,Roughhead moment. With the midfield we are building its a top 4 spot next season.

I mentioned in an earlier post - I see there as being a difference in the order of players we need to chase and how we rate them, vs what we should pay for those players.

I agree with you that Hill isn't a need as much as McCarthy is. I don't think we should pay much for McCarthy though in trade since GWS have no leverage to make big demands, especially if we get Hogan.

Needs -
#1 Hogan
#2 Lobb
#3 McCarthy
#4 Hill

Costs -
#1 Hogan
#2 Lobb
#3 Hill
#4 McCarthy

On that basis, if we get Hogan we don't have currency to get Lobb, and we probably won't have currency if we want Hill and McCarthy as well. So I'd go for Hogan and McCarthy. Minimise what we pay for McCarthy as much as possible to protect our middle round picks for the draft. Wait a year then trade for Hill then when he's out of contract and we have fresh picks to trade.

If we don't get Hogan, the cost of McCarthy will be higher. Again, minimise what we pay for him (but it will be higher than in the first scenario), investigate Lobb, but probably end up getting McCarthy and Hill then go to draft, and try for Hogan next year if he's still unsigned.

In both scenarios we go for McCarthy, but the cost will differ simply because getting Hogan will reduce GWS bargaining position.

 

[salim malik]

I mentioned in an earlier post - I see there as being a difference in the order of players we need to chase and how we rate them, vs what we should pay for those players.

I agree with you that Hill isn't a need as much as McCarthy is. I don't think we should pay much for McCarthy though in trade since GWS have no leverage to make big demands, especially if we get Hogan.

Needs -
#1 Hogan
#2 Lobb
#3 McCarthy
#4 Hill

Costs -
#1 Hogan
#2 Lobb
#3 Hill
#4 McCarthy

On that basis, if we get Hogan we don't have currency to get Lobb, and we probably won't have currency if we want Hill and McCarthy as well. So I'd go for Hogan and McCarthy. Minimise what we pay for McCarthy as much as possible to protect our middle round picks for the draft. Wait a year then trade for Hill then when he's out of contract and we have fresh picks to trade.

If we don't get Hogan, the cost of McCarthy will be higher. Again, minimise what we pay for him (but it will be higher than in the first scenario), investigate Lobb, but probably end up getting McCarthy and Hill then go to draft, and try for Hogan next year if he's still unsigned.

In both scenarios we go for McCarthy, but the cost will differ simply because getting Hogan will reduce GWS bargaining position.

I don't follow why McCarthy's cost will increase if we don't get Hogan. Pick 3 has no bearing on getting Cam. The way it might transpire is that the Mayne compo might have to be used on Hill or McCarthy. If thats the case in my humble Cam is the go.

 

[JohnW]

Has anyone actually figured out if you can trade this year and next years pick when considering the 2 in 4 rule?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I don't follow why McCarthy's cost will increase if we don't get Hogan. Pick 3 has no bearing on getting Cam. The way it might transpire is that the Mayne compo might have to be used on Hill or McCarthy. If thats the case in my humble Cam is the go.

Because in all likelihood it would have been done for next years second. If the trade for Hogan actually happens it will be the Mayne compo i would imagine. If we get him for pick 39 we would be ecstatic

 

[Lach72]

Reading the responses I feel like I need to qualify. From a trading perspective, if we get Hogan then the perceived need for a tall forward is diminished, which affects the value GWS can extract from us in a trade. I'd still get McCarthy home, but I wouldn't offer GWS anything significant as they have no bargaining power here.

I see...and when west coast drop a second round on the table we say???

 

[salim malik]

Because in all likelihood it would have been done for next years second. If the trade for Hogan actually happens it will be the Mayne compo i would imagine. If we get him for pick 39 we would be ecstatic

Hogan trade won't effect next years second. It will be 2 firsts and a player at least. Mayne's compo and next years 2nd will have nothing to do with Hogan. Hill or Cam will be Maynes compo or next years second. I still don't follow why Cam.s value will increase due to Hogan.

 

[Taylor]

Has anyone actually figured out if you can trade this year and next years pick when considering the 2 in 4 rule?

Plenty of times.

It would require Fremantle to trade out a player worth a first round pick in the fourth year. So a trade of 2016 and 2017 1sts for Hogan will cost those two picks and a player worth another first round pick.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Hogan trade won't effect next years second. It will be 2 firsts and a player at least. Mayne's compo and next years 2nd will have nothing to do with Hogan. Hill or Cam will be Maynes compo or next years second. I still don't follow why Cam.s value will increase due to Hogan.

If we trade nexts first, we cant trade next years second. Its a neglible difference, but if we use the Mayne compo, that would be more than next years second i would imagine. I dont anticipate us finishing bottom 4 next year

 

[Paracleet]

Plenty of times.

It would require Fremantle to trade out a player worth a first round pick in the fourth year. So a trade of 2016 and 2017 1sts for Hogan will cost those two picks and a player worth another first round pick.

My interpretation of the published wording is that you can, but you that you would then be subject to restrictions on subsequent years trading (i.e. year 5, 6 etc) unless you trade back a 1st round pick back in year 4 (which could be as low as pick 19)

 

[Arcassius]

I see...and when west coast drop a second round on the table we say???

If.

The player has to agree to any trade, which puts GWS in a particular position. WCE would go through his manager to investigate whether he'd be interested in playing for them. If McCarthy states it's Freo or bust, WCE can offer a first round pick and it won't change anything - they still have to meet the requirements of the player. GWS would have to weigh up whether the great PR and keeping him on the list another season is worth it, or do what they can to make a trade work. It's on them to make a trade work this period. Which still means we hold the cards in how this plays out.

It's in our best interests to work from the bottom up, than offer say a Mayne pick off the bat, when a 3rd round or less might be enough.

My point originally is that if we were to get Hogan, it diminishes the need we have for another tall forward, which reduces GWS bargaining position further as we have the option to walk away. That's not the same as saying we shouldn't go for Cam - it just means we can potentially get him for cheaper.

 

[Keys]

I see...and when west coast drop a second round on the table we say???

That assumes McCarthy would be happy to play at west coast and I'm not convinced that would be the case. Maybe if it was either that or another year out of footy but who knows

 

[JohnW]

Plenty of times.

It would require Fremantle to trade out a player worth a first round pick in the fourth year. So a trade of 2016 and 2017 1sts for Hogan will cost those two picks and a player worth another first round pick.

My interpretation of the published wording is that you can, but you that you would then be subject to restrictions on subsequent years trading (i.e. year 5, 6 etc) unless you trade back a 1st round pick back in year 4 (which could be as low as pick 19)

Cheers gents.

Do we know what the restrictions will be? The rule seems slightly flawed if the intent was that you need to use 2 first rounders in 4 years, if when in fact you don't all they do is stop you trading further picks. You would think there has to be some penalty if you don't meet the requirements.

Good news for both WA teams thought meaning we can both trade out 16 and 17 pick with no real concern.

 

[Lach72]

That assumes McCarthy would be happy to play at west coast and I'm not convinced that would be the case. Maybe if it was either that or another year out of footy but who knows

That's the issue.
If we say 3rd round or piss up a rope and you put a second on the table, if I'm GWS I say "Cam, fantastic mate, we can get you home but you're off to West Coast...Is that a problem? Yes? Ok so it's not about going home then? Ok here's the pine you're sitting on for the rest of the year".

 

[Lach72]

If.

The player has to agree to any trade, which puts GWS in a particular position. WCE would go through his manager to investigate whether he'd be interested in playing for them. If McCarthy states it's Freo or bust, WCE can offer a first round pick and it won't change anything - they still have to meet the requirements of the player. GWS would have to weigh up whether the great PR and keeping him on the list another season is worth it, or do what they can to make a trade work. It's on them to make a trade work this period. Which still means we hold the cards in how this plays out.

It's in our best interests to work from the bottom up, than offer say a Mayne pick off the bat, when a 3rd round or less might be enough.

My point originally is that if we were to get Hogan, it diminishes the need we have for another tall forward, which reduces GWS bargaining position further as we have the option to walk away. That's not the same as saying we shouldn't go for Cam - it just means we can potentially get him for cheaper.

Quality is quality and instead of ****ing around we should pay a reasonable price and get it done.