Exactly the type of player we need, but not at that price. He’s more potential that output, but I’m confident that in a better environment he’d flourish. He’s a serious talent. But st that price, pass. That’s established superstar money, and established superstar he ain’t.

3 minutes ago, Matsuo Basho said:

Based on his numbers over a five year period he is worth a second round pick and half that amount of money, at best.

Good B+ grade player who would suit our needs but would not get into a bidding war for him. 

Matsuo Basho, we have a problem - I completely agree with you!

Practically word for word. I'm sure this worries you every bit as much as it worries me!

Price is way too high.

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Matsuo Basho, we have a problem - I completely agree with you!

Practically word for word. I'm sure this worries you every bit as much as it worries me!

LittleGoffy - peace in the Middle East is possible  

I still say he's going to get to Hawthorn. 

7 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I still say he's going to get to Hawthorn. 

Right - and I bet none of the Hawks' fans give a flying what he costs. None of the other teams seem to be bothered by salary-cap concerns, I don't know why it's such a big issue with us in comparison. Give money to whoever wants to come to us who will make us better. We can cut our list to 38 if need be. Buy a flag and then sort out sustainable cap-practices from there. 

On 6/8/2019 at 6:48 AM, Skuit said:

Right - and I bet none of the Hawks' fans give a flying what he costs. None of the other teams seem to be bothered by salary-cap concerns, I don't know why it's such a big issue with us in comparison. Give money to whoever wants to come to us who will make us better. We can cut our list to 38 if need be. Buy a flag and then sort out sustainable cap-practices from there. 

The Hawks manage their cap really well.  They are going to shed Roughead and maybe Smith at the end of the year which will free up plenty of cash to pay Martin. 

This is the guy we should be targeting.... Not Brad Hill

Apparently unhappy up north and looking for a move

25 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

This is the guy we should be targeting.... Not Brad Hill

Apparently unhappy up north and looking for a move

Maybe as well as, but not instead of...

 

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Maybe as well as, but not instead of...

 

 

 

Im not saying Martin is better then Hill, I'm talking about realistic possibilities

Both are very talented players.

The point I think you're missing is one is contracted and potential B&F winner, while the other is mooted to want out and won't cost as much and is just as talented.

I don't know Martins contract status (will need to clarify) but Martin will be a lot cheaper then Hill.

I think Martin is a more realistic trade target

 

Stats are irrelevant - What do they actually mean? Are you trying to negotiate his contract?

 

Edited August 8, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

2 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Im not saying Martin is better then Hill, I'm talking about realistic possibilities

Both are very talented players.

The point I think you're missing is one is contracted and potential B&F winner, while the other is mooted to want out and won't cost as much and is just as talented.

I don't know Martins contract status (will need to clarify) but Martin will be a lot cheaper then Hill.

I think Martin is a more realistic trade target

Stats are irrelevant - What do they actually mean? Are you trying to negotiate his contract?

The point is we don't need more average utility players more than we need outside runners.

The point of the stats is the uncontested possessions and metres gained, they would be the most important statistical indicators for our needs, so they are not irrelevant at all.

I'm not against going for Martin, but he's not a similar player to Hill IMO, so I don't see why we would go for him instead of Hill.

What makes you think Hill is not a realistic possibility?

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

The point is we don't need more average utility players more than we need outside runners.

The point of the stats is the uncontested possessions and metres gained, they would be the most important statistical indicators for our needs, so they are not irrelevant at all.

I'm not against going for Martin, but he's not a similar player to Hill IMO, so I don't see why we would go for him instead of Hill.

What makes you think Hill is not a realistic possibility?

Martin is an outside runner - he may not have produced the same as Hill (who has played in good sides compared to Martin)

Martin has a ton of talent and would be a perfect fit - He is easily better than any outside runner we have, plus we have the GC connections here as well.

Hill is clearly a superior player at the moment but with a superior player comes a high price. I'm not saying we are not targeting Hill, Im also not saying he won't move.... But he will cost a lot, he's' contracted to Fero for another 2 ears and is one of their best players. And if you're trading for Hill you want to be positive he's not going to have a change of heart either.

1 minute ago, Unleash Hell said:

Martin is an outside runner - he may not have produced the same as Hill (who has played in good sides compared to Martin)

Martin has a ton of talent and would be a perfect fit - He is easily better than any outside runner we have, plus we have the GC connections here as well.

Hill is clearly a superior player at the moment but with a superior player comes a high price. I'm not saying we are not targeting Hill, Im also not saying he won't move.... But he will cost a lot, he's' contracted to Fero for another 2 ears and is one of their best players. And if you're trading for Hill you want to be positive he's not going to have a change of heart either.

Fair enough mate, I'm not against it and agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just personally, I would rather do what we need to to get Hill as I'm not sold on Martin as an outisde runner, and think he plays his best footy at half back (which might also be handy for us anyway). That's the reason I posted that stat comparison, to illustrate the massive difference particularly in uncontested possessions.

FWIW Martin is out of contract and has "put off talks", so he'd definitely be very gettable.

 

Enough players from teams with losing cultures. He might be a good player but we need players that know what success looks like.

6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Fair enough mate, I'm not against it and agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just personally, I would rather do what we need to to get Hill as I'm not sold on Martin as an outisde runner, and think he plays his best footy at half back (which might also be handy for us anyway). That's the reason I posted that stat comparison, to illustrate the massive difference particularly in uncontested possessions.

FWIW Martin is out of contract and has "put off talks", so he'd definitely be very gettable.

 

Cheers - thanks for the update re contract

Yeh I think Martin is very gettable and probably only a early second round (pure guess) 

I agree with you're point re quality of player, Hill is superior (maybe even his injury prone brother as well). One of the problems at looking at stats alone is the quality of the sides. Clearly Freo are travelling better than GC at the moment, that helps the stats look a lot better.

I would love us to keep pick 2/3 and target Langdon and Martin. Develop some more of what we have - Hunt, KK, Baker etc

I think those simple moves make us a lot better side.

Edited August 8, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

Watson just said on SEN he thought Martin was worth an early second round pick.

2 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Cheers - thanks for the update re contract

Yeh I think Martin is very gettable and probably only a early second round (pure guess) 

I agree with you're point re quality of player, Hill is superior (maybe even his injury prone brother as well). One of the problems at looking at stats alone is the quality of the sides. Clearly Freo are travelling better than GC at the moment, that helps the stats look a lot better.

I would love us to keep pick 2/3 and target Langdon and Martin.

I think those simple moves make us a lot better side.

Yep, I'd definitely be ok with keeping that first pick and getting Langdon and Martin. If we could also manage to pick up a quality free agent then that's a reasonably successful offseason IMO.

42 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Maybe as well as, but not instead of...

 

 

Interesting stats. I disagree with those who dismiss them entirely or who rely on them utterly. But this comparison is fascinating. It suggests Martin is the more complete player able to win his own ball as well as finish. Look at the balance between his contested/uncontested possessions,  and also disposal efficiency suggesting a player who is where the heat is.

Hill however, looks to be the better finisher: different contested:uncontested ratio, fewer disposal errors due to playing a linking role and on the outside.

If these criteria were all you were relying on, given our lack of quality finishing, you'd have to go Hill.

J Martin's season averages: 18 disposals @ 61% efficiency, 4 turnovers & .5 goals per game, 3.8 score involvements

B Hill's season averages: 25 disposals @ 68% efficiency,  5 turnovers & .3 goals per game, 6.1 score involvements

10 minutes ago, Laughing Goat said:

J Martin's season averages: 18 disposals @ 61% efficiency, 4 turnovers & .5 goals per game, 3.8 score involvements

B Hill's season averages: 25 disposals @ 68% efficiency,  5 turnovers & .3 goals per game, 6.1 score involvements

Martin has been dropped this round too. Not due to talent but I’m sure doesn’t care to be at the Gold Coast so his numbers have dropped. At another team where his interest will be up, except his numbers to rise dramatically 

Absolute Yes from me... back ourselves in to turn him around..

He clearly doesn't want to be there after asking for a trade last season and being denied. He's had a poor year due to this and it shows in those numbers. Go back two years and he kicked 25 goals and averaged 19 disposals. That's essentially Petracca's output, but as an outside version and in a far worse team. Get him out of that basket case environment up there and he would flourish. I still believe he's got the potential to be one, if not the best outside midfielder in the game. Can also play forward and hit the scoreboard (10+ career games with 3 goals or more). If we can land him for a second rounder, I'd say it's well worth the risk. 

Get it done Dees!

Edited August 9, 20195 yr by Lord Travis

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Maybe as well as, but not instead of...

 

 

Let’s just take both and be done with it.  

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Yep, I'd definitely be ok with keeping that first pick and getting Langdon and Martin. If we could also manage to pick up a quality free agent then that's a reasonably successful offseason IMO.

Have to go to the draft with our pick 2, we french connectioned our swaping of pick 2 at the end of 2013, lets not make the same mistake again please Dees.

It would have to be an unbelievable offer to prize away pick 2 eg. Pick 2 for Brad Hill, Ed Langdon and their second rounder pick (28-30). Those mongrels would never take that.

The club may never be in this position again in holding such a close range pick in the top 10.

After 6 years people are still talking about the Josh Kelly trade, hope the club has learnt from 2013.

Edited August 9, 20195 yr by Win4theAges

I would be very upset with the club if we weren't bidding on all of Hill, Martin, Coniglio and Langdon. They can't all be going to Carlton.