Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

[Blackhawk42]

"Much easier" as we go down 5 spots from 4th to 9th.

The only unique cog in our dysfunctional and one-dimensional midfield is Wingard.
Worpel also replaced him as a 19 year old.

Having Mitchell back certainly didn't help in 2020 or 2021.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Without Mitchell's huge second half of the year Hawthorn would have only won a few games. He is playing outstanding footy and generates a hell of a lot of their play.

Worpel is a good player, but I wouldn't use his BnF to judge the two. Mitchell is still a past Brownlow medal winner who looks to be recapturing his elite form, and will provide good service for another 3-4 years. It's unknown if Worpel can get to that level. He only managed 10 Brownlow votes in comparison in his BnF year.

I'm considering our rebuild. Mitchell at his age and skull set is expendable but Wingard offers more versatility in the immediate future.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

OK, all lies.

Lewis was never told to go find another club, Mitchell wasn't told that he should pursue other opportunities, and Hodge was 100% done with Football when they told him he was done. I made it all up.

I was wrong, I admit you are correct on everything. Now if we can only get Lewis, Mitchell and Hodge to also change their stories, everyone will agree with you.

Are you stupid mate?

The Mitchell story is well documented BY EVERYONE INVOLVED. It simply did not happen as you ferociously claim. Did not happen. Get it?

Lewis wanted 3 years. Hawthorn does not offer more than one year deals to players over 30. This is not conjecture. This is fact. It goes back to Nick Holland being paid big money on a long deal and barely being able to get on the park. What you are asserting with Lewis did not happen. He was offered a year, wanted three and was traded to club willing to give it to him. Get it?

Hodge's situation is a bit more clouded. It may well have happened exactly as you suggested. But given you have missed the mark on the other two by the length of the Hume Freeway, I'd very much doubt it.

 

[owen87]

I said pretty much the same thing, but I don't think it is happening in regard to specific players without consulting the players first, otherwise you're putting the cart before the horse. I can believe a more general 'we're open to trading experience, let us know where your interests lie' exchange has occurred, but I think it is unlikely we are shopping specific players who haven't indicated some interest in going (playing finals would be the biggest reason I'd imagine). Following on from that, given public statements I would be super surprised if it was happening with Wingard. If the media have made up Wingard's situation, then they could have easily made up the rest too.

If nothing happens by close of trade tomorrow, I'm leaning more towards "massive exaggeration, verging on outright lies" by some of the media figures reporting on this. Yes, there are other reasons why deals might not happen, but it isn't like the media doesn't have a history of making sh*t up to attract eyeballs. I'd have thought an Essendon fan would have been as onboard that notion as anybody.

Absence of a trade doesn't invalidate Hawthorn appearing to be actively shopping for deals. It could simply mean the deals weren't forthcoming that they'd hoped they'd get.

There's not that many players Hawthorn have that would both command a high draft pick and be players Hawthorn were willing to move on.

You can choose to believe the entire thing is completely fabricated if you like.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Absence of a trade doesn't invalidate Hawthorn appearing to be actively shopping for deals. It could simply mean the deals weren't forthcoming that they'd hoped they'd get.

There's not that many players Hawthorn have that would both command a high draft pick and be players Hawthorn were willing to move on.

You can choose to believe the entire thing is completely fabricated if you like.

Dude, every club is shopping for deals. This is not a "Hawthorn thing" you know. The story is not fabricated but it's hardly earth shattering.

 

[hawkman]

Absence of a trade doesn't invalidate Hawthorn appearing to be actively shopping for deals. It could simply mean the deals weren't forthcoming that they'd hoped they'd get.

There's not that many players Hawthorn have that would both command a high draft pick and be players Hawthorn were willing to move on.

You can choose to believe the entire thing is completely fabricated if you like.

I think for some players it may have been fabricated. Others may be spot on though

 

[hk89]

Love it when someone quotes a term they've seen on the internet but doesn't really understand the meaning. Get's found out every time.

In common parlance the term equates to "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one", or "make as few assumptions as possible", although the philosophical version is a fair bit more complicated than that, and it is the layperson version most people are referring to when they use the term. Clearly I was referring to the common understanding, and it made complete sense in the context. "Media lies" is way simpler than trying to understand the complex reasons why we'd shop around a contracted player who doesn't want to go, and has a history of having hissy fits when shopped around. "media lies" is probably way simpler than any other competing hypothesis. Of course I'm sure you understood all of that, although your lack of understanding of the nuances of Hawthorn's previous trading history makes we wonder.

 

[owen87]

Dude, every club is shopping for deals.

No they're not

 

[La Dispute]

I'm considering our rebuild. Mitchell at his age and skull set is expendable but Wingard offers more versatility in the immediate future.

Hawthorn lose a lot more if Mitchell goes IMO. Worpel had more support with guys like Burgoyne, Henderson, Smith, (Scully?) etc running around in his breakout year.

 

[hk89]

You can choose to believe the entire thing is completely fabricated if you like.

I don't think I said the most likely scenario is a complete fabrication (although that is possible), of course I think we'd be discussing options with other clubs, and I've made it clear I think that is likely. I do think some of the specifics are likely outright fabrications, but that is based on logic rather than any inside information. I simply don't think it makes sense we are shopping wingard as late as yesterday, and I find it much easier to believe the simpler "Media bullshit" is a more likely explanation of that report. "Completely incompetent" is perhaps another simple explanation, but I hope that's not the case, as that's how I'd see a club that was shopping around a player who clearly didn't want to leave and had prior sensitivity issues in that area, and we are unable to push due to being contracted.

I see a lot of faith in this thread about what the media are reporting about Hawthorn, but it's funny how opposition fans are so quick to dismiss reports about their own club as mere media speculation while swallowing everything else down in a most gullible fashion. You still haven't really explained how it makes sense for us to be shopping a contracted player that has publicly very clearly stated he doesn't want to go, and has a history of hissy fits in this situation at his past club. Do you really think that's a sensible course of action? I accept what you are saying about us being possibly interested generally in getting some picks for older players, but specifically in Wingard's situation, do you think the media stories pass the sniff test?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

No they're not

Of course they are mate.

It's trade period.

 

[owen87]

I don't think I said the most likely scenario is a complete fabrication (although that is possible), of course I think we'd be discussing options with other clubs, and I've made it clear I think that is likely. I do think some of the specifics are likely outright fabrications, but that is based on logic rather than any inside information. I simply don't think it makes sense we are shopping wingard as late as yesterday, and I find it much easier to believe the simpler "Media bullshit" is a more likely explanation of that report. "Completely incompetent" is perhaps another simple explanation, but I hope that's not the case, as that's how I'd see a club that was shopping around a player who clearly didn't want to leave and had prior sensitivity issues in that area, and we are unable to push due to being contracted.

I see a lot of faith in this thread about what the media are reporting about Hawthorn, but it's funny how opposition fans are so quick to dismiss reports about their own club as mere media speculation while swallowing everything else down in a most gullible fashion. You still haven't really explained how it makes sense for us to be shopping a contracted player that has publicly very clearly stated he doesn't want to go, and has a history of hissy fits in this situation at his past club. Do you really think that's a sensible course of action? I accept what you are saying about us being possibly interested generally in getting some picks for older players, but specifically in Wingard's situation, do you think the media stories pass the sniff test?

Sounds like you've used a whole lot of words, and a whole lot of time, to agree with exactly what I've said previously;

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. There might be a bit of mayo added, but I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think Hawthorn hasn't actively approached list managers to let it be known they're open to trading some of their bigger names for a suitable deal.

 

[owen87]

Of course they are mate.

It's trade period.

I'm pretty confident Melbourne aren't shopping their senior players for deals right now. There's a clear difference in philosophy and approach depending on where the list is at.

 

[hk89]

Hawthorn lose a lot more if Mitchell goes IMO. Worpel had more support with guys like Burgoyne, Henderson, Smith, (Scully?) etc running around in his breakout year.

A big problem with our midfield has been too much of the same thing, and not enough class. I agree that from this point of view we can afford to lose Mitchell more easily, because he's more like the others. Wingard provides point of difference and class.

I'd prefer to keep all 3 and hope we can get lucky with this and next years draft for a turnaround that can still make all 3 relevant, but I generally hate losing any player, and was probably one of the people wrong about trading out Croad for the pick we got hodge with back in the day. May well be wrong this time too, but at the current rate of event unfolding, we are keeping them anyway.

 

[hk89]

Sounds like you've used a whole lot of words, and a whole lot of time, to agree with exactly what I've said previously;

That's because you failed to notice I'd agreed with you several times already on that point. I figured more words might help you understand that. Seems I was right, and you've finally got it. Well done.

 

[La Dispute]

I see a lot of faith in this thread about what the media are reporting about Hawthorn, but it's funny how opposition fans are so quick to dismiss reports about their own club as mere media speculation while swallowing everything else down in a most gullible fashion. You still haven't really explained how it makes sense for us to be shopping a contracted player that has publicly very clearly stated he doesn't want to go, and has a history of hissy fits in this situation at his past club. Do you really think that's a sensible course of action? I accept what you are saying about us being possibly interested generally in getting some picks for older players, but specifically in Wingard's situation, do you think the media stories pass the sniff test?

I think it does, it's just the extent of the discussions that are being misrepresented and subsequently misreported.

Either the club or Mitchell himself might have had preliminary discussions with clubs about a potential trade for Wingard, but obviously if there's no interest from Chad's end that halts all progress on a possible trade.

It's hard to conceal even superficial conversations between clubs and players, or players and their managers. Things leak out and that is how these stories form.

 

[owen87]

That's because you failed to notice I'd agreed with you several times already on that point. I figured more words might help you understand that. Seems I was right, and you've finally got it. Well done.

So why write so many words and posts to agree with exactly what I was saying?

Hawthorn appear to be actively shopping for deals for senior players in a push to bring in more draft collateral.

You're trying to argue it's all a media beat up, but also agreeing, apparently.

 

[Jack Green]

A big problem with our midfield has been too much of the same thing, and not enough class. I agree that from this point of view we can afford to lose Mitchell more easily, because he's more like the others. Wingard provides point of difference and class.

I'd prefer to keep all 3 and hope we can get lucky with this and next years draft for a turnaround that can still make all 3 relevant, but I generally hate losing any player, and was probably one of the people wrong about trading out Croad for the pick we got hodge with back in the day. May well be wrong this time too, but at the current rate of event unfolding, we are keeping them anyway.

You've carried the Hawk flag with this thread hk89!
The turnaround. Realistically how long do you think this turnaround will take for Hawthorn to be top 4 and competing for a flag again

 

[Dewyyyyy]

The only unique cog in our dysfunctional and one-dimensional midfield is Wingard.
Worpel also replaced him as a 19 year old.

Having Mitchell back certainly didn't help in 2020 or 2021.

No everything just went bad in 2020 and we committed to a rebuild. He wasn't at his best till post bye 2021 and we were one of the inform sides. Not a coincidence.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I'm pretty confident Melbourne aren't shopping their senior players for deals right now. There's a clear difference in philosophy and approach depending on where the list is at.

Just out of interest, what do you think list managers do during trade period? Each club's philosophy and approach might be different but make no mistake, every club including Melbourne is looking to improve their playing stocks. Melbourne might not be aggressively working the floor but if another club asks about a particular player there will be a conversation. And there will be senior players that Melbourne would entertain moving on.

 

[owen87]

Melbourne might not be aggressively working the floor

Exactly my point.

 

[La Dispute]

A big problem with our midfield has been too much of the same thing, and not enough class. I agree that from this point of view we can afford to lose Mitchell more easily, because he's more like the others. Wingard provides point of difference and class.

I'd prefer to keep all 3 and hope we can get lucky with this and next years draft for a turnaround that can still make all 3 relevant, but I generally hate losing any player, and was probably one of the people wrong about trading out Croad for the pick we got hodge with back in the day. May well be wrong this time too, but at the current rate of event unfolding, we are keeping them anyway.

I think class is pretty hard to quantify. Mitchell is a classy player, but doesn't have the same skillset as someone like Wingard. On balance though if I was going to remove one from the Hawthorn team it'd be Wingard because Mitchell's cumulative impact on a game of footy is greater. If we are looking at JOM v Wingard though, it's probably 50/50.

Filling gaps isn't something I think Hawthorn should be focusing too heavily on at this stage of their development. They need to stay competitive while blooding as many future starters as they can. They've still got an early pick and there are plenty of X-factor type players around their general range in this years draft to consider.

It's all academic, because no quality senior players are going to leave, but it would have been an interesting situation. It's certainly been a while since Hawthorn has been fishing for an additional first round pick.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Exactly my point.

That doesn't mean they aren't having conversations. FFS.

Are you saying they aren't involved in trade period? If someone asks about Charlie Spargo for example and puts a good deal up Melbourne will take it. Their players are not untouchable and only a moron thinks they are. If Gold Coast offers 3 first round picks for Christian Petracca you had better believe there would be a chat about it.

To say that Melbourne would not have the conversation is naive to the extreme.

 

[owen87]

That doesn't mean they aren't having conversations. FFS.

Are you saying they aren't involved in trade period? If someone asks about Charlie Spargo for example and puts a good deal up Melbourne will take it. Their players are not untouchable and only a moron thinks they are. If Gold Coast offers 3 first round picks for Christian Petracca you had better believe there would be a chat about it.

To say that Melbourne would not have the conversation is naive to the extreme.

Who said they wouldn't have the conversation or be involved in trade period were appealing offers to present themselves?

You're making things up.

 

[Freomaniac]

Said everyone involved in running Carlton for the last 20-odd years.

hawthorn are invincible lol