List Mgmt. Morning, Joe! (was The Daniher (Probably Mega-)thread)

[youneverknow22]

In my opinion, I don’t think he will be brought in to replace anyone in the forward line.
He is more likely to be replacing Stef in the side and be rotating with Oscar as second Ruck.

I just don't see it. Why not get gunston, or breust? or even brown? Those players are far more reliable and cheaper as well. We also seem to have success with hawthorn players. I personally hope Essendon matches the bid, and is stuck with daniher struggling to get on the park for the next 4-5 years while we go after a forward who actually will get on the park. It's a big NO from here with this one.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I just don't see it. Why not get gunston, or breust? or even brown? Those players are far more reliable and cheaper as well. We also seem to have success with hawthorn players. I personally hope Essendon matches the bid, and is stuck with daniher struggling to get on the park for the next 4-5 years while we go after a forward who actually will get on the park. It's a big NO from here with this one.

Once again, you're not considering that the club hierarchy has greater access to information than you do. It's entirely possible that they have medical information showing Daniher no longer has issues with his groin. They wouldn't be looking to sign him if they didn't think he'd be able to play.

 

[youneverknow22]

Once again, you're not considering that the club hierarchy has greater access to information than you do. It's entirely possible that they have medical information showing Daniher no longer has issues with his groin. They wouldn't be looking to sign him if they didn't think he'd be able to play.

This is the same club that thought Adams would get up, and we know how that turned out. Their information isn't always correct, and the risk shouldn't be taken.

 

[Clarkythelion]

Actually I came on your board to ask a question - why wouldn't you take Joe for free, when all it costs you is about $100k of additional "risk" (convert incentive $ to base salary) - nothing in total salary cap, nothing in trade.

Because - as your club doesn't understand it's about how the actions around one player looks to all the other players and what message that sends. Last year Joe wanted to go, you had a very good offer but turned it down and Joe had to stay. I'm sure Joe had his reasons and would have discussed it with other players and they would have seen how disappointed he was and across this season would have seen his ongoing disappointment. Yes you have to do right by the club but it's a balance between club and player and maintaining your brand as tough negotiators but yet showing you care about players. Clearly the bombers got it wrong and it spread like a virus and team harmony went out the window..

Since Fagan arrived in Brisbane he has said over and over the rebuilding of the club has been about relationships. Relationship between coaches and players, the football department and administration, sponsors and the club and importantly the club and supporters. In almost EVERY post match interview Fagan does he thanks the crowd and supporters - he has taken us on the same ride as the players.

There is no way Brisbane will risk all that to be seen overpaying or being done over at the trade table. This is not about one player at any cost - the club will not risk pampering to anyone, the team bond is too great and the growing supporter base too valuable to sit at the trade table like stunned mullets. Fair is fair or Brisbane walk.

 

[Hollow Knight]

This is the same club that thought Adams would get up, and we know how that turned out. Their information isn't always correct, and the risk shouldn't be taken.

There is always risk.

 

[JasRulz63]

Name any big club from the past 10 years that brought in injury prone players to take them to a premiership? Hawthorn never did it, Richmond never did it, and Geelong never did it. They brought in players who they knew would step right in and play every game of the season. Frawley, Lynch, Dangerfield, etc. All of these players were not a risk like daniher is/was. We don't need him, and if we truly have the cap space to somehow cover him and our remaining players, I would rather sign a cheaper forward who would provide a role and bring in a player who you know would play 22 games next year.

Shaun Burgoyne came into Hawthorn on crutches, Stuart Dew had been retired for a year and had made the most of it, and Brian Lake came in after having a serious knee injury two years prior.

Brad Ottens came into Geelong still in rehab for the ACL he ruptured the previous year.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is the same club that thought Adams would get up, and we know how that turned out. Their information isn't always correct, and the risk shouldn't be taken.

So should we avoid every player who has had past injuries? I see your Adams and I raise you a McCarthy.

 

[youneverknow22]

There is always risk.

Then let that risk involve a 3 year contract, not a 5 year contract. 5 years for a player who has only got up 7-8 times in the last 3 years is astoundingly risky. I can't remember the last time a player who played so little was offered a contract length that significant.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Then let that risk involve a 3 year contract, not a 5 year contract. 5 years for a player who has only got up 7-8 times in the last 3 years is astoundingly risky. I can't remember the last time a player who played so little was offered a contract length that significant.

We're not certain that he has been offered 5 years though. Nothing official has been reported.

 

[youneverknow22]

Shaun Burgoyne came into Hawthorn on crutches, Stuart Dew had been retired for a year and had made the most of it, and Brian Lake came in after having a serious knee injury two years prior.

Brad Ottens came into Geelong still in rehab for the ACL he ruptured the previous year.

None of those players were given a 5 year contract nor were they earning as much as Daniher was.

So should we avoid every player who has had past injuries? I see your Adams and I raise you a McCarthy.

Of course we should give players a chance who incurred previous injuries. What we shouldn't do is offer them a 5 year contract.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Then let that risk involve a 3 year contract, not a 5 year contract. 5 years for a player who has only got up 7-8 times in the last 3 years is astoundingly risky. I can't remember the last time a player who played so little was offered a contract length that significant.

Any contract terms are purely speculative right now. That said, the speculation is that that contract is performance based. That could involve triggers for fourth or fifth years.

 

[M Malice]

Then let that risk involve a 3 year contract, not a 5 year contract. 5 years for a player who has only got up 7-8 times in the last 3 years is astoundingly risky. I can't remember the last time a player who played so little was offered a contract length that significant.

The information re us offering a 5 year contract would be coming from what I would say is unreliable sources ie. 99% of the AFL media rabble.

We will be offering something like 2-3 years with triggers for extension and extra $$$$ IMO.

 

[youneverknow22]

Any contract terms are purely speculative right now. That said, the speculation is that that contract is performance based. That could involve triggers for fourth or fifth years.

Hey, if it's a 3 year contract with performance expectations to reach a 4th or 5th year, then I wouldn't be against it. But if it's 5 years, then surely as a supporter base we would be against something that is obviously a huge risk.

 

[60sbomber]

It was answered - perhaps we don't think he is worth paying overs for from a cash perspective which we may rate higher in the long term than a draft pick.

But you wouldn't really be paying any "overs" unless he were absolutely stuffed and couldn't play at all, in which case you would have lost your base $650k or so anyway.
For example, let's say the current offer is $650k base plus $10k per game plus $1k per goal.
So if he has a good year, plays 20 games and kicks 40 goals, he gets $650k+$200k+$40k = $890k
If things go wrong, say his groins get sore after a few games, he needs a rest, then comes back and only plays a few games intermittently. Totals only 10 games and 10 gaols. Just about worst case scenario. He would get $650+10x$10k+10x$1k = $760k.
Under a contract that would get band 1 compo, say $750k base + $5kper game + $1k per goal, the difference would be
For the good season ( 20 games, 40 goals) - still $890 no difference
For the bad case, groin issues stuffing his season (10 games, 10 goals) - $750k+10x$5k+10x$1k = $810k. The difference is only $50k on the current contract offer.
A difference of $50k on a near worst case scenario is pretty small bikkies. Hardly enough to dig your heels in over and miss out on getting him if you think you want him.

 

[Hollow Knight]

But you wouldn't really be paying any "overs" unless he were absolutely stuffed and couldn't play at all, in which case you would have lost your base $650k or so anyway.
For example, let's say the current offer is $650k base plus $10k per game plus $1k per goal.
So if he has a good year, plays 20 games and kicks 40 goals, he gets $650k+$200k+$40k = $890k
If things go wrong, say his groins get sore after a few games, he needs a rest, then comes back and only plays a few games intermittently. Totals only 10 games and 10 gaols. Just about worst case scenario. He would get $650+10x$10k+10x$1k = $760k.
Under a contract that would get band 1 compo, say $750k base + $5kper game + $1k per goal, the difference would be
For the good season ( 20 games, 40 goals) - still $890 no difference
For the bad case, groin issues stuffing his season (10 games, 10 goals) - $750k+10x$5k+10x$1k = $810k. The difference is only $50k on the current contract offer.
A difference of $50k on a near worst case scenario is pretty small bikkies. Hardly enough to dig your heels in over and miss out on getting him if you think you want him.

We will do what is best for us and our list management plan. None of us are informed to know what that is at this point.

Frankly all the hypotheticals from armchair Bigfooty list managers become more and more boring each year. In 95 percent of cases things end up very different to what gets floated here.

 

[Ralphy2017]

Once again, you're not considering that the club hierarchy has greater access to information than you do. It's entirely possible that they have medical information showing Daniher no longer has issues with his groin. They wouldn't be looking to sign him if they didn't think he'd be able to play.

True, but you would also assume they had medical information on Adams, cause they signed him for 4 years and look how that has worked out the last two years. Could argue signing Adams has stopped Payne from developing last year. I can see both sides of the argument, but think 5 years is too risky for Joe. IF Joe and medical staff are confident in his fitness then perhaps 3 year deal with game incentives to trigger 4th and maybe 5th year. Just good another key player wants to come to our club

 

[jonnobackpocket]

I would rather we don't get him him, to be honest.

We're already a top 4 side, and we have a list of players who will be asking for a pay rise in their contracts. How can we possibly keep all of our stars if we end up signing an injury prone forward who may or may not work for us? Even if he does work for us, we still might not be able to keep them all. The fact of the matter is that we don't even need daniher and if he doesn't end up at this club, resulting in us not trading anything for him, I would actually be quite happy.

If I had a choice of keeping witherden, rayner, mcluggage, starcevich, mcstay, etc, over getting daniher I know which one I would take. Yes, there is a chance we could keep them all if we do sign him, but I would argue those chances are lower. It isn't worth it, IMO.

You would rather have Witherden over Joe Daniher. OK.

 

[youneverknow22]

You would rather have Witherden over Joe Daniher. OK.

Of course. Witherden has been in and out of the side this year, yet he's played more senior games than daniher this year. I would pick witherden over daniher everyday of the week. At least with him you can get 22 games, with daniher you will likely get 22 games in 4 years.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

I am dumbfounded there are supporters who think he will not improve us. There maybe a risk but the club will
Do it’s due diligence because it is a professional well run organisation.

 

[youneverknow22]

I am dumbfounded there are supporters who think he will not improve us. There maybe a risk but the club will
Do it’s due diligence because it is a professional well run organisation.

The last time we gave a significant contract to an injury plagued player (adams), it backfired. The risk is there and if the contract is 5 years, it could potentially be a catastrophic mistake rivaling the fevola signing.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

True, but you would also assume they had medical information on Adams, cause they signed him for 4 years and look how that has worked out the last two years. Could argue signing Adams has stopped Payne from developing last year. I can see both sides of the argument, but think 5 years is too risky for Joe. IF Joe and medical staff are confident in his fitness then perhaps 3 year deal with game incentives to trigger 4th and maybe 5th year. Just good another key player wants to come to our club

If Payne deserved to play over Adams, do you not think he would have? McCarthy and Birchall have both been fine, and we don't know how long Daniher's contract will be. This back-and-forth started out with someone being unimpressed with the idea of signing Daniher at all.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Of course. Witherden has been in and out of the side this year, yet he's played more senior games than daniher this year. I would pick witherden over daniher everyday of the week. At least with him you can get 22 games, with daniher you will likely get 22 games in 4 years.

You don’t know that he might play every game. A half back who can’t get a game over an all Australian full
Forward who is one of the best key forwards in the league when playing. Sounds like a smart move.

 

[Tom14]

The last time we gave a significant contract to an injury plagued player (adams), it backfired. The risk is there and if the contract is 5 years, it could potentially be a catastrophic mistake rivaling the fevola signing.

Yeah we've been really hampered by trading for Adams. Destroyed the fabric of the club it has!

 

[martinson]

It's all speculation until we get him and know ,if we do, what the terms are and what we have to give up for it.

He looked fine to me in the games he played this year.

You're looking at the best FF in the game if he's up and going. Compared to Witherden ?? Don't get the point there.

Of course their are risks and issues which is why we'd be doing extensive due diligence . He say he wants to come to us , he'll be a free agent ,so basically we're holding all the aces . If we decide it's worth the risks if there are many.

 

[youneverknow22]

Yeah we've been really hampered by trading for Adams. Destroyed the fabric of the club it has!

Don't twist the narrative. You know having 2 players who can't get on the park while on significant contracts isn't a good thing.