View Full Version : Jonathan Hay
Eagles supporters like this guy, mainly because we don't have any key position backs and the fact Hay is from WA.
So the question is, how do you rate him? personally I think injuries seem to have slowed him down from his AA form and he seems a bit inconsistent.
Having said that he is an upgrade on what we have. So the next questions would be, would the hawks trade him? If so, what for?
Cheers
Hodge_is_God
25 Aug 2003, 20:48
Originally posted by llosis
Eagles supporters like this guy, mainly because we don't have any key position backs and the fact Hay is from WA.
So the question is, how do you rate him? personally I think injuries seem to have slowed him down from his AA form and he seems a bit inconsistent.
Having said that he is an upgrade on what we have. So the next questions would be, would the hawks trade him? If so, what for?
Cheers
Gun. I'd rate him in our top 3 players when he is at his best. Since he gained form from around round 9/10 onwards he was probably playing (consistantly) better football than his AA year in 2001.
He is the only full back in the league (besides maybe Fletcher) who is capable of providing more going the other way than his opponent is at goal - by that i mean that his run, in breaking the lines, and booming kicking is invaluable.
We would be mad to trade him for ANYTHING given we have no one capable of playing full back besides him. The only way we would let him go would be if he decided to leave at the end of next year.
Even then I would accept nothing less than Judd (as mad as it sounds) for the reasons mentioned above.
Hawks would trade him only if they had to i.e. he wanted a move back home. Otherwise he is very much a required player at Hawthorn. There is simply no other player on the list capable of replacing him at FB.
Any trade to get him to The Wiggles would have to be a three-way deal. Reason is, you've got nothing to replace him with. The Judd card is all well and good but he can't play FB and he'd only make the dea very complicated.
John
ViperV10
26 Aug 2003, 10:59
As JohnD said, we would only lose him if he wanted to do a Chick and have a sook off home. It would definately need to be a three way deal, because we can't have Nick Stone playing fullback can we!!!!!!!!
Fair enough.
KPP's don't grow on trees so if he's doing well then there would be no reason to trade him (except of course if he wants to come back to WA).
All the best with the off season and 2004.
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,7087777-23211,00.html
Maybe we (Eagles) are a chance for Hay?....
BigCat1
28 Aug 2003, 13:53
Can't believe that the Hawks would let Hay go before those others. He is the youngest and the only really key defender amongst them. Holland would have limited trade value seeing he will be 30 next year and has had a lot of injuries over the last few seasons. Also half his salary is going onto the vets list next year so that kind of defeats the purpose of trading him doesn't it?
450K of the salary cap is a lot of money. Some of those contracts must have been severely back loaded for this to happen. I would say that Rawlings is in the gun big time. The Hawks must have a real fear of losing him for nothing because the article says the club wants to re-sign him before the trade period even if they do put his name up.
Hay has not once at all suggested he wants to go home, in fact he has said on a number of times he loves Melbourne and Hawthorn.
I know he has a few investments in Melbourne and has made a preety healthy lifestyle for him self here.
Would find it very suprising if Hay wanted to go home and even more suprised if Hawthorn are willing to part company with him!!!!!
As Jhon Hook said he is a required player and just because we have salary troubles does not at all mean we are gonna trade Hay or anyother gun kpp.
cheers
superstar
28 Aug 2003, 17:59
The problem with journalism is that it's full of journalists!
That article is nonsense. Hay is worth ALOT more to the future of the Hawthorn footy club than Holland and Barker put together. That is pure crap.
ViperV10
28 Aug 2003, 18:09
superstar - Will you be saying that if Hay leaves and we are left without a fullback?
Originally posted by ViperV10
superstar - Will you be saying that if Hay leaves and we are left without a fullback?
If Hay was traded we might as well cough up 3-6 goals before the game has started.
If Schwab trades him (couldnt see him doin it) there would be the biggest uproar since Croad.
I think it would be much bigger actually.
cheers
scooter600x
28 Aug 2003, 21:14
Originally posted by tige19
just because we have salary troubles does not at all mean we are gonna trade Hay or anyother gun kpp.
cheers
Of course not. All you have to do is deny you are over the cap and worry about in a couple of years when you get caught. Didn't want those first round picks anyway.
Seriously, if you're over the cap - and $450K is a lot - who goes?
Originally posted by scooter600x
Of course not. All you have to do is deny you are over the cap and worry about in a couple of years when you get caught. Didn't want those first round picks anyway.
Seriously, if you're over the cap - and $450K is a lot - who goes?
Well there will be a few to go.
Mark Graham should he takes up a fair chunk- 150k-200k a season and Luke Mccabe who would be on about 80-100k a season.
Now thats say 300k gone, if we can get a trade with Harford that would help even though we still have to pay part of his contract.
Also you will find that Daniel Elstone will get delested and even though thats only 40k it all helps.
Brett Jhonson i think will be a casualty and his on about 80k a season and i wouldnt think that Loats who commands also about 80k a season will be required if we go for a Ruckman in the draft National/Pre/Rookie.
Each club a season averages about a 5 or 6 player turnover so in hindsight i have that about right.
Mark Graham- 200k
Luke Mccabe-100k
Harford- im not sure how much percentage we have to pay if traded.
David Loats-80k
Daniel Elstone-40k
Brett Jhonson-80k
Thats 6 players and and around 500k gone on the salary not including Harfords Contract obligations.
So with Harford gone we should still be able to take 3 to 4 kids in the draft, just means not much playing around in trade period unless we swap guys with the same value.
Just my POV
cheers
scooter600x
29 Aug 2003, 00:41
Originally posted by tige19
Well there will be a few to go.
Mark Graham should he takes up a fair chunk- 150k-200k a season and Luke Mccabe who would be on about 80-100k a season.
Now thats say 300k gone, if we can get a trade with Harford that would help even though we still have to pay part of his contract.
Also you will find that Daniel Elstone will get delested and even though thats only 40k it all helps.
Brett Jhonson i think will be a casualty and his on about 80k a season and i wouldnt think that Loats who commands also about 80k a season will be required if we go for a Ruckman in the draft National/Pre/Rookie.
Each club a season averages about a 5 or 6 player turnover so in hindsight i have that about right.
Mark Graham- 200k
Luke Mccabe-100k
Harford- im not sure how much percentage we have to pay if traded.
David Loats-80k
Daniel Elstone-40k
Brett Jhonson-80k
Thats 6 players and and around 500k gone on the salary not including Harfords Contract obligations.
So with Harford gone we should still be able to take 3 to 4 kids in the draft, just means not much playing around in trade period unless we swap guys with the same value.
Just my POV
cheers
Unfortunately with this scenario, for each guy you delist, you have to draft someone to replace them @ $50K each.
You've only saved $200K. $250K to go.
Originally posted by scooter600x
Unfortunately with this scenario, for each guy you delist, you have to draft someone to replace them @ $50K each.
You've only saved $200K. $250K to go.
Wrong.
No draftee earns 50k a season, only the first round picks earn 40k.
The money after the first round drops to around the 38, 37, 36k mark.
Dont know how much money we have to pay for Harfords contract so when the figures for that come out we will have a better gist of what to pay.
All should work out in the end.
Originally posted by tige19
No draftee earns 50k a season, only the first round picks earn 40k.
You are forgetting match payments which are normally about $2000 a game. If a rookie plays every game in his first year, he could earn close to $90,000.
Hodge_is_God
29 Aug 2003, 11:54
450k is a croc of sh*t. How he came up with that when we were operating close to 95% this year, with 400k combined from Crawf/Dutchy to go on the vets list next year is beyond me.
All up that is a 1.2 mill turnaround. Everitt would explain 200k (600k minus chick's 400k) but the rest? Bullsh*t for mine, especially given how astute Dicker and co have proved in managing our finances.
We may be having cap issues, but 450k???? :confused:
The invisible mullet
29 Aug 2003, 15:08
Denial is a wonderful thing. If the contracts are backended then you can be set for a big turnaround within the space of a year, particularly if players out of contract have significantly increased in value. What these articles do though is assist the Hawks in the bargaining process as players, if they really want to stay, will have to rein in their demands. out of the big 5 I would have thought Hay is most likely to leave though.
jj flash
29 Aug 2003, 15:58
Originally posted by The invisible mullet
Denial is a wonderful thing. If the contracts are backended then you can be set for a big turnaround within the space of a year, particularly if players out of contract have significantly increased in value. What these articles do though is assist the Hawks in the bargaining process as players, if they really want to stay, will have to rein in their demands. out of the big 5 I would have thought Hay is most likely to leave though.
Hay would be the least likely to leave out of the five, followed by Thompson.
Originally posted by jj flash
Hay would be the least likely to leave out of the five, followed by Thompson.
Exactly
scooter600x
30 Aug 2003, 00:47
Originally posted by Hodge_is_God
450k is a croc of sh*t. How he came up with that when we were operating close to 95% this year, with 400k combined from Crawf/Dutchy to go on the vets list next year is beyond me.
All up that is a 1.2 mill turnaround. Everitt would explain 200k (600k minus chick's 400k) but the rest? Bullsh*t for mine, especially given how astute Dicker and co have proved in managing our finances.
We may be having cap issues, but 450k???? :confused:
So no pay rises for Hodge, Mitchell or Ladson?
passionate81
30 Aug 2003, 01:04
Originally posted by The invisible mullet
out of the big 5 I would have thought Hay is most likely to leave though.
Surely not!! What about Holland?
ViperV10
30 Aug 2003, 14:46
Do you think Richmond would take Nick so that both the Dutchys would be at the same club?
Hodge_is_God
30 Aug 2003, 15:25
Originally posted by scooter600x
So no pay rises for Hodge, Mitchell or Ladson?
Dealt with all of this on another thread. The numbers don't add up, Robinson is talking sh*t :o
Streaker
4 Sep 2003, 11:31
Originally posted by Hodge_is_God
Dealt with all of this on another thread. The numbers don't add up, Robinson is talking sh*t :o
Is John Hook talking ****e as well ?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548902926.html
Hawthorn football manager John Hook yesterday confirmed that the club had spoken to the players, outlining the salary cap situation.
Hook said it was explained to the players that some sacrifice was required to ensure the retention of players such as Rawlings and Lekkas and to ensure that others, like Mitchell, were given proper reward. "They were pretty understanding," he said of the reaction. "We want to keep the list we've got."
The extent of Hawthorn's salary cap problem is demonstrated by the fact that both Holland and skipper Shane Crawford, the club's two highest earners next year, will be eligible for veteran status in 2004 - meaning only half of their wages counts under the total player payments. Combining Holland and Crawford, the veteran's rule frees up an estimated $500,000 in the 2004 salary cap, yet the Hawks still require a heavy cut.
Originally posted by West Coast Stre
Is John Hook talking ****e as well ?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548902926.html
Hawthorn football manager John Hook yesterday confirmed that the club had spoken to the players, outlining the salary cap situation.
Hook said it was explained to the players that some sacrifice was required to ensure the retention of players such as Rawlings and Lekkas and to ensure that others, like Mitchell, were given proper reward. "They were pretty understanding," he said of the reaction. "We want to keep the list we've got."
The extent of Hawthorn's salary cap problem is demonstrated by the fact that both Holland and skipper Shane Crawford, the club's two highest earners next year, will be eligible for veteran status in 2004 - meaning only half of their wages counts under the total player payments. Combining Holland and Crawford, the veteran's rule frees up an estimated $500,000 in the 2004 salary cap, yet the Hawks still require a heavy cut.
What so you idiots just think we are going to give Jonathan Hay up to you so we can solve all our problems??
You people are dreaming. We are going to keep everyone if we can and do our bloody best to have the same list next year.
We are struggling with KPP as it is and we are not going to give up an All Australian half back just because the Herald Scum says so.
brentoncowell
4 Sep 2003, 15:58
Had an under rated year this year. From a pies supporters perspective this guy is a gun. He wasnt given enough credit this season for some genuine hard work, perhaps the circumstances may have altered had the hawks played in september.
dees_best
7 Sep 2003, 11:18
this should ease your salary cap pressures.
Brad Green & Pick 5 to HAW - Jon Hay to MELB:)
Originally posted by dees_best
this should ease your salary cap pressures.
Brad Green & Pick 5 to HAW - Jon Hay to MELB:)
Nah. If he was to leave Hawthorn, he would come back home and play for West Coast or Fremantle. Apparently his good mate Daniel Chick is trying to entice him to the Eagles. :D
Originally posted by Sera
Nah. If he was to leave Hawthorn, he would come back home and play for West Coast or Fremantle. Apparently his good mate Daniel Chick is trying to entice him to the Eagles. :D
Hawthorn moved his brother Leigh and his family last year. Jonny loves Melbourne, he now has family here and he would go to a Vic team if anything
BUT HE AINT GOING ANYWHERE!!!!!
come on, lets all be serious...
Apart from Hay tell me another tall defender...
Without Hay our defence is very suspect..
we can't loose him..
If you ask me, we can afford to get rid of Rawlings.. yes he is a great mark but apart from that tell me what else he can do...
Kick goals?? 34.32... not 2 good... His a loose defender and with a fit forward line we don't need him there...
YETAGAIN
10 Sep 2003, 17:03
I heard on the grapevine that Campbell Brown will go to Richmond. Is this true??? Why have we got so many cap problems that we may loose good players??
jacqui9
10 Sep 2003, 17:07
Originally posted by YETAGAIN
I heard on the grapevine that Campbell Brown will go to Richmond. Is this true??? Why have we got so many cap problems that we may loose good players??
Ummm...very untrue
jj flash
10 Sep 2003, 17:57
Originally posted by YETAGAIN
I heard on the grapevine that Campbell Brown will go to Richmond. Is this true??? Why have we got so many cap problems that we may loose good players??
Mal has issues with Richmond so I wouldn't think so.
Originally posted by West Coast Stre
Is John Hook talking ****e as well ?
Combining Holland and Crawford, the veteran's rule frees up an estimated $500,000 in the 2004 salary cap, yet the Hawks still require a heavy cut.
Just because these players are now counted on the vetrens list, does not automatically mean that there is Salary Cap relief. In most cases in doesnt help at all as the contracts are back loaded with the equal amount, similar to Wayne Carey at the Roos.
In 1999 he was on $500,000 a year, so in 2000 he was available for vetren status. He then was put on $1,000,000. Thefore still including $500,000 in the salary cap.
This reason is why you should not assume salary cap relief when players of the ilk of Crawford are promoted to the vetrens list, as they may not help the salary cap at all.
Originally posted by YETAGAIN
I heard on the grapevine that Campbell Brown will go to Richmond. Is this true??? Why have we got so many cap problems that we may loose good players??
Very untrue. I had a chat to Mal at a BH Hawks game at Coburg. He and Cam both are happy at Hawthorn.
Aside from that, we'd be fairly silly to let someone like that go. He's got a fair future.
BigCat1
12 Sep 2003, 14:39
Originally posted by WaDsY
Just because these players are now counted on the vetrens list, does not automatically mean that there is Salary Cap relief. In most cases in doesnt help at all as the contracts are back loaded with the equal amount, similar to Wayne Carey at the Roos.
In 1999 he was on $500,000 a year, so in 2000 he was available for vetren status. He then was put on $1,000,000. Thefore still including $500,000 in the salary cap.
This reason is why you should not assume salary cap relief when players of the ilk of Crawford are promoted to the vetrens list, as they may not help the salary cap at all.
Very good point