I understand all of the above comments, however we also now have 3 tall forwards under 21, and although Howe may be of size Watts and Cook are still lean. Hanson is a premiership player and to have him on the rookie list to try and guide and teach our young forwards isn't the worst idea.

That said, if there is young good talent available for the FD to pickup in the rookie I would certainly suggest taking that first. Sorry just abit of devil's advocate

He may be a premiership player, but he is an absolute shadow of that premiership player.

I am not defending them at all. In fact I dont like them anymore than other posters here. But I am not going on a torch lighting effort like you based on info. snippets in the media.

But a number of posters like you have come out and boiled WCE for its handling when yours and others grasp of the all the facts is superficial at best and overplaying the anguish.

Do you ever open your eyes and read what is written?

I didn't quote anything that wasn't a fact

The basic facts are quite clear. WC simply handled the situation poorly.

You are the only one overplaying the anguish. If you had read my last post I made it clear it was not a capital offence, just a comment that WC didn't handle it well. We all know the realities of AFL in the 21st century, but that doesn't excuse clubs when they act poorly

No doubt you will continue to caterwaul, so I gift you the last say.

Fair dinkum fellas, every single prospect gets shot down here, if it was up to the majority of Demonland posters we would have about 4 players on our list...

Teams don't always look to pick up superstars, or even players who will be in the best 22, depth is massively important in modern football, if we pick up Hansen and he never plays a game who cares?! Not really losing anything, and if it turns out we happen to need him and he has a few good games then it's a win. He wouldn't be around for long anyways, just long enough for some insurance so our young forwards aren't rushed ahead of time.

I totally understand the points about Miller, but how often do we see a change of scenery, opportunity, and motivation get a players career back on track.

Sick of the argument about "will he be in our premiership team?", would Hansen be? 99% no, but are we realistically setting ourselves for a premiership next year? No. So who knows? Maybe he can fill a role, even though it would be a very small one, but every bit helps.

Rubbish.

Ashley Hansen, even in his prime, wasn't that good, he looked good in a brilliant team.

We do not need to draft/rookie/think about players just because they are tall and they have played. We looked at Hale because he fills two roles, FF and ruck. Hansen would be a worse FF and can't ruck. End of story.

No it wasn't. Not every prospective recruit gets shot down on here, only ones that make no sense - Ash Hansen is one of those. He is a 27yo with a body that's shot and was a very average footballer even when fully fit. Why would we even look at this guy when we just delisted Brad Miller - he is worse. And I'm not buying the "he's a premiership player" or "he just had a great WAFL season" arguments either. Plenty of pretty marginal footballers have premiership medallions and Miller (and even PJ) manage to dominate at the next level down.

I'm all for looking to improve our list but improve is the operative word here. Someone like Hale may have been able to provide that but just because we couldn't get him doesn't mean we need to chase down every rejected tall going around. Our forward line this year is likely to see Green, Jurrah, Watts, Petterd, Bate, Dunn, Jamar and maybe Martin or even one of the new draftees spending time as marking targets. IMO that's enough depth without chasing another NQR for insurance. If, heaven forbid, our entire swag of tall forward options go down, we may as well give Howe or Cook some time like we did for Watts. There's nothing to lose and everything o gain by making sure the players we actually expect to be around in three years are, by then, ready to play their role. The bandaid mentality that some people advocate on here absolutely astounds me.

End rant.

Look, to be honest I can appreciate your rant and can see both sides of the argument for and against recycled players of Hansen's ilk. He doesn't get me overly excited either but he's certainly worth discussing. Like you and many others on here, I would just like to see us have a big strong marking target to kick to who has footy smarts and can confidently kick for goal, or at the very least give our crumbers a chance at ground level.

Frankly, I think the years of watching Miller and Newton have scarred our collective psyches.

The one thing I strongly disagree with in your (and many other) posts is this notion that blokes are washed up at 27. Early 30's maybe, but 27 is fine.

Wet Coke can do what they like, that is not my issue. My issue is only the timing of when this was done.

It Stinks.

The one thing I strongly disagree with in your (and many other) posts is this notion that blokes are washed up at 27. 30 maybe, but 27 is fine.

Just to clarify, I have no issue with drafting a 27yo if they realistically add to our 22 and, more importantly, may still be there in 3-4 years time when our younger brigade are firing. If Riewoldt, Pavlich, Brown etc. were available, and we deemed their bodies to be up for it, then I wouldn't hesitate to bring them in (caveat: at the right price that doesn't jeopardise our ability to retain said young brigade when they fire). I was also in the camp that supported the idea of getting Hale who, whilst not being the world beater that the above are, would have been a versatile and useful addition to our team and in a similar age bracket to Hansen. What I don't support is bringing in players whose bodies aren't up for it or who otherwise just aren't much good. In my opinion, Hansen fits both of these categories and would be a waste of a spot. Apologies for the confusion - I agree that a 27yo is clearly not washed up as a rule.

I didn't quote anything that wasn't a fact

The basic facts are quite clear. WC simply handled the situation poorly.

Your first sentence is wrong.

Your last two sentences are your opinion. Thats a fact.

Hope you deal with your anguish.

He had a year to run on his contract and they cut him a day after the draft?!

You're on the losing side Rhino.

Awful stuff.

Clubs do their forward planning before the draft.

Give a bloke a chance.

We only have rookie choices left now so if we are looking for a mature player to play along Watts and Jurrah would'nt we need to promote a rookie at the expense of a long term injury?

No.

I think I explained in a post earlier, WCE were tied to opting out of the draft at pick 29.

Obviously they acquired Darling which makes Hansen even less necessary and someone (Wilson) was left undrafted that they rated highly enough to commit a serious faux pas in an effort to take said player in the PSD.

It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation of the timing.

At least Hansen's contract will be paid out.

& let's be honest, this has not hurt his chances of playing on after his time at the eagles, not one iota.

I think I explained in a post earlier, WCE were tied to opting out of the draft at pick 29.

Obviously they acquired Darling which makes Hansen even less necessary and someone (Wilson) was left undrafted that they rated highly enough to commit a serious faux pas in an effort to take said player in the PSD.

It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation of the timing.

At least Hansen's contract will be paid out.

& let's be honest, this has not hurt his chances of playing on after his time at the eagles, not one iota.

Yeah, he doesn't have another year of playing ressies.

But how does he get anywhere when all other clubs have planned for next year and none of them have thought about him and there are only a hadful of list spots left?

Dean Polo got a place on a list, in part, because he was delisted ages ago.

True, and I didn't see that happening.

Still, it hurts Hansen, but if I was an eagles member I would support the move.

I'm sure the eagles didn't consider this an option until unforeseen circumstances eventuated.

Ruthlessness borne out of the way the chips fell in the draft.

True, and I didn't see that happening.

Still, it hurts Hansen, but if I was an eagles member I would support the move.

I'm sure the eagles didn't consider this an option until unforeseen circumstances eventuated.

Ruthlessness borne out of the way the chips fell in the draft.

It's poor planning.

But how does he get anywhere when all other clubs have planned for next year and none of them have thought about him and there are only a hadful of list spots left?

Dean Polo got a place on a list, in part, because he was delisted ages ago.

True.

The Saints have used alot of spak filler of late.

Hmm, a 27 year old who is too slow, makes all his leads too far up the ground and is not a reliable shot for goal? Brad Miller sends his regards...

Agree. And if you want a mature sized body that is actually a bit quicker, why not use somebody already on the list ! Why not use Stef Martin ?

Forgotten man it seems.

It's poor planning.

Yeah, true, but what if, for example, they had Lycett (who they took at 29) rated as, say, 15 but he slid, and Wilson was rated by them as, say, 18 in the entire draft, but was inexplicably not drafted. Not likely, but a more realistic version is entirely possible.

They already had 4 picks tied up in a F/S longshot and 3 rookie upgrades, which they couldn't back out of.

I'd want my club to take the unpopular ruthless decision of ditching a clogger like Hansen in favour of a player our recruiters rated highly.

Yeah, true, but what if, for example, they had Lycett (who they took at 29) rated as, say, 15 but he slid, and Wilson was rated by them as, say, 18 in the entire draft, but was inexplicably not drafted. Not likely, but a more realistic version is entirely possible.

They already had 4 picks tied up in a F/S longshot and 3 rookie upgrades, which they couldn't back out of.

I'd want my club to take the unpopular ruthless decision of ditching a clogger like Hansen in favour of a player our recruiters rated highly.

But the question is not whether they should have cut Hansen or not.

Its merely how they (mis)managed it. Its not the "end" in question but the "means"

They didn't want him, fine, cut him loose at seasons end, pay out his contract and avoid negative comments.

Its not hard

Agree. And if you want a mature sized body that is actually a bit quicker, why not use somebody already on the list ! Why not use Stef Martin ?

Forgotten man it seems.

True that.

Also, we've kept Newton on the list.

Martin + Newton = no room for Hansen.

At the end of the day, he's been given the smallest chance possible of being taken by another club.

It doesn't matter that he was contracted, it doesn't matter that WCE got lucky in the draft. All that matters is that he was let go with only the PSD and rookie drafts left.

That, to me, is terrible player management and/or planning. Doesn't matter how you look at it, one of your players has been cut loose and given a minute chance of surviving in the AFL.

These kind of situations are usually left to the Andrew Lovetts of the game.

Rubbish.

Ashley Hansen, even in his prime, wasn't that good, he looked good in a brilliant team.

We do not need to draft/rookie/think about players just because they are tall and they have played. We looked at Hale because he fills two roles, FF and ruck. Hansen would be a worse FF and can't ruck. End of story.

Understand what you're saying, and it seems to be a very grey area argument, but I never said I thought he was a good player. I guess I'm just saying that to me it's worth the gamble, half his salary would be paid, we wouldn't have to give up any picks or players, and he MAY be able to fill a temporary role while the young blokes develop. If he doesn't deserve to play he won't play, simple as that, he won't be keeping anyone out of the team unless he's good enough to.

At the end of the day, he's been given the smallest chance possible of being taken by another club.

It doesn't matter that he was contracted, it doesn't matter that WCE got lucky in the draft. All that matters is that he was let go with only the PSD and rookie drafts left.

That, to me, is terrible player management and/or planning. Doesn't matter how you look at it, one of your players has been cut loose and given a minute chance of surviving in the AFL.

These kind of situations are usually left to the Andrew Lovetts of the game.

It's the dawning of a new era in the AFL isn't it? The romantic notions of club loyalty and being looked after which years ago rang true at least some of the time, are now long gone. Clubs now NEED to win a premiership for the sake of their longevity, so things are happening that may not seem fair, just ask Junior, Robbo, Yze, Whitey...

Understand what you're saying, and it seems to be a very grey area argument, but I never said I thought he was a good player. I guess I'm just saying that to me it's worth the gamble, half his salary would be paid, we wouldn't have to give up any picks or players, and he MAY be able to fill a temporary role while the young blokes develop. If he doesn't deserve to play he won't play, simple as that, he won't be keeping anyone out of the team unless he's good enough to.

but you could say the same about all the rookies

in his case he would be a mature age rookie. The only reason to draft a mature age rookie is if you think you will get senior games out of them. With Hansen the odds are huge he wouldn't. so don't draft him. pick another mature age rookie with better odds or go for a young smokey to develop.

I aree. I have no issue with the decision itself, but the timing is a bit off IMO. As a club, they're not giving the player a fair opportunity to restart his career. He might not have much possibility of restarting it anyway, but that's the player's decision to make.

To the contrary Nasher. I believe that by delisting Hansen in the way they've done, the Eagles have given him the best possible opportunity to advance his career.

Had he remained on the WCE list and given Worsfold's opinion of his future at the club, he would have played out 2011 in the WAFL with few prospects of getting a game at AFL level. A player on the outer at the Eagles, he would have been paid out his contract entitlement and then, at age 28, been left on the football scrapheap.

Now, the worst case scenario for Hansen is that he will be shunned by the 17 other clubs (even the Giants are eligible to take him with one of their eight rookie draft picks). In that case, he still gets paid out by the Eagles and he's still on the scrapheap and he can still pick up a nice little earner at a State League, country or suburban club (if my mail is right you can even make money in the amateurs these days but don't quote me).

However, the economics of Hansen's situation would probably make his selection as a mature age rookie attractive to one of the AFL clubs, particularly if his body is right (as he claims). The club that drafts him pays the minimum wage in the first year of what would no doubt be a one year contract and West Coast has to pick up the rest of the tab up to the value of his contract. If that's the way it works, Hansen would come at a bargain basement price with odds of 1/17 that someone might snaffle him up.

Now, I'm not a fan but given that Melbourne was seriously interested in David Hale (who I don't rate much better than Hansen who at least knows the feeling of playing in a premiership), the economics would make Hansen at least an attractive proposition. Hale is being paid a reported $400kpa plus while Hansen might cost a fraction of that figure. He would even be of value strengthening our aligned club at Casey for most of the season even if only got a handful of games at AFL level.

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/staff/tabid/15221/default.aspx

Neale Daniher: General Manager - Football Operations

Steve Woodhouse: Contracts & Lists Manager

wonder exactly what

Peter Staples: Integrity Services Manager

does?