Hannebery unlikely to play AFL in first month of season

[GilsAuPair]

And, as stated early in the thread, was named in the best on many media outlets, including best player for Swans on Fox Sports.

Link please.

[Aussie Jonestown]

And, as stated early in the thread, was named in the best on many media outlets, including best player for Swans on Fox Sports. So it pays to check facts properly.

I challenge you to watch the game and then comment further.

I watched the game and Hannebery was atrocious.

He missed tackles, he missed targets, he turned it over many times and he even shirked a contest.

Very ineffective and his possessions were virtually useless.

Watch the game for yourself!

[takeaway]

And, as stated early in the thread, was named in the best on many media outlets, including best player for Swans on Fox Sports.

Link please.

I gave the Fox Sports quote earlier but if you need clarification - https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-fi ... 508aa8c5ab

Other media reports are also there but I'll leave that to you.

[takeaway]

And, as stated early in the thread, was named in the best on many media outlets, including best player for Swans on Fox Sports. So it pays to check facts properly.

I challenge you to watch the game and then comment further.

I watched the game and Hannebery was atrocious.

He missed tackles, he missed targets, he turned it over many times and he even shirked a contest.

Very ineffective and his possessions were virtually useless.

Watch the game for yourself!

Hannebury was No. 4.
I saw the game, and the Swans had a shocker, but Hannebury was a standout, as confirmed by virtually all the commentators & media.

[suss]

There's a chance that 29 year old Hannebery might come good, who's to say? ...
but the point is while other clubs apply strict due diligence principles, what are we applying - undue negligence?
There's risk involved with Hanners, we're not talking about a footballer in his prime years or at the prime of their physical state - and so you need to weight the offer accordingly ... $800 k per annum over 5 years is way, way over the top.

There are healthy, younger footballers who are in their prime or whose stocks are on the rise that come along ... like Treloar, Shiel, Mitchell (hawks) etc... did they command $800k per annum?
These are the ones that I'd prefer us to chase.

None of those players want to come to us though. We’re stuck chasing the Hannerburys of the world because we can’t get a top line mid like Treloar, Shiel or Mitchell.

I’m not sure if what else we could do with our salary cap.

[WellardSaint]

There's a chance that 29 year old Hannebery might come good, who's to say? ...
but the point is while other clubs apply strict due diligence principles, what are we applying - undue negligence?
There's risk involved with Hanners, we're not talking about a footballer in his prime years or at the prime of their physical state - and so you need to weight the offer accordingly ... $800 k per annum over 5 years is way, way over the top.

There are healthy, younger footballers who are in their prime or whose stocks are on the rise that come along ... like Treloar, Shiel, Mitchell (hawks) etc... did they command $800k per annum?
These are the ones that I'd prefer us to chase.

None of those players want to come to us though. We’re stuck chasing the Hannerburys of the world because we can’t get a top line mid like Treloar, Shiel or Mitchell.

I’m not sure if what else we could do with our salary cap.

Agreed.
Telling the whole world that we are flush with money and are chasing a big fish-
all it does is give every player agent an ideal way to drive up the price of a player.
Manager to potential club: "look, we could always sign with the Saints, they've offered $x..."
(even though manager will never send client to us)

[Yorkeys]

Fools and other peoples money. Inevitable result. Need to move the fools on. Perhaps to politics.

[degruch]

I'm not concerned as much about whether Hannebery is a bust as much as the bold statement that the club clearly hasn't carried out due diligence in recruiting him, despite the entire country flagging his issues. Did they think it was all a clever ruse so we'd pass on him and the Hawks would snap him up?

[shanegrambeau]

Pardon my ignorance of draft rules, but we had to spend a certain portion of the cap, right? Thems the rules right, and everyone knew what position we were in, e.g. losing games, no one wanted to come and we had to spend!!

[stevie]

Maybe we can sell him back to the Swans now

[samoht]

However this turns out, we are using an expensive yardstick if Hannebery is worth $800k per annum (in the state and at the age we got him). I'd rather we flashed an extra $100,000 in front of healthy, young Treloar's face, or Shiel's face or Tom Mitchell's face or Dangerfield's face, etc.- i.e., dynamic, young players - than pay many $100,000 overs for Hanners whom no other team entertained recruiting.

This is a yardstick that could now be used against us by players' managers - and we could be whacked, repeatedly over the head with it.

We should stop selling ourselves short - we now have state of the art facilities, etc... an extra $100,000 per annum (over whatever other teams are prepared to pay) should now do the trick to attract the young, healthy guns.

We need to start recruiting wisely.

[saynta]

Well, that's what Gubby Allen was brought in to do.

[older saint]

Pardon my ignorance of draft rules, but we had to spend a certain portion of the cap, right? Thems the rules right, and everyone knew what position we were in, e.g. losing games, no one wanted to come and we had to spend!!

Pretty sure with the bring forward rules that requirement was changed?

[DJ Higgins]

It is true that you have to pay acertain amount of your salary cap. I thinks it's over 90%. But that doesn't mean we had to get hanneberry. Front load billings and fresh, hell do it to lots of players and it solves the problem. This year we should have gone overs on a gun mid from gws

All academic now and dan is ours for four years, not 5 as he won't trigger his clause. Hopefully he gets his body right or his body breaks to such a degree that he can not play anymore. I don't mean a serious injury just wear and tear injuries that come with age.
Worst outcome is he becomes Freeman and always two weeks away and delivers very little

[Aussie Jonestown]

There were no other clubs chasing Hannebery...NONE
St.kilda were the only club interested.
WHY give Hannebery a FOUR YEAR with option of a fifth year contract when three would have been more than enough to get any deal done ?
Why make an injury riddled high risk ( cooked ) player coming off two very poor injury interrupted seasons one of the most highly paid players at the club and offer a five year contract ?
Hannebery was rated at 365 in the AFL last year.

Is this a case of Simon Lethlean, who has a history of lacking good judgement, making a very rash decision to recruit a player who was obviously cooked already and pay him astronomically over his worth without doing any due diligence... or is this a case of him looking after a good mates son at the expense of the St.kilda Football Club ?
Is it a case of both ?
Seems to me it's a either incompetence or corruption or both ?

[media]https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/st-ki ... 74a3b4591b[/media]

St Kilda coach Alan Richardson has revealed star signing Dan Hannebery has to be “re-built” with an injury load that is now expected to see him miss at least the first six games of the season.
The Saints famously snared Hannebery during the 2018 AFL Trade Period with a five-year-deal reportedly worth $4 million.
The huge contract gamble has come under fire from critics, including AFL journalist Damien Barrett.
St Kilda football boss Simon Lethlean earlier this year dismissed Barrett’s claims that the deal was a bust for the Saints, suggesting the reporter didn’t have any source to support his strong views.
The deal has now been further stained for the Saints by Richardson’s revelation on SEN Radio on Friday that he doesn’t expect to see Hannebery on the field for the club until at least after the first month of the competition.
Richardson’s honest assessment of the Hannebery’s concerning physical state left veteran footy commentator Mike Sheehan stunned.
“If I was a St Kilda supporter this morning I would have spat my cornflakes out hearing that,” Sheehan said.

[GilsAuPair]

So Barrett is clueless and doesnt have any source?

Righto.

Seems Barrett was clearly correct.

Lethlean going in the media mouthing off to defend himself shows he is not just an egotist but a dishonest egotist.

[Scollop]

So Barrett is clueless and doesnt have any source?

Righto.

Seems Barrett was clearly correct.

Lethlean going in the media mouthing off to defend himself shows he is not just an egotist but a dishonest egotist.

What really has me baffled was the gall of the bloke. As soon as Dan started showing signs that his body was cooked, Lethlean had the audacity to admit that he knew of rumours or knew of evidence that Hannas had a reputation as a party boy. They treat the fans like fools

[degruch]

So Barrett is clueless and doesnt have any source?

Righto.

Seems Barrett was clearly correct.

Lethlean going in the media mouthing off to defend himself shows he is not just an egotist but a dishonest egotist.

Still firmly of the belief Barrett is clueless...he's just joining in with every other media protagonist. The most annoying thing will be seeing it mentioned in his Sliding Doors column every week for the rest of the year.

[GilsAuPair]

So Barrett is clueless and doesnt have any source?

Righto.

Seems Barrett was clearly correct.

Lethlean going in the media mouthing off to defend himself shows he is not just an egotist but a dishonest egotist.

Still firmly of the belief Barrett is clueless...he's just joining in with every other media protagonist. The most annoying thing will be seeing it mentioned in his Sliding Doors column every week for the rest of the year.

The reality is DH isnt on the park.

If hes not on the park then Barrett was right.

[degruch]

The reality is DH isnt on the park.

If hes not on the park then Barrett was right.

Me too! Where's my sports column???

[Shaggy]

Sydney clearly saw the writing on the wall and offloaded a cooked player taking up salary cap space to the first (and only) fool that came along.

Except Dan was their best player last year in the finals.

IMO very naive to think a team is happy to offload their best finals player and in their leadership group.

I watched the final when Sydney were knocked out and Hannebery was abysmal.

Sydney would be deliriously happy and very relieved to offload him.

I rated Dan's game.

But I did check what others thought since you were so derogatory about his performance.

AFL rated him a 7/10 the second highest of the Swans.

Fox footy also rated him a 7/10 with the comments: "If that was his final game for the Swans — he could be playing for a Victorian-based club next season — he can hold his head high. Worked tirelessly all game with a great balance between contested and uncontested ball. 7"

You either see football very differently or alternatively you have a bias against Dan and cannot judge him objectively.

[saynta]

I have stayed out of this argument, but I remember the match which i watched on Fox.

I thought Dan was geting back to his best and was pleased we had been linked to him.

[sunsaint]

I rated Dan's game.

But I did check what others thought since you were so derogatory about his performance.

AFL rated him a 7/10 the second highest of the Swans.

Fox footy also rated him a 7/10 with the comments: "If that was his final game for the Swans — he could be playing for a Victorian-based club next season — he can hold his head high. Worked tirelessly all game with a great balance between contested and uncontested ball. 7"

You either see football very differently or alternatively you have a bias against Dan and cannot judge him objectively.

I also did the searches and there are only the three reports that I could find
The out of ten ratings - weirdly afl and fox exactly the same - but it should also be noted that Alir Alir got a rating of 6 - and most would say he was well beaten. In what was an atrocious day for the swans you have to look really hard to find positives
Sen did NOT list DH in the best players for swans
AS for Fox's comments DH was always going to leave the swans as they needed salary cap space and points
it was just a matter of which club.

[GilsAuPair]

It is all pretty academic at the moment.

He isnt on the park and sits 190 in AFl rankings

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/player-ra ... ngs#page/5

[GilsAuPair]

I have stayed out of this argument, but I remember the match which i watched on Fox.

I thought Dan was geting back to his best and was pleased we had been linked to him.

You are easily pleased.

Recruiting him is ok in itself. It is the 5 x $800k that most find a serious problem.