Remove this Banner Ad

Recommitted Zach Merrett [UFA 2027] - Wanted a trade to Hawthorn, but it didn't get done

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

There we go, that's the clip:

 
jannissary said:
hawks put themselves in the corner by taking their sweet old time.
Click to expand...

It was a tactic by Hawthorn and Petroro. And it completely failed.

Petroro was shitty because they chose their path and it’d become clear it was the wrong one.

Done differently, this most probably gets completed.

High stakes, high risk, failure.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
It was a tactic by Hawthorn and Petroro. And it completely failed.

Petroro was shitty because they chose their path and it’d become clear it was the wrong one.

Done differently, this most probably gets completed.

High stakes, high risk, failure.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was Petroro's chosen strategy. That finger pointing in the rooms had all the hallmarks of I Told You This Would Happen.
 
Glad the Bombers didn't let him go. After holding the club to ransom last year and renegotiting his contract, being captain and then asking for a trade this year, he has shown himself as a disgrace and a sook.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bunk Moreland said:
Who says it’s overs? It’s ok if you do, but that’s just your opinion. It’s Pick 10 and 22 in what everybody agrees is a weak draft at the top end, plus Pick 17 next year. Picks were being thrown around trade week like confetti for a reason.

Merrett is a proven superstar who Essendon think has many years of very good footy to come.

You can disagree, but it’s hardly a no-brainer.

As for stockpiling picks to access the top talent, Essendon has. They have five picks inside 30 this year. They’ve traded to get them and let Draper walk (while easily having the money to match) to get the compensation.

A lot of people are fixed on two things - Merrett supposedly has zero value to Essendon, and “it’s three first rounders!!!” (when it’s picks 10, 22 and 17). Neither of which are necessarily true.
Click to expand...
I was quoting a post that said it was overs. And also that the Dons were right to reject it because ... Clear win.
 
Honestly, I think the best take on the whole thing came on The Age this morning - that Hawthorn mistakenly believed that, like the Petracca and Oliver deals, this was going to be a football decision. They didn't realise that it was, above all, a political and personal decision.
 
Dr Tigris said:
All good.

But the Dons now have a (former) captain who wants to leave, and it doesn't have the draft picks to revitalise the list. Merrett's value is at its peak. It'll only drop now.

Last year the Tigers gave up a lot of good players to rapidly revitalise the list. The supporters were happy with that, because we weren't winning a premiership with he list, and this would allow us to compress multiple years of drafting into one year.

Being offered overs and not taking it because you want a 'clear win' is problematic. This is a once off situation, and opportunity to dramatically change the list. Being tough isn't as good as actually having those highly rated youngsters.
Click to expand...

we have picks 4,5 this year and and ~3 early 2nd rounders? We also have very few list spots to actually draft everyone using these picks which is probably why we didn't value Hawthorns offer that highly in the end.

We also just debut like 17 players this year.........

Did you even think this through at all before posting it? Like even a little bit?

Merrett is a professional who will play just as well in 2026 as he did this year, there is zero issue about that.
 
iameviljez said:
Honestly, I think the best take on the whole thing came on The Age this morning - that Hawthorn mistakenly believed that, like the Petracca and Oliver deals, this was going to be a football decision. They didn't realise that it was, above all, a political and personal decision.
Click to expand...

+ the fact they played a silly tactic game trying to put pressure on us via making very late offers, put it blew up completely.

Jake Niall summed it up perfectly this morning on his podcast.

Hawthorn were very hypocritical in that they were willing to put pressure on another playing list to get a good player in, but weren't happy to do it to their own list to get a good player out.

That is where the hawks failed.
 
I don't see what advantage the Bombers gain by keeping him.

Just to say they stood their ground... Merrett has done a lot for that club they should have traded him, look at Melbourne they held Petracca & Oliver and ended up trading them the next season.
 
Daka said:
I don't see what advantage the Bombers gain by keeping him.

Just to say they stood their ground... Merrett has done a lot for that club they should have traded him, look at Melbourne they held Petracca & Oliver and ended up trading them the next season.
Click to expand...

And look at the offer they got for Petracca from Gold Coast............Oliver is a different story completely due to his own issues.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Who says it’s overs? It’s ok if you do, but that’s just your opinion. It’s Pick 10 and 22 in what everybody agrees is a weak draft at the top end, plus Pick 17 next year. Picks were being thrown around trade week like confetti for a reason.

Merrett is a proven superstar who Essendon think has many years of very good footy to come.

You can disagree, but it’s hardly a no-brainer.

As for stockpiling picks to access the top talent, Essendon has. They have five picks inside 30 this year. They’ve traded to get them and let Draper walk (while easily having the money to match) to get the compensation.

A lot of people are fixed on two things - Merrett supposedly has zero value to Essendon, and “it’s three first rounders!!!” (when it’s picks 10, 22 and 17). Neither of which are necessarily true.
Click to expand...
This just isn’t true. We can’t keep lying to ourselves about this

Its pick 13, 28 and 2026 pick 23 for Merrett

Can you imagine if 10 years ago when he was 30 you offered picks 13,23 and 28 for Luke Hodge? That’s basically what Hawks did here
 
Daka said:
I don't see what advantage the Bombers gain by keeping him.

Just to say they stood their ground... Merrett has done a lot for that club they should have traded him, look at Melbourne they held Petracca & Oliver and ended up trading them the next season.
Click to expand...
If it was a different club they were dealing with the same scenario i reckon it gets done.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Poor Zach, he's a young player who was very aggressively approached and then groomed by an older man who has been in the game for a long time. He's now been ghosted by his abuser and his world has been turned upside down. dastardly behaviour, Dillon and co should fine Mitchell $25k for bringing the game in to disrepute.
 
I thought the final offer turned down by essendon was 10, 22, f1, ff1 and hustwsite? That's what media is suggesting
 
Daka said:
Just to say they stood their ground... Merrett has done a lot for that club they should have traded him, look at Melbourne they held Petracca & Oliver and ended up trading them the next season.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that in the case of Petracca, it worked out extremely well for Melbourne.

They would not have gotten anything like the haul they got out of Gold Coast if they had settled for Collingwood at the end of last year.

The lesson of this - and Curnow too - are that if you have the player under contract, do not settle for anything less than an excellent return.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Thanks everyone - an interesting ride for no result.

Genuinely staggered Essendon turned down an opportunity to add 3 1sts and get a fresh start without a disgruntled leader. Not a great way to start a rebuild.

Feel bad for Zach, can't see how this doesn't affect his performance next year.
 
posters keep talking about Hawks pick 17 next year??
one of the many, many baseless assumptions being made here.

Essendon's valuation was inflated by the desire to show strength and leadership. Good on them, no problem with that.

Personally, I am so glad that Mitchell didn't do a Clarko panic, as happened with Wingard and O'Meara, where both those trades were hopelessly unbalanced and threw the club into several years of the doldrums.

The Hawks offered a trade that was a little overs, as you would expect, so I am personally glad that nothing further was offered. IMO, HH will turn into a very good AFL player, either with the Hawks or another team, so I never felt he was some sort of "steak knives"

Hopefully, Zach has a good four or five years of football left in him, but another false assumption is that this is some sort of certainty. History would disagree with you. When the cliff comes, it comes like lightening. Just ask absolute champions like [PLAYERCARD]Jordan Lewis[/PLAYERCARD], Nat Fyfe etc etc. They were both totally cooked at 31 years old, and until the cliff came, were outstandingly professional.

I see this as a win-win for both clubs, Essendon gets to keep their captain, and the Hawks can continue to invest in the future.
 
Bombres will go into overdrive to convince zerritt that his manager and hawthorn were the problem.
Stick with us son and we will look after you.
Ahahahah
Bluebaggers and swans saw an opportunity and took it.
 
Hawks waiting till nearly the end of the trade period smacked of arrogance, possibly in the belief that they could dictate terms. They probably could have got the deal over the line if they had been willing to offer a player of value rather than a reserve 18 one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top