Review Reviews and views vs the Tigers

[karix]

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.

The hypothetical world you're making up is the one where only one fact matters (IE the duration of the contract).

But that is not the only fact that is relevant to this discussion. Without all of the facts (note the 's'), you can't make an accurate gauge of the three-year deal being too long.

Some of the other facts you might want want to consider before cementing your beliefs are the ones I very creatively illustrated above, like the over all cost of his contract, what the club was expecting to play when we entered negotiations, and the possibility that Lisle may have said '3 years or nothing, I don't mind if I paid less over all, but I want the guarantee of 3 years'.

 

[patfullfankezz]

I thought this thread was about the Tigers game, not Lisle, as cute as he is.

Vossy's gonna come on here looking for what to do and he'll be very disappointed

IMO, it could have been worse. It could have been the Carlton game again.

Oh wait, that's this weekend

 

[Hollow Knight]

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

Was still in a moon boot on the weekend. Gone for the rest of the season I'd say.

 

[Last of the Roys]

I realise this is the Richmond game thread, but I am more interested in talking about Lisle at the moment.

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

"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.

I agree with Stocka. Although I must say I have always been a lot more pessimistic about our trade for Lisle than almost all Lions supporters on here.

- I don't think I would have traded for him in the first place, especially not for pick 29 (note Richmond got Maric for pick 37).
- I definitely would not have offered him a 3 year deal. I agree a fringe players is usually not worth that kind of risk (especially for young talls - where it is often difficult to tell whether they will come good, and most of the time they don't). There seems to be plenty of reasonable recycled tall players doing the rounds year after year that have been far more ready to play top level AFL than Jordan.
- However, I wouldn't write him off after one game or one season with us, but the signs haven't been great either. As reported before he came to us he is fairly slow. He is also definitely not developed strength wise for ruck work or as a key forward. The fact that he has taken this long to debut in a Lions season that seems pre-ordained for his call-up also seems to back-up these queries.
- I think he has some chance of making it (there were a few half reasonable signs against Richmond along with a few bad ones - similar to his pre-season debut), but I definitely wouldn't be putting my money on it.

Although Lisle supporters might like to know I was also very pessimistic about us getting Hudson, which has turned out pretty well.

 

[Stocka]

I thought this thread was about the Tigers game, not Lisle, as cute as he is.

Would you be saying that if it were Patfull that we were discussing?

 

[Stocka]

The hypothetical world you're making up is the one where only one fact matters (IE the duration of the contract).

But that is not the only fact that is relevant to this discussion. Without all of the facts (note the 's'), you can't make an accurate gauge of the three-year deal being too long.

Some of the other facts you might want want to consider before cementing your beliefs are the ones I very creatively illustrated above, like the over all cost of his contract, what the club was expecting to play when we entered negotiations, and the possibility that Lisle may have said '3 years or nothing, I don't mind if I paid less over all, but I want the guarantee of 3 years'.

I've not "created" any "hypothetical world" in which I've ignored "facts". I think you might need to realise that a difference of opinion doesn't necessarily mean that one person isn't taking facts into consideration. It seems a bit arrogant to assume that just because someone doesn't agree with you that they must not have all the facts.

Also, you haven't provided any actual facts that I've actually ignored. Speculating that there may be facts that we are unaware of that were part of the negotiating process and providing some amusing illustrative isn't the same as actually providing facts....

At any rate, I'm less concerned about the possibility of Lisle and his manager being shrewd negotiators and more concerned about whether his performances to that date warranted the offer and how that affects the team and playing list. To put it in your language, let's say that "what Lisle had displayed at Hawthorn" is interchangeable with the word "fact", given that performance is tangible evidence as to the worth of a player. Personally, I see a player's performance as being a more important fact in the discussion, rather than the potential shrewdness of negotiation being seen as "fact".

Once again, to make it clear, I think that a three-year deal was too long to offer based on what had been displayed by Lisle in his three years at Hawthorn and the potential that could be expected from that performance in the future. Therefore, I am fully considering the "facts" of Lisle's performance up to the end of 2011 as well as my "observer's" knowledge of trades and player performance and development in general that I have seen over the years.

My hope is that those at the club with a better knowledge and level of insight and expertise than I, have got it right with Lisle, despite my reservations.

 

[Grimreepah]

After Mitch Clark left we had one ruckman on our list. It was a matter of filling that gap as best we could. We had to take risks. Hudson and Lisle were different types of players that helped cover our bases. Considering the vulnerable position we were in we've managed to cobble something together to hold the fort. If different players had been injured (Maguire for example) Lisle may well have played more games.

 

[karix]

Also, you haven't provided any actual facts that I've actually ignored. Speculating that there may be facts that we are unaware of that were part of the negotiating process and providing some amusing illustrative isn't the same as actually providing facts....

I can't provide you those facts because I wasn't there for the negotiation. But, I can guarantee you that there are more facts / factors that are relevant to your original suggestion that the 3 year deal was too long.

Once again, to make it clear, I think that a three-year deal was too long to offer based on what had been displayed by Lisle in his three years at Hawthorn and the potential that could be expected from that performance in the future. Therefore, I am fully considering the "facts" of Lisle's performance up to the end of 2011 as well as my "observer's" knowledge of trades and player performance and development in general that I have seen over the years.

Thanks for making it clear that you have based your opinion on two pieces of information and nothing else. 1) Lisle's performance at hawthorn, 2) "Observer's" knowledge

My point is that these two pieces of information are not enough to make a reasonable judgement. What you're actually doing is making an assumption based on limited information, and refusing to accept that there could be other information that is relevant to your opinion/belief/assumption, unless that information can be presented to you as fact. Allow me to illustrate this through analogy.

It's like you've arrived at a car accident (3 year contract) which you didn't witness. You've had a quick look and you know two facts for sure:
1) You've seen this car driven in another city (Lisle's form at Hawthorn)
2) You've seen the end results of a lot of car accidents over the years, read a lot about car accidents, but have never been in one, and never actually witnessed one in progress (Observer's knowledge)

You've decided that those 2 pieces of information are enough to make a decision about the car accident. Even though there is obviously much more information that is relevant to your decision making process, you're ignoring it because those are the only two things you know.

Normally car accidents are more complicated than 2 pieces of information (IE was the road wet? was there another driver involved? mechanical issue with the car? animal on the road? driver fatigue?) and the same is true of contract negotiations.

Which brings me back to my original point, that it's 'too early to make a call like that'. All I'm asking you to do is acknowledge that there is more to the 3 year contract offered to Lisle than what you're basing your opinion on.

The reason it's too early to make a call like yours is because we don't have all the facts available to make a decision at this stage. So we basically have to wait for more evidence before we can make a reasonable/informed decision.

Question: Would you prefer the club to have missed on Lisle rather than offer him a 3 year contract? And if so, what do you think we would've gotten instead?

 

[patfullfankezz]

Would you be saying that if it were Patfull that we were discussing?

Yup.

Only because there's no argument against signing him for life

I think there's a lot of upside to Lisle, and we've got the time to manage it out of him (I hope).

I think Lisle's problem with the hawks is the same as Hawksley's problem here: the team gameplan doesn't suit him or have room for him.

 

[Gabbatoir]

I was interested to discover through the afl site that we had 11 players with 12 or fewer disposals. It also seems that players when they are dropped to the reserves are churning out massive numbers (Lester - 38) being a prime example. It seems to me this is where we are at as a list and as a club. I think that a few great performances have distorted people's opinions of where we are actually at as a club. As time progresses, these players that are churning out the big numbers in the reserves will learn to close the gap between their best and worst irrespective of the standard of the opponent. As supporters we need to buckle down and wait a while for this to happen.

Having said that - I will admit I was seriously tested and ready to give the game away when Harwood chipped it straight to a Richmond player in that last quarter Saturday night. Was absolutely fuming!

 

[Stocka]

I can't provide you those facts because I wasn't there for the negotiation. But, I can guarantee you that there are more facts / factors that are relevant to your original suggestion that the 3 year deal was too long.

So in other words, you are speculating about the possible existence of additional facts, that may or may not be important, rather than actually having additional facts that might be pertinent. I don't think it's worth continuing to reply to the thread with this line of reasoning when it's not going to change my opinion.

Thanks for making it clear that you have based your opinion on two pieces of information and nothing else. 1) Lisle's performance at hawthorn, 2) "Observer's" knowledge

My point is that these two pieces of information are not enough to make a reasonable judgement.

What you're actually doing is making an assumption based on limited information, and refusing to accept that there could be other information that is relevant to your opinion/belief/assumption, unless that information can be presented to you as fact.

I based my judgment on multiple pieces of information (which is implied by Lisle's performance at Hawthorn and "observer's" knowledge) and I'm fine with the reasoning behind it. You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" with my reasoning. You will not persuade me otherwise on the basis of arguing that your difference of opinion is due to having more facts than myself, when all you have done is suggest that there "could be" additional information (regardless of how important it may be), which might be a fact in itself, but you're yet to provide any compelling information that would change my opinion on the length of Lisle's contract. .

Also, I have not "refused" to accept that there could be additional information, however, the key information as far as I'm concerned is the quality of Lisle as a player and whether or not three years is befitting for a contract along with the degree of need for a player of Lisle's type.

Allow me to illustrate this through analogy.

It's like you've arrived at a car accident (3 year contract) which you didn't witness. You've had a quick look and you know two facts for sure:
1) You've seen this car driven in another city (Lisle's form at Hawthorn)
2) You've seen the end results of a lot of car accidents over the years, read a lot about car accidents, but have never been in one, and never actually witnessed one in progress (Observer's knowledge)

You've decided that those 2 pieces of information are enough to make a decision about the car accident. Even though there is obviously much more information that is relevant to your decision making process, you're ignoring it because those are the only two things you know.

Normally car accidents are more complicated than 2 pieces of information (IE was the road wet? was there another driver involved? mechanical issue with the car? animal on the road? driver fatigue?) and the same is true of contract negotiations.

Your analogy is inaccurate, because it assumes that either yourself, with a supposedly heightened awareness of the potential of the possibility of additional facts which may or may not be important, have better judgement than I, or that club-based experts get every decision right all the time, given that they are directly involved and have a higher degree of expertise. I disagree with the premise of both of these tenets.

Once again, I'll point out that a difference of opinion doesn't have to mean that one person has more facts than another. This seems to be the gist of most of your replies in this topic and it's starting to become pointless to respond to your comments on this basis!

Which brings me back to my original point, that it's 'too early to make a call like that'. All I'm asking you to do is acknowledge that there is more to the 3 year contract offered to Lisle than what you're basing your opinion on.

Why should I change my opinion on the length of Lisle's contract based on the speculated existence of factors which I don't think are as important as what I would consider the key information?

The reason it's too early to make a call like yours is because we don't have all the facts available to make a decision at this stage. So we basically have to wait for more evidence before we can make a reasonable/informed decision.

Personally I don't think so. Others are free to have a different opinion. However, I don't think that a difference of opinion means that one person somehow is more "factually privileged" than another...

Question: Would you prefer the club to have missed on Lisle rather than offer him a 3 year contract? And if so, what do you think we would've gotten instead?

Whilst noting that you are inviting me to speculate on hypotheticals (which I have a feeling that you'll then claim that I have ignored the possible existence of certain facts in discussing) I probably would have passed on Lisle if it was a case of "3 years or nothing". I think three years is too long to offer to a player of Lisle's standing at the end of 2011, given that he had three years in the system, had played minimal games at Hawthorn without setting the world on fire, which I think are the pertinent facts in the issue along with the Lions' degree of need for a player of Lisle's type.

Assuming that we still had Pick 29 and still wanted a ruck/forward option (or a key position option) the choice would have been to look for another trade or to use the pick in the draft. In the case of looking for another trade option, I still would not have offered more than a two-year contract to a fringe player. Someone like J.Jenkins comes to mind as potentially being a similar player who was available at the end of last year (although, he may well not have wanted to go to Brisbane), but even so, I think two years would have been sufficient. As LOTR pointed out, I.Maric was another who was traded at the end of last year, and for even less of a pick than Lisle (once again, Maric may not have been interested in coming to Brisbane though, particularly considering that he wouldn't have been the first choice ruckman).

In the case of any of these fringe players, I might have agreed to a two-year deal with a third-year, performance-based extension, but three years flat, for the position that we are in as a club, is too risky, in my opinion with the quality of player that we're talking about. If that wasn't good enough for the players in question, I would have taken my chances in the draft. Perhaps a mature-aged player from a state league might have been a suitable alternative, with the prospect of picking such a player up through the ND, PSD or RD. There was also the prospect of offering B.McCauley another contract (if we were really desperate enough), who funnily enough, ended up at Hawthorn. Mind you, I think McCauley had probably done his time with the Lions by the end of last year, so I have no problem with his delisting either.

My guess is that the club thought that Lisle would be a better choice than any of these alternatives, perhaps because they thought he'd be better for the role they had in mind than compared to a player who might have been available in the draft at that stage, and perhaps there were no other trade alternatives and obviously they must have seen Lisle as a better choice than McCauley (and I probably would too). Given that the team was looking very thin on the ground for key position and certainly ruck/forward prospects (mainly because of the departure of M.Clark), I have no problem with the trade itself. Pick 29 seems fair to pass up given that we were in a bind. Obviously the club weighed up the need for such a player with the risk of a three-year contract and went with it. I hope they have got it right.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I don't think anything can be read into the "risk" of contract length without the context of salary.

At least 2 years at Hawthorn was on the table (the year remaining on his contract, plus an extension on the table). If security was what he was after, what else could we offer but 3?

If Lisle amounts to nothing it is a poor result, if he goes to to provide some value as a player then it was a good result. No meaningful analysis can be done at this present time.

 

[Stocka]

After Mitch Clark left we had one ruckman on our list. It was a matter of filling that gap as best we could. We had to take risks. Hudson and Lisle were different types of players that helped cover our bases. Considering the vulnerable position we were in we've managed to cobble something together to hold the fort. If different players had been injured (Maguire for example) Lisle may well have played more games.

These are fair points.

 

[Lace Out]

Whether it works out or not,I think Brisbane is probably in a situation that has to be a little generous with this contract type where we are trying to lure players from interstate especially Vic.

 

[POBT]

Whether it works out or not,I think Brisbane is probably in a situation that has to be a little generous with this contract type where we are trying to lure players from interstate especially Vic.

Yeah, there's generally a premium to be paid if we want to lure a player here - particularly at the moment given we're not contending.

 

[karix]

No meaningful analysis can be done at this present time.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly TBD, this was my entire point before it became a wall of text debate with Stocka, and I couldn't agree more.