Carl Peterson must be worth considering assuming you could "mentor" him properly and he was 100% committed to playing AFL football in Victoria.

Yep, and I'm about to go and make an offer on a $2M mansion, on the assumption that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow.

Just as I can't assume that I'm going to win the lotto tomorrow, you can't assume you could "mentor" a kid who two clubs have already given up on. Of course it's possible, but by now it would have to be in the "extremely unlikely" category.

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.

I concede that after that post I checked and was surprised to see that so many of those were rookies (as so many had played senior games in 2010).

Still, I think some of the points are valid. There are still 7 senior spots to fill by my reckoning (Hale takes 1 spot).

Hawks have picks 19, 37, 54, 66 & 88.

Not sure how it works, but they'll also have a chance at the PSD and might be given more picks late in the ND..?

Either way, the players left then will be scraps from the bottom of the barrel like never before.

Of course you can find a rough diamond, but the likelihood is lower than usual.

I'm not salivating on any players and I understand judgement calls have been made.

But would it not be wise to give a handy player who has had a bad injury run, just 1 more year to maybe get his body right (Muston)..?

The payoff would be that when his body fails again, as is likely, next year they can replace him with a player at a much earlier pick.

If they jettison him now, the player coming in at >pick 88 will be tied to a 2 year contract (by my understanding) and they could be missing out on being able to use pick 50ish.

Just a thought.

I think they could have done it better.

Old, interesting view. E25 , tend to agree , just for mine could have been a little better. Seems to constrict themselves unecessarily. Still, their problem

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.

Not necessarily the correct word there. Maybe its might be something different. I've seen many a kid labelled "trouble" then placed in the correct environment turns their life around.

This kid can play, for me it all comes down to mental aptitude & the right environment. Quality role models are vital in the process.

I just reckon we should have a chat to him.

Yep, and I'm about to go and make an offer on a $2M mansion, on the assumption that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow.

Just as I can't assume that I'm going to win the lotto tomorrow, you can't assume you could "mentor" a kid who two clubs have already given up on. Of course it's possible, but by now it would have to be in the "extremely unlikely" category.

If its "possible" we should explore the "avenue".

However, I do agree with one thing. Making decisions based on "assumptions" is crazy. However, many around here are pre-pared to write him off based on assumptions. Just because person A cannot do something does not mean person B cannot do it.

It comes down to the old debate when do you stop flogging a dead horse vs when do you have to dig a little deeper to find the gold. However, its clear we have an inability to attract certain players, yet we have an excellent record with others.

Why not stick to what you are best at?

Good thing about this kid is we know he can play, so we know there is gold to be found.

Peterson needs help in his life. We don't need to be the ones providing it. more effort than we can spare or would be worth . That amount of resources applied to others already on list will offer better dividends.. for us !!

If we were to have an idle chat to anyone... maybe Skipper. PJ must be feeling nervous again lol

If we're talking delisted players, apparently there's a running half back flanker with really good kicking skills that's just been delisted by Carlton.

Peterson needs help in his life. We don't need to be the ones providing it. more effort than we can spare or would be worth . That amount of resources applied to others already on list will offer better dividends.. for us !!

If we were to have an idle chat to anyone... maybe Skipper. PJ must be feeling nervous again lol

Yip. You might be right. Lets just do what everybody else does and trawl over the slag heap because its the easier safer option.

If we scrap the surface like every other team then we can never get ridiculed for being innovative. Yeah lets just "beat" them at their own game. Anybody that is prepared to take "risk" in life should be easily put down by the masses and definitely out of the norm.

Yip. You might be right. Lets just do what everybody else does and trawl over the slag heap because its the easier safer option.

If we scrap the surface like every other team then we can never get ridiculed for being innovative. Yeah lets just "beat" them at their own game. Anybody that is prepared to take "risk" in life should be easily put down by the masses and definitely out of the norm.

Anyway, it looks like I'm in good company.

The Hun have begun a poll titled "Should Hawthorn have cut 11 players?"

Consider all my posts in this thread rescinded.

007 , the club would be negligent not to cast an eye over Skipper. He has a far better all round game and overhead skills than PJ. Johnson mayor may not slightly edge him on pure tap skills but that'd be it.Skipper held his own and did reasonable service for Hawthorn something PJ can't.

Unlike your utilities and such the availabty of ready made Rucks is small.

I fully expect the FD to do it's diiligence even if you wouldn't.

He'd be the first out of all that lot to land another gig.

Yip. You might be right. Lets just do what everybody else does and trawl over the slag heap because its the easier safer option.

If we scrap the surface like every other team then we can never get ridiculed for being innovative. Yeah lets just "beat" them at their own game. Anybody that is prepared to take "risk" in life should be easily put down by the masses and definitely out of the norm.

touched a nerve there?

if you know more about said subject why don't you share it and explain why the fd should take a "risk" rather than a broad brushed rant of indignation

007 , the club would be negligent not to cast an eye over Skipper. He has a far better all round game and overhead skills than PJ. Johnson mayor may not slightly edge him on pure tap skills but that'd be it.Skipper held his own and did reasonable service for Hawthorn something PJ can't.

Unlike your utilities and such the availabty of ready made Rucks is small.

I fully expect the FD to do it's diiligence even if you wouldn't.

He'd be the first out of all that lot to land another gig.

With all due respect you have got me wrong. I reckon we should do our "due diligence" on all players, thats exactly my point.

Hawks are removing Skipper because they know he cant do the job, he has given them such "reasonable service" they have now delisted him. However, can the same be said for Peterson? The answer is ... (because of other reasons.)

touched a nerve there?

if you know more about said subject why don't you share it and explain why the fd should take a "risk" rather than a broad brushed rant of indignation

they can sift through the firesale players if need be come psd time. until then focus should be on the draft & drafting kids, not used players. Players are usually cut for a reason.

Read somewhere else (and just quoting it blindly!) that Skipper is the same height as Newton without the leap of Newton and he is 4 yrs older.

That would make him 5cm shorter than PJ, slower but probably a better mark and possibly a better tap ruckman.

Doesn't do it for me. Pass.

touched a nerve there?

if you know more about said subject why don't you share it and explain why the fd should take a "risk" rather than a broad brushed rant of indignation

No nerve, I'm really starting to enjoy some of the opinions around here. I must confess I'm learning ever day.

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

Look at this way if it makes it simpler. Which of those players would you offer a contract to? I think you'll end up where the Hawks are.

I might not have rushed both Taylor and Skipper out the door . Possibly retaing Wadw on a years basic last look type contract. Might have retained Moss for another year , see if he'd refind some earlier form.

EOD Hawthorn can do what like. You'd think it lessens their options over next couple of years .. And they will be lean years !

No nerve, I'm really starting to enjoy some of the opinions around here. I must confess I'm learning ever day.

Ah, good. Was rather hoping you had some objective insights re Peterson, and why he would be worth a risk

007 , the club would be negligent not to cast an eye over Skipper. He has a far better all round game and overhead skills than PJ. Johnson mayor may not slightly edge him on pure tap skills but that'd be it.Skipper held his own and did reasonable service for Hawthorn something PJ can't.

Unlike your utilities and such the availabty of ready made Rucks is small.

I fully expect the FD to do it's diiligence even if you wouldn't.

He'd be the first out of all that lot to land another gig.

I have to disagree. Skipper is a 193cm ruckman who is a stop-gap at best. We are still in somewhat of a development mode and have three young ruckmen on our list, all of whom will hopefully have the benefit of a full pre-season going into next year. Jake Spencer is at a stage where he needs AFL game time if he is any chance of being the sort of player we will need in 2-3 years time. Skipper will never be that player. Period. If we want an average 193cm battler who can ruck a bit for a year or two we still have Newton on the rookie list.

And, I think we should stop using "better than PJ" as a benchmark (although I'm not sure it even applies in Skipper's case). If we're going to be a powerhouse, we need to aim higher and think more "big picture" than that.

You climb by taking sure steps .. Not a running leap !

Gawn is years away, Pj a known entity and not up to it . Spencer might start filliing some boots this year .. Might!! So yes we might actually need a stop gap as insurance.that's the whole point.

We looked at Hale, indeed wanted him, talked to West , to no avail . So why not keep looking ?

The club obviously doesn't have a great faith in PJ . As he IS there so he by default becomes the comparison.

We were looking at Hale as a forward who rucks a little and was being considered as much to help shape the games style as for the actual football ability he would've brought to the table.

Skipper rucks a little and doesn't do much else. And he is just ordinary as a ruckman.

I am bemused that looking at deserving delistees like this from other clubs would be considered a sure step. Development has got to be the name of the game until we're approaching serious contention, not plugging holes that may only be short term problems in any event and could cost us two years of development in a promising kid.

The best sure steps in my view are still to get games into those who will be playing when we are making a serious tilt at the flag. We won't be premiers next year so what is the downside in giving the Spencil (or Fitz or Gawn if they deserve it) a decent run? Even if he doesn't fully fire next year, we lose nothing for giving him the chance to prove himself.

Chasing duds like Skipper is the result of people getting too focussed on short term results rather than the big picture. Patience people, please.

We were looking at Hale as a forward who rucks a little and was being considered as much to help shape the games style as for the actual football ability he would've brought to the table.

Skipper rucks a little and doesn't do much else. And he is just ordinary as a ruckman.

I am bemused that looking at deserving delistees like this from other clubs would be considered a sure step. Development has got to be the name of the game until we're approaching serious contention, not plugging holes that may only be short term problems in any event and could cost us two years of development in a promising kid.

The best sure steps in my view are still to get games into those who will be playing when we are making a serious tilt at the flag. We won't be premiers next year so what is the downside in giving the Spencil (or Fitz or Gawn if they deserve it) a decent run? Even if he doesn't fully fire next year, we lose nothing for giving him the chance to prove himself.

Chasing duds like Skipper is the result of people getting too focussed on short term results rather than the big picture. Patience people, please.

Couldn't agree more with your analysis re Skipper. He is a spud and a list clogger. I certainly hope we don't pick him up or I'm going to be extremely frustrated. Don't even worry about the long term, he isn't going to even help short term. One addition Hawthorn will be getting is one E.Curnow

I have faith in the FD , they'll talk to whoever they feel worth the effort. They chased Hale and talked to West. Am sure there are others they'll have a coffee with

Couldn't agree more with your analysis re Skipper. He is a spud and a list clogger. I certainly hope we don't pick him up or I'm going to be extremely frustrated. Don't even worry about the long term, he isn't going to even help short term. One addition Hawthorn will be getting is one E.Curnow

You're probably right, he is a list clogger. HOWEVER, we have to responsible with our rucks. We shouldn't be playing Gawn or Fitzpatrick in the ruck next year unless they show they're ready to play, which is unlikely. We certainly don't want to be playing Newton, Dunn or Sylvia in the ruck, which is what we'd have to do if Jamar was at all injured next year.

Getting a guy in the rookie draft who can save us from mismanaging our other players is a worthwhile investment.

It doesn't have to be Skipper, but we MUST get a mature age ruckman in the draft who could fill in if Jamar went down. Skipper is probably the best option and has showed he can be a decent fill in for Hawthorn