Hawthorn Firesale

[sylvinator 96]

I believe 5 of those guys are rookie listed players, they've only delisted 6 from the senior list.

We should also clean out our rookie list and get a few smokies

[IWAP 170]

Chris Pelchen was on SEN this evening, and intimated that Skipper was delisted, because Hale would be doing his role, ie. rotating between the ruck and up forward, and they already have 5 ruckman on the list (btw also mentioned that Tuck has the oppurtunity to earn himself a spot on the rookie list if he trains well)

Skipper is no star, but fits our needs, and has already shown to be effective in the role we will want him to play.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

Brent Renouf might have a say in that. And if Bailey can tape his right knee back together then...

That's my point, they're both better ruckmen than Hale.

It's well known that Hale is a better forward than ruckman, I can't see Hale breaking up a 150 goal Buddy/Roughead combo up forward.

Skipper is gone, Hale will need to back up Renouf.

I think the Hawks have overpaid for someone that doesn't improve their needs, and Hale chose the wrong club, if he did have a say.

[Red Sox 2]

After the glamour recruiting of Buddy, Roughy and Lewis in 2004, 2005 and 2006 have been ordinary years.

2005

Pick

6 Dowler - Gone

14 Birchall - Good choice

18 Bailey - Gone. Bad Knees

22 Muston - Gone

38 Tuck - Gone

2006

Pick

6 Thorp - Gone

24 Renouf - maybe

33 Morton - maybe

40 Kennedy - F/S - Gone I think

56 Moss - Gone

That's my point, they're both better ruckmen than Hale.

It's well known that Hale is a better forward than ruckman, I can't see Hale breaking up a 150 goal Buddy/Roughead combo up forward.

Skipper is gone, Hale will need to back up Renouf.

I think the Hawks have overpaid for someone that doesn't improve their needs, and Hale chose the wrong club, if he did have a say.

Not sure they have recruited or traded too well at all

Gibson is a fair backman. Hale is a fair forward/ruck. Skipper been & gone. Cheney. These aren't players I rate too highly.

[Doggo 32]

To those suggesting Wade Skipper. Please. Really? You guys would want Wade Skipper at Melbourne?!

[e25 5]

Replace what?? They were players the club did not rate and werent pushing for a role. They need to regenerate their list and seek out future players. If you have made the final assessment on a player or players why give them another contract.

And you have answered the Skipper question.

The wholesale nature of the changes are definitely expected given the Hawks have underperformed and the bottom 9 or so on their list and its the time lists are culled.

The reason I think it's unwise for them to have delisted so many, is that they will need to select all their replacements from this year's draft and it's not often that newly drafted players are given one year contracts.

You could be tying a lot of rejects to your list for 2 years, when you'd be better off re-signing a Muston for 1 year in case he comes good, and then next year when you delist him you get to use a 4th round pick to replace him rather than an 8th round pick this year.

List management, I think they call it.

[Disco Demons 92]

if the hawks get minimal injuries this year they should do ok...but god help them if they get a lot of injuries they'll be screwed...i've always felt the hawks have no depth.

i get the feeling when melb beat them next we might be beating them for the next 10 years!

[ChaserJ 4,829]

Ranga Ediriwickrama was delisted by the cats. I thought he could play... I guess not.

He had a great junior carnival for NSW, but has been plagued by serious hamstring (at least I think it was hamstring)injuries ever since he was rookied. Don't know if he even got on the ground at all for Geelong's VFL affiliate.

Poor guy. And I was so looking forward to Ranga line up next to Ling.

[rpfc 28,084]

The reason I think it's unwise for them to have delisted so many, is that they will need to select all their replacements from this year's draft and it's not often that newly drafted players are given one year contracts.

You could be tying a lot of rejects to your list for 2 years, when you'd be better off re-signing a Muston for 1 year in case he comes good, and then next year when you delist him you get to use a 4th round pick to replace him rather than an 8th round pick this year.

List management, I think they call it.

Well said.

Often forgotten is the art of knowing how to drip-feed your deletions.

The modern game demands it.

[Bhima 0]

I think I've spotted where Hawthorn went wrong...

2005

Pick

6 Dowler - Right Foot

14 Birchall - Left Foot

18 Bailey - Right Foot

22 Muston - Right Foot

38 Tuck - Right Foot

2006

Pick

6 Thorp - Right Foot

24 Renouf - Right Foot

33 Morton - Right Foot

40 Kennedy - Right Foot

56 Moss - Left Foot (but a rookie so he doesn't count)

Compared with...

Rioli

Franklin

Roughhead

Lewis

Guerra

Ladson

Ellis

Young

Hodge

Gibson

Birchall

Schoenmakers

It's just a coincidence I know..

Edited October 19, 2010 by Bhima

[Deeman 1,479]

To those suggesting Wade Skipper. Please. Really? You guys would want Wade Skipper at Melbourne?!

Perhaps not but with Junior gone we definitely need a skipper!

[WonnaJurah 5]

and Bailey uurvives hmm?

[Guest Thomo]

I've thought for the last few years that the Hawks list is massively over rated. Had a dream run with injuries in 08, had a plan that out smarted other teams (rushed behinds, rolling zone), very well coached for the short term, Crawford was an all time great giving a final quality year, and Dew and Bateman were in their prime. The loss of Croad was huge. They had very little depth, but didn't need it when all their players were on the park, this rarely happens. They are reliant on too few once other teams worked out their game plan. They have a poor back line, bad rucks, and a shallow midfield and forward line. Outside of Hodge Mitchell and Franklin, they don't have much. Rioli contributes about one quarter of his reputation, as does Roughhead.

I'd say they finished about where they deserve to be the last two years, and think that they will struggle to play finals next year. I actually picked them to not make the eight this year.

Hawthorn have a couple of superstars, but I can think of about eight teams that have a better list.

[whelan45 202]

The reason I think it's unwise for them to have delisted so many, is that they will need to select all their replacements from this year's draft and it's not often that newly drafted players are given one year contracts.

You could be tying a lot of rejects to your list for 2 years, when you'd be better off re-signing a Muston for 1 year in case he comes good, and then next year when you delist him you get to use a 4th round pick to replace him rather than an 8th round pick this year.

List management, I think they call it.

This^^

So often does not get thought about I think when supporters especially want to clean out the list. Only works if you have a bunch of early picks which the Hawks don't.

If Dowler is around come the rookie draft I'm interested. Purely because he was a gun at junior level, there may still be a chance he can produce at the top level. Slot of tall forwards left at that stage realistically probably don't have that potential.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The reason I think it's unwise for them to have delisted so many, is that they will need to select all their replacements from this year's draft and it's not often that newly drafted players are given one year contracts.

You could be tying a lot of rejects to your list for 2 years, when you'd be better off re-signing a Muston for 1 year in case he comes good, and then next year when you delist him you get to use a 4th round pick to replace him rather than an 8th round pick this year.

List management, I think they call it.

From the 11 players cut, 5 are rookies. They cut six from their list and cleaned out their rookie allocation. There is a likelihood one of the cut (Tuck ) will be rookied. Hale has effectively cut Taylor and Skipper out of the equation. Muston and Dowler are injury prone. Tuck has life issues and Hooper was a spec pick up from Brisbane that has failed.

Lets temper the gasp of the decision with the facts.

List management is about judgement calls on players. They have made them and they believe they can identify better future prospects through the draft.I am not sure its that its sensible to re sign players that you dont think are going to make the grade.

I am not sure they have cut any critical players here.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

From the 11 players cut, 5 are rookies. They cut six from their list and cleaned out their rookie allocation. There is a likelihood one of the cut (Tuck ) will be rookied. Hale has effectively cut Taylor and Skipper out of the equation. Muston and Dowler are injury prone. Tuck has life issues and Hooper was a spec pick up from Brisbane that has failed.

Lets temper the gasp of the decision with the facts.

List management is about judgement calls on players. They have made them and they believe they can identify better future prospects through the draft.I am not sure its that its sensible to re sign players that you dont think are going to make the grade.

I am not sure they have cut any critical players here.

Let's add Brown and Croad to that list.

Edited October 19, 2010 by RobbieF

[Redleg 40,444]

List management is about judgement calls on players.

That is the key line in your post. Many on here salivate at the crap dismissed by other clubs. Luckily for us our FD don't.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

List management is about judgement calls on players. They have made them and they believe they can identify better future prospects through the draft.I am not sure its that its sensible to re sign players that you dont think are going to make the grade.

I am not sure they have cut any critical players here.

^^ What he said. We are (usually) pretty focussed on putting together a team that will contend for premierships and moving players on that we don't think fit within the plan. If the Hawks have identified 11 players as not up to it (and I find it hard to disagree with the culls) then cutting your losses and trying to unearth a diamond in the draft is not such a huge gamble IMO.

In any event, half of the players they delisted were rookies and they have already added Hale and Cheney so they have really only freed up four selections in the national draft. I daresay that between the rookie and senior lists our situation this year will be pretty similar.

[#MYHEARTBEATSTRUE 27]

Wade Skipper would be a good choice for a rookie position, gives us some back up if one of jamar, or spencer went down,

[beelzebub 23,254]

The argument is not about whether those particular 11 will ever feature in a Hawks tilt but more what could they expect to reap from picking up 11 ( or 10 if Tuck rookied ) fresh faced , wet behind the ears noobies from a compromised draft ? If you were bottom 4 and looking to do a major reno on your team it might bear the suffering but supposedly the Sqawkers arent!

And why do it all in one hit ? If this years draft is bad the next two will be cruel. There would have surely been a reasonable argument to be made to temper this wholesale exchange for one which offered a little more depth insurance if only of an 'adequate' quality.

Personally i really hope the hawks go a gutser on this and fall by the wayside

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Let's add Brown and Croad to that list.

Brown chose to leave. Croad was crippled and has not played since the 2008 GF. I dont think either player would have significantly impacted the decisions made by the HFD on the main list delists. But I think you realise that.

Many on here salivate at the crap dismissed by other clubs. Luckily for us our FD don't.

Exactly. I only hope that the youth stockpiled MFC proves to be more effective than the Thorp, Dowler and Mustons collected by HFC.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The argument is not about whether those particular 11 will ever feature in a Hawks tilt but more what could they expect to reap from picking up 11 ( or 10 if Tuck rookied ) fresh faced , wet behind the ears noobies from a compromised draft ? If you were bottom 4 and looking to do a major reno on your team it might bear the suffering but supposedly the Sqawkers arent!

And why do it all in one hit ? If this years draft is bad the next two will be cruel. There would have surely been a reasonable argument to be made to temper this wholesale exchange for one which offered a little more depth insurance if only of an 'adequate' quality.

Personally i really hope the hawks go a gutser on this and fall by the wayside

Its six places on the main list from which you can potentially draw from in the H & A season. 5 (4 with Tuck) on the rookie list which are for the future or an opportunity based on a contingency. The decision for main list is not necessarily the same for rookie list.All we know about the draft is that GC and GWS have priority picks. We dont how good or deep the talent in any draft will be until 5 years down the track. However the FD can make a valid assessment after x years on individual players.

If the HFD has made the decision on players that they are not up to AFL footy for one or more reasons then why keep them regardless?

[Guest hangon007]

Carl Peterson must be worth considering assuming you could "mentor" him properly and he was 100% committed to playing AFL football in Victoria. I would definitely speak with him jointly & possibly thru Davey & Jurah. But I'm not convinced I would give him a senior list spot straight off the bat. Never the less any kid that can play 17 games for Hawthorn must be looked at.

Oh yes, & on a related topic I would also talk to Michael Still from Essendon, kid has sticky hands, jumps over tall buildings and just needs more time. If we were prepared to be patient he also must be worth considering. Could be the perfect stay at home full-forward and is "still" very young.

I'm not "salivating" just suggesting these players are better options than many other be suggested around the forum lately.

[old55 23,077]

The argument is not about whether those particular 11 will ever feature in a Hawks tilt but more what could they expect to reap from picking up 11 ( or 10 if Tuck rookied ) fresh faced , wet behind the ears noobies from a compromised draft ? If you were bottom 4 and looking to do a major reno on your team it might bear the suffering but supposedly the Sqawkers arent!

And why do it all in one hit ? If this years draft is bad the next two will be cruel. There would have surely been a reasonable argument to be made to temper this wholesale exchange for one which offered a little more depth insurance if only of an 'adequate' quality.

The net with Hale and Cheney coming on and Croad and Brown off is that Hawthorn will have 6 ND picks and 5 rookie picks. I expect us to have 4 ND picks and 5 rookie picks.

They're only having 2 more picks than us and they are effectively their last 2 rookie picks because their ND picks will be before any of our rookie picks. It's not a huge deal.

What is interesting is that they've turned over a lot of early picks recently - Dowler, Muston, Thorp

[old55 23,077]

Carl Peterson must be worth considering assuming you could "mentor" him properly and he was 100% committed to playing AFL football in Victoria. I would definitely speak with him jointly & possibly thru Davey & Jurah. But I'm not convinced I would give him a senior list spot straight off the bat. Never the less any kid that can play 17 games for Hawthorn must be looked at.

No, not for me - cut by 2 clubs - spells T-r-o-u-b-l-e. These players take up too much resource managing them and your whole list suffers.