Actually, I think we might be attacking this question from a slightly wrong angle.
Nobody questions whether or not Galloway is a good prop- he obviously is, and would be highly valued on the open market by most NRL teams.
The way I look at it though is for 'value'. And by that, I don't mean minutes played vs impact- I mean salary cap value compared to impact. Galloway is on around $300k from memory- maybe higher? Can't quite remember.
Either way- he's one of the 'elite' players of the squad, financially, and as a result, should be required to excel in order to justify his salary. The argument about Galloway is used in comparison in some parts to Fifita, and others with Gibbs. Neither of these guys, at this stage, are 'elite' players for the squad, or looked upon as the type of player that will transform/change the Tigers pack from one that competes to one that dominates. Adam Blair, on the other hand, has to be considered 'elite'- particularly if his contract value is even somewhere close to the reported $500k. So the loss of Fifita, Gibbs & Payten & possibly a Fulton, for example, when compared to an 'elite' player like Blair- is quite acceptable- after all, Blair 'should' have a greater impact on the play of the Tigers forwards than any of the previously mentioned players.
Here's the kicker though- this is the 'salary cap' era, as well as the 'top 25 player squad' era. So roster management is not just about getting 'elite' players- but balancing the 'elite' players/salaries with the 'grunts'- guys that do a good job at a value rate- guys like Gibbs, Fulton- etc. As I see it- Galloway, Farah, Marshall, Lote, Lawrence & Heighington would probably be the 'elite' guys as far as contract value goes. Adding Blair to that means we then have to fill the roles of Gibbs, Fulton (possibly), Ryan (possibly), McKinnon, Payten,Fifita, the Shirnaks (possibly), Flanagan & Mitch Brown (possibly) with players of 'lesser' contract value (as Blair's inclusion takes up a large chunk of the money saved by losing these players) but still retain the same level of productivity from these lesser contract players.
Essentially, the 'real value/risk/reward' to signing Blair will only partly be seen by the play of Blair- he'll obviously be required to upgrade his level of play & have some positive impact on the play of the Tigers to justify his value (we should expect much closer to dominant forward displays by the pack- in other words). But the value/impact of the cheaper contract guys replacing the players released to accomodate Blair- Payten's replacement, Gibbs' replacement, Brown's replacement, Ryan's replacement- etc, must also be of an equal standard to the guys released to fit Blair under the Cap. If the 'grunts' brought in to fill these roles are not up to the standard required- it's quite possible that the Tigers, while strengthening 1 player/position, have essentially weakened the 'team'- and this is simply not going to be acceptable, is it?
So- back to Galloway vs Fifita..or even Gibbs for argument's sake- would replacing 1 'elite' player (Galloway) to bring in Blair be better value than using Woods/Groat or as many other untested players will be required to fill the gaps left by the departing players? At this stage- hard to say. On paper, it'll look great having Blair & Galloway paired up- but if Johnny No-Name from the reggies can't fill that back-up wing role when Lote/Utai get hurt as well as Mitch Brown does- are we ahead? Or behind? That'll be the test.
That'll be where we see if we got value- or if we sacrificed the 'team' for 1 upgraded position.
