Mitch Thorp

[Demon Dynasty]

Couldn't be any worse for us than Brad Miller or Michael Newton.

I think what he means is that if we do take thorp, we shouldn't assume he will come good, and thus not pick a forward with pick 11.

We should still go tall with pick 11 as if thorp becomes no better than Miller or Newton, then we will only have Watts as a good tall forward. If this happens our forward line will not be good enough for finals when the rest of our side is.

 

[BigSexc]

Well the hawks would be paying the first year of his salary so it's not biggie.

All depends on who is also available in the PSD

and now he is at training

 

[Mr Rude]

couldn't be any worse for us than brad miller or michael newton.

true dat!

 

[demon48]

I think what he means is that if we do take thorp, we shouldn't assume he will come good, and thus not pick a forward with pick 11.

We should still go tall with pick 11 as if thorp becomes no better than Miller or Newton, then we will only have Watts as a good tall forward. If this happens our forward line will not be good enough for finals when the rest of our side is.

Not assuming he'll come good, just saying he'd still be better than those two. Still would like Butcher/Black at 11.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Not assuming he'll come good, just saying he'd still be better than those two. Still would like Butcher/Black at 11.

Agreed, getting Thorp doesn't mean we don't draft the best KP at 11 if thats the teams plan. I think we'd still be pinning too much on Watts and Thorp with little cover. Butcher at 11 would be amazing, cross your fingers.

 

[Capt_Concussion]

Thorp was cocky when he was at Hawthorn with Buddy and Roughy. Just how cocky he will be when he finds himself to be the best tall forward at a club.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

I'd expect it to twindle quite quickly when he gets punished by poor inside 50 delivery and the best defender initially.

 

[Fairtex09]

Look at it this way Jack Watts has played more AFL games then Thorp. Don't get your hopes up about this guy, maybe it was the worst Draft pick of all time time that landed him at 6.

 

[RandB]

Well the hawks would be paying the first year of his salary so it's not biggie.

Isn't Thorp's previous salary irrelevant to MFC though? I thought Hawthorn paid him out to end his contract for next year. I might be wrong but I would have thought that we would have to draw up a new contract with Thorp for next year and beyond (if applicable).

 

[WattsGoodForYou]

Isn't Thorp's previous salary irrelevant to MFC though? I thought Hawthorn paid him out to end his contract for next year. I might be wrong but I would have thought that we would have to draw up a new contract with Thorp for next year and beyond (if applicable).

That would mean he gets 2 salarys next year?

 

[Andy_Mac]

Isn't Thorp's previous salary irrelevant to MFC though? I thought Hawthorn paid him out to end his contract for next year. I might be wrong but I would have thought that we would have to draw up a new contract with Thorp for next year and beyond (if applicable).

Apparently this is not the case. Apparently all players are employed by the AFL, that’s how they get around restriction of trade legislation etc. Thorp hasn't been "retrenched" yet. Meaning if Melbourne choose to pick him up, and he accepts $100k/year for 2 years Hawthorn would have to pick up the $ short fall for the balance of the contact that he held with them.

So if Thorp was on $200k and had one year left on his Hawthorn contract next year the Hawks would pay $100k and we pay $100k for the first year only, then its just $100k/year from us.

 

[RandB]

That would mean he gets 2 salarys next year?

I agree WGFY that it does sound wierd. I am probably wrong here but the only reason he is available is because his contract was paid out and he was delisted a year early. I don't see the difference to if he just came out of contract and was looking for a new club. I am not 100% sure though so I am only posing the question rather than making a statement. Someone might know.

 

[RandB]

Apparently this is not the case. Apparently all players are employed by the AFL, that’s how they get around restriction of trade legislation etc. Thorp hasn't been "retrenched" yet. Meaning if Melbourne choose to pick him up, and he accepts $100k/year for 2 years Hawthorn would have to pick up the $ short fall for the balance of the contact that he held with them.

So if Thorp was on $200k and had one year left on his Hawthorn contract next year the Hawks would pay $100k and we pay $100k for the first year only, then its just $100k/year from us.

Cheers for that.

Edit: In essence though the point still stands that Hawthorn wouldn't be paying out Thorp's first year, we would be because we have to make a new contract. Hawthorn would just be covering any short-fall from the 200k as you said.

From this POV I hope we get Thorp for SFA so Hawks have to dig in but from the salary floor POV the club probably won't mind throwing a few $$ at someone as we are down by roughly 500k apparently.

 

[proka123]

Look at it this way Jack Watts has played more AFL games then Thorp. Don't get your hopes up about this guy, maybe it was the worst Draft pick of all time time that landed him at 6.

Yes but unlike Jack Thorp's debut was impressive.

 

[Flyswatter]

Is he still recovering from injury? How did the training session go today?

 

[Mr Rude]

Yes but unlike Jack Thorp's debut was impressive.

Says who? those hawthorn muppets?

The last game i remember seeing thorp play was early this year down at tasmania against us in the nab cup game. He didnt do much at all that game. Looked slow and couldnt jump.

Fair enough i say take the risk and draft him in the PSD but dont feed me crap about his debut was better than a guy who was still at school and is in a crap team as the only real key forward.

Get a grip, debuts mean jack shite!

 

[Cheeseman]

He kicked 1 goal and did buggerall else.

 

[goDees22]

Yes but unlike Jack Thorp's debut was impressive.

Jonathan Brown didnt get a possesion in his first game. spud

 

[saj_21]

With Ball looking more and more unlikely each day, for mine its a no brainer we select this kid maybe the shock of realising how quickly an AFL career can come and go will kick him into gear. Definitely worth it, and considering Hawthorn will be paying the shortfall in his contract.

Put this kid with Colin Sylvia and he will quickly put him into line, didnt think id ever say colin sylvia will put some on the straight and narrow! But Col should be a good example of how to turn your career around!

 

[Tasmaniac]

Says who? those hawthorn muppets?

The last game i remember seeing thorp play was early this year down at tasmania against us in the nab cup game. He didnt do much at all that game. Looked slow and couldnt jump.

Fair enough i say take the risk and draft him in the PSD but dont feed me crap about his debut was better than a guy who was still at school and is in a crap team as the only real key forward.

Get a grip, debuts mean jack shite!

Ding. Ding. Ding!

We have a winner.

At the start of this year, I had been waiting for 2 years to see this young messiah uninjured and playing senior footy. I was appalled to see he had the mobility and agility of an old school ruckman.

Injuries have cooked him. Regardless of the attitude.

 

[Choota]

A look at my posting history on Thorp will show I never subscribed to the internet bandwagon. In my view he was simply a poor draft choice. It happens to every club and we've done better than most of late. He showed less than any other player on the list over the last 3 years. Struggled to get a kick in the VFL.

Your interest in him is probably similar to ours in some delisted ruckmen - and Meeson could be one of them. Thorp could turn it around and become an AFL contributor. But he's not going to be a vital cog in your rebuild and your recruiters won't ignore a gun 18 year old tall because you took a guy who was delisted with a year to run who couldn't get a game elsewhere.

 

[feathers]

thorp will be a star.we made a big mistake.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

It all sounds a bit dodgy to me, either Thorp was let go by the Hawks due to his attitude or because of his injury or both.

MFC no doubt would be privy to all the details and if they think he is worth a punt then fair enough but on the surface it is a NO from me.

I'm not too sure about him either - he might have potential, but it'd be a fair gamble.

He has arrogance and smugness written all over him, especially for a guy who has done... well SWEET FA so far in his career.

Exactly - 2 AFL games in 3 years, one goal, and averaged under 5 possessions in those matches.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

He kicked 1 goal and did buggerall else.

Yeah, whereas Watts got a helluva lot more of the ball during his first 3 games, did more with it, and kicked 2 goals.

Any comparison between Thorp's matches and Watts's matches so far puts Watts substantially ahead.

 

[saj_21]

Your interest in him is probably similar to ours in some delisted ruckmen - and Meeson could be one of them. Thorp could turn it around and become an AFL contributor. But he's not going to be a vital cog in your rebuild and your recruiters won't ignore a gun 18 year old tall because you took a guy who was delisted with a year to run who couldn't get a game elsewhere.

One of my first thoughts was of Hawthorn when i read meesen had been delisted with the intention to rookie him. The mojority of thoughts on here seems to be he was unlucky but could be due to injuries (strees fracture in foot).

I agree with your second point we won't pass up an oppourtunity to select another quality tall 18 becuase we intend to take Throp. However i do think its worth the risk to select him at 1 in the PSD. Considering martin and jurrah have been very good for us and were selected from the PSD.