Mitch Thorp

[1858 237]

Whether its mutual or the act of the Club in response to flagrant and continual breaches of contract or Club/AFL standards it does have negative ramifications for the player.

If its a Nathan Carroll type situation or similar, then the guy is a culture sore and problem.

If its a mutual thing, then why did the player (and his manager) just cut up his contract with a Club without anything else set up to go to? It shows a lack of career smarts or advice. If he was at a low value point in his career then surely he would be trying to create some value on his head in his final 12 months.

If he was paid out early, then that's not good for Thorp. Caveat emptor and suggest a pass on this one.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. A matter of "watch this space" I suppose, to definitively know why he left (or was booted) but at this early stage he doesn't come across as a viable option to me either.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I'd be very keen to get hold of Mitch Thorp with a VERY late pick in the National Draft.

Put it this way..... we could get rid of a CERTAIN dud in Newton and bring in an untried key position forward who has been unlucky in being drafted to a club that managed to also pick up 2 of the best forwards in the competition at the same time.

I'd rather have a crack at Temmel, Majak Daw, James Craig, Dylan Grimes, even Ben Griffiths.

[Weedster 174]

I'm just disappointed we didn't trade pick 18 and Rivers for him and pick 9 while we had the chance...

Ridiculous :angry:

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yeah, I agree with all of that. A matter of "watch this space" I suppose, to definitively know why he left (or was booted) but at this early stage he doesn't come across as a viable option to me either.

From the Age today.

The 20-year-old Tasmanian - who was drafted one pick above Geelong superstar Joel Selwood - was delisted yesterday with a year left on his contract, which will be paid out after the Hawks were unable to off-load him to another club during trade week.

I wonder what level of interest there was for Thorp if Hawks were obviously that keen to offload him.

[IWAP 168]

I doubt we will go after him

Even if we traded our pick 50 for him (which we won’t use), it would still be better than the pick 58 that his delisting frees up for the Hawks.

Pity, the kid had talent. Too bad he is such a prat.

[Redleg 38,023]

From the Age today.

The 20-year-old Tasmanian - who was drafted one pick above Geelong superstar Joel Selwood - was delisted yesterday with a year left on his contract, which will be paid out after the Hawks were unable to off-load him to another club during trade week.

I wonder what level of interest there was for Thorp if Hawks were obviously that keen to offload him.

To pay him out just to get rid of him and the inability to "offload" him to another club bodes poorly for his AFL career.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

To pay him out just to get rid of him and the inability to "offload" him to another club bodes poorly for his AFL career.

I wonder if the Hawks are wondering why they did not take Joel Selwood in 2006.

Almost as good as Richmond with Buddy and Tambling.

[BennytheJet 15]

What has this guy done?

If he does have 1 year to go on his contract the Hawks will have to pay him out, or he has breached a clause in his contract.

He can play, either he has stuffed up and broken some club/AFL Rule, has an injury that has ended his AFL Future, rocked up to preseason as big as Stewart Dew or his team mates can't stand him, you don't just delist 195cmyoung KPP that are still in contract.

Its been said before, but a good mate of mine lives with roughead and apparently Thorp is the biggest tool going around. Teammates cant stand him

Throw the injuries in and their twin towers in rough and frank and its bye bye.

Hes a natural CHF, the dorks tried to turn him into a backman or a relief ruck but didnt work

[1858 237]

I wonder what level of interest there was for Thorp if Hawks were obviously that keen to offload him.

You'd think that if Thorp was a hot potato that the Hawks would not push too hard in a trade but having said that it is Hawthorn. Still, I think they got the correct amount of interest in the end - not much.

[deeees_13 0]

considering that they have now paid him out, there must have been absolutely ZERO interest.

hawks would rather have traded him for pick 90something than have to pay him out like they have.

judging by that he has no hope of being picked up by anybody, full stop.

[Demon trucker 1,779]

I've never been enthusiastic about Thorpe and the fact the Hawks have allegedly delisted him with a year to go on his contract makes further suggestions.

i agree it is very rear for someone to be listed with one more year to go, he did not get delisted he was fired, there is a difference,

[e25 5]

i agree it is very rear for someone to be listed with one more year to go, he did not get delisted he was fired, there is a difference,

I'm sure the termination of the contract was by mutual agreement, otherwise Thorp and his manager would be making noise about compensation.

He was looking to be traded.

[Carn dees 108]

Based on potential talent id take him.

If his got attitude problems then stuff him how could you have attitude problems when your on an afl list, What more could you want, live the bloody dream.

If hi just a [censored] in general well we dont need him.

I sence its a combination of both due to hawks delisting him while still contracted. Considering he was a top 10 pic taken just before selwood.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Carn dees

[Bruce Almighty 0]

Based on potential talent id take him.

If his got attitude problems then stuff him how could you have attitude problems when your on an afl list, What more could you want, live the bloody dream.

If hi just a [censored] in general well we dont need him.

I sence its a combination of both due to hawks delisting him while still contracted. Considering he was a top 10 pic taken just before selwood.

Arnt new draftees on 2 year contracts, if so why would he still have a year to run? they must of resigned him on two year deal worth more than what he is worth and therefore other clubs probably did not want to pay this?????

[Cards13 9,117]

If a player does not fit into the Dawks "unsocial" football club (on and off the field) then there must be some points to the guy the young Dees list would not want around.

As another poster mentioned very few players are delisted with a year to go on a contract. We had Carroll can not think of too many more, but I'm sure the knowledgeable on this forum will be able to let us know any other recent ones.

[Keyser Söze 0]

If a player does not fit into the Dawks "unsocial" football club (on and off the field) then there must be some points to the guy the young Dees list would not want around.

As another poster mentioned very few players are delisted with a year to go on a contract. We had Carroll can not think of too many more, but I'm sure the knowledgeable on this forum will be able to let us know any other recent ones.

He might not necessarily be a [censored], he might just be socially retarded like Jack Anthony and they just find it really hard to get along with him.

Either way, I don't want him.

[rpfc 27,634]

He might not necessarily be a [censored], he might just be socially retarded like Jack Anthony and they just find it really hard to get along with him.

Either way, I don't want him.

Thankyou!

Someone had to say it.

[Rogue 585]

I'm sure the termination of the contract was by mutual agreement, otherwise Thorp and his manager would be making noise about compensation.

Indeed.

If its a mutual thing, then why did the player (and his manager) just cut up his contract with a Club without anything else set up to go to? It shows a lack of career smarts or advice. If he was at a low value point in his career then surely he would be trying to create some value on his head in his final 12 months.

If he was paid out early, then that's not good for Thorp. Caveat emptor and suggest a pass on this one.

I disagree.

I think it's the right move - if his relationship with the Club was poor there's no point staying, particularly when you're going to wallow in the VFL while being forced to play ruck/defence when you don't think you'll make the grade in those positions.

Instead, I think it's far better to leave now and search for greener pastures, even if it's a VFL side that will let you play in a position you think can succeed in at AFL level.

[drdrake 3,049]

If he gets through the National and PS Drafts, if he is fit I would take him with a rookie pick. We all mature and if this is the shot in the arm this guy needs he can fit into our team. 195cm key forward 21 years old, I would consider a rookie spot or if we miss on Luke Ball use our PSD pick 1.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think it's the right move - if his relationship with the Club was poor there's no point staying, particularly when you're going to wallow in the VFL while being forced to play ruck/defence when you don't think you'll make the grade in those positions.

Instead, I think it's far better to leave now and search for greener pastures, even if it's a VFL side that will let you play in a position you think can succeed in at AFL level.

Maybe but its a black mark against the kid which has not helped him in the market at all.

[hoopla 418]

If he gets through the National and PS Drafts, if he is fit I would take him with a rookie pick. We all mature and if this is the shot in the arm this guy needs he can fit into our team. 195cm key forward 21 years old, I would consider a rookie spot or if we miss on Luke Ball use our PSD pick 1.

I'd agree with the rookie option. I'm not sure I'd flatter him with PSD #1.... he needs a big wake up call.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

I'd rookie him see if he can get up and play more than half a dozen games and

delist if he doesn't go any good and stuffs his last chance. So highly rated early on there

must be a way to unlock the talent that everyone saw.

Then again history is littered with coulda shoulda woulda.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Diablo Deemon

[Demon_Tingles 211]

I used to play with Mitch at North Launceston and Tassie when i trained with the vfl side. He is a very good player who unfortunately was surplus to requirements at Hawthorn because of Franklin and Roughead and did not want to play in the ruck. His departure was based on finding more game time and the split was amicable.

[drdrake 3,049]

I used to play with Mitch at North Launceston and Tassie when i trained with the vfl side. He is a very good player who unfortunately was surplus to requirements at Hawthorn because of Franklin and Roughead and did not want to play in the ruck. His departure was based on finding more game time and the split was amicable.

Unless they came to a settlement figure, I don't very much if Hawthorn saw the split as amicable. Any club would hate to be paying out someones contract and get nothing for it. I wonder if there is an agreement that if he does get picked up Hawthorn just have to pay him the difference if any. Nice win if Thorp gets picked up and the Hawks still have to pay his contract out.

[Demon_Tingles 211]

Unless they came to a settlement figure, I don't very much if Hawthorn saw the split as amicable. Any club would hate to be paying out someones contract and get nothing for it. I wonder if there is an agreement that if he does get picked up Hawthorn just have to pay him the difference if any. Nice win if Thorp gets picked up and the Hawks still have to pay his contract out.

It was because he was not guaranteed game time. Any player over 195 cm who isnt getting game time and has talent should be wanting to move to a club who can give them game time.