List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management 2023

[threesixpio]

And Ginni, the Wiz and hopefully KPD in McCabe.

 

[peetoo]

Thought this was funny though. Geelong website

 

[peetoo]

Mitchell omeara wingard. Costing us plenty to move them on, after costing plenty to get them

Couldn’t we have got one or two of the role players we are recruiting via psd?

I think a posse of the usual shitposters will be after me for this

 

[Yardie]

Went looking for cooper stephens trade. We got junk picks not used. A year later delisted for junk picks
And while paying Mitchell’s salary, may also be paying chads or coopers?

View attachment 1850227
Why wasn’t picks 41 and 50 traded out for future junk picks?

Get the **** over it......

 

[Brishawk]

Obviously if you are willing to pay out 100% of the outstanding contract, you can delist at any time without player's agreement, depending on terms in contract. A club that is trying to spend wisely won't go that way as we will have to pay minimum rookie salary rates when they get picked as rookie.

Given we have lots of cap space, we may have gone that way but it is also quite likely we came to mutually agreeable settlement with both Chad & Cooper which is less than the 100% of outstanding contract.

Their old contract from legal sense in gone. If we relist them, there will be a new contract that at bare minimum must end up them 100% better off for 2024.

No, not atm. Clearly there was no worthwhile interest during trade period & we may not have been interested in junk pics anyway, maybe F3 or better

I have a diff question.

If Dear doesn't get picked in National Draft, would he need to be picked as Rookie with one of our rookie picks or is he automatically Rookie given the FS nomination. Don't think there is a points match in RD if another club tries to pick him before us.

Its completely unlikely we came to a settlement under the contract value with either. There was no reason for either player to accept less money and in chad’s case, we just signed the contract with him recently. The old contract continues until a condition is met to end it. You are over complicating a simple event.

 

[peetoo]

Get the * over it......

Reasonable points well argued.

Are we some kind of cult where cracks can’t be pointed out?

We are stacked for role players, we don’t need to shuffle them around consuming salary cap and draft capital in small increments - which add up.

We just need to get cream. Pick 4 McCabe and dear will be a good start. I’m all on board for mature recruits too. Just not more of the same

 

[VandoHawk]

Went looking for cooper stephens trade. We got junk picks not used. A year later delisted for junk picks
And while paying Mitchell’s salary, may also be paying chads or coopers?

View attachment 1850227
Why wasn’t picks 41 and 50 traded out for future junk picks? McCabe dear Jiath not a surprise. Known last year

We traded those junk picks to Brisbane to move up the order and selected Hustwaite.

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

Mitchell omeara wingard. Costing us plenty to move them on, after costing plenty to get them

Couldn’t we have got one or two of the role players we are recruiting via psd?

I think a posse of the usual shitposters will be after me for this

The true benefit of moving on Tom and Jaeger should be clear by looking up 2023 Hawthorn PCM results. Worrying about the small wins and losses in individual trades or contracts or salaries is pointless when the broader outcome is a net positive.

 

[H00t]

It is no longer trade period and in a trade, club has to agree to trade. We have no such hooks here.

We have not yet moved them to rookie list, that is a verbal promise so they agree to mutually agreeable terms to allow us to delist. If they don't agree, then we can't delist and open up a list spot to get the 60's picks in. If they agree, they are hardly going to forgo their 2024 promised salary, so the terms will have a majority of salary to be paid out and added to 2023 sal cap.

Port last week delisted a contracted player. No promise to relist. I bet he is getting paid 70-80% of his contract. If he is insists on 100% and Port don't need to open up list spot, they he ends up training & playing in SANFL for 2024 which is a waste of time if club sees no future. Players agree so that they have a shot elsewhere to play AFL or go down an alt career pathway.

Essendon delisted a contracted player last yr too.

As of today, Chad & Cooper are not employees of HFC. They are likely to get reemployed if they are available at our 1st and 2nd rookie pics in Rookie draft. Then they get on rookie list.

if someone has picked them up prior to that, they become employees of that club under whatever contractual terms agreed to( Delist or rookie terms)

The contract still exists though and must be honoured by us.

It’s just the way the AFL rules work. If we could transfer them straight to the rookie list like we did with Moore, we would. Instead the AFL makes us jump through hoops.

You can delist players under contract for either the full $$$ or partial if the player is agreeable but that’s different to what’s happening here.

They are, for all intents and purposes, hawthorn players unless they agree to go somewhere else prior to us picking them up.

The risk we take is they might be swayed by a contract elsewhere. But our contract with them still exists and we will need to cover any differences.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Thought this was funny though. Geelong website

View attachment 1850229

Good lord - ‘She is finals’ is just the worst.

 

[Mr Lizard]

maybe I'm smooth brained, I dunno:

If Wingerz signs a contract with Collingwood to play there in 2024 (and whatever else), then his contract to play with us in 2024 is no longer a thing; we aren't paying Chad if he leaves.

 

[DannyJ]

People aren't genuinely concerned about losing Chad are they ?

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

 

[Hodgey 15]

Thought this was funny though. Geelong website

View attachment 1850229

"She is finals" - I'm assuming it's AFLW finals time.
Yeah that's appalling marketing.

 

[hawkinoz]

Its completely unlikely we came to a settlement under the contract value with either. There was no reason for either player to accept less money and in chad’s case, we just signed the contract with him recently. The old contract continues until a condition is met to end it. You are over complicating a simple event.

Since there is nothing else happening I will have another go at this even though I had said it earlier.

The reason they take unders is cause they will be getting rookie salary when picked in rookie list. Add unders settlement + rookie salary >= 2024 agreed salary

Again the old contract can't continue when delisted. Doesn't compute from a legal sense.

Let me use numbers as placeholders so my point is more clear.

Assume Chad was on 300K for 2024 and rookie salaries are 70k. We talk to chad about delisting so we can take picks to draft. Chad agrees to take 250k as delist package in 2023.

We pick him back as rookie under new contract of 70k. He now has earned 320K in total vis the previous contract which was for 300k.

Now he may get a new deal from Pies as Delisted player which is for 150K for 2024 with a trigger based on if he plays 5 games, he gets a contract in 2025 at 300k. This means Chad is making bank with an extra 100K + targets for 2025. I don't think we can claw back any money from what was agreed in delisted package.

Again, from a legal sense Chad is not a Hawthorn player atm. After rookie draft he may be if not picked by anyone else as delisted player or in rookie draft before our picks.

Same applies to Cooper even though I can see Cooper not willing to negotiate down much as deal was done more than a yr back while Chads was done only a month ago and we did it to his benefit. So we likely paid him out close to his 2024 promised salary + he will add the rookie salary on top.

 

[dermott]

You can pay rookie listed players above the standard rookie salary, however the excess is counted in the salary cap.

 

[H00t]

maybe I'm smooth brained, I dunno:

If Wingerz signs a contract with Collingwood to play there in 2024 (and whatever else), then his contract to play with us in 2024 is no longer a thing; we aren't paying Chad if he leaves.

I’d imagine that’s only if his contract for next year is greater or equal to what we would be paying him.

Any difference would need to be made up by us. Same as if we traded him this year after signing him.

He’s owed the money we signed him for.

 

[Mr Lizard]

He’s owed the money we signed him for.

He owes the playing he has signed for.

I don't think it works how you're saying.

 

[kirbatron]

we were repeatedly told to buckle up

 

[TylerDurden]

The Chad departure makes more sense when you factor in the Gunston addition. The concern is lack of experience on the list, which Jack replaces.

Effectively we only now have Breust, Gunston and Frost on the list in the 30+ age bracket.

 

[Cyril says]

What is the rookie draft order anyway?

 

[H00t]

He owes the playing he has signed for.

I don't think it works how you're saying.

I can’t imagine it’s any different than when we moved Mitchell and JOM on last year.

The club made the decision to move him onto the rookie list, if they wanted to guarantee him being with us next year all we had to do was keep him on the main list.

The AFLPA would be all over us and the AFL if they allowed us to attempt to place him on the rookie list then try to short change him.

I doubt it would be an issue as I say he’d move for a same $$$ contract. But the only way we get out of paying the difference is there is any is if Wings says so. Otherwise we’d be quite rightly on the hook for it.

 

[H00t]

What is the rookie draft order anyway?

Reverse ladder order

 

[Mr Lizard]

I can’t imagine it’s any different than when we moved Mitchell and JOM on last year.

The club made the decision to move him onto the rookie list, if they wanted to guarantee him being with us next year all we had to do was keep him on the main list.

The AFLPA would be all over us and the AFL if they allowed us to attempt to place him on the rookie list then try to short change him.

I doubt it would be an issue as I say he’d move for a same $$$ contract. But the only way we get out of paying the difference is there is any is if Wings says so. Otherwise we’d be quite rightly on the hook for it.

JOM and Mitch were traded, mutual agreement etc etc. not the same.

We have an agreement with Chad for 2024, there's nothing preventing that going ahead. Mechanics of delist/rookie-listing gives him an opportunity to sign a contract elsewhere for 2024, should he choose.

I would guess there's a thing in place for a payout if we didn't end up rookie-listing him, but that hasn't happened.

 

[Yardie]

Reasonable points well argued.

Are we some kind of cult where cracks can’t be pointed out?

We are stacked for role players, we don’t need to shuffle them around consuming salary cap and draft capital in small increments - which add up.

We just need to get cream. Pick 4 McCabe and dear will be a good start. I’m all on board for mature recruits too. Just not more of the same

It get just get tiresome when people just want to go over the same ground over and over again. There are people on here that still complain about the Buddy compensation and that was ten years ago. Ongoing complaints about the Chad & JOM trades. And now we can add in the trades from last year.

And to your point about the "cracks". Hawthorn is currently undoing the damage that Clarkson created in his later years by demanding that Wright get in players he wanted no matter the cost. For every MM trade you aren't happy about there is another Wright trade that was just as bad. But in both cases the list manager is following the vision of the coach. Clarkson wanted to top up and got Tom, JOM and Chad, Wright got em but for a price. Sam wants to move forward with players that can play his preferred style, that means moving players on and that also has a cost.

 

[Yardie]

The true benefit of moving on Tom and Jaeger should be clear by looking up 2023 Hawthorn PCM results. Worrying about the small wins and losses in individual trades or contracts or salaries is pointless when the broader outcome is a net positive.

I must thank you for providing an excellent interpretation of my earlier post