Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Struggle said:
4 years for ohalloran is confusing. How can you give out contracts that long for someone who hasn't cemented a place in the 22 yet
67 games in 6 years
2024 -11 disposals and less than a goal every 2 games
Click to expand...

Gotta overpay sometimes to get someone out of a club. Maybe an extra year gets him over the line?
At the end of the day, does a contract even mean anything these days?
 
Without knowing how much money we're willing to pay, it's all a bit academic.

O'Halloran and his management team might have said to us, we'd much rather the guarantee of being on an AFL list for four years, and money it's not that big a deal for us. That long term security is what matters (maybe O'Halloran wants to pay off a mortgage or something I don't know).

Ok sure we can be angry if it's four years on good money without knowing how good of a footballer he'll be in that fourth year - he could collapse, fair enough.

But if it's on not that much money...

O'Halloran's good enough to have been picked for at least 14 games in each of the last 4 seasons for a very good team over that four years in GWS, I'd be confident he's still at least good enough to be on a list in four years time.

It's not as if we'd have rather moved on from O'Halloran to free up the list spot, in three years time, surely not?
 
O'Halloran would provide a direct and immediate upgrade to McNeil and Vandermeer, a player that people have understood are relatively weak players but necessary in the team because the remainder of the list doesn't have their hard running and/or pressure skillsets.

Now people are worried about an additional year, the difference between a second and third round draft pick.

Okay, say we keep the second round pick. Say we keep the salary cap room.

Then what?

People would be clamouring for a way to upgrade Vandermeer and McNeil.

I'm not disagreeing that it may be an overpay for O'Halloran in a netural context. There are better hard-running half-forward flankers in the league. On average, we may draft a better second round pick.

But the context matters - draft assets are only valuable insofar as they ultimately upgrade the team and lead to wins. We don't win more games by having a better draft hand, we win more games by having a better team on the park directly and immediately, of which one way is through drafting players.

People are way too concerned about "winning" trade week in an abstract sense than looking at the team that we will put on the park Round 1 next year and seeing how we can improve that as a first priority.
 
adogsfan5 said:
Gotta overpay sometimes to get someone out of a club. Maybe an extra year gets him over the line?
At the end of the day, does a contract even mean anything these days?
Click to expand...
You overpay best 22 players to pry them out not the O'Halloran‘s of the world who would be looking for job security over anything else.
Four years is excessive IMO but what would I know.
 
For all the love Sam Power gets, he's made a lot of very questionable deals (contracts too) in recent years. I feel like people still hang onto the Bruce, Keath & Treloar trades from a very long time ago.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DiamondDogs8 said:
I’ve been on record saying I’d like to bring in O’Halloran, but giving him a four year deal and trading out a second rounder would raise some eyebrows. Not looking good.
Click to expand...

Feels like we are trying to force the issue for the sake of trading but would be smarter to go after him when he is out of contract next year for much cheaper.

I’m all for hitting the draft hard this year, then going after a Callaghan / O’Hallaran double next year.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
threenewpadlocks said:
O'Halloran would provide a direct and immediate upgrade to McNeil and Vandermeer, a player that people have understood are relatively weak players but necessary in the team because the remainder of the list doesn't have their hard running and/or pressure skillsets.

Now people are worried about an additional year, the difference between a second and third round draft pick.

Okay, say we keep the second round pick. Say we keep the salary cap room.

Then what?

People would be clamouring for a way to upgrade Vandermeer and McNeil.

I'm not disagreeing that it may be an overpay for O'Halloran in a netural context. There are better hard-running half-forward flankers in the league. On average, we may draft a better second round pick.

But the context matters - draft assets are only valuable insofar as they ultimately upgrade the team and lead to wins. We don't win more games by having a better draft hand, we win more games by having a better team on the park directly and immediately, of which one way is through drafting players.

People are way too concerned about "winning" trade week in an abstract sense than looking at the team that we will put on the park Round 1 next year and seeing how we can improve that as a first priority.
Click to expand...
I don’t want O’halloran but I have to concede you make too much sense in this post to disagree. Well rationalised - we should do it on the off chance he can improve his output with a new club.
 
Foxman98 said:
There is nothing that he has produced at AFL level to suggest anyone offer him a 4 year deal very worrying indeed
Click to expand...
There was nothing much in Lachlan Brambles career to suggest that he was going to cement his position in the side from Round 1.

4 years for O'Halloran doesn't seem like much of a stretch in an era of exponential player salaries and contracts lengths. One things for certain, we need to increase the quality of our midfield depth and O'Halloran if nothing else, is good enough to do that.
 
Norm De Guerre said:
There was nothing much in Lachlan Brambles career to suggest that he was going to cement his position in the side from Round 1.

4 years for O'Halloran doesn't seem like much of a stretch in an era of exponential player salaries and contracts lengths. One things for certain, we need to increase the quality of our midfield depth and O'Halloran if nothing else, is good enough to do that.
Click to expand...
Lachie Bramble wasn't signed for 4 years and his first year at the hawks actually was fairly good
 
Foxman98 said:
Lachie Bramble wasn't signed for 4 years and his first year at the hawks actually was fairly good
Click to expand...
He was a guy who was averaging 10 games a year across his career at the hawks when they were at their lowest ebb.

A guy that the Hawks didn't exactly stop from looking elsewhere.

Bramble and O'Halloran are exactly the types that we should be looking at to bring into the club, whilst we are still a competitive outfit. As for the length of any prospective contract. 4 years is a blink in the eye of an AFL career in an age where Tom Campbell is still on an AFL list.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
People are way too concerned about "winning" trade week in an abstract sense than looking at the team that we will put on the park Round 1 next year and seeing how we can improve that as a first priority.
Click to expand...

It’s not so much about ‘winning’ trade week, I think people are more concerned about the balance between improving the team in the short term and putting our scarce draft picks better use.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Similar threads

goodcop badcop
Analysis Draft, List and Trade Analysis
Replies
4
Views
1K
BIG_BONTS
BIG_BONTS
Mutt
Rules Posting Extracts or Articles From Sources Which May Breach Copyright
Replies
12
Views
640
Cookie
Cookie
VitalDread
List Mgmt. 2025 Draft Thread
Replies
5
Views
485
House_of_Dahl
House_of_Dahl
goodcop badcop
List Mgmt. 2024 Draft Thread
117 118 119 120 121
Replies
3K
Views
147K
VitalDread
VitalDread
Next Waiting
Opinion Dogs and Horses - The Racing Thread
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
266
Views
8K
Next Waiting
Next Waiting
dogwatch
List Mgmt. WB Off Season News Items 2024
Replies
10
Views
1K
geoffjennings79
geoffjennings79
Hobdog
ACT Based Supporters
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
Capital_Dog
C

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top