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

[GWT6]

Reading and comprehension aren't your strong suits.

Have a nice life. I'm done with you. Onto ignore with your mate.

So presented with facts, you make s**t up, when questioned you throw a tantrum and say you put me on ignore. Nice talking to you.

 

[Generation X]

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?

Are you sure about that? You seem pretty sure (and bloody angry for some reason) and it seems to be the whole basis of your argument.

If this is true then why is Breust on a contract until 2023? Now correct me if I'm wrong but Breust is currently 30, just about to turn 31, yes? With a further two years to go on his contract. What am I missing?

So fact, fiction or something completely different?

 

[Generation X]

I'm not making any claims about what Lewis did or didn't say regarding the captaincy. Nice try though.

He was never going to get a three year deal. I have explained why twice. You seem a tad slow.

Again, are you sure about your facts?

 

[Generation X]

Reading and comprehension aren't your strong suits.

Irony at it's best

 

[hk89]

Are you sure about that? You seem pretty sure (and bloody angry for some reason) and it seems to be the whole basis of your argument.

If this is true then why is Breust on a contract until 2023? Now correct me if I'm wrong but Breust is currently 30, just about to turn 31, yes? With a further two years to go on his contract. What am I missing?

So fact, fiction or something completely different?

It was generally true back when Wright was list manager/football manager. Wright left, and this year we did give Breust a 2 year extension after he'd turned 30. Its not so easy to keep players once you are very much out of a window if you're not willing to compromise, and Breust had been hunted every off season by other clubs. Breust might not have been the first to get offered more than 1 year post 30, but it doesn't seem to have been reported as happening back when Lewis got 3 from Melbourne (at the end of a year where we'd spent a chunk of the season in top spot). Keep in mind, Lewis already had a contract for the next season (from memory) when Melbourne offered him 3 at a time Lewis was likely told he'd be given year to year offers from there on in from us when his contract expired the next year, which given how things ended at Melbourne would have been the absolutely right thing to do.

 

[Generation X]

It was generally true back when Wright was list manager/football manager. Wright left, and this year we did give Breust a 2 year extension after he'd turned 30. Its not so easy to keep players once you are very much out of a window if you're not willing to compromise, and Breust had been hunted every off season by other clubs. Breust might not have been the first to get offered more than 1 year post 30, but it doesn't seem to have been reported as happening back when Lewis got 3 from Melbourne (at the end of a year where we'd spent a chunk of the season in top spot). Keep in mind, Lewis already had a contract for the next season (from memory) when Melbourne offered him 3 at a time Lewis was likely told he'd be given year to year offers from there on in from us when his contract expired the next year, which given how things ended at Melbourne would have been the absolutely right thing to do.

Yes, I can see how giving a player like Breust a 2 year contract after he turns 30 over players like Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell is a great idea

 

[hk89]

Yes, I can see how giving a player like Breust a 2 year contract after he turns 30 over players like Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell is a great idea

Sorry, I didn't realise you were only here to troll.

Which part of "It is not so easy to keep players once you are very much out of a window if you're not willing to compromise". Clearly a) we are in a much different situation now to when the "1 year only after 30" policy was much more strictly enforced and b) one of the main people in charge of implementing that policy have changed.

Furthermore, when you are in a window, it is not just about the fact that players are more willing to stay on with less security because they want more success, but also when you're in a window, your cap is generally MUCH tighter than when you are sitting down the bottom. In other words we don't necessarily need the policy right now because we have an awful lot of cap space. It is much harder to sell "sorry one year only" when you've got what is rumoured to be one of the least under pressure caps in the competition.

In any case, I'm not sure what "player like Breust" means in this context. He's been our leading goal kicker 3 times, which is impressive as a small forward who was playing in a team with Roughy, Franklin, Rioli and Gunston as fellow forwards (had to wait for some of those to leave to top our goal kickers, might have had a few more years as #1 goal kicker at Hawthorn otherwise). Also has one more all Australian than Lewis.

 

[Walshawk]

Close this thread. We are no longer ignoring the elite end of the draft.
The answer was a clear NO.

 

[footyfan1978]

Last 12 months or so and now with new coach, they finally turned 180 degrees and know ignoring early picks for more than a year or two is just going to have your list weaken and not replenished with elite talent.

 

[parsons nose]

If Richmond had any sense they’re be shopping their stars around whilst they still have currency. What pick/picks would you get for the likes of Martin etc.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

If Richmond had any sense they’re be shopping their stars around whilst they still have currency. What pick/picks would you get for the likes of Martin etc.

Good point, I'd consider giving up 21 for Martin. He's nearly 31 and injury prone of late so way too old to be worth any more...

 

[Gavin Excell]

Still waiting on the “fire sale” that was supposed to happen.

Is the issue there was a sale but just no buyers?

 

[hk89]

Is the issue there was a sale but just no buyers?

A zen koan! Put it alongside "The sound of one journalist crapping", and "If a journalist makes up s**t in their own mind, did the s**t really happen?"

 

[owen87]

Right so in other words you have no specifics, and in fact "these names have all been bandied about" is something you assume because you believe everything that's been reported on the matter, despite the fact that it is ALL smoke and no fire so far. When you have smoke and no fire, you'd perhaps at least consider the possibility that there is in fact no fire, and in this case no fire sale. Especially when some of the smoke stories are implausible, such as the Wingard situation.

As I said, you're using the specifics argument to obfuscate.

There's more than enough smoke around this one to suggest that it's not nothing.

Except in your own mind. Apparently.

 

[Generation X]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were only here to troll.

Which part of "It is not so easy to keep players once you are very much out of a window if you're not willing to compromise". Clearly a) we are in a much different situation now to when the "1 year only after 30" policy was much more strictly enforced and b) one of the main people in charge of implementing that policy have changed.

Furthermore, when you are in a window, it is not just about the fact that players are more willing to stay on with less security because they want more success, but also when you're in a window, your cap is generally MUCH tighter than when you are sitting down the bottom. In other words we don't necessarily need the policy right now because we have an awful lot of cap space. It is much harder to sell "sorry one year only" when you've got what is rumoured to be one of the least under pressure caps in the competition.

In any case, I'm not sure what "player like Breust" means in this context. He's been our leading goal kicker 3 times, which is impressive as a small forward who was playing in a team with Roughy, Franklin, Rioli and Gunston as fellow forwards (had to wait for some of those to leave to top our goal kickers, might have had a few more years as #1 goal kicker at Hawthorn otherwise). Also has one more all Australian than Lewis.

What rubbish, i was responding to the troll.

Hawks window slammed shut when they got rid of their elite players and whilst Breust is a very good player he isn't anywhere near as good as the champions that were shipped off cheaply. That argument just doesn't make sense

I was responding to a hawk fan who was being an absolute smart arse whose whole argument relied on the fact that the Hawks only give 1 year contracts when a player turns 30, which has been proven wrong. The reasons for it are irrelevant. The guy stated something as fact but he was wrong.

 

[HairyO]

Why is page after page about Melbourne? Are there not enough threads for them to stink up Richmond style?

 

[owen87]

Why is page after page about Melbourne? Are there not enough threads for them to stink up Richmond style?

Well the question asked in this thread has ultimately been answered - no. So people need to talk about something.

 

[Generation X]

Why is page after page about Melbourne? Are there not enough threads for them to stink up Richmond style?

There was a hawk fan desperate to prove something about Melbourne, after reading all the posts I'm still not sure what he was trying to prove, i don't think he knows either. So blame one of your fellow hawk fans

 

[TylerDurden]

Well the question asked in this thread has ultimately been answered - no. So people need to talk about something.

We should just change the title to "let's troll Hawthorn"

 

[hk89]

whilst Breust is a very good player he isn't anywhere near as good as the champions that were shipped off cheaply.

Nonsense. Breust has arguably been one the three best small forwards in the competition over the last 10 years. Sure, some others had a good year here or there that were better than some of Breust's, but consistency wise, I'd probably only put Eddie Betts ahead of him (Cyril perhaps a better small forward in terms of peak brilliance, but injury impacted his ability to match Breust for consistency, and even from a goals per game point of view, Breust had Cyril covered). Lewis on the other hand would never be considered a top 10 mid, in fact he might even struggle to have been considered a top 15 or top 20 mid for much of his career. Probably sitting in the 15th to 20th range for mine, and some might say that was generous. I will not argue with you on Hodge/Mitchell vs Breust, that's clearly a different ballpark to Breust vs Lewis.

I was responding to a hawk fan who was being an absolute smart arse whose whole argument relied on the fact that the Hawks only give 1 year contracts when a player turns 30, which has been proven wrong. The reasons for it are irrelevant. The guy stated something as fact but he was wrong.

gave/give, seems you were making a big deal about something someone said that was apparently true at the time it was relevant , i.e at the time lewis left for 3 years at Melbourne it does seem the case that were not giving out multi year contracts to players in the 30+ age bracket. The fact that it seems to have changed now doesn't really change the point being made much though does it? So I don't really get the need for the accuracy police on that statement, it was true when it counted for the discussion being had.

 

[hk89]

As I said, you're using the specifics argument to obfuscate.

Watch out, I hear the big-word police have been active in this thread. How is asking for more detail trying to make the situation less clear? You keep saying it is clear "X is happening", except when asked you can't actually provide any details on what X is, i.e who, to where, at what price etc. Seems it is YOU that is obfuscating, by hiding behind empty platitudes like "where there is smoke there is fire".

There's more than enough smoke around this one to suggest that it's not nothing.

Except in your own mind. Apparently.

You have an awful amount of trust in a very small handful of journos with track records for making s**t up. I read a bunch of backpedalling from them this morning already. "it is not that we made s**t up, it is that Hawthorn wants too much for them." seems to be the new story.

 

[owen87]

Watch out, I hear the big-word police have been active in this thread. How is asking for more detail trying to make the situation less clear? You keep saying it is clear "X is happening", except when asked you can't actually provide any details on what X is, i.e who, to where, at what price etc. Seems it is YOU that is obfuscating, by hiding behind empty platitudes like "where there is smoke there is fire".



You have an awful amount of trust in a very small handful of journos with track records for making sh*t up. I read a bunch of backpedalling from them this morning already. "it is not that we made sh*t up, it is that Hawthorn wants too much for them." seems to be the new story.

Nah, you're trying to pretend a lack of specifics is somehow evidence that their overarching strategy doesn't exist.

Do you think Hawthorn have actively tried to improve their draft hand this off-season?

If so, do you think Hawthorn have made it known to clubs that they're willing to deal some of their more senior players that might have good currency?

Those senior players could be guys like Gunston, Mitchell, O'Meara & Wingard, who are the guys that most clearly have currency and are at an age where Hawthorn would be able to move them on.

Wingard would have the most currency of the players Hawthorn appear to be willing to move on, but has personally come out and made it pretty clear he's not willing to be traded.

Your counter argument is that because no one on BigFooty can 100% validate any specific player, and if a trade doesn't occur because clubs aren't willing to offer a deal that Hawthorn would think justifies moving on a guy like Mitchell or O'Meara, that it somehow negates that the entire AFL media agrees Hawthorn are actively shopping players for deals?

Yeah, look, given your posting on the topic, I'm pretty comfortable that when a number of AFL associated journos are all telling the same story, with not a single one coming out with anything that contradicts it, that there's more than just some smoke here.

 

[hk89]

Nah, you're trying to pretend a lack of specifics is somehow evidence that their overarching strategy doesn't exist.

And your evidence is "smoke" from known bullshitters.

Do you think Hawthorn have actively tried to improve their draft hand this off-season?

This is going around in circles. There is a big difference between saying Hawthorn is open to trade discussions on any player if the price is right (which is pretty much a truism for any club) and making statements about specific players getting put on the auction block. The first is a sensible statement that is without doubt true, the second is potentially bullshit made by gutter journos to feed a gullible audience. This isn't about mayo, it is about fact versus fiction.

Your counter argument is that because no one on BigFooty can 100% validate any specific player

My counter argument is that so far none of the specific players supposedly put up for trade have been traded. Furthermore some of them who are contracted and have explicitly stated they will NOT be traded, which also suggests a certain level of bullshit being spoken by journos. All smoke no fire makes it sound much more like a few journos with a smoke machine than an actual fire sale. Now they are covering their arses and claiming the lack of trades is not about them being caught in a lie, but rather Hawthorn being unreasonable with what they are asking (despite the fact Hawthorn previously had a reputation for being super reasonable in trade week).

'm pretty comfortable that when a number of AFL associated journos are all telling the same story, with not a single one coming out with anything that contradicts it, that there's more than just some smoke here.

The "journos" in "AFL associated journos" makes it an oxymoron. These are not proper journos, but rather tame monkey's at the AFL's beck and call. Just because several of them take the same kernel of truth ("Hawthorn are open to trades") and spin it into "X,Y,Z are all up for sale, and being actively touted around" doesn't make it true, not matter how much your credulousness would like it to be.

 

[owen87]

And your evidence is "smoke" from known bullshitters.



This is going around in circles. There is a big difference between saying Hawthorn is open to trade discussions on any player if the price is right (which is pretty much a truism for any club) and making statements about specific players getting put on the auction block. The first is a sensible statement that is without doubt true, the second is potentially bullshit made by gutter journos to feed a gullible audience. This isn't about mayo, it is about fact versus fiction.



My counter argument is that so far none of the specific players supposedly put up for trade have been traded. Furthermore some of them who are contracted and have explicitly stated they will NOT be traded, which also suggests a certain level of bullshit being spoken by journos. All smoke no fire makes it sound much more like a few journos with a smoke machine than an actual fire sale. Now they are covering their arses and claiming the lack of trades is not about them being caught in a lie, but rather Hawthorn being unreasonable with what they are asking (despite the fact Hawthorn previously had a reputation for being super reasonable in trade week).



The "journos" in "AFL associated journos" makes it an oxymoron. These are not proper journos, but rather tame monkey's at the AFL's beck and call. Just because several of them take the same kernel of truth ("Hawthorn are open to trades") and spin it into "X,Y,Z are all up for sale, and being actively touted around" doesn't make it true, not matter how much your credulousness would like it to be.

Oh so it's all a made up conspiracy against Hawthorn? Got it.

You can believe it's all wrong if you like, but most people that aren't hk89 would disagree with that assessment.

 

[Psicosis]

From an external POV it seems strange that Hawthorn are rebuilding, yet over two years will have:

- Zero top 5 picks*
- Three top 25 picks*

*After F/S & NGA

Two top 10 picks is good, but it's no different to 10 other clubs.

This would concern me. They're just not adding enough in the pointy end IMO.