Has Hannebrey been a good signing?

[The_Dud]

Of course Dan Hannebery was a good signing!!

You can't judge him on his games played with St Kilda alone, we need to remember that he was the first gun player to come to the club in 2019, which would have been instrumental in jagging the Awesome Foursome that came across last year, followed by Crouch and Higgins this year.

His influence on the training track and in the rooms on the crop of talented young blokes such as Steele, Coffield, Clark, Gresham, Paton, Long, Battle, King is immeasurable.

Sure, his injuries have restricted him severely but if the team makes finals again in 2021, Hannebery will be a major contributor with his experience, skills and leadership.

Is there any actual hard evidence that any of that is true? I hear people say it repeatedly that Dan's signing was somehow instrumental in our later dealings -- call me crazy but I'd guess it was the money offered by the Saints not the hope of playing with a guy with a broken body but I'm a cynic -- because I see people say it all the time but little in the way of evidence it's true.

There is in fact no hard evidence, soft evidence, or any kind of evidence of this. It's a narrative that gets thrown around to help people feel better about this (so far) disaster of a signing!

The only possibility I can see is that other players saw the massive overs we were willing to pay and wanted to get in on it!

[The Billings Method]

Confirmation bias is the answer. You'll believe what you want to and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Too early to tell if it's a success or not, but so far his constant injury problems don't augur well for the future. If he plays 15+ games plus finals, then we've probably broken even. I believe he is already unable to play enough games to automatically trigger the fifth year of his contract. If 2021-22 are busts, at least we can offload him without further financial damage.

I believe he was worth taking a punt on. As a team and a club, we were going nowhere. We needed a circuit breaker and Hanners was it. Not a success playing wise, not yet, anyway. We're playing a longer game. In Lethers we trust

[SaintPav]

Confirmation bias is the answer. You'll believe what you want to and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Too early to tell if it's a success or not, but so far his constant injury problems don't augur well for the future. If he plays 15+ games plus finals, then we've probably broken even. I believe he is already unable to play enough games to automatically trigger the fifth year of his contract. If 2021-22 are busts, at least we can offload him without further financial damage.

I believe he was worth taking a punt on. As a team and a club, we were going nowhere. We needed a circuit breaker and Hanners was it. Not a success playing wise, not yet, anyway. We're playing a longer game. In Lethers we trust

Yep. No risk, no reward.

[Joffa Burns]

Confirmation bias is the answer. You'll believe what you want to and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Too early to tell if it's a success or not, but so far his constant injury problems don't augur well for the future. If he plays 15+ games plus finals, then we've probably broken even. I believe he is already unable to play enough games to automatically trigger the fifth year of his contract. If 2021-22 are busts, at least we can offload him without further financial damage.

I believe he was worth taking a punt on. As a team and a club, we were going nowhere. We needed a circuit breaker and Hanners was it. Not a success playing wise, not yet, anyway. We're playing a longer game. In Lethers we trust

Yep. No risk, no reward.

I agree with both above, not all punts will pay off, look at Nathan Freeman.
I still question the tenure of contract offered to Hannebery and did so at the time.

[Yorkeys]

It was an expensive gamble: get a quality player and signal Club's recruiting intent. Has not paid off but its not right to judge a risk management call with hindsight. At the time were we happy that at least something was happening to break the same old same old mold. I know was. I heard it was a use it or lose it call on salary cap money (?). Then those pesky stairs, pesky calves, pesky hammys. Who knows Dan may win a couple of games for us later this year and that would go a long way to paying his fee if we snuck into the finals.

[CQ SAINT]

I think Ratten let it slip recently that the Saints wanted 75 games out of Hanners over 4 years.
That looks to be impossible now.
I believe the cap money we had to spend was around $1.3m of the AFL's money or 5% of 2 years total salary cap. I also believe Hanners got an offer of around $2.6m for 4 years and if he played 75 games he would trigger a 5th.
So, I speculate that Hanners will cost us $1.3m in cap space over 4 years. All the AFL's money.
The 5 year deal for Mackenzie indicates that we had money to burn and very few options to spend it on.
So, if Hanners plays 40 games and 5 finals he came cheaply and finishes strongly.
If Sydney's salary dump did influence the easy deal with Jones, Hanners was a mega bargain.
If those 2 assurances helped Howard over the line, it was a master-stroke.
Butler and Ryder were just great value anyway.
If Hanners doesn't play again, we lose, but I'm happy to wait and see based on my assumptions.

[Sanctorum]

I think Ratten let it slip recently that the Saints wanted 75 games out of Hanners over 4 years.
That looks to be impossible now.
I believe the cap money we had to spend was around $1.3m of the AFL's money or 5% of 2 years total salary cap. I also believe Hanners got an offer of around $2.6m for 4 years and if he played 75 games he would trigger a 5th.
So, I speculate that Hanners will cost us $1.3m in cap space over 4 years. All the AFL's money.
The 5 year deal for Mackenzie indicates that we had money to burn and very few options to spend it on.
So, if Hanners plays 40 games and 5 finals he came cheaply and finishes strongly.
If Sydney's salary dump did influence the easy deal with Jones, Hanners was a mega bargain.
If those 2 assurances helped Howard over the line, it was a master-stroke.
Butler and Ryder were just great value anyway.
If Hanners doesn't play again, we lose, but I'm happy to wait and see based on my assumptions.

Well put CQ SAINT, despite lack of "hard evidence", many football commentators have given St Kilda a tick of approval for the overall benefit of having Dan Hannebery at the club and was a important factor in attracting other experienced players to move to Moorabbin.

Either way, this a done deal and there's not much point whingeing on about it when there are so many positives for the coming season.

[Scollop]

I think Ratten let it slip recently that the Saints wanted 75 games out of Hanners over 4 years.
That looks to be impossible now.
I believe the cap money we had to spend was around $1.3m of the AFL's money or 5% of 2 years total salary cap. I also believe Hanners got an offer of around $2.6m for 4 years and if he played 75 games he would trigger a 5th.
So, I speculate that Hanners will cost us $1.3m in cap space over 4 years. All the AFL's money.
The 5 year deal for Mackenzie indicates that we had money to burn and very few options to spend it on.
So, if Hanners plays 40 games and 5 finals he came cheaply and finishes strongly.
If Sydney's salary dump did influence the easy deal with Jones, Hanners was a mega bargain.
If those 2 assurances helped Howard over the line, it was a master-stroke.
Butler and Ryder were just great value anyway.
If Hanners doesn't play again, we lose, but I'm happy to wait and see based on my assumptions.

Well put CQ SAINT, despite lack of "hard evidence", many football commentators have given St Kilda a tick of approval for the overall benefit of having Dan Hannebery at the club and was a important factor in attracting other experienced players to move to Moorabbin.

Either way, this a done deal and there's not much point whingeing on about it when there are so many positives for the coming season.

I think we fluked getting all the other players otherwise some people right now might be looking for a job. We got them mainly because of Ratten the coach and because of the football department that was being assembled and we got them because we have a good recruiting team.

You recruit players to play! The decision to recruit Dan, despite his ‘reputation as a party boy’ and especially with regard to his last two injury riddled years at the Swans, doesn’t pass the ‘pub test’ in my opinion.

Would an independent commission against corruption find Lethers guilty of doing the wrong thing? Maybe not. We did go after Crouch I suppose and that was despite him being caught red handed by the cops and he also had some injury concerns in his last year at the Croweaters.

[samuraisaint]

And even Crouch is suspended for the first two matches.

Our depth will certainly be sorely tested in the first few matches.

Still, it does give others a chance and if they want to keep their spots they may just stand up.

Remember a 17 year old Carl Ditterich and a 17 year old Tony Lockett were given an early chance once upon a time.

[shanegrambeau]

I think Ratten let it slip recently that the Saints wanted 75 games out of Hanners over 4 years.
That looks to be impossible now.
I believe the cap money we had to spend was around $1.3m of the AFL's money or 5% of 2 years total salary cap. I also believe Hanners got an offer of around $2.6m for 4 years and if he played 75 games he would trigger a 5th.
So, I speculate that Hanners will cost us $1.3m in cap space over 4 years. All the AFL's money.
The 5 year deal for Mackenzie indicates that we had money to burn and very few options to spend it on.
So, if Hanners plays 40 games and 5 finals he came cheaply and finishes strongly.
If Sydney's salary dump did influence the easy deal with Jones, Hanners was a mega bargain.
If those 2 assurances helped Howard over the line, it was a master-stroke.
Butler and Ryder were just great value anyway.
If Hanners doesn't play again, we lose, but I'm happy to wait and see based on my assumptions.

Well put CQ SAINT, despite lack of "hard evidence", many football commentators have given St Kilda a tick of approval for the overall benefit of having Dan Hannebery at the club and was a important factor in attracting other experienced players to move to Moorabbin.

Either way, this a done deal and there's not much point whingeing on about it when there are so many positives for the coming season.

I think we fluked getting all the other players otherwise some people right now might be looking for a job. We got them mainly because of Ratten the coach and because of the football department that was being assembled and we got them because we have a good recruiting team.

You recruit players to play! The decision to recruit Dan, despite his ‘reputation as a party boy’ and especially with regard to his last two injury riddled years at the Swans, doesn’t pass the ‘pub test’ in my opinion.

Would an independent commission against corruption find Lethers guilty of doing the wrong thing? Maybe not. We did go after Crouch I suppose and that was despite him being caught red handed by the cops and he also had some injury concerns in his last year at the Croweaters.

Have to agree.
I think we may have been better off purchasing an exotic pet, like a Portuguese Water Dog, add a dash of red to their black and white fur and let them run on the ground before the games. Perhaps they could be runners, and carry messages to the players. They cost 2000-2500 for puppies and live 10-15 years, guaranteeing more on field time than Dan.

[Ajantis]

I have heard players on 5m contracts over 5 years dont get 1m a year because is looks like that.
If a player is on a 5m contract over 5 years they are paided an agreed salary per year for 4 years and if they reach there expectation with the club on the 5th year then they get whats agreed.
So for example 5m / 5 years and agreed is 300k per year and equallying 5m on the 5th year.
Contracts have changed alot over the years. I have heard this from a legal representation in the footy world.
Upto you to beleive it.

Cheers

[shanegrambeau]

I have heard players on 5m contracts over 5 years dont get 1m a year because is looks like that.
If a player is on a 5m contract over 5 years they are paided an agreed salary per year for 4 years and if they reach there expectation with the club on the 5th year then they get whats agreed.
So for example 5m / 5 years and agreed is 300k per year and equallying 5m on the 5th year.
Contracts have changed alot over the years. I have heard this from a legal representation in the footy world.
Upto you to beleive it.

Cheers

How elite sports people work, I have no idea.

From my lazy ass position, it looks to me that you wouldn’t play at full balls-to-the-wall intensity if you even suspected an injury could blow you out of contention for the jack pot. You’d just rest on your laurels and ‘ring it in’ each game. But I guess, sports people give it all, that is why they are champs. Just saying.

[shanegrambeau]

I have heard players on 5m contracts over 5 years dont get 1m a year because is looks like that.
If a player is on a 5m contract over 5 years they are paided an agreed salary per year for 4 years and if they reach there expectation with the club on the 5th year then they get whats agreed.
So for example 5m / 5 years and agreed is 300k per year and equallying 5m on the 5th year.
Contracts have changed alot over the years. I have heard this from a legal representation in the footy world.
Upto you to beleive it.

Cheers

How elite sports people work, I have no idea.

From my lazy ass position, it looks to me that you wouldn’t play at full balls-to-the-wall intensity if you even suspected an injury could blow you out of contention for the jack pot. You’d just rest on your laurels and ‘ring it in’ each game. But I guess, sports people give it all, that is why they are champs. Just saying.