Traded #42: Massimoe D'Ambrosioe - Thank you for your service

Remove this Banner Ad

You don't throw away players with Massimo's skillset. He was never just a loose checking half back. Half the players in the competition are playing different roles week to week but we couldn't use a little foresight with one of the best kicks in the competition. Absolute inditement on everyone involved in this decision.

I think it's also the type of thing you throw away too that adds to the frustration,
I value actual football skills incredibly highly (hence my horror at watching Tsatas play, and other AFL level players being unable to handball). That we would dispose of someone with that skillset makes it worse (imo).
We have done similar to this scenario before, recruiting big bodies and playing them on a damn wing and putting players from other areas into the middle.
Hell, do we remember what we did to Hep when he played as a crash and bash midfielder for a bit?

As we are gathering, football skills, being able to handball, kick accurately are becoming increasingly not valued by clubs. Whether it's how they weight strengths and weaknesses or they simply believe you can train it, I'm not sure but it's not sought after above all else.
If a player has gone through the entire youth development system and not learnt to kick well, then that isn't going to magically improve once the enter the AFL system which limits contact hours with clubs.

In my opinion for where this is all going,
As the competition becomes stronger and stronger at defensive zones there needs to be a tipping point where ball use and offensively talented footballers are the difference. It won't be just "run harder", you will need to be able to break through defences with kicking talent, and having 2 players that can kick in charge of your ball movement is not feasible.

The entire comp is built off turnover scores and how you defend them.
One great way to limit scores from turnover is to be clean with the ball.

Even if the comp doesn't get better defensively, if their is a market inefficiency in that the league does not value football skills, there will become a point that if you have enough of them, you have an edge on the comp.
It's how you build yourself into a powerhouse instead of trying to reinvent the team each year to mimic and copy the premier of the time.


Now just to reiterate, this isn't all just about this one player. It's the process and decision making behind the whole situation that's frustrating.
 
Bang on, anyone who can't see this is being deliberately obtuse.
How many players who have issues defending can you carry ?
It is not obtuse.
Hawks have a defensive midfield of contested ball winners who win the footy. It allows them to play Mass and not have to worry about his defending. On top of that they have two Jets off half back in Jiath and Weddle to feed the ball to.
At the end of the day to keep Mass and utilize his offensive ability we basically have to lose one of Parish / Martin / Perkins / Cox / Tsatas who struggle offensively as well.
I would like a side that may be able to defend some time before 2050. I do not know about you but I am over going to games over the last 15 years and watching our team defense work like under 8 Auskick.
You don't throw away players with Massimo's skillset. He was never just a loose checking half back. Half the players in the competition are playing different roles week to week but we couldn't use a little foresight with one of the best kicks in the competition. Absolute inditement on everyone involved in this decision.
Like I have said how many non defenders do you want to carry ? No doubt we could use his kicking. No doubt he is playing good footy. How many can we carry ? Is our midfield good enough defensively to do it ? Hawks are winning now because they have their midfield back and firing . Can we cover allowing one of the wings not defending ? Where do you start first ?
And he was never a good defender. I spent time just watching him in the VFL and have been to a couple of Hawks games this year and watched him. His transition into defense has not changed . It is not natural and it is slow. He also has no marking presence.
Offensively he is great but he has to have a defensive cast around him. We have not really got that yet and still have a few that need the same.
 
How many players who have issues defending can you carry ?
It is not obtuse.
Hawks have a defensive midfield of contested ball winners who win the footy. It allows them to play Mass and not have to worry about his defending. On top of that they have two Jets off half back in Jiath and Weddle to feed the ball to.
At the end of the day to keep Mass and utilize his offensive ability we basically have to lose one of Parish / Martin / Perkins / Cox / Tsatas who struggle offensively as well.
I would like a side that may be able to defend some time before 2050. I do not know about you but I am over going to games over the last 15 years and watching our team defense work like under 8 Auskick.

Like I have said how many non defenders do you want to carry ? No doubt we could use his kicking. No doubt he is playing good footy. How many can we carry ? Is our midfield good enough defensively to do it ? Hawks are winning now because they have their midfield back and firing . Can we cover allowing one of the wings not defending ? Where do you start first ?
And he was never a good defender. I spent time just watching him in the VFL and have been to a couple of Hawks games this year and watched him. His transition into defense has not changed . It is not natural and it is slow. He also has no marking presence.
Offensively he is great but he has to have a defensive cast around him. We have not really got that yet and still have a few that need the same.
Ok I'm with you now, keeping Massimo means we'd be bad defensively until 2050.

Look we disagree clearly, so I'm happy to leave it here. I think losing an AFL standard elite kick was a mistake, as I said earlier he doesn't need to play again for me to always believe that, you'll use hindsight forever to suit your argument.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ok I'm with you now, keeping Massimo means we'd be bad defensively until 2050.

Look we disagree clearly, so I'm happy to leave it here. I think losing an AFL standard elite kick was a mistake, as I said earlier he doesn't need to play again for me to always believe that, you'll use hindsight forever to suit your argument.
I like defense. Mass is a good player but we suck at defense. I did not say keeping Mass alone would do it. I questioned how many we could carry. Personally I would lose a couple of the list I mentioned anyway. And I am not sure how I am using hindsight ? I have watched him since his under 18 days. I was happy when we picked him . He is a good player . Others obviously favor his attacking game more. At least I am not mocking your opinion by using laughing emojis . All I have done is produce a different opinion and not made smart ass comments.
Anyway we gave up a good player because we are carrying too many players who have defensive issues. That is where it is at. It is the collateral damage from 15 years of defending like shit and bringing in a new crew to try and fix it.
 
Last edited:
I like defense. Mass is a good player but we suck at defense. I did not say keeping Mass alone would do it. I questioned how many we could carry. Personally I would lose a couple of the list I mentioned anyway. And I am not sure how I am using hindsight ? I have watched him since his under 18 days. I was happy when we picked him . He is a good player . Others obviously favor his attacking game more. At least I am not mocking your opinion by using laughing emojis . All I have done is produce a different opinion and not made smart ass comments.
Anyway we gave up a good player because we are carrying too many players who have defensive issues. That is where it is at. It is the collateral damage from 15 years of defending like shit and bringing in a new crew to try and fix it.

Maybe I should've asked this question to you earlier...

Without considering his defensive inability do you think it was a mistake to lose him for the draft pick we couldn't even use?

I don't think keeping Massimo was going to ensure we'd continue to be poor defensively like you've made out, I think that's pretty unfair to place on the head of one 20 year old kid.

Our starting positions are different, I'm saying we lost him, you're saying we let him leave, I believe we upped our offer to 2 years, but by that point it was too late.

Also I wouldn't read too much into the laughing reacts.
 
Maybe I should've asked this question to you earlier...

Without considering his defensive inability do you think it was a mistake to lose him for the draft pick we couldn't even use?

I don't think keeping Massimo was going to ensure we'd continue to be poor defensively like you've made out, I think that's pretty unfair to place on the head of one 20 year old kid.

Our starting positions are different, I'm saying we lost him, you're saying we let him leave, I believe we upped our offer to 2 years, but by that point it was too late.

Also I wouldn't read too much into the laughing reacts.
No it was not ideal . They tried to keep him but the Hawks offered him what he wanted and that was not playing in the back half while we would not commit to where he could play. It was not great the way it went. We let him go becasue we where not going to guarantee where he was going to play.

My point on his defense is not solely about Mass but more on how many players can you carry in the side who have defensive issues and expect improvement. That is why I was not against trading Parish two years ago and why I had serious question marks on Tsatas (kicking aside) . Personally I would prefer Mass over Tsatas . It is also the question mark I have kept throwong up about Archie. I am not putting on Mass. I am putting on the group and the recruiting . There are only so many you can put in one side before it falls apart.

Is it good list management as a whole . Probably not. Bit like continuing to draft small midfielders. You end up with too many blokes who have the same issues.

I did reply in this thread to a Hawks supporter that if you do not mind him not defending and let him just chase the football he will get 25 plus touches and look like a Brownlow contender.

We need good kicks but we also desperately need to solve 15 years of defensive crap .
 
Last edited:
My interest here is asset management.

Can see the case for keeping or moving him…..what I don’t understand is why we ended up giving away for practically nothing a guy who obviously had value.

It a was easily foreseeable that he could be best 22 and give real value in a certain structure. The price we extracted should have reflected that - not sure pick 61 and a future 4th is value for money.
 
My interest here is asset management.

Can see the case for keeping or moving him…..what I don’t understand is why we ended up giving away for practically nothing a guy who obviously had value.

It a was easily foreseeable that he could be best 22 and give real value in a certain structure. The price we extracted should have reflected that - not sure pick 61 and a future 4th is value for money.
yeah we didnt get massimum value
Vander18 gets it
 
My interest here is asset management.

Can see the case for keeping or moving him…..what I don’t understand is why we ended up giving away for practically nothing a guy who obviously had value.

It a was easily foreseeable that he could be best 22 and give real value in a certain structure. The price we extracted should have reflected that - not sure pick 61 and a future 4th is value for money.


I don't think that on balance the cases ever really gets to support for moving him on when we did.

The going rate on players who are not best 22, and who were not themselves first round picks, is basically nothing - whatever late pick the suitor has - you see a bit of multiple late picks (for points accumulation). Players like Massimo, clearly out of the best 22, virtually never realise a trade value that justifies letting the talent leave. The value is really only built as a best 22 player or someone on the immediate fringe who is playing every other week like a best 22 player.

In fact if you look at what players like Dylan Stephens and Nick Coffield landed their former clubs last season, former first round picks maintain an almost ludicrous trade value.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't think that on balance the cases ever really gets to support for moving him on when we did.

The going rate on players who are not best 22, and who were not themselves first round picks, is basically nothing - whatever late pick the suitor has - you see a bit of multiple late picks (for points accumulation). Players like Massimo, clearly out of the best 22, virtually never realise a trade value that justifies letting the talent leave. The value is really only built as a best 22 player or someone on the immediate fringe who is playing every other week like a best 22 player.

In fact if you look at what players like Dylan Stephens and Nick Coffield landed their former clubs last season, former first round picks maintain an almost ludicrous trade value.
It's interesting. I couldn't see him getting a game last year if he stayed with us as he was struggling to get a game down back as we have some depth in the position that he would play and looked all at sea when he had to play one on one defensively. I was not unhappy at all that we shopped him. He has totally revenge-bodied it and is making the call look worse with every good game that he plays.
 
I don't think that on balance the cases ever really gets to support for moving him on when we did.

The going rate on players who are not best 22, and who were not themselves first round picks, is basically nothing - whatever late pick the suitor has - you see a bit of multiple late picks (for points accumulation). Players like Massimo, clearly out of the best 22, virtually never realise a trade value that justifies letting the talent leave. The value is really only built as a best 22 player or someone on the immediate fringe who is playing every other week like a best 22 player.

In fact if you look at what players like Dylan Stephens and Nick Coffield landed their former clubs last season, former first round picks maintain an almost ludicrous trade value.
All that and in D'Ambrosio's case he was a rookie out of contract and technically a free agent because we didn't upgrade him.
 
I don't think that on balance the cases ever really gets to support for moving him on when we did.

The going rate on players who are not best 22, and who were not themselves first round picks, is basically nothing - whatever late pick the suitor has - you see a bit of multiple late picks (for points accumulation). Players like Massimo, clearly out of the best 22, virtually never realise a trade value that justifies letting the talent leave. The value is really only built as a best 22 player or someone on the immediate fringe who is playing every other week like a best 22 player.

In fact if you look at what players like Dylan Stephens and Nick Coffield landed their former clubs last season, former first round picks maintain an almost ludicrous trade value.
Right but you can be smart and manage these things.

There is the truth and there is the narrative you create so that at trade time he’s not just some hack who can’t get a game…..there are ways to maximise his value. That would be asset management.
 
Agree with comments regarding the loss being poor list management. It was obvious D’Ambrosio could play footy we should have signed him up earlier in the year and not let Hawthorn get a look in.

I trust ant555 ’s comments on his poor aptitude for team/transition defending but it’s hard to take the club seriously when we’re happy to carry Heppell who is on his last legs who isn’t flash in that area either and also has the issue of being extremely slow.
 
Agree with comments regarding the loss being poor list management. It was obvious D’Ambrosio could play footy we should have signed him up earlier in the year and not let Hawthorn get a look in.

I trust ant555 ’s comments on his poor aptitude for team/transition defending but it’s hard to take the club seriously when we’re happy to carry Heppell who is on his last legs who isn’t flash in that area either and also has the issue of being extremely slow.
Heppell comes down to how much they rate his leadership internally which is something we can never have a full understanding of. Coach loves him . Captain loves him. Players love him.
 
Yeah I’m not sure this mentality will ever take the club forward.
There is a bit of yes an no in this. There was a bit of comment about Mass not always being on board as far as being 100% behind the role they expected of him and some questions on how the leaders saw that as far as team buy in goes. There is a good case for not chopping the legs off the team first guys while you are building the culture. Mass is doing what he does as he has found a team that wants to play a game style that works for him and lets him off the hook as far as having to defend.
Mitchell can do that. He is coaching a side that has won 4 flags in the same period we have not won a final.
Scott has to go about building the team defense first so despite the fact we could use the D'Ambrosio kicking game it is a double edged sword. That is what we got him to do. The Hawks did not get Mitchell to build a new culture.
On top of that our leadership has been very thin. People I speak to from inside the club and those who know people inside the club all say you can never under estimate the value that Heppell brings behind the scenes . You do not cut down your leaders and the good people and build a strong club culture.
Anyway it is not the Heppell thread and secondly he is actually playing good footy. He has saved our ass many many many more times than he has ****ed up this year.
 
My interest here is asset management.

Can see the case for keeping or moving him…..what I don’t understand is why we ended up giving away for practically nothing a guy who obviously had value.

It a was easily foreseeable that he could be best 22 and give real value in a certain structure. The price we extracted should have reflected that - not sure pick 61 and a future 4th is value for money.
If you’d told anyone last year that he’d be one of the better attacking wingmen once freed from any pressure to defend they’d laugh in your face.

At the time he was in and out of the best 22 with well known defensive issues, being offered pretty low tier contracts by both us and Hawthorne. If the hawks had come offering $700k for 5 years or something you’d expect them to stump up a correspondingly valuable pick, but that wasn’t the case.

At the end of the day you win some and you lose some. Wright, Caldwell, Duursma, Setterfield and Hind were all obtained for a comparatively cheap price in draft picks for the value they have added to our side. I don’t think that necessarily points to systemic issues with the list management at those players former clubs, it’s just for one reason or another they weren’t considered critical to their respective lists.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top