Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft?

[Benaly28]

Seems like every 4-5 pages the same point needs to be made that Hawthorn don’t ignore the elite end of the draft, they just don’t go shopping on the same day as everyone else.

Wingard, Scrimshaw, Scully - all top 10 picks brought in last October, all with exposed form.

Then there’s O’Meara, Mitchell, Impey, Big Boy etc.

If the option is to take pick 12 to the draft for a 70% chance at landing a 200 game player why wouldn’t you hand that pick over for a player with some sort of exposed form at the top level and take that 30% risk out of the equation.

Fair point but will the group they have right now win a premiership?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

He was 30. I'm sure if Hawthorn had of offered him a similar deal to Melbourne he would have happily stayed.

LOL. With that comment you show how you just don't understand the basis behind Hawthorn's player culture and list strategy.

 

[Ambrosia]

LOL. With that comment you show how you just don't understand the basis behind Hawthorn's player culture and list strategy.

What? I understand what Hawthorn did. I think they made the right move letting Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell leave. I'm just pointing out that Hawthorn did receive fair value for those players given the circumstances.

You're the one showing no understanding of what happened. The whole notion that Hawthorn gave away it's old players for unders is stupid and not what happened.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

after the 2016 final loss to the bulldogs was the perfect time to do a rebuild.

fans would've been accepting after 3 straight flags and going for a 4th.

but clarko doesn't want to rebuild and nor should he want to or have to.

geelong and sydney gave them the false idea that u don't need to rebuild. both had exceptional circumstances not available to hawthorn.

geelong had the good fortune of the best player in the league growing up down the road.

Sydney have the academy so they got 3 top 5 picks while still making finals. heeney, mills and now blakey.

ive been a bit ambivalent to the hawks the last few seasons because they are just delaying the inevitable, trying to defy gravity.

hopefully clarkos comments after the melb game about not sitting in the middle of the ladder means the penny has finallly dropped.

 

[TylerDurden]

He was 30. I'm sure if Hawthorn had of offered him a similar deal to Melbourne he would have happily stayed.

Of course.

Clarko wanted to set him up at the Dees and in the process we took unders.

As I said, compare the Lids deal. He's achieved nothing as a footballer compared to Jordan. Who's just about achieved everything.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

All kudos to Geelong but Ratogolea was pick 43 in 2016 and Hawkins is older than all our forwards except roughy

You are smashing it for my argument against the OP

I forgot to mention Kreuger, who our recruiter mentions as being the best of the bunch. Pick 42 in a pre-draft deal with Carlton. A tall forward with immense talent.


I said weeks ago it can be done but you still need to take some picks to the draft and it's of my opinion you've given away too much to bring midfielders in when you're severely lacking in tall forward talent. I know it's early but Lewis doesn't look to be the answer.

 

[Ambrosia]

Of course.

Clarko wanted to set him up at the Dees and in the process we took unders.

As I said, compare the Lids deal. He's achieved nothing as a footballer compared to Jordan. Who's just about achieved everything.

You took "unders" because you're offer to Lewis gave you no room to negotiate. You can't offer players a pittance compared to what they'll get elsewhere and then expect to receive good compensation at the trade table.

Look at GC did this off season letting Hall go for nothing then happily delisting Lyons so he could get to Brisbane for nothing because the rival clubs offered them significantly more money.

Yes I agree Clarkson should be commended for giving the outgoing players his blessing and encouraging them to make the right decision for themselves but the notion that the Hawks took unders at the trade table for the good of their senior players is ludicrous.

 

[Pessimistic]

I forgot to mention Kreuger, who our recruiter mentions as being the best of the bunch. Pick 42 in a pre-draft deal with Carlton. A tall forward with immense talent.


I said weeks ago it can be done but you still need to take some picks to the draft and it's of my opinion you've given away too much to bring midfielders in when you're severely lacking in tall forward talent. I know it's early but Lewis doesn't look to be the answer.

With retirements to Hodge Lewis Mitchell it was a bit of a no brainer
The argument is "can hawthorn" well of course they can I'm using Geelong as an example to follow (which Hawthorn have done before btw)

Can geelong win a flag in the next three seasons? probably yes
will they be the team to beat for five seasons (as 07-11) No

Too many people in this thread say Hawks wont ever be the team as 12-15, and therefore failed
Being held to too high a standard I reckon, but its got a heavy dose of trolling in it TBH

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You aren't taking any risk out of the equation. Some players thrive at new clubs. Some stagnate. It's not an exact science.

Jono O'Rourke was a No. 2 pick. I see he deliberately forgotten in this discussion.

Nonsense. Draft picks are speculative. Even more so once you’re not holding something in single digits.

O’rourkes body fell apart, so yeah, it’s not an exact science.

 

[Pessimistic]

after the 2016 final loss to the bulldogs was the perfect time to do a rebuild.

fans would've been accepting after 3 straight flags and going for a 4th.

but clarko doesn't want to rebuild and nor should he want to or have to.

geelong and sydney gave them the false idea that u don't need to rebuild. both had exceptional circumstances not available to hawthorn.

geelong had the good fortune of the best player in the league growing up down the road.

Sydney have the academy so they got 3 top 5 picks while still making finals. heeney, mills and now blakey.

ive been a bit ambivalent to the hawks the last few seasons because they are just delaying the inevitable, trying to defy gravity.

hopefully clarkos comments after the melb game about not sitting in the middle of the ladder means the penny has finallly dropped.

Tom Mitchell wasn't one of the best players in the league? Hes been as successful as Dangerfield this far

 

[Pessimistic]

Also paying overs isnt new. Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake - all proclaimed as overs in bigfooty at the time

Did it hurt the club? Id suggest not

 

[Ambrosia]

Also paying overs isnt new. Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake - all proclaimed as overs in bigfooty at the time

Did it hurt the club? Id suggest not

Not sure about this. Gunston at least was considered a steal.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

What? I understand what Hawthorn did. I think they made the right move letting Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell leave. I'm just pointing out that Hawthorn did receive fair value for those players given the circumstances.

You're the one showing no understanding of what happened. The whole notion that Hawthorn gave away it's old players for unders is stupid and not what happened.

Lewis and Mitchell were both traded - not FA.

They (along with many others given the same offer) had looked after the club by taking significantly less during the Premiership years, and Hawthorn gave them the opportunity (with no restrictions to their new club) to "top up their super" as a way of saying thanks.

Do you really think Melbourne would have given Lewis 3 x 450k (or whatever) if they were giving up a 2nd round pick as well? Lewis only got that contract from Melbourne BECAUSE Hawthorn took 'nothing' in the trade. Hawthorn viewed the loss of picks as part of their overall player welfare strategy. Mitchell was traded for the coaching opportunity - IIRC he was the highest paid assistant coach in the league after he retired.

The same principle of putting the "player first" led to the Burton giveaway, and in reverse the hugely expensive Saints deal for JOM and the Wingard trade. IMO it's THAT which is the issue, not the concept of trading for players 23-25 and fully developed.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

That’s because it’s a flawed observation.

It’s obviously not a direct comparison, otherwise nobody would draft players.

Why is it a flawed observation?

There’s a reason clubs want the highest possible pick in a trade, and that’s generally because the higher the pick the less the risk of that pick turning out to be Jarrod Oakliegh-Nichols.

There’s always some diamonds to be found within a draft outside the first round, but we all know that outside of the top 5 or 10 in each draft quite a large number of picks will go on to have a very short time on an AFL list.

Hawthorn, for the best part of the last decade have had picks in the 10-19 range of the draft, and so they’ve averted some of the risk in picking up a promising 18yr old for a 22-23yr old who has shown they can play the level required.

As a playing resource, you don’t have them for an entire career as you would a draftee.

Wingard - 25yo when he came to Hawthorn
O’Meara - 23yo
Mitchell - 23yo
Impey - 22yo
McEvoy - 25yo
Scrimshaw - 20yo
Scully - 27yo

And it’s not a 100% risk free equation, of course. There were / are doubts on the likelihood of Wingard, O’Meara, Scrimshaw and Scully producing. If there weren’t, they either wouldn’t be available for trade or would be much more expensive.

And the other three played effective senior football for their former clubs, hence the point about Hawthorn not having access to them for their whole career, as they would a draftee.

What does it matter if Hawthorn don’t have access to them for their entire career though?

As long as Hawthorn can identify and bring in elite talent onto the list, it doesn’t mean a thing of they’ve played 12, 24 or 56 games somewhere else.

Does anyone look at a top 4 team or a premiership side and say “yeah well, that might be traveling really well, but player X, Y and Z weren’t drafted by them!”.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

after the 2016 final loss to the bulldogs was the perfect time to do a rebuild.

fans would've been accepting after 3 straight flags and going for a 4th.

but clarko doesn't want to rebuild and nor should he want to or have to.

geelong and sydney gave them the false idea that u don't need to rebuild. both had exceptional circumstances not available to hawthorn.

geelong had the good fortune of the best player in the league growing up down the road.

Sydney have the academy so they got 3 top 5 picks while still making finals. heeney, mills and now blakey.

ive been a bit ambivalent to the hawks the last few seasons because they are just delaying the inevitable, trying to defy gravity.

hopefully clarkos comments after the melb game about not sitting in the middle of the ladder means the penny has finallly dropped.

I disagree - I think the issue was we didn't start the rebuild in 2014 (for obvious reasons), when the "stats" first showed we were top-heavy. By the time we reached the end of 2016, the base had been completely eroded - the entire structure was at risk of falling over.

Based on any "rebuild" being at least a 5yr window - anyone over 28 would be considered as gone before premiership contention was a possibility. That's with strong young leadership too, which we clearly lacked.

In 2016:
30+ (Retire/trade asap)
Mitchell, Burgoyne, Gibson, Hodge, Lewis, Roughead, Spangher.

"Rebuild Leaders" (27+): Traded for picks or kept to lead, but likely gone before Premiership Contention.
Puopolo, Birchall, Frawley, Smith, Stratton, McEvoy, Rioli, Whitecross

"Premiership Core" (23-27): The building blocks of the rebuilt team.
Schoenmakers, Breust, Ceglar, Duryea, Shiels, Fitzpatrick, Gunston, Langford, Litherland, Woodward, Hill, O'Brien, Brand, O'Rourke

"Young guns" (18-22): These were kids with little exposure but hopefully the young talent to push to a premiership
Heatherley, Sicily, Hartung, Willsmore, Webster, Tatupu, Howe, Miller-Lewis, Langford, Pittonet, Miles, Stewart, Burton, Hardwick, Lovell, Glass, Surman, + 4 years of draft picks. (Just look at the names! - only 3 senior players out of five years of drafting!).

Rioli was generational and essentially irreplaceable. Choosing to rebuild would likely have seen his career finish before we were back in contention. (We weren't to know then he would walk away at 28).

Our best players were in that 27+ group. The "Premiership Core" group was already looking light on. Only Hartung had played more than 10 games of our players younger than 24. There was a gaping chasm opening up.

If we had chosen to rebuild, it would have needed to be an incredibly deep (and LONG) cut, consigned us to 5+ years out of finals (at a time we were pushing Dingley and future-proofing our club) and relying on not only finding gems in the draft, but also having them develop at a rate far quicker than our last 4 years of draft picks (admittedly taken from a far worse draft position). To re-tool and go again was almost the only option, otherwise we would end up like Carlton/Melbourne/etc, with a huge gap in senior leadership helping to guide and develop the 'talented kids'.

The fact we started chasing younger players (22-25) for our top-ups is interesting, suggesting we felt we needed to boost the "Premiership Core" - giving us leaders through the development stage. That is where we are now - our oldest players are no longer driving the club, indeed as I noted above, most of our oldest players are no longer performing above the level of their replacement. We are enter the transition phase, consolidating over the next 12 months, followed by natural growth as younger players develop faster than our oldest players decline.

 

[Ambrosia]

Lewis and Mitchell were both traded - not FA.

They (along with many others given the same offer) had looked after the club by taking significantly less during the Premiership years, and Hawthorn gave them the opportunity (with no restrictions to their new club) to "top up their super" as a way of saying thanks.

Do you really think Melbourne would have given Lewis 3 x 450k (or whatever) if they were giving up a 2nd round pick as well? Lewis only got that contract from Melbourne BECAUSE Hawthorn took 'nothing' in the trade. Hawthorn viewed the loss of picks as part of their overall player welfare strategy. Mitchell was traded for the coaching opportunity - IIRC he was the highest paid assistant coach in the league after he retired.

The same principle of putting the "player first" led to the Burton giveaway, and in reverse the hugely expensive Saints deal for JOM and the Wingard trade. IMO it's THAT which is the issue, not the concept of trading for players 23-25 and fully developed.

How could Hawthorn demand a second rounder for Lewis? They offered him well under market value to stay at Hawthorn so they received well under market value when he left.

You are a moron if you believe Hawthorn took less at the trade table as part of some player welfare strategy.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Why is it a flawed observation?

There’s a reason clubs want the highest possible pick in a trade, and that’s generally because the higher the pick the less the risk of that pick turning out to be Jarrod Oakliegh-Nichols.

There’s always some diamonds to be found within a draft outside the first round, but we all know that outside of the top 5 or 10 in each draft quite a large number of picks will go on to have a very short time on an AFL list.

Hawthorn, for the best part of the last decade have had picks in the 10-19 range of the draft, and so they’ve averted some of the risk in picking up a promising 18yr old for a 22-23yr old who has shown they can play the level required.



What does it matter if Hawthorn don’t have access to them for their entire career though?

As long as Hawthorn can identify and bring in elite talent onto the list, it doesn’t mean a thing of they’ve played 12, 24 or 56 games somewhere else.

Does anyone look at a top 4 team or a premiership side and say “yeah well, that might be traveling really well, but player X, Y and Z weren’t drafted by them!”.

It’s totally flawed to say “we get them, just later on when they’re a 100% prospect rather than a 70% prospect. We just go shopping later.”

It’s not like for like. You still give up the draft pick, yes, but you don’t get 15 years of Mitchell or Wingard. You might get ten, or less. That’s a clear value equation.

And it doesn’t remove the uncertainty completely. With players coming in via a trade, there’s often doubt around them, which is why they’re available. That remains in some cases and all of them won’t work out, that’s just the nature of risk (some or even most might, of course).

And those that have zero doubt over them cost more than the original draft pick.

There’s nothing wrong with the approach - at least until it’s proven or otherwise - but it’s not the same as drafting, only later.

 

[falcons2]

One year of Stewie Dew has brought a lifetime of contentness.

Tom Boyd is the only premiership player from the top 10 of drafts 13-17.
And that wasn't at the club he was drafted!

Oops - forgot Bontempelli
that's 2 from 50 or 4%

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

It’s totally flawed to say “we get them, just later on when they’re a 100% prospect rather than a 70% prospect. We just go shopping later.”

Ok, forget I said 100%....it’s still a much smaller gamble, do you agree?

It’s not like for like. You still give up the draft pick, yes, but you don’t get 15 years of Mitchell or Wingard. You might get ten, or less. That’s a clear value equation.

I don’t think anyone will really care that we didn’t get all of Shaun Burgoynes career, as an example. Same goes for McEvoy, Gunston, Frawley, etc etc.

We got them in, we won flags. That’s the value you’re ultimately after.

That’s all anyone will ever care about.

And it doesn’t remove the uncertainty completely. With players coming in via a trade, there’s often doubt around them, which is why they’re available. That remains in some cases and all of them won’t work out, that’s just the nature of risk (some or even most might, of course).

Yes, it doesn’t remove the uncertainty completely, but it removes a hell of a lot.

And those that have zero doubt over them cost more than the original draft pick.

So instead of sending pick 12 you need to add pick 32 and/or a player who you think you can cover losing....it’s not really too much of an issue.

Look at Burton as a recent example, we lose a rebounding HBF in the process of gaining a recognized AA talent, and then in another move bring in another highly talented HBF in Scrimshaw who has more than holding his own as a 10 gamer.

Win-win.

There’s nothing wrong with the approach - at least until it’s proven or otherwise - but it’s not the same as drafting, only later.

Apart from the fact that it is.

Hawthorn have hand picked a bunch of players 2-4 years after players are drafted, many of which have come from the “elite end of the draft”.

It’s not an exact science, or the complete removal of risk from a speculative pick in a draft, but the string of players Hawthorn have brought in proves its a pretty sound strategy.

 

[Nugett]

That’s because it’s a flawed observation.

It’s obviously not a direct comparison, otherwise nobody would draft players.

As a playing resource, you don’t have them for an entire career as you would a draftee.

Wingard - 25yo when he came to Hawthorn

O’Meara - 23yo

Mitchell - 23yo

Impey - 22yo

McEvoy - 25yo

Scrimshaw - 20yo

Scully - 27yo

And it’s not a 100% risk free equation, of course. There were / are doubts on the likelihood of Wingard, O’Meara, Scrimshaw and Scully producing. If there weren’t, they either wouldn’t be available for trade or would be much more expensive.

And the other three played effective senior football for their former clubs, hence the point about Hawthorn not having access to them for their whole career, as they would a draftee.

Even if you draft them, your still not guaranteed in having them for their entire career

 

[Nugett]

And your thoughts on Puopolo?

At times in the past his height has played a role. For the past 2 or 3 seasons, his free kicks for head high has dropped.

 

[Nugett]

Fair point but will the group they have right now win a premiership?

The current group right now. No as there are still missing pieces. The missing pieces will either be filled in FA or trading for so that we will be contending in 2020/21. If we go to the draft for the missing pieces, it could be longer or not at all.

 

[HairyO]

Rioli was an expert ducker. An absolute notorious exponent of it. I’ve watched him bury his head into Nathan Jones with Jones putting his hands up in the air, completely showing no contact to Rioli and Rioli drawing the free.

Hawks fans calling Selwood a ducker had a very very big culprit in Cyril ‘special’ Rioli hamming it up for years.

Would I take Cyril though? **** yes.

Averaged 1 free kick a game. Quite the expert, considering he averaged 4.5 tackles a game and got heaps of Holding the Ball frees.

Surely Poppy is the one to go to at Hawthorn for ducking. Youd even find a heap of people to agree.

 

[Pessimistic]

People are right saying the cost of trading in established talent has gone up.

That is partly because clubs doing the 'full rebuild' path have realised the strategy isnt that great, and they need to get more out of the transactions

Shiel would be another case, although GWS had different reasons for trading

 

[Scotland]

The current group right now. No as there are still missing pieces. The missing pieces will either be filled in FA or trading for so that we will be contending in 2020/21. If we go to the draft for the missing pieces, it could be longer or not at all.

2020 is next year, 2021 obviously the year after that.

How many missing pieces will make the current group a contender next year?