-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Hawx delist Thorp with a year to go under contract.
- Thread starter craig
- Start date
evo said:
I don't think anyone is saying they did anything wrong, just that their legacy of wanting to bury the other party in a trade means they are getting a rep like the Pies (i.e. always over-price their own and just too difficult to get a finished deal with).
They may have successfully screwed a few clubs previously, but if no-one trusts them to be a fair trader anymore, it will be harder to find clubs willing to talk turkey in future years.
The Campbell Brown fiasco I think probably will do the most damage in this regard.
Big deal. As Kev has amply pointed out most of the bad rep is built on foundationless media speculation anyway.Tiger74 said:
'Good will' at the draft table is a load of bulldust. You can bet if next year the Hawks are keen to trade for/or away some players all the other clubs will talk to them. Who would want to be known as the club who drops their pants in draft week anyway? Recently that has been North and to lesser extent Richmond.
CyberKev said:
I'm not sure this is strictly true.
If a club doctor knows of a player's mental health problems, he cannot disclose that to the club, or anyone, without the players permission.
Once the club (i.e., football department) knows, I don't think they are legally bound to keep it secret (ethically perhaps).
Indeed, if any medical condition (including mental health) has some bearing on a players ability to play football, and in some way influences a club's decision to keep or trade a player, is that club not ethically obliged to inform other clubs seeking trades?
Col.W.Kurtz said:
I agree with that statement. The problem is that Buddy is a once in a generation type player, while Selwood is an elite onballer - of which there are many more. When we missed out on Buddy, we not only missed a guy who would kick 100 in the H&A season at 21 - but also a marketing mega star. I heard on the radio that over the last two years he has been the most photographed person in Australia, beathing the PM.
But no use crying over spilled milk....
evo said:
Stuck it to North? I will admit, he has a great record and he has a past of being a good operator, but how anyone can say he stuck it to North?......
A second and third round draft pick for Josh Gibson?? Imagine if Richmond gave up pick 19 and 35 for Josh bloody Gibson? Very average player, and you have just given away potentially two very good long term prospects.
Yep, I bet North will be crying into their milk over that one. :hihi
Hawthorn, or in particular Pelchin is known to be heavy handed when it comes to trades. Ask anyone in the industry. The bloke seriously doesn't have many friends. I will never forget some doozies he tried when he was with Port. Clubs have seriously learnt how to deal with his antics and in particular, laugh at his requests. Let's face it, the Burgoyne case was going nowhere until it went to abitration or whatever it was they went to. If it wasn't for a couple of other clubs saving the deal it might not have been done.
Ask him his opinion on Adam Morgan v Jonathan Brown and if he still believe's Adam will turn out the better player......... :hihi
CyberKev is like most Hawthorn supporters, they have their head well and truly in the sand when it comes to this bloke and his ways.
CyberKev said:
Fair enough overrall there Kev. Leysy's a fan of Pelchens work even if he's an *smile*. But hey he's paid by his club no-one else.
Disagree on the above though. Burgoyne is a gun when fit & motivated no question. But you massively undersell what O'Keefe would have given you.
Would help you greatly structure wise. AWould play the high leadup forward (a pseudo CHF) to a tee. You guys fall down greatly in this area. You've had to move Buddy out further to spend time playing this position.
O'Keefe means Buddy & Roughead can work together in the most dangerous area of the ground. O'Keefe is also a lovely long kick & can role through the middle winning his own ball. Would be huge to you guys. Would make far more impact to your structure than you mention. Almost the perfect player for your side.
evo said:
I don't think it is, the feedback coming from other clubs is that of an unwillingness to deal with Hawthorn, its happened in the past with say Essendon where other clubs steered clear of dealing with Sheedy at the trade table. I'd like Pelchen at Richmond for his List Mgt expertise but there's no doubt he's hard to deal with.
SCOOP said:
Fair call Scoop,
Pelchen may well be ordinary to deal with, but it hasn't stopped him building a premiership list. I'd like to know his success rate in building a list at Port as well. There are two blokes in the footy world that I think would improve our chances of success dramatically, Balme and Pelchen, to be honest I think they would be more beneficial to the club than any single player.
As for other clubs being unwilling to deal with "hard bargainers", the evidence would indicate that it is *smile*. If you think a club will give you a better deal because the list manager is a good bloke, you are kidding yourself. The only club I have seen ever acting altruistically is Geelong, and they more or less had to because of salary cap pressure.
Tiger74 said:
???
Except that Hawthorn is being hammered primarily over being unable to get up two trades where the other clubs were asking them to pay over the odds. The common view was that Hawthorn were being asked to pay too much, but hey, how dastardly are they for not giving it up massive at the table just to make Carlton and Sydney happy?!
I'm quite sure the club would've been copping it bigtime had they pushed the deals through for being trade table softmarks.
This notion of Hawthorn trying to "bury" clubs at the table seems to stem directly from the afterwash of the two North deals, both of which North were champing at the bit to do. To North's credit, they didn't whine and bleat to the media about it, and remain content with the Thompson deal to this day.
If I thought that Carlton, Sydney and Port were playing genuine with their trade week grievances I'd tell them to "harden the F up", but clearly its all just part of the games that clubs play, which is why the Hawks just shrug it off and move on.
Kev wasn't Thorp under some injury cloud when he was drafted in 2006?
Seems like he's been carrying something since forever.
op
How much impact do you think this has had on his ability to get the most out of his abilities?
Or do you think he's simply not up to it based on what you've seen when he's been fit at Box Hill etc.?
Seems like he's been carrying something since forever.
opHow much impact do you think this has had on his ability to get the most out of his abilities?
Or do you think he's simply not up to it based on what you've seen when he's been fit at Box Hill etc.?
Leysy Days said:
I'm a huge O'Keefe fan and would've loved him in the side.
But when a club considers major trades of this type, they can't just take a player because he has quality, they have to consider what he is bringing to the team and counterbalance that against the effect his introduction will have.
O'Keefe was asking a lot more thaqn Burgoyne and that's definitely an issue when you're trying to juggle contracts for a lot of younger players (just coming off a flag) expecting considerable increases. Encouraging these players to keep their increases in check, while bringing in a player from another club (pushing thirty) on a huge contract isn't going to go down well.
And then there's the playing side. O'Keefe can pinch hit well out of the middle, but he's not going to lift and diversify your midfield in the same way Burgoyne will. And while O'Keefe is obviously a gun peripheral forward, you could hardly justify his inclusion into the side as a priority, given that its not a Hawk weakness that he would be rectifying.
While we are debating matter Hawthorn
Does anyone else thing the Pies and the Hawks should have swapped their trade targets?
It strikes me that the Hawks biggest need is their ruck division which is probably the worst in the AFL, Jolly would have been perfect while Burgoyne is a luxury. Meanwhile the Pies could probably have gambled on Wood bring adequate, but could have really used the huge upside a healthy Burgoyne brings.
Just a thought.
Does anyone else thing the Pies and the Hawks should have swapped their trade targets?
It strikes me that the Hawks biggest need is their ruck division which is probably the worst in the AFL, Jolly would have been perfect while Burgoyne is a luxury. Meanwhile the Pies could probably have gambled on Wood bring adequate, but could have really used the huge upside a healthy Burgoyne brings.
Just a thought.
