Review Reviews and views vs the Tigers

[Hollow Knight]

Geez.... I think a three-year contract was too much to have offered for Lisle. A two-year contract should have been more than enough for a player who was largely not required by Hawthorn (perhaps even prior to getting Gunston) and had played minimal games.

Hopefully he doesn't become the next A.Buchanan....

Hawthorn wanted to keep him. The three year deal was our trump card.

 

[JasRulz63]

We needed to offer him a longer contract to tempt him away from staying at Hawthorn, I don't think he would've left with a two year contract, that Hawthorn would've probably offered him. Guess it's the risk we took, hopefully it pays off.

 

[Stocka]

Hawthorn wanted to keep him. The three year deal was our trump card.

Hawthorn supporters I know (who are generally on the money; they were onto Hawthorn's interest in Gunston well ahead of it being mentioned anywhere else) reckoned he was a touch and go prospect for being kept on with the Hawks. I guess everyone's mail is going to be different, though, and not necessarily always reliable...

Regardless, I still think three years was too long a deal to offer for the player that we were getting based on what he'd put out on the park to that point in time. I suppose we must have been really keen for Lisle to play that ruck/fwd role left vacant by M.Clark.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hawthorn supporters I know (who are generally on the money; they were onto Hawthorn's interest in Gunston well ahead of it being mentioned anywhere else) reckoned he was a touch and go prospect for being kept on with the Hawks. I guess everyone's mail is going to be different, though, and not necessarily always reliable...

This isn't a "mail" issue. It was reported at the time that he had a contract extension from Hawthorn on offer.

"As a contracted player who was also being offered an extension to his current contract, Hawthorn was not planning to trade him." - Rob Kerr

This interview with Lisle also says he had an extension on offer from Hawthorn.

 

[Stocka]

This isn't a "mail" issue. It was reported at the time that he had a contract extension from Hawthorn on offer.

Fair enough. Hence why I said "I guess everyone's mail is going to be different, though, and not necessarily always reliable", or maybe you misinterpreted that part.

Three years was still too long a contract to offer, in my opinion.

 

[karix]

Three years was still too long a contract to offer, in my opinion.

Way too early to make that kind of call, IMO.

He was kept out of the firsts by Sauce being in good touch up forward, which is why he's gone so many games in such good ressies form without being elevated. Hopefully now he's got his foot in the door he'll be able to show us what he can do.

 

[jackess]

Really hope Golby is fit to come in and play on Betts or Garlett this weekend.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Really hope Golby is fit to come in and play on Betts or Garlett this weekend.

Still says Golby is 2 weeks away.

 

[jackess]

Still says Golby is 2 weeks away.

That was last weeks I'm fairly certain. Plus he wouldn't be the first to have 2 weeks taken off his sentence.

 

[Stocka]

Way too early to make that kind of call, IMO.

No, I would have said it last year as well.

I think the trade itself is fine. However, I would question the wisdom of offering any fringe player from another club a three-year contract (and Lisle was on the outer-fringe at that).

Perhaps the difference between two and three years might not seem much to some, but I'd see it as being a similar principle to not offering a player over thirty years of age more than a one-year extension or contract.

He was kept out of the firsts by Sauce being in good touch up forward, which is why he's gone so many games in such good ressies form without being elevated. Hopefully now he's got his foot in the door he'll be able to show us what he can do.

I'm not writing Lisle off.

Personally I think Lisle's best position is at full-forward, from what I've seen of him (and he could pinch hit in the ruck from there). However, he might suffer similarly to Cornelius in that role, in terms of requiring good ball use coming into the forward line to be effective as he doesn't strike me as the sort of player who can make do with, or have the work-rate to polish up with sloppy entries.

 

[Stocka]

Really hope Golby is fit to come in and play on Betts or Garlett this weekend.

I've got a feeling that Betts will end up with about 5 goals and prove to be the difference between the two teams at those crucial moments.

 

[whatboutbob]

No, I would have said it last year as well.

I think the trade itself is fine. However, I would question the wisdom of offering any fringe player from another club a three-year contract (and Lisle was on the outer-fringe at that).

Perhaps the difference between two and three years might not seem much to some, but I'd see it as being a similar principle to not offering a player over thirty years of age more than a one-year extension or contract.

Seems a pretty basic concept to me. He was wanted by the club he was at, so we need to pay overs to get him.

One can argue with whether he should have been targeted in the first place (as some have), but I think it is ludicrous to suggest trying to poach a player using a short-term contract. "We love you Jordie! Come and play for us...but....err...we can only give you a short contract........."

 

[Scubaveg]

I've got a feeling that Betts will end up with about 5 goals and prove to be the difference between the two teams at those crucial moments.

Doc to debut and eat him up.

 

[Haso]

Doc to debut and eat him up.

Cyril is the delicious small forward, not Betts.

 

[Stocka]

Seems a pretty basic concept to me. He was wanted by the club he was at, so we need to pay overs to get him.

Everything can seem a basic concept if you want to narrow down what is being taken into consideration.

One can argue with whether he should have been targeted in the first place (as some have), but I think it is ludicrous to suggest trying to poach a player using a short-term contract. "We love you Jordie! Come and play for us...but....err...we can only give you a short contract........."

"Short term" is your terminology for how you judge a two-year contract (personally I would reserve that judgment for a one-year deal). I would hope that the fawning ("we love you", etc.) that you have implied wasn't actually how the Lions approached the deal when speaking with Lisle, as well. One might think that the prospect of more regular senior appearances, and possibly more money over two years, than what he was receiving at Hawthorn might have even been enough to convincing him to take his opportunities elsewhere. If it wasn't, well, maybe we could have just looked elsewhere. Was Lisle so much better, or the only option that we had available to look at for the role that we envisaged him playing?

Additionally, I reckon there'd be quite a few players on the Lions list currently (and even selected regularly in the team) to whom a two-year deal would seem more than reasonable for a contract renewal. I reckon if we offered the likes of Polkinghorne, Polec, Bewick, Karnezis, Harwood, O'Brien, Bartlett, Banfield, Cornelius or McKeever a three-year deal that there would be a lot of people on here questioning the wisdom of the decision (and I left out players from that list who I don't expect will be at the club next year or who have made minimal senior appearances in 2012). Even if Lisle is considered a long-term prospect who will need time to develop, given that he had already had three years in the system, I would consider that a two-year deal would have been sufficient for the club to put on the line. Perhaps the third year of the deal could have been a performance-based extension pending his development by his fifth year in the system.

Regardless of whether or not we "had to pay overs" to secure a player from another club, I think it's ludicrous (to use your word, WBB) to sign players up for three-year deals when they are on the outer-fringe at the club they've been at, regardless of whether or not it's said or perceived that they are required by their previous club. Up the quality of player and then I wouldn't have a problem.

Lisle could still become a good player for us beyond the initial three years that we've given him, but personally I still think it was too much to offer for a player of his calibre at the time.

 

[Stocka]

Doc to debut and eat him up.

I'm finding it hard to pick a decent match-up for Betts outside of Adcock. It seems like a bit of a waste of Adcock's role in our team to have him sitting on Betts, but it might be our best option.

I wouldn't play a rookie on Betts for that tight shut-down role and even if Golby is available, I'd wonder if he'd be up for the requirements of playing on Betts in his first game back from an extended lay-off.

 

[jackess]

What if he got a 2 year contract, played really well and demanded a raise for his next contract which would mean the Lions would have to pay more for the third year then they would've had to if they offered him a 3 year deal?

 

[Stocka]

What if he got a 2 year contract, played really well and demanded a raise for his next contract which would mean the Lions would have to pay more for the third year then they would've had to if they offered him a 3 year deal?

On balance of where Lisle was at come the end of 2011, I think most would have predicted that he would have been serviceable and of reasonable quality (perhaps playing 14+ games and averaging a goal or more a game in 2012, as a crude measurement), rather than a barnstorming success, but probably also being more serviceable to the seniors than he has been so far.

If Lisle vastly exceeded expectations then we'd hopefully pay him a deserved pay-rise and a longer contract upon his renewal. In this situation, the second contract would be longer than just the one extra year that he would have received if the original contract had have been three years and not two. In this case, inevitably we'd have to resign him after three years anyway as it's not as if he'd only play good for two to three years at a maximum (if he does come good). So, I wouldn't have been too concerned about having to make a new offer after two years, as opposed to three. For that one "extra" year that we had to pay a higher amount, I'd rather do that and have peace of mind that we weren't going to have another Buchanan situation.

I'm not overly concerned that Lisle's year this year means he won't be a serviceable or good player for us in the future, but I would still say that it is a disappointing return and that perhaps the club overestimated where he was in relation to what they would expect of him in order to be playing in the seniors. Come a similar return next year I think most supporters will be questioning whether or not waiting for Lisle's third year on the list for him to show improvement was a reasonable enough return on a three-year deal.

I suppose a positive in having a three-year deal is that even if Lisle turns out to only be serviceable at best, at least we will have someone with some physical development who can provide coverage for the retirements of Brown, Maguire, Patfull and Merrett (with the last three being a few years off, you would imagine), whilst other younger talent is still developing.

 

[Dylan12]

So we need to pay overs to get him.

Sadly, there is nothing unusual in that comment in regards to a lot of our recent trades really...let's hope we can reverse the trend.

 

[Stocka]

Come to think of it, Harwood might be a reasonable match-up for Betts this week. Although he's not ideally suited to the challenges that Betts might spring on him, he might be able to play a tight, shut-down role, having some ability to keep up pace with him and enough height to put some pressure on in the marking contests.

 

[whatboutbob]

Sadly, there is nothing unusual in that comment in regards to a lot of our recent trades really...let's hope we can reverse the trend.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

If they've got any brains they'll put Golby on the shelf for the rest of the year and let the foot heal well and proper.

 

[Fatcat08]

Stocka, from memory both McGlynn and Kennedy were picked up on 3 years deals by the swans. Much the same situation as Lisle. At the time the trade was done had Brisbane signed the two of them instead of Sydney would you have felt the same? Both were fairly good in their first year which obviously clouds the issue looking back on it now when compared to Lisle but really when poaching players from other clubs, whether they are fringe or not they're almost always 3 year deals. anything less and the player in question starts doubting whether they should move or not. Don't remember too many traded players moving for anything less than 3 years in recent times (could be a few - but mostly older players)

Bradshaw got offered 3 by Sydney. Yes he was a best 22 player however he was the wrong side of 30 with degenerative injury issues. Just goes to show if you want a player that hasn't been delisted you almost always see 3 year contracts.

 

[karix]

I think the trade itself is fine. However, I would question the wisdom of offering any fringe player from another club a three-year contract (and Lisle was on the outer-fringe at that).

Your whole argument ignores the most vital factor in all of this.

The facts. None of us know what he was offered, what conditions/targets might be attached to his contract, or if there are any options for early cancellation.

You are making hypotheical situations up and arguing positions based on your imaginary trade negation. I can do that too, and just to make it fun lets throw in some variables.

X = The yearly salary that Lisle wanted
Y = The total amount (over the entire duration of the contract) the Lions were willing to pay him

Lisle asks for X. Luckily for the Lions X*3 < Y. This is how the negotiations play out.

Lisle: I think I'm worth X.
Lions: Hmm, that's a bit higher than what we were expecting to pay. Is that amount over 2 years?
Lisle: Well, I'd prefer 3 years.
Lions: That's definitely over our budget then. We'd be willing to pay X over 2 years.
Lisle: What is it going to take to get a 3 year contract, if I'm going to move interstate I need the stability of knowing I'll be up there for at least 3 years.
Lions: You're a fringe player though, and mostly untested, a 3 year commitment is not suitable for our development.
Lisle: I understand that, but a 2 year contract isn't suitable for my development.
Lions: To offer you a 3 year contract we would have to offset the risk that you won't meet our expectations or requirements. With that in mind, we can offer you X-15% over 3 years, at the end of each year if you hit KPIs that we nominate, the 15% would be provided as a bonus.
Lisle: Sounds good. Where do I sign?

As you can see, in this situation that Lions paid unders.
Lisle's contract was always worth less than we were willing to pay for him, and we bled 15% off the top unless he hits the KPIs we set, which I suspect are pretty tough, so it looks like he won't hit them this year. Hopefully he is developing well enough that he might crack them next year.

 

[Stocka]

Your whole argument ignores the most vital factor in all of this.

The facts.

That is a very presumptuous statement. The "fact" that I have referred to was the three-year deal and my belief that it was too big an offer.

None of us know what he was offered, what conditions/targets might be attached to his contract, or if there are any options for early cancellation.

I have been talking about whether or not three years was too long an offer, not any of this other speculation.

You are making hypotheical situations up and arguing positions based on your imaginary trade negation.

What hypothetical situations have I made up?

I responded to Jackess's hypothetical, but initially what I said is that I think that a three-year deal was too long. Judging by your previous statement, it seems that you are the one wanting to imply a whole series of speculative hypotheticals in the discucssion...

I can do that too, and just to make it fun lets throw in some variables.

X = The yearly salary that Lisle wanted
Y = The total amount (over the entire duration of the contract) the Lions were willing to pay him

Lisle asks for X. Luckily for the Lions X*3 < Y. This is how the negotiations play out.

Lisle: I think I'm worth X.
Lions: Hmm, that's a bit higher than what we were expecting to pay. Is that amount over 2 years?
Lisle: Well, I'd prefer 3 years.
Lions: That's definitely over our budget then. We'd be willing to pay X over 2 years.
Lisle: What is it going to take to get a 3 year contract, if I'm going to move interstate I need the stability of knowing I'll be up there for at least 3 years.
Lions: You're a fringe player though, and mostly untested, a 3 year commitment is not suitable for our development.
Lisle: I understand that, but a 2 year contract isn't suitable for my development.
Lions: To offer you a 3 year contract we would have to offset the risk that you won't meet our expectations or requirements. With that in mind, we can offer you X-15% over 3 years, at the end of each year if you hit KPIs that we nominate, the 15% would be provided as a bonus.
Lisle: Sounds good. Where do I sign?

Thanks for that read. I could be a smartarse and go to the trouble of coming up with something like that myself. If I have the time later, I might.

I'm thinking something along the lines of Mr and Mrs Karix getting royally bent over on the purchase of a car or house, or some other similar allegory!

As you can see, in this situation that Lions paid unders.

So who is coming up with the hypothetical scenarios?

Lisle's contract was always worth less than we were willing to pay for him, and we bled 15% off the top unless he hits the KPIs we set, which I suspect are pretty tough, so it looks like he won't hit them this year. Hopefully he is developing well enough that he might crack them next year.

Hopefully Lisle turns out to be a better three-year trade signing than Buchanan.