2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

I think he’s right that:

1) Saints are mad to offer a 4-5 year deal to a player struggling with his body.
2) What little pace Hanners had is (currently) gone.

Whether he can get his running game and pace back I don’t know?

[KTigers]

If he is, it would be in the sense that a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Malthouse wouldn't have a clue about the current or likely future health of Hannebery. He's a past it, desperately trying to sound like he's still relevant in the industry. That observation isn't based on this comment on Hannebery, but on all the pot shots he fires from a distance without having any information on which to base them.

I didn't read it, but heard Nick Riewoldt talking a few weeks back on AFL360 about a recent Malthouse article on which players he thought should think about giving the game away at the end of this season. If Riewoldt is to be believed, the names included Josh Kennedy (the Eagles one) and, wait for it, Lance Franklin.

If that is true then it might be time for Mick himself to give the game (whatever game he thinks he is playing) away. I don't follow player movements as closely as some people on here but I can't remember any player with three years left on his contract and who is still due $2.4M (or thereabouts) on it being traded. Even if Dan wanted to be traded (and it appears he doesn't) and the club wanted to trade him (and it appears they don't) then there is still a fairly big pile of money that needs
to be dealt with, and fitted into someone's salary cap.

[aardvark]

It's probably just a smokescreen to hide Gaff and Kelly coming to the Swans.

[707]

Mick Malthouse is so detestable

Malthouse is the biggest cause of Carlton's current woes, made some dreadful list decisions, got rid of good/very good players and recruited dross.

Has absolutely no credibility.

I'll say yet again, Hanners will be given a thorough medical by suiters, he's not going as a dodgy deal so can we please stop saying "if he's not going to get better we should trade him"

[Markwebbos]

I'll say yet again, Hanners will be given a thorough medical by suiters, he's not going as a dodgy deal so can we please stop saying "if he's not going to get better we should trade him"

Clubs may well have the same medical info on Hanners but disagree on his prognosis

[KSAS]

Just heard St Kilda's GM Simon Lethlean admit on SEN that he has personally spoken with Hannebery's manager. He said there was no blow back from the Swans intimating they had prior notice of their approach. He also added there is a lot of due diligence yet to be done in regards to Dan's fitness/health & whether he or the Swans want to part ways. He also admitted the Saints are interested in Scott Lycett from WCE.

[Steve]

The comments from St Kilda are quite staggering - publicly trying to entice a player who has 3 years left on a contract. If there has been any discussions/interest from Hannebery or Sydney, then why would you make it public, and if there haven't been such discussions, then making those comments publicly is highly inappropriate - however 'getable' they might think he is. How happy would they be if we were aggressively pursuing any of their players under contract?

Other than salary cap relief it isn't going to be a massive win if he went - it will be one of those 'offer a massive contract to the player because you desperately want him, but play hardball in a trade saying "he's damaged goods" ' situations.

We actually need midfield quality and depth - so IMO we need to punt on Hanners getting his body right and also recruiting a couple of others. We should be going after a couple of guys like Liberatore and Wallis who would be decent value.

If Jake Lloyd wants to be overpaid to play with a rabble then let him go, use that money towards more midfielders. Particularly if Longmire will stubbornly stick with his current gameplan, which will inevitably be the case.

I struggle with the logic behind going after Darcy Moore - he'll be a very good player if he stays healthy, but doesn't seem to fit our needs. Franklin, Reid and McCartin as forwards, and Melican and Aliir as key defenders - where does Moore fit in?

[Markwebbos]

The comments from St Kilda are quite staggering - publicly trying to entice a player who has 3 years left on a contract. If there has been any discussions/interest from Hannebery or Sydney, then why would you make it public, and if there haven't been such discussions, then making those comments publicly is highly inappropriate - however 'getable' they might think he is. How happy would they be if we were aggressively pursuing any of their players under contract?

Other than salary cap relief it isn't going to be a massive win if he went - it will be one of those 'offer a massive contract to the player because you desperately want him, but play hardball in a trade saying "he's damaged goods" ' situations.

We actually need midfield quality and depth - so IMO we need to punt on Hanners getting his body right and also recruiting a couple of others. We should be going after a couple of guys like Liberatore and Wallis who would be decent value.

If Jake Lloyd wants to be overpaid to play with a rabble then let him go, use that money towards more midfielders. Particularly if Longmire will stubbornly stick with his current gameplan, which will inevitably be the case.

I struggle with the logic behind going after Darcy Moore - he'll be a very good player if he stays healthy, but doesn't seem to fit our needs. Franklin, Reid and McCartin as forwards, and Melican and Aliir as key defenders - where does Moore fit in?

No one's come out and said the Moore rumour is true, except his manager, who pretty much admitted he was using the Swans "interest" to get a better deal to stay at the Pies. And that was all before Aliir signed...

[Ludwig]

There must be something in the works on the part of the Swans, else there would have been an 'off limits, he's a contracted player' statement. The fact that there hasn't been that 'required player' statement has to make you think that this has been in the works for a bit of time already. The Swans have been out of the major player market since the Buddy deal. It feels like time we got back in.

It's also interesting that Gaff and Hanners are such similar players and that Gaff is an unsigned FA. The big difference is that Gaff comes without a trade and Hanners gets exchanged for a 1st round pick.

[Markwebbos]

The Hanners mystery may not resolve itself until October. Or will he come clean either way as soon as our season is done? He may have to keep playing along until we declare our free agency hand - assuming we have one!

[Hotpotato]

There must be something in the works on the part of the Swans, else there would have been an 'off limits, he's a contracted player' statement. The fact that there hasn't been that 'required player' statement has to make you think that this has been in the works for a bit of time already. The Swans have been out of the major player market since the Buddy deal. It feels like time we got back in.

It's also interesting that Gaff and Hanners are such similar players and that Gaff is an unsigned FA. The big difference is that Gaff comes without a trade and Hanners gets exchanged for a 1st round pick.

That’s settled then , Hanners is going home, then to the Saints and Gaff is coming to SYDNEY for his general well-being and a safe haven .

[Steve]

The only reason St Kilda are happy to talk about their interest now is as a PR exercise/ to distract their fans from their on field performance and to try and send a message around ‘being aggressive in the trade market’.

It is a real conspiracy theory to say Gaff had made his mind up to come to Sydney, so hit Brayshaw to setup a justification to leave Perth but bypass the glare of Victoria to go to the Swans.