Ultimate Glory Welcome to Hawthorn, Jaeger O'Meara

[hamohawk1]

was that 2 years ago he saw him? we can only hope our doctors have done their due diligence.

I believe the doctors would have done their work on him. It would've showed his was making progress but was always at a risk of re injuring the same knee.

 

[Dipper]

Having picks has won Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne and St.Kilda how many flags in the last 15 years?

When we're framing whether we overpaid in a trade or underpaid or got fair value it's not really about the draft and how those picks would have gone it's really a comparison with other trades.

I've seen it said a lot about the JOM trade that the draft is a lottery etc but that's a bit disingenuous.

Trading is a pretty unsophisticated market, we're not buying coffee beans, so every trade is unique as us each player and takes into account where both clubs are at that time.

The Brad Hill and TOM trades have been mentioned and in both cases it seemed like the price paid was unders comparatively to the general market. It's very curious why this happens, once Brad Hill was going we pretty much knew what we were getting and it was less than his value.

With TOM it seems Sydney took a similar view letting a price go for a steal that now looks like daylight robbery.

The same people that negotiated that trade on our side negotiated the JOM trade and the vendor in that case clearly felt they had far more leverage. I wonder how much we'd have paid for TOM had Sydney played hardball?

Brian Lake looked great value at the time whilst BB's price seemed excessive and Billy Longer would have been even more so.

When in a premiership window I think it makes sense to be prepared to overpay for specific targets, especially if the club believes that picks are over valued. But when rebuilding I can't help thinking that looking for good value against other trades is prudent and being able to walk away will pay greater dividends down the track than bending over backwards to get every trade done.

And back to the original point, would you not agree that the basis of our premiership sides were created through the draft with the later topping up only coming into play when that foundation was in place. Are we not the only premiers who actually bottomed out by trading players for picks and pulled it off?

Wright has never really had access to top picks I would be interested to see how he goes, he was hailed a genius for his use of later picks so I'm certainly curious to see if he can outperform his peers again.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[Hawk Dork]

Wright has never really had access to top picks I would be interested to see how he goes, he was hailed a genius for his use of later picks so I'm certainly curious to see if he can outperform his peers again.

Box Hill looks OK

 

[Mercy Seat]

Hawks supporters always seem to get caught up in the details of individual trades rather than look at the big picture. We generally pay overs on trades because, for one so we guarantee we get who we are after, but secondly so other clubs enjoy doing business with us. Year after year we've been able to get more deals done than any other club on a consistent basis because clubs are assured we are not stingy, and therefore there are better options available to us. On the flip side you have essendon who are notoriously awful to deal with, and as a result rarely pull anything off.

Now look at our last 5 years over their's. Who would you rather be?

 

[crazywildhorse]

Had a bit of a discussion on SEN regarding Jaeger last night. Apparently when he went to see the knee specialist in Germany it was one of the worst knees the doctor had ever seen.

That was last year already

 

[Gralin]

I find it interesting that SEN are discussing something that if true should be protected under doctor patient confidentiality

Clubs will put out negative stories to scare people off or placate their fans.

We didn't go after Jaeger because his knee was shot for example

 

[HODGEYROAD]

When we're framing whether we overpaid in a trade or underpaid or got fair value it's not really about the draft and how those picks would have gone it's really a comparison with other trades.

I've seen it said a lot about the JOM trade that the draft is a lottery etc but that's a bit disingenuous.

Trading is a pretty unsophisticated market, we're not buying coffee beans, so every trade is unique as us each player and takes into account where both clubs are at that time.

The Brad Hill and TOM trades have been mentioned and in both cases it seemed like the price paid was unders comparatively to the general market. It's very curious why this happens, once Brad Hill was going we pretty much knew what we were getting and it was less than his value.

With TOM it seems Sydney took a similar view letting a price go for a steal that now looks like daylight robbery.

The same people that negotiated that trade on our side negotiated the JOM trade and the vendor in that case clearly felt they had far more leverage. I wonder how much we'd have paid for TOM had Sydney played hardball?

Brian Lake looked great value at the time whilst BB's price seemed excessive and Billy Longer would have been even more so.

When in a premiership window I think it makes sense to be prepared to overpay for specific targets, especially if the club believes that picks are over valued. But when rebuilding I can't help thinking that looking for good value against other trades is prudent and being able to walk away will pay greater dividends down the track than bending over backwards to get every trade done.

And back to the original point, would you not agree that the basis of our premiership sides were created through the draft with the later topping up only coming into play when that foundation was in place. Are we not the only premiers who actually bottomed out by trading players for picks and pulled it off?

Wright has never really had access to top picks I would be interested to see how he goes, he was hailed a genius for his use of later picks so I'm certainly curious to see if he can outperform his peers again.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

What standouts has he selected with later picks ?

 

[MasterSamurai]

Jagear went Germany about 18 months ago, not while at Hawthorn, though why GC and the Jagear camp felt they needed help from overseas does worry me a fair bit. But surely the Hawks were all over this anyway, I believe we pumped way too many games into him a bit too early (7 games inc. JLT) and as I stated a few weeks ago, he had swelling from the initial workload plus the supposed knock on the knee. I believe the club are eyeing a round 15 return but I guess we have to wait and see.

 

[Siri]

I try to look at the Jaeger trade objectively. If he was currently at another club and was underperforming or injured, then I would say it was a terrible decision. Without a doubt, I would call it a bust & I am sure that many posters on here would be quick to lay the boots into opposition posters (take the Anderson trade to North as an example. Maybe a poor example, but an example nonetheless).

Regardless, he is at Hawthorn so his issues are our issues. People should stop bending over backwards to try & justify the trade. It is what it is and it will be what it will be. He very well might be our equivalent of the Hay trade to North or Hallahan to Gold Coast. Who knows?

If I look at it subjectively I don't like it. That's because (like a lot of footy fans) I live in the moment, think we overpaid to get him, hate seeing his name on the injury list & haven't been overly impressed by his output when he has played (it's quality not quantity sometimes).

I don't have blind faith in Clarko, Wright or the club. As a member, I presume I am a stakeholder so I question them all. They made an informed decision when they recruited Jaeger so I will also come to an informed opinion at some stage down the track. We all will, but the time ain't right now.

In the interim I have to agree with the critics & say, "Yeah, it looks like a dodgey trade but who knows how it will turn out". Patience is a virtue.


Sent from my hospital bed in a knee brace.

 

[lickmerocks]

No doubt it's a recruiting risk we took, but our recent risks in this area have failed pretty badly.

Burton is the only risk that's looking to pay off.

As much as Muston, Dowler get brought up in here, they were risks at the time we picked them, thinking we go them cheap due to their recent injury. Those backfired.

You are not wrong when you say Dowler. He was in a wheel chair on draft day!!!

Ellis was also a risk. Anyone that saw him said he had a body that could snap in two and would struggle to stay on the park long term.

 

[TheFourPillars]

You are not wrong when you say Dowler. He was in a wheel chair on draft day!!!

Ellis was also a risk. Anyone that saw him said he had a body that could snap in two and would struggle to stay on the park long term.

Ellis was not injury prone prior to yhe 2008 grand final you are revising history

 

[lickmerocks]

When we're framing whether we overpaid in a trade or underpaid or got fair value it's not really about the draft and how those picks would have gone it's really a comparison with other trades.

I've seen it said a lot about the JOM trade that the draft is a lottery etc but that's a bit disingenuous.

Trading is a pretty unsophisticated market, we're not buying coffee beans, so every trade is unique as us each player and takes into account where both clubs are at that time.

The Brad Hill and TOM trades have been mentioned and in both cases it seemed like the price paid was unders comparatively to the general market. It's very curious why this happens, once Brad Hill was going we pretty much knew what we were getting and it was less than his value.

With TOM it seems Sydney took a similar view letting a price go for a steal that now looks like daylight robbery.

The same people that negotiated that trade on our side negotiated the JOM trade and the vendor in that case clearly felt they had far more leverage. I wonder how much we'd have paid for TOM had Sydney played hardball?

Brian Lake looked great value at the time whilst BB's price seemed excessive and Billy Longer would have been even more so.

When in a premiership window I think it makes sense to be prepared to overpay for specific targets, especially if the club believes that picks are over valued. But when rebuilding I can't help thinking that looking for good value against other trades is prudent and being able to walk away will pay greater dividends down the track than bending over backwards to get every trade done.

And back to the original point, would you not agree that the basis of our premiership sides were created through the draft with the later topping up only coming into play when that foundation was in place. Are we not the only premiers who actually bottomed out by trading players for picks and pulled it off?

Wright has never really had access to top picks I would be interested to see how he goes, he was hailed a genius for his use of later picks so I'm certainly curious to see if he can outperform his peers again.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

What really drove the Jaeger deal higher!!!!

Gold Coast never wanted to lose him and offered him a 5 year deal and a heap of $$$ to keep.

Heck they even had a junior academy up on the coast named Jaegers Juniors or something like that. He was there pin up boy and somebody they hoped would be the face of there organisation for the next 10 years. They were shattered when he came out and said he wanted to leave.

The moment he chose Hawthorn as his preferred destination we were going to be bent over without lube and made to sweat bullets until the end and we would of done the same thing to any other club had our best player asked to be traded to a rival club.

In the end a dodgy deal with carlton is what got the deal done. I am hearing Sicily may well be the player that ends up at Carlton next season as part of that hand shake agreement but you can back it in we are losing a player or a pick again next season that will have everyone scratching there heads.

Forget the hysteria and who paid overs etc because I just want the kid back playing as he seems like a ripper and a real leader in the future. He deserves a change of luck as he clearly prepares his body as well as any other player we have seen at our club before with the shape he is in.

 

[lickmerocks]

Ellis was not injury prone prior to yhe 2008 grand final you are revising history

I knew a recruiter very well and when I spoke with him before that draft he told me Ellis was a stick figure and it was always going to be a risk as his body size was not AFL standard. That's what I am getting at.

 

[TheFourPillars]

I knew a recruiter very well and when I spoke with him before that draft he told me Ellis was a stick figure and it was always going to be a risk as his body size was not AFL standard. That's what I am getting at.

I know someone else who was a stick figure who went on to play 424 games.

He paid the price in the grand final

 

[lickmerocks]

I know someone else who was a stick figure who went on to play 424 games.

He paid the price in the grand final

Tucky could kick a ball 60 and take a speccy. Tucky had some tricks. Little X was undersized and had very little tricks. The fact he played his best game on Grad Final day is what gave him about an extra 3 years at Hawthorn and then a retirement fund at West Coast.

 

[A Cut Above]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing Tom Mitchell into this discussion. If you'd like to pretend the Mitchell trade was somehow related to the JOM deal (it wasn't) then you must by rights also pretend the S.Mitchell, Lewis & Hill trades were as well. (they weren't either)



The only way the JOM deal can be properly evaluated is in isolation, in the fullness of time once we've seen what JOM has delivered over the course of the contract. However, at this point in time matters stand thus:

Assuming at this point we finish 17th, we'll have given up 2016 pick 23 + pick 36 + 2017 pick 2 + 20 for Jaeger O'Meara. A player who hadn't played in two years, is not playing now, and is struggling with the same knee.

Things may yet end well for us, JOM may resurrect his career and become the player we all hope he will be. However right now anyone not wearing Hawthorn blinkers would agree the signs are not great and probably the kindest way to describe it would be "the biggest trade gamble in AFL history". Frankly yielding picks 2, 20, 23 & 36 would be paying overs for almost every player in the competition let alone one with JOM's injury history.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Tucky could kick a ball 60 and take a speccy. Tucky had some tricks. Little X was undersized and had very little tricks. The fact he played his best game on Grad Final day is what gave him about an extra 3 years at Hawthorn and then a retirement fund at West Coast.

Mate i'm not arguing that he was as good as tuck. No one could argue that. I understand where ure coming from but disagre as he never had a history of injury prior to 2008 Gf.

 

[Mercy Seat]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing Tom Mitchell into this discussion. If you'd like to pretend the Mitchell trade was somehow related to the JOM deal (it wasn't) then you must by rights also pretend the S.Mitchell, Lewis & Hill trades were as well. (they weren't either)



The only way the JOM deal can be properly evaluated is in isolation, in the fullness of time once we've seen what JOM has delivered over the course of the contract. However, at this point in time matters stand thus:

Assuming at this point we finish 17th, we'll have given up 2016 pick 23 + pick 36 + 2017 pick 2 + 20 for Jaeger O'Meara. A player who hadn't played in two years, is not playing now, and is struggling with the same knee.

Things may yet end well for us, JOM may resurrect his career and become the player we all hope he will be. However right now anyone not wearing Hawthorn blinkers would agree the signs are not great and probably the kindest way to describe it would be "the biggest trade gamble in AFL history". Frankly yielding picks 2, 20, 23 & 36 would be paying overs for almost every player in the competition let alone one with JOM's injury history.

Relax dude. Even if that turns out to be the case, there's no way the club could have predicted the fall this year. At worst they probably thought pick 10 plus those other picks. Don't get all worked up about supposed pick 2 because that wasn't part of the plan.

 

[Hawthorn United]

I know someone else who was a stick figure who went on to play 424 games.

He paid the price in the grand final

Different eras. Watched some old Grand Finals last year whilst I was building up my DVD collection and they were all pretty lean.

I don't think his build is anything to do with his injuries though. Still a few lean players around these days.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Exactly. There is always method to Clarko's madness.

There may but let's not pretend he's going at 100%. He's above 50%, but he has made mistakes.

2009 version Buddy was a terrible decision to bulk him up.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing Tom Mitchell into this discussion. If you'd like to pretend the Mitchell trade was somehow related to the JOM deal (it wasn't) then you must by rights also pretend the S.Mitchell, Lewis & Hill trades were as well. (they weren't either)



The only way the JOM deal can be properly evaluated is in isolation, in the fullness of time once we've seen what JOM has delivered over the course of the contract. However, at this point in time matters stand thus:

Assuming at this point we finish 17th, we'll have given up 2016 pick 23 + pick 36 + 2017 pick 2 + 20 for Jaeger O'Meara. A player who hadn't played in two years, is not playing now, and is struggling with the same knee.

Things may yet end well for us, JOM may resurrect his career and become the player we all hope he will be. However right now anyone not wearing Hawthorn blinkers would agree the signs are not great and probably the kindest way to describe it would be "the biggest trade gamble in AFL history". Frankly yielding picks 2, 20, 23 & 36 would be paying overs for almost every player in the competition let alone one with JOM's injury history.

Hawthorn don't make trades in isolation. List management isn't a bunch of disconnected activities. It is all connected. until you start from there you are just going to be angry and confused about shit you don't understand.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Hawthorn don't make trades in isolation. List management isn't a bunch of disconnected activities. It is all connected. until you start from there you are just going to be angry and confused about shit you don't understand.

Genuinely curious here, but what trades have we made where it was part of another?

Other than pick swaps we did with St Kilda over the McEvoy trade. That one you can technically say we don't make trades in isolation as we did the McEvoy deal with a little deficit on our end, then did the pick swap to pay the rest.

Unless St Kilda are going to do a nice deal with us end of this year, then I'd say our dealing is all done with 2017 trade period working with a clean slate. I don't see any deals being done unless there's a gentlemen's agreement with another club to give us a bit more in terms of pick swaps.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Anyone know what Jaeger translates to from German to English? Asking for a friend.

 

[tommyk72]

Genuinely curious here, but what trades have we made where it was part of another?

Other than pick swaps we did with St Kilda over the McEvoy trade. That one you can technically say we don't make trades in isolation as we did the McEvoy deal with a little deficit on our end, then did the pick swap to pay the rest.

Unless St Kilda are going to do a nice deal with us end of this year, then I'd say our dealing is all done with 2017 trade period working with a clean slate. I don't see any deals being done unless there's a gentlemen's agreement with another club to give us a bit more in terms of pick swaps.

The point is not about the trade per se, but rather that all trades are part of a strategy to build a list. Clarko knows we lack the number of A+ grade champions on our list to make our next tilt at a flag. He also knows that rebuilding via the draft is not a viable strategy, and that taking risks is required. No premiership team over the last 15 years has won a flag without either: significant external help (Sydney with COLA), Father-Son benefits on top of draft picks (Cats and Dogs), or taking a number of calculated risks (Hawks - both with Burgoyne/Dew, and with the way we approached the roughie/buddy/lewis draft.

He decided that the calculated risk to get JOM in was a higher chance of paying off, than recruiting some kids with those picks (which he more than likely predicted to be in the 8-14 rang). I'm happy with that decision. Burgoyne has shown us that some of these risks pay off. We would not have won the flags we did without taking a risk on a guy with a bung knee, and a fat retiree. Sometimes the risks pay off and you create dynasties. Other times they don't. As Shakespeare said - I'd preferr to have taken a risk to have more cracks at winning a flag and end in the shit than never to have tried and become embedded in mediocrity by trying to do what everyone else does.

 

[nickrebellious]

We're never going to beat teams at the draft. GWS alone has a whole 22 of top 10 picks. Where we can beat teams is free agency. Frawley for free a couple years ago, Vickery this year, hopefully a Rockliff at the end of this year. That's 3 of our 22 acquired for absolutely nothing and they arrive in their prime.

Free agency is set to further expand next year. Under the proposed expansions we would have received some of our greatest traded in players of the past for free as well. Burgoyne and Hale definitely if free agency was around at the time. The proposed change to the qualification is to lower it to 7 years (or maybe even 6) McEvoy(6 years at Saints) and Gibson(5 years at North) would have been approaching free agency and would have been acquired for less.

Another free agency expansion is to make free agency available for players after 10 years of service at any club. This would allow even more players to be free agents.