Hawx delist Thorp with a year to go under contract.

[thomas the tiger]

PSD is the way to go. We need to take the punt on this guy because the upside could be be big.

I think from memory his first game was against Richmond and he kicked a freak goal from the pocket. It kind of continues the tradition of recruiting players that perform well against you (generally turn into hacks once you get them)

Ex collingwood player was one guy we got who played well against us. I cant remember his name but (about 20 years ago) I think he played one good game for us against Collingwood.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

collingwood player was one guy we got who played well against us. I cant remember his name but (about 20 years ago) I think he played one good game for us against Collingwood.

Terry Keays

 

[the claw]

I can't see Geelong, Essendon, Adelaide, Brisbane or Collingwood being interested, but any of the other clubs may make a play, especially if they have a good number of picks at their disposal.

If you're a club who has already had a first and second round pick (or several) and are in need of tall stocks (which is almost everyone) then you may start getting tempted from the third round on. Its whether you want to plumb for a steady depth option (and a player who doesn't look overly blessed with talent) or bet on a player who has previously shown talent, but is carrying obvious baggage.

Really, by then you're taking a risk either way with tall players, and - on the plus side with Thorp - he is still very much on the young side himself.


You're intimating using a 4th or 5th round pick, which to me would be perfectly fair and sensible for a punt of this type. a lot of players taken that low will fail anyway, so its not as if you have a lot to lose. Give him as short a contract as you can get away with, and if he starts causing problems with the other players, or doesn't show an increase in commitment, send him packing. You have to shed a few players each year anyway.

I could understand clubs picking him up and giving him a miss.

cheers mate like others on here i think your a pretty discerning poster.

 

[MalenyTiger]

Yes its good to read a thread of insightful comments about players without the word "dud" used once. Is this really PRE?

 

[cagedtiger]

LOL.

Not a skerrick of hard evidence to support such a claim, but such is the way the Chinese whispers multiply on the web.

At any rate, the bigger issue will be whether or not Hardwick would 'absolutely love' to have Thorp in the stable.

That's a definite maybe.

Its pure speculation as to how hard Richmond tried to trade for him on the final day.

For such extensive and protracted negotiations, its surprising that they didn't generate any real discussion among Hawk-insider trade watchers at the time, and didn't featured prominently in any web discussions until this thread appeared.

Does anyone see the irony here? CyberKev you blather extensively with pure opinion then the moment someone has something to say you don't agree with you say it is speculation or there is no hard evidence.

Also your bias is extraordinary. With Hawthorns effort in hiding Hay's state of mind when they traded him you are defending the indefensible. : Discerning poster I think not - just another overprotective Hawk supporter. :rofl

 

[TOT70]

Kev, I've been following your thoughts on this thread and I am certainly not going to disagree with most of what you are saying, except for one thing.

In my view, Hawthorn, meaning Pelchen, are very poor negotiators because they look upon each trade as a win-loss, not a win-win. In the past, they have missed out on the players that they have wanted because they have tried to push the other team to the point where they were the ones to cave in and not the Hawks. Its more about ego and who flinches first than about getting the job done.

In the examples that you have given, Hawthorn has always tried to get what they want, without giving what the other party wanted. That is why they have come to grief with Sydney on several occasions in the past. By and large, Roos tries to negotiate deals where everyone is happy.

Sydney wanted Seaby, WC wanted a second round pick for him. Too much, maybe, but that is what they wanted. Other picks and players were traded and exchanged to even things up. Sydney traded Buchanan for a second-rounder as well, WC gave up a third rounder for Dalziel. Bottom line, Sydney got their man, WC got their pick.

In the Thornton deal a couple of years ago, Hawthorn wanted Thornton, Carlton wanted 2 second-rounders. They could have got that deal across the line by extracting something less valuable back from Carlton as well, like two fourth-rounders, or a third-rounder or whatever in return. See the difference? Everybody gets what they want.

As a rule, what I see from Hawthorn during trade week is attempts to get what they want but only for what they are willing to give up. Why should anyone take that? In every negotiation there are plenty of bargaining chips that are valuable to one party but next to useless to another and the savvy negotiators take the time to look for them. WC usually only use three or four picks and always want them early. That means they will chuck you a third round pick if you help them upgrade it to a second-rounder. Sydney had a fistful fo draft picks by the middle of trade week, which they used to get McGlynn and Kennedy when Hawthorn had given up all their picks and were more conciliatory. Everybody is happy.

They are not alone in this. Collingwood can't get a deal across the line either for the same reason. The Saints wanted a top 20 pick and they went blithely along all week offering pick 30 for Ball. It was not going to happen. Pick 30 is not in the top 20.

The Hawks were lucky to get the Burgoyne deal across the line this year. It was only when Geelong popped in with a trade of their second-rounder for two third-rounders that it all worked out. Hawthorn could have had those two third-rounders for themselves if they had given PA a suitable player and then they could have had pick 16 for Williams in a separate deal.

BTW, I think Richmond's negotiations over the last few years have been next to pathetic, with the possible exception of trading Fiora for Simmonds a few years ago. The rest of the time, they have basically thrown everything but the kitchen sink at whoever they were after. Unsophisticated. I am certainly not trying to make out they are better than Hawthorn at trading, they have been so pathetic that, if the internet rumours are true, management had to ban then from trading anything other than players before trade week even started just to protect them from themselves. I reckon almost anyone could have done a better job.

Hawthorn have a poor reputation when it comes to trading. That's the reason.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Oh, it will come.

Of course, smarter types would realise that Hawthorn were never going to take Joel Selwood, as they already had a strong midfield, but were lacking for KPP strength and depth.

Of course, nowadays Selwood is widely viewed as the best player from the draft, which wasn't the prevailing view back in 2006.

All clubs land misses with their drafting (which can only accurately be assessed in blocks over numerous years, rather than limited to isolated picks) , the challenge is getting more hits than misses.

As Richmond supports we do have some experience with having the draft pick before the best player in the draft is taken. :hihi Actually if you change the names I've used similar argument in the past, as have many others on here.

What annoys me is that from my biased perspective Bling had his name changed by the media to "Richard the player taken before buddy Tambling", but I don't think quite the heat came on Thorp.

I think your right though, the criticism may come. What happens in football generally is teams are successful or failures first and then the media analysis of their list management is done in hindsight to justify the outcomes. So if the Hawks win in 2010 Pelican is a genius again , if they repeat 09 then Selwood, the failure to secure a mature ruck, whatever, will get brought up a lot.

 

[TOT70]

As Richmond supports we do have some experience with having the draft pick before the best player in the draft is taken. :hihi Actually if you change the names I've used similar argument in the past, as have many others on here.

What annoys me is that from my biased perspective Bling had his name changed by the media to "Richard the player taken before buddy Tambling", but I don't think quite the heat came on Thorp.

I think your right though, the criticism may come. What happens in football generally is teams are successful or failures first and then the media analysis of their list management is done in hindsight to justify the outcomes. So if the Hawks win in 2010 Pelican is a genius again , if they repeat 09 then Selwood, the failure to secure a mature ruck, whatever, will get brought up a lot.

Yep. That is exactly right. When you are languishing on the bottom of the ladder, then it is easy to find the forks in the road where you went wrong. When you win a Premiership, nobody cares about that. Does anybody care that Geelong's team will soon consist almost exclusively of 30+ year-old former All-Australians? Not this year.

 

[tigerjoe]

As Richmond supports we do have some experience with having the draft pick before the best player in the draft is taken. :hihi Actually if you change the names I've used similar argument in the past, as have many others on here.

What annoys me is that from my biased perspective Bling had his name changed by the media to "Richard the player taken before buddy Tambling", but I don't think quite the heat came on Thorp.

I think your right though, the criticism may come. What happens in football generally is teams are successful or failures first and then the media analysis of their list management is done in hindsight to justify the outcomes. So if the Hawks win in 2010 Pelican is a genius again , if they repeat 09 then Selwood, the failure to secure a mature ruck, whatever, will get brought up a lot.

Unfortunately Colonel, Richie has played just about every game since he was drafted.

Thorp has been injured almost his whole time at the Dawks.

If the hat fits..............

 

[tigerjoe]

If Harddick thinks he is worth it and he has a good relationship with him, surely he could talk him into the PSD?

CC can tell his old team to keep there bloody hands off him!

 

[GoodOne]

I heard that Thorp will be going straight into the PSD. I'd say its possible he's already had talks with the Tigers if that is true. Personally I dont think there's too much better potential-wise to choose from as a PSD pick so why not take the risk? He's young and has had injuries which have prevented him from living up to his abilities. Worst case scenario it doesnt work out and he can swim for us in next year's grand final 50 metre freestyle event.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Worst case scenario it doesnt work out and he can swim for us in next year's grand final 50 metre freestyle event.

Worst case scenario we miss out on a player who actually might have made a contribution.
Riddle me this Goodies would you redraft Cleve Hughes? because he's achieved plenty more than Thorp.

 

[GoodOne]

Worst case scenario we miss out on a player who actually might have made a contribution.
Riddle me this Goodies would you redraft Cleve Hughes? because he's achieved plenty more than Thorp.

Sorry I don't understand why you would compare his situation to Hughes. if you could maybe elaborate?

 

[ZeroGame]

Of course, nowadays Selwood is widely viewed as the best player from the draft, which wasn't the prevailing view back in 2006.

Actually it was definitely noted pre-draft that Selwood could be the best player from the draft, except there were injury question marks regarding his knee. His leadership quality was also a standout.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Unfortunately Colonel, Richie has played just about every game since he was drafted.

Thorp has been injured almost his whole time at the Dawks.

If the hat fits..............

Thorp has played plenty of 2nds football too, whereas Bling is slowly but steadily developing into a pretty decent football. There is a bigger gap between the performance of Thorp and Selwood than Bling and Buddy (althrough amiditly in bith cases the gap is huge)

The difference for me is Thorp plays for a successful club so the media and supporters aren't looking as hard for scapegoats

 

[RedanTiger]

Does anybody care that Geelong's team will soon consist almost exclusively of 30+ year-old former All-Australians? Not this year.

Interesting that probably the only people worried would be the Geelong administration. They are forced to cut any draftee after the initial contract unless they are a certain senior player.

 

[Ty Esler]

BTW, I think Richmond's negotiations over the last few years have been next to pathetic, with the possible exception of trading Fiora for Simmonds a few years ago.

The POSSIBLE exception of Fiora for Simmonds??!?? Have you forgotten Fiora, the soft outside receiver, who couldn't kick and is now delisted? Simmonds has had his injuries sure, but has also played 86 games for us, finished top 10 in the AFL in hitouts in 3 of his 5 seasons and represented Victoria. Most Richmond supported would have paid the Saints to take Fiora off our hands, never mind get a productive ruckman for him.

I think the Mitch Morton trade is working out ok too - in two years Mitch has played 38 games and kicked 76 goals for us, the guy drafted with the pick we game up (no.35) Sam Reid has played 5 games and kicked 1 goal.

 

[CyberKev]

Also your bias is extraordinary. With Hawthorns effort in hiding Hay's state of mind when they traded him you are defending the indefensible.

You have zero idea on this one.

Not only do you have zero knowledge of what the Hawk administration did or did not know about Hay's depression, you clearly have zero knowledge of the legal system and laws regarding the disclosure of mental health conditions to third parties.

Hawthorn never announced Thompson's depression, assuming they knew of it, because they were legally precluded from doing so. He announced it publicly, as he was within his rights to, and it didn't scare North off one iota. Hawthorn was no more able to announce Hay's condition (assuming they knew of it), and he didn't choose to go public with it until the wheels had fallen off at North (and that was also his right to announce, or not announce, as he saw fit).

More understandable is that you clearly have zero knowledge of Hay's manager hammering Hawthorn for a contract extension and using the threat of shopping him around to try and force the club's hand. But, of course, it was Hawthorn who set up the clandestine meeting between Laidley and Hay at which Laidels got his permanent hard-on for Hay. :

In short, if you have zero idea on an issue, best not to make trivial comments.

 

[mad_tiggy911]

Yep. Re Cleves form. There's more to it than you all think.

 

[CyberKev]

Hawthorn have a poor reputation when it comes to trading. That's the reason.

I'm not going to go too deep into a response to your post other than to highlight that the difference between the two Unsuccessful Hawk trades you mention, and the other completed ones, is that neither Sydney or Carlton wanted to lose the players being haggled over. Trades are always far easier to work when one side wants the player and the other side is willing to lose them.

Sydney and Carlton were always going to hold out for too high a price (for Thornton & O'Keefe) and the media whining was just an additional strategy to make the player think that they were trying to get a deal done, but Hawthorn weren't being cooperative.

Other clubs also fished around those players during those weeks and deals weren't done. Hawthorn stuck in both for longer than they should have because they were one of few clubs capable of accommodating the players concerned. They were always unlikely deals to get through, and - like numerous others over the years - fell over.

Its pointless to argue Hawthorn should have offered more when it was clear it both cases that they would have to pay over the odds to get a player who, in the overall scheme of things, wouldn't be central to their plans.

Where the club warrants criticism in both instances is for not giving up on both earlier when it became clear that they were on a hiding to nothing.

And just to clarify with the Thornton deal, Hawthorn were more than happy to give over two second rounders (that was on the table early in the week), it was Carlton who were demanding a first and second rounder.

And, just on Port... You suggest Hawthorn would've been sweet had they just offered Port a "suitable player" earlier? Who would that have been? They kept demanding pick 9 + either Birchall, Lewis or Schoenmakers (very much over the odds). They were offered numerous players who they deemed unacceptable and then there was the kerfuffle over Brown, who didn't want to go anyway. Its well established that painfully few players willingly want to go to Port and any players they would likely value, would also be valued by Hawthorn and under contract (meaning they have the say, not the club). In the end, it had less to do with Geelong looming around the peripherals, as it did Mark Williams deciding he wanted out to Essendon (not Port) clearing the way for Port to be appeased.

I actually think Hawthorn did pay overs for Burgoyne, with the difference between this willingness to do so and the situations involving Sydney and Carlton being that they clearly see Burgoyne as being central to improving the structure of the side.

Trade week is always a dolly for the Punters on the Internet fora, but there's plenty of logistics to work through, and we don't hear the half of it.