Hawx delist Thorp with a year to go under contract.

[CyberKev]

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.?

Dunstall has made mention that he was in worse shape than they were expecting when he got to the club. To some extent, the Hawk medicos need to be held accountable here, although as I don't work in that field, I'll reserve judgement as to the level of their culpability.

The Tassie VFL side clearly played him on through injury in 2006 and this would have contributed to his woes after arriving at the club. I do recall being horrified that a 19 year old was requiring hip re-alignment surgery, but hoped that would be the worst of it. Alas, it just seemed to go on from there.

Its been unfortunate for him. There's never a good time for injuries, but when you're a youngster you obviously hope for a good run because you have enough on your plate with your steep learning curve and trying to develop sufficiently to snare a place in the top team.

The bigger worry would be the suggestions that he hasn't been willing to knuckle-down to the fitness regimes required to get his body and conditioning right to play the roles expected of him. You'd certainly be expecting a player of his height to be stronger than 86kg after three years in the system and his stamina is obviously subpar.

 

[CyberKev]

While we are debating matter Hawthorn…

Does anyone else thing the Pies and the Hawks should have swapped their trade targets?

Yes and no.

A fit Burgoyne will lift the Hawk midfield markedly, especially if he rotes with Rioli between the midfield and half forward.

I certainly wanted Jolly, no doubt, but he was committed to Collingwood and Hawthorn had committed to Burgoyne before Jolly even announced he was available.

The ruck is clearly where Hawthorn is most vulnerable (mainly through the misfortune of losing three ruckmen to serious injury in the space of a couple of weeks in August), but quite a few clubs are shonky in the ruck and if you have to be weak in one area, that'd be the one I'd gamble on.

To be honest, there'd be few clubs in the league that wouldn't be praying to buggery that their main ruck option isn't struck down. If that happens, they basically fall back to being (at best) on a par with us.

 

[Tiger74]

???

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.

Its not just the North trades. Even with us, talking second tier players you still need a pound of flesh (swapping our 19 for your latter pick).

The Burgoyne trade summed it up though. You give Port a list of 8 untouchables, and say look at the rest. They do, your pres freaks, and the whole thing implodes. I just don't bank on Hawthorn to negotiate in good faith, be it because they waste time with unrealistic demands, or change their mind over what they are prepared to give up.

To be fair, I think you were more reasonable this year than in previous ones, but I still have you in the Collingwood basket. If a deal is possible, great, but don't invest too much time because odds are it ain't gunna happen.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Yes and no.

A fit Burgoyne will lift the Hawk midfield markedly, especially if he rotes with Rioli between the midfield and half forward.

I certainly wanted Jolly, no doubt, but he was committed to Collingwood and Hawthorn had committed to Burgoyne before Jolly even announced he was available.

The ruck is clearly where Hawthorn is most vulnerable (mainly through the misfortune of losing three ruckmen to serious injury in the space of a couple of weeks in August), but quite a few clubs are shonky in the ruck and if you have to be weak in one area, that'd be the one I'd gamble on.

To be honest, there'd be few clubs in the league that wouldn't be praying to buggery that their main ruck option isn't struck down. If that happens, they basically fall back to being (at best) on a par with us.

Fair enough about Jolly, it’s hard to get trades for ‘name’ players and you were already distracted. But you don’t think you should have gone after another team’s backup like Seaby or Jacobs?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Fair enough about Jolly, it’s hard to get trades for ‘name’ players and you were already distracted. But you don’t think you should have gone after another team’s backup like Seaby or Jacobs?

Or Pattison. ;D

 

[CyberKev]

Its not just the North trades. Even with us, talking second tier players you still need a pound of flesh (swapping our 19 for your latter pick).

Assuming that it happened, given that it certainly wasn't part of the media focus during trade week.

And if it did it doesn't appear anything more sinister than the umpteen peripheral trade dalliances that all clubs flirt with half-hearted conviction over during any given trade week.

Clearly you believe Hawthorn is the only club that issues ambit claims.

I suspect you'd be quite surprised by some of the requests Richmond have put to clubs over the years.

 

[Tiger74]

Assuming that it happened, given that it certainly wasn't part of the media focus during trade week.

And if it did it doesn't appear anything more sinister than the umpteen peripheral trade dalliances that all clubs flirt with half-hearted conviction over during any given trade week.

Clearly you believe Hawthorn is the only club that issues ambit claims.

I suspect you'd be quite surprised by some of the requests Richmond have put to clubs over the years.

ah no.....the fact I said you are in the COLLINGWOOD basket clearly shows that:

1) I don't think you are the only one doing this
2) clubs do it better than you

As other posters alluded to earlier, Sheeds used to be the master of this, and paid for it in the latter years.

I just don't think Hawthorn go to the trade table with the intention of getting a fair trade, sometimes they want to obstruct trades, other times they want to force it to the wire to exploit a players position. Nothing wrong with this if you are Hawthorn, but it means for the other clubs you are better off using your 5 days of limited time dealing with a club (like Sydney) who is committed to effecting a trade or moving on.

And I am not surprised who we have offered over the years, but sadly the fact none of our deals came off probably says more about how little some of our better players have been rated outside the club than anything else. I am not against players moving on for a better deal (heck I've done that in my work), but that is a very different issue to this one.

No need for this pity party, only reason Hawks are being discussed are (1) Thorpe was your player, and the thread is about him, and (2) you keep harping on about the poor deal Hawthorn gets and why don't we love them more. Look over at the Fevola threads, Pies and Blues copped similar baggings there for the dumb way they handled negotiations for some of the week.

 

[CyberKev]

Nothing wrong with this if you are Hawthorn, but it means for the other clubs you are better off using your 5 days of limited time dealing with a club (like Sydney) who is committed to effecting a trade or moving on.

Sydney??!!

Purlease. You're lapping up St Paul the Apostle's endless media BS.

Sydney were hell-bent on dragging out the O'Keefe trade because they didn't want it to get done.

And it was also Sydney that got on the front foot to announce that they were expecting to get more for Jolly than what they'd paid for him some six years earlier when his best was still ahead of him. Not exactly setting the scene for fluent negotiations, but on this occasion, Collingwood (who by your reckoning are another great trade abuser, who only do trades when they massively favour them) decided a higher price was one worth meeting on this occasion.

Sydney... LOL. They're a dream to deal with as long as things are progressing as they want it to and going their way. Of course, I missed St Paul's angry recriminations about having to deal with Hawthorn when the Kennedy and McGlynn trades zipped through quicky, and quite favourably for the Swans.

Obviously the club should have whined more when deals have gone against it in the past, given that mug punters are clearly unable to discern what's fed to them by the media hacks these days.

 

[Tiger74]

Sydney??!!

Purlease. You're lapping up St Paul the Apostle's endless media BS.

Sydney were hell-bent on dragging out the O'Keefe trade because they didn't want it to get done.

And it was also Sydney that got on the front foot to announce that they were expecting to get more for Jolly than what they'd paid for him some six years earlier when his best was still ahead of him. Not exactly setting the scene for fluent negotiations, but on this occasion, Collingwood (who by your reckoning are another great trade abuser, who only do trades when they massively favour them) decided a higher price was one worth meeting on this occasion.

Sydney... LOL. They're a dream to deal with as long as things are progressing as they want it to and going their way. Of course, I missed St Paul's angry recriminations about having to deal with Hawthorn when the Kennedy and McGlynn trades zipped through quicky, and quite favourably for the Swans.

Obviously the club should have whined more when deals have gone against it in the past, given that mug punters are clearly unable to discern what's fed to them by the media hacks these days.

They traded Jolly, and not at 1pm Friday.

They did not have their pres on radio crying like a girl about how they would not trade any premiership player (that lasted 1 or 2 days?)

They did most their deals quick and cleanly. Unlike your mob.

 

[CyberKev]

They did most their deals quick and cleanly. Unlike your mob.

LOL.

We completed the very first trade within minutes of the week getting started, much to North's pleasure.

We gave up Kennedy and McGlynn with a minimum of fuss, to Sydney's delight.

And got the Burgoyne deal through before Friday, despite the difficulties associated with satisfying Port (and in the end they were very satisfied).

But yes, Hawthorn only ever drags out deals that it only ever does when massively in its favour; and Sydney only ever does deals in minutes that are good for the opposition. :

 

[Tiger74]

LOL.

We completed the very first trade within minutes of the week getting started, much to North's pleasure.

We gave up Kennedy and McGlynn with a minimum of fuss, to Sydney's delight.

And got the Burgoyne deal through before Friday, despite the difficulties associated with satisfying Port (and in the end they were very satisfied).

But yes, Hawthorn only ever drags out deals that it only ever does when massively in its favour; and Sydney only ever does deals in minutes that are good for the opposition. :

I actually said you did better this year than in past, but I suppose that doesn't support your "woe is us" mantra

 

[theScabman]

They traded Jolly, and not at 1pm Friday.

They did not have their pres on radio crying like a girl about how they would not trade any premiership player (that lasted 1 or 2 days?)

They did most their deals quick and cleanly. Unlike your mob.

It pays to listen.

Kennett never said we would not trade any Premiership player, he said it was his 'desire' that no Premiership player left Hawthorn.
Williams wanted out after being courted by Essendon.

 

[Tiger74]

It pays to listen.

Kennett never said we would not trade any Premiership player, he said it was his 'desire' that no Premiership player left Hawthorn.
Williams wanted out after being courted by Essendon.

I know, and I also know about the use of weasel words (done a bit in marketing)

said on another forum at the time it was typical poli-speak, make a statement but give yourself the out if its needed later on

were you happy with his performance on SEN that day though?

 

[theScabman]

I was privy to what was going on behind the scenes anyway, so I wasn't burning down the house if that's what you mean.
His 2 minute spot did exactly what he had sought out to do.

 

[Tiger74]

I was privy to what was going on behind the scenes anyway, so I wasn't burning down the house if that's what you mean.
His 2 minute spot did exactly what he had sought out to do.

look immature and hysterical?

if he wanted to kybosh the deal or screw Port, it could have been done with a tad more dignity

 

[CyberKev]

look immature and hysterical?

if he wanted to kybosh the deal or screw Port, it could have been done with a tad more dignity

There wasn't a deal to kybosh after Brown made clear that he had no intention of going within a cold cooee of Alberton.

His speech had nothing to do with Port, at any rate, as it was aimed at assuring the more hysterical elements of the Hawk membership that Brown wasn't being forced out of the club.

 

[Spanish Prisoner]

I just don't think Hawthorn go to the trade table with the intention of getting a fair trade, sometimes they want to obstruct trades, other times they want to force it to the wire to exploit a players position.

Sounds like a very smart approach. Perhaps that is why they won a flag five years into a rebuild whilke we are still rubbish. Maybe our guys should try and protect the best interests of the RFC...

 

[Ty Esler]

I'm sorry, I was looking for the Richmond board - is it around here somewhere?

 

[Tiger74]

There wasn't a deal to kybosh after Brown made clear that he had no intention of going within a cold cooee of Alberton.

His speech had nothing to do with Port, at any rate, as it was aimed at assuring the more hysterical elements of the Hawk membership that Brown wasn't being forced out of the club.

I agree with the latter, but you have to be careful letting the more feral elements of any club think they can influence club list management policy. If that happened, we would end up with 40 players delisted and Richo on a life contract

For what its worth, I actually thought Jeff did a great job at Hawthorn up until 2009. This year he has not been as controlled as he was previously.

 

[IanG]

Sounds like a very smart approach. Perhaps that is why they won a flag five years into a rebuild whilke we are still rubbish. Maybe our guys should try and protect the best interests of the RFC...

And you deny being turbo tiger.........