News David Hale & Pick 52 for Brown Compo Pick & Pick 71 - done deal - Keep It Here Please

[dp_ramas]

I'm pretty happy with the deal the Hawks did to get Hale. Pick 52 was a bonus which I hope the bulldogs except from Hill.

Pelchen's idea of playing him as a Ruck / Forward is exactly what we need.

With the addition of Hale our Ruck stocks look alot stronger. This will give time for Lowden and Grimley to develop. Also extra security if Big Max doesn't come up.

I think Taylor's days are numbered as IMO Skipper is the better option.

I will be interesting to see what we do with Taylor now Hale is on board.

 

[Hawks to fly]

I wonder if Hawthorn pick up players who have done particularly well against us. Gibson played very well on Buddy, Shaun Burgoyne had about 18 clearances in his last match against us and was BOG and Hale played well and kicked early goals (total 3)against us in Tassie this year and even Hooper played well against us at the MCG 2 years ago and kicked goals. Time will tell but their choices last year were good.

 

[Bosk]

This is a very poor decision in my view. The Brown pick should have been kept and used in a non-compromised draft where we could have extracted maximum value for it.
Instead Clarkson has elected to buy ready-made "talent" to improve his chances of getting a contract extension past next year.

Hale may well be a servicable player but he is not worth a first round pick. North win this trade.

 

[Jaeger]

This is a very poor decision in my view. The Brown pick should have been kept and used in a non-compromised draft where we could have extracted maximum value for it.
Instead Clarkson has elected to buy ready-made "talent" to improve his chances of getting a contract extension past next year.

Hale may well be a servicable player but he is not worth a first round pick. North win this trade.

That could be true.

On the other hand, we definitely have a window open, imo, and should do what we can to fill gaps.

Not saying Hale is the answer but he could be important over the next few years.

Lack of height has killed us.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

This is a very poor decision in my view. The Brown pick should have been kept and used in a non-compromised draft where we could have extracted maximum value for it.
Instead Clarkson has elected to buy ready-made "talent" to improve his chances of getting a contract extension past next year.

Hale may well be a servicable player but he is not worth a first round pick. North win this trade.

So, no Hale themed avatars then Bosk?

Maybe the ever awesome oogac can do some sort Hale/Guerra hairpiece themed mini animation type thing.

 

[Off The Couch]

So, no Hale themed avatars then Bosk?

Maybe the ever awesome oogac can do some sort Hale/Guerra hairpiece themed mini animation type thing.

At last the real SLF is back - is it true that Gav wanted out or was that another one of those furphies floating around.

 

[xellis]

This is a very poor decision in my view. The Brown pick should have been kept and used in a non-compromised draft where we could have extracted maximum value for it.
Instead Clarkson has elected to buy ready-made "talent" to improve his chances of getting a contract extension past next year.

Hale may well be a servicable player but he is not worth a first round pick. North win this trade.

So you would rather lose Brown (all australian and important member of our 22) with no replacement for at least 2 years and only then to bring in an untried 18year-old who could turn out to be a complete spud? In the mean time our stars age and we continue to be a middle tier club.

I am not a big fan of Hale but i commend our recruiting staff for addressing a hole in our list. Hale has been specifically targeted with the new interchange rule in mind. Our window is now and we still have our first round pick. Chin up

 

[Rioli magic]

Hale has been specifically targeted with the new interchange rule in mind. Our window is now and we still have our first round pick. Chin up

+ our second round pick, + two third round picks. We've swapped Hale for Brown and improved our draft position.

 

[hawker92]

I don't think Hale is worth the compensation pick we traded for him. Hope he proves me wrong, but this decision could compromise the Hill trade, which I believe is far more important.

 

[Hawkzzz]

We saw what was happening when Renouf tired...we were getting smashed in the Ruck. The good thing with Hale is he is a decent Ruck (much better than Skipper) and he has learnt the ropes on how playing as a forward.

With the new interchange rule, we don't have to rest Hale on the bench. He goes straight to the forward line and we rotate a mid from the bench. Good value. He will be a very difficult match up for opposition with Buddy and Roughy there.

If his track record was poor in the forward line then they wouldn't be interested. Versatility is vital with the new bench rule.

 

[TwoBeaus]

after the hay and thommo trades its good to see us pay north back by giving up a very high draft pick for a plodder who couldnt make their best 22. very chartiable.

 

[Dewnior]

Putting what we paid aside, Hale was the best available ruckman who wanted to wear our jumper.

To all those who think picking up Hale was a bad option, imagine our predicament if Renouf goes down injured next year.

 

[Hawks to fly]

One thing Hale can do that none of our ruck players can do, he can kick straight when shooting for goal.

 

[TwoBeaus]

Putting what we paid aside, Hale was the best available ruckman who wanted to wear our jumper.

To all those who think picking up Hale was a bad option, imagine our predicament if Renouf goes down injured next year.

if you put aside what you paid, then any trade can be justified.

hell if you only counted what you got, you could trade buddy for sandilands

im not against hale coming to the hawks, just the price paid

the trade period is a tough time, players with their wishes, managers pushing prices up, bidding wars, salary caps, draft order, gold coast, GWS. So what, boo hoo. harden up.

Collingwood could attract and land jolly and ball. the swans can land bargain uncoming ruckman in mumford. hawthorn could land burgoyne when they wanted to.

If we wanted a depth ruckman there were many cheaper options. whats more we would have had more salary cap to attract / retain other players.

Hey change of scenery and all that...he may flourish...who knows

dew was a fairly cheap calculated risk, hale is more of a close your eyes and hope

if hale has a cracker of season i'll be happy to admit i was wrong

if its more of the same then will other people admit they are wrong? Or will there be more feeble excuses of how hard drafting is and just keep trusting the inpeccable pelchen who's always made the right decision except for all times he hasnt.

 

[Messenger]

If we wanted a depth ruckman there were many cheaper options. whats more we would have had more salary cap to attract / retain other players.

Did we want a depth ruckman? I don't think so. I think we traded for him to be in our best 22. We have drafted young rucks and they are developing (Lowden, Grimley), but neither will much, if any, senior football next year. Hale is there to give us 2-4 years of service while these guys get ready.

If your complaint is we paid too much then you have to acknowledge that there was competition and anything other than the compo picks sees Hale a Demon today. There was a market for him and we paid the price.

But we can't complain we haven't got a ruckman now, can we...

if hale has a cracker of season i'll be happy to admit i was wrong

Oh yeah......

if its more of the same then will other people admit they are wrong? Or will there be more feeble excuses of how hard drafting is and just keep trusting the inpeccable pelchen who's always made the right decision except for all times he hasnt.

I thought you were OK with Hale being at Hawthorn? I thought trade week was "a tough time"?

What is your point precisely?

 

[TwoBeaus]

Did we want a depth ruckman? I don't think so. I think we traded for him to be in our best 22. We have drafted young rucks and they are developing (Lowden, Grimley), but neither will much, if any, senior football next year. Hale is there to give us 2-4 years of service while these guys get ready.

If your complaint is we paid too much then you have to acknowledge that there was competition and anything other than the compo picks sees Hale a Demon today. There was a market for him and we paid the price.

But we can't complain we haven't got a ruckman now, can we...




Oh yeah......

I thought you were OK with Hale being at Hawthorn? I thought trade week was "a tough time"?

What is your point precisely?

1. i didnt say we needed a depth ruckman. I was responding to poster who eluded to the need for depth. We have 3 senior ruckman. One a premiership ruckman. One ruckman who played a full season as the second ruckman in a team that finished clear second on the ladder. One a mature body who played most of last season.

2. Of course there was competition. So what? Melbourne are desparate. Jamar, then a complete nuff nuff in Johnson. By your reasoning we had to outbid melbourne whatever they bid. stupid reasoning.

3. The issue about ruckman has been the quality not the quanitity. See point 1 above. My point is that if that is major weakness then we should recruit a much better ruckman than we have like the pies did with Jolly. If Hale is not clearly better than what have then he is just depth ruckman.

4. Oh yeah....Yes I will. Amazing as it seems to you, I would rather hale and the hawks be successfull than be right in my opinion. If hale proves me wrong. so what. i wont regret my opinion before the fact. I gave my opinion before the result with Dawson and Hooper. anyone can be wise after the event. btw what was your opinion of dawson and hooper?

5. My point about the trade time being tough was aimed at the poster and others excuses about landing a first class ruckman. Just because its a tough doesnt mean we with have to pay overs for Hale. The excuse last year was Jolly didnt want to come us. The excuse this year was Hale was the best that wanted to play for us. If the same effort, salary cap, draft picks and negotiation time that was put into burgoyne, was put into a first class ruck what could be achieved??

6. I stand by my point that it doesnt worry me hale coming to club (eg I dont have personal vendetta against him) , but I dont think its any significant improvement unless he can become a super sub ( see point 1 above) In any case he's at the club now the point is moot. I just think its interesting to debate these things rather than just be a chorus of praise for anything Pelcen does.

7. In any case the question has to asked what could have been done with the draft pick and salary cap used on hale. Im not interested in what melbourne offers based on the state of their list. Hawthorn needs to make decisions based on their list not another clubs.

8. What is my point?? Well I cant make it any clearer. Read this post and my last. if still dont cant understand perhaps PM me rather than clog the thread with semantics. Quite happy for you to disagree with me and quite happy to debate anything i have stated. Perhaps you could specifically answer any points i have made.

If you have sincere questions Im quite happy to clarify anything i've said. If your questions are just point scoring then dont bother.

 

[Messenger]

2. Of course there was competition. So what? Melbourne are desparate. Jamar, then a complete nuff nuff in Johnson. By your reasoning we had to outbid melbourne whatever they bid. stupid reasoning.

Well, if we want Hale (and I have to presume we wanted him) then to get the trade done we had to offer more than the other suitor. Not sure why that is stupid reasoning, but you can PM me and tell me all about it.

3. The issue about ruckman has been the quality not the quanitity. See point 1 above. My point is that if that is major weakness then we should recruit a much better ruckman than we have like the pies did with Jolly. If Hale is not clearly better than what have then he is just depth ruckman.

Which much better ruckman?

4. btw what was your opinion of dawson and hooper?

I don't miss Zac. He is a very limited footballer playing on a very good team. Rhan has hamstring knack. After 6 games I find it hard to get that attached to be honest.

5. My point about the trade time being tough was aimed at the poster and others excuses about landing a first class ruckman. Just because its a tough doesnt mean we with have to pay overs for Hale. The excuse last year was Jolly didnt want to come us. The excuse this year was Hale was the best that wanted to play for us. If the same effort, salary cap, draft picks and negotiation time that was put into burgoyne, was put into a first class ruck what could be achieved??

I find this logic impenetrable. We can just get a better ruckman just like that?

We payed what we had to to get Hale to the club. We offer pick 37, Melbourne offer 32, Hale doesn't express a strong preference, what do North do?

Jolly wanted to go to Collingwood. Even if we had tipped Burgoyne over the side and offered pick 9 to Sydney, he would still have gone to Collingwood because the players get a say.

6. I stand by my point that it doesnt worry me hale coming to club (eg I dont have personal vendetta against him) , but I dont think its any significant improvement unless he can become a super sub ( see point 1 above) In any case he's at the club now the point is moot. I just think its interesting to debate these things rather than just be a chorus of praise for anything Pelcen does.

I haven't suggested you have a vendetta against anyone, nor have I witnessed a chorus of praise for Pelchen. This thread should indicate to you that isn't the case.

7. In any case the question has to asked what could have been done with the draft pick and salary cap used on hale. Im not interested in what melbourne offers based on the state of their list. Hawthorn needs to make decisions based on their list not another clubs.

Fair to ask what is the opportunity cost for the compo pick and the cap space. Plenty here think we are weak in the ruck. The club addressed it.

 

[Rioli magic]

3. The issue about ruckman has been the quality not the quanitity. See point 1 above. My point is that if that is major weakness then we should recruit a much better ruckman than we have like the pies did with Jolly. If Hale is not clearly better than what have then he is just depth ruckman.

I think you would have to agree on evidence that Hale is better footballer than most if not all of our rucks? I think you also need to acknowledge that our ruck department is not currently a quality one at AFL level. The attitude of "it's only worth trying to improve if it's guaranteed to be a masssive improvement" is something that bothers me with supporters. I think you should evaluate the situation, look at the price and options and try and take any improvement you can no matter how big or small it is. I think we've given ourselves a better opportunity short-term with Hale in the side.

7. In any case the question has to asked what could have been done with the draft pick and salary cap used on hale.

I agree and it needs to be related back to the clubs short and long term goals. We're going for a flag next year so the question is could we have gained a greater impact next year with what was given. Whether you agree with this approach or not is another issue but it's obvious the club thinks we're in our window. The only other areas that have the biggest scope for improvement short term are midfield speed and KPD. Apart from Tarrant is a there a KPD available that plays that role better than what Hale plays his role? Are we a chance to recruit a 2nd Ruckman or a KPD through the draft that will hold is own to play next year? Midfield speed is the easiest one to address when you consider you're only playing with pick 27? You were not going to get an out and out gun for that price anyway, and through the draft or trade you're probably looking at a Whitecross type, who we already have.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

We overpaid for Hale. An end of first round pick plus another pick for North Melbourne's fourth-string ruckman and a pick. A bloke who has had a career best 20 hit-outs in one game and even when he was in the ruck full-time at North, averaged 11 hit-outs a game (back in 2006)!

North Melbourne are very fortunate that Melbourne also wanted Hale because his fair market value was a third round pick, IMO.

 

[roobear]

We're paying part of his salary, and you never have to see Squizzy wearing the brown & yellow again. You should be offering to have our children.

 

[TwoBeaus]

1. Well, if we want Hale (and I have to presume we wanted him) then to get the trade done we had to offer more than the other suitor. Not sure why that is stupid reasoning, but you can PM me and tell me all about it.

2. Which much better ruckman?

3. I don't miss Zac. He is a very limited footballer playing on a very good team. Rhan has hamstring knack. After 6 games I find it hard to get that attached to be honest.

4. I find this logic impenetrable. We can just get a better ruckman just like that?

5. We payed what we had to to get Hale to the club. We offer pick 37, Melbourne offer 32, Hale doesn't express a strong preference, what do North do?

6. Jolly wanted to go to Collingwood. Even if we had tipped Burgoyne over the side and offered pick 9 to Sydney, he would still have gone to Collingwood because the players get a say.
I haven't suggested you have a vendetta against anyone, nor have I 7. witnessed a chorus of praise for Pelchen. This thread should indicate to you that isn't the case.

Fair to ask what is the opportunity cost for the compo pick and the cap space. Plenty here think we are weak in the ruck. 8. The club addressed it.

1. Of course we had to out bid melbourne if we wanted hale. The question is he worth it to our list. In my opinion no. I do think its stupid to say we paid the right price because that is the price we paid. This is circular reasoning. Every player wanted by at least two clubs is traded at the highest price. I doesnt automatically follow that they are worth it or that the decision is wise. Trading history is littered with trades where clubs got bad value. In my opinion the hale trade regardless of whether its is "market value", is bad value. there was a third club in this, north melboure. I think they would be very very happy to get what did for a player who couldnt make best 22 in a bottom 8 club. Perhaps Hay and Thompson, Lonie were worth it because north and port were willing to trade ridiculously high picks for them? the highest price or price clubs are stupid enough to pay are not automatically the right price.


2. there are plenty of better ruckman in the league than hale. Can we land one? probably not. Could we put in more effort? i reckon yes. Just because u cant land jolly or another great ruckman doesnt mean should have paid overs for hale. the hale decision is more the symptom, than the problem. The issue of the ruck has come up because of Hale. If we have paid too much for a midfielder or defender then we would be debating those positions. The position is not the core issue, its what we paid for player who couldnt get in the best 22 of a bottom 8 club and who wont add much to our list.

3. Im not interested in your opinion of dawson or hooper now. Im interested in your opinion before the fact. Zac limited? He aint no superstar but he's played fullback in the second best team in the league, 3 grand finals in two years, and most neutral observers rated his 2010 final series extremely highly, one of stkildas better players. Perphaps when schulz kicks a bag of goals on dawson we'll talk again. I wish the hawks had such "limited" backman. Hooper was flaky, repeatedly fined and suspended by brisbane and we wasted a draft pick on him. Two failed trades/drafts if you could only admit it. The point is its good to have a variety of opinions and those opinions are more interesting before the fact than after the fact.

4. No i didnt say we would automaticaly get better ruckman. I didnt say we had to even try. I simply asked the question what if? If we could land a good ruckman then it would be worth trading good draft picks. If the best option is hale then we should pay the correct price. If the price is too high then we look elsewhere, a mature body in the rookie draft.

5. We paid more than melbourne to land him. The other choice was to not bid and let melbourne have him. In my opinion we made the wrong choice. It seems you think we made the right choice. We have different opinions.

6. The players do have a say, but so do clubs. Players dont always get to where they want to go. ask nick stevens. My issue is not whether we landed jolly or not. As you quite rightly say some of that was out of our control. The question is where is our focus, where were the resources focused. We have many weakness on our shallow list and the draft pick and cap could have better used in my opinion.

7. I have observed a reflexive action to put people who question the drafting and trading of Pelchen under great scrutiny in certain posters. In addition there are others like me who believe that the hale trade is the last of long list of dubious decisions. Love to hear your opinion on the 5 years of the Pelchen reign as a whole? Have you ever put posts praising Pelchens decisions, under such close scrutiny as you have mine?

8. You believe the club has addressed a weakness. I believe the club has added some depth to the ruck department. I sincerely hope you are right and i am wrong.

9. Just for the record. The club has so many problems that the ruck issue doesnt seem that amazing. Coaching panel, drafting, "structure", devolopment of players etc. My point was and is we paid too much for hale and we would have been better using the draft pick and salary elsewhere.
In any case its one of many things that concern me about the future success of HFC. The hale decision may have a short term benefit but it wont solve the longer term list management issue. The price we paid for hale will hurt us in the longer term.

10 The issue with all this is not who or who not in a particular trade. The goal is to build the best list with one eye on the present and one eye on the future and to do so within the strict limitations of the salary cap and draft. for everything you gain you have to ask at what price?

 

[Messenger]

1. Of course we had to out bid melbourne if we wanted hale. The question is he worth it to our list. In my opinion no. I do think its stupid to say we paid the right price because that is the price we paid. This is circular reasoning. Every player wanted by at least two clubs is traded at the highest price. I doesnt automatically follow that they are worth it or that the decision is wise. Trading history is littered with trades where clubs got bad value. In my opinion the hale trade regardless of whether its is "market value", is bad value. there was a third club in this, north melboure. I think they would be very very happy to get what did for a player who couldnt make best 22 in a bottom 8 club. Perhaps Hay and Thompson, Lonie were worth it because north and port were willing to trade ridiculously high picks for them? the highest price or price clubs are stupid enough to pay are not automatically the right price.

No, it's supply and demand. We paid the highest price we were willing to pay. I didn't say it was right, but it is the price.

We can argue as to why he wasn't in North's best 22. Plenty of North fans will tell you Goldstein and McIntosh are the reason for that.

2. there are plenty of better ruckman in the league than hale. Can we land one? probably not. Could we put in more effort? i reckon yes.

What on earth do you base that assessment on?

3. Im not interested in your opinion of dawson or hooper now. Im interested in your opinion before the fact. Zac limited? He aint no superstar but he's played fullback in the second best team in the league, 3 grand finals in two years, and most neutral observers rated his 2010 final series extremely highly, one of stkildas better players. Perphaps when schulz kicks a bag of goals on dawson we'll talk again. I wish the hawks had such "limited" backman. Hooper was flaky, repeatedly fined and suspended by brisbane and we wasted a draft pick on him. Two failed trades/drafts if you could only admit it. The point is its good to have a variety of opinions and those opinions are more interesting before the fact than after the fact.

Yes. Very limited. Haven't wanted him back once.

Hooper is leaving due to injury for the most part. If only I could admit to it.

If you wish to find out what I thought about Hooper and Zac in the past, check my history. There are only 4700 odd posts.

4. No i didnt say we would automaticaly get better ruckman. I didnt say we had to even try. I simply asked the question what if? If we could land a good ruckman then it would be worth trading good draft picks. If the best option is hale then we should pay the correct price. If the price is too high then we look elsewhere, a mature body in the rookie draft.

Again, you suggest we didn't try based on what?

6. The players do have a say, but so do clubs. Players dont always get to where they want to go. ask nick stevens.

How is that situation analogous? Jolly hadn't walked out on Sydney; he could have just stayed another year until a deal could be struck.[/quote]

7. I have observed a reflexive action to put people who question the drafting and trading of Pelchen under great scrutiny in certain posters.

Nonsense.

Have you ever put posts praising Pelchens decisions, under such close scrutiny as you have mine?

While your checking for my opinion on Hooper and Zac, you can check that too. It's trade week, and I'm in the mood to scrutinise one of the flood of laments we get here every time the club makes a move in one direction or another.

9. Just for the record. The club has so many problems that the ruck issue doesnt seem that amazing. Coaching panel, drafting, "structure", devolopment of players etc. My point was and is we paid too much for hale and we would have been better using the draft pick and salary elsewhere.
In any case its one of many things that concern me about the future success of HFC. The hale decision may have a short term benefit but it wont solve the longer term list management issue. The price we paid for hale will hurt us in the longer term.

There are things the club can work on to be sure. I look upon Hale as a player who can help now and provide time for our younger drafted rucks to develop.

10 The issue with all this is not who or who not in a particular trade. The goal is to build the best list with one eye on the present and one eye on the future and to do so within the strict limitations of the salary cap and draft. for everything you gain you have to ask at what price?

I agree. The answer to that, however, is subjective.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Two Beaus,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying that you're frustrated at getting Hale and paying pick 25 (or whatever it is) for him.

You'd have preferred a better player, or a lower price.

I think a lotof us are on the same page there.

Messenger is simply pointing out the mechanations that led to this. As annoying as it is to hear "we paid what the market said we had to pay in order to receive" it's an unavoidable truism.

What makes it worse is that over the last two yeas, with Jolly, Ball, Burgoyne and Gibson the hawks and pies have made it look like you can go player shopping for anyone, given the right amount of money, preparation and effort. But let's face it - these are exceptions. Not to mention that good defenders and good ruckmen are the rarest footballing commodities.

Hang in there mate, it'll all work out in the end.

 

[BYWs Dimi Pumpa]

good post leather.

End of the day, we got our ruckman.

We paid the market price but we still got a ruckman.

I think skipper will still be in best 22 as the 3rd tall forward, hale and renouf to take the rucking duties and the three of them continue rotating between forward and ruck.

Now we need a Full Back/ outside mid.... work your magic pelican

 

[tazhawk]

I don't think Hale is worth the compensation pick we traded for him. Hope he proves me wrong, but this decision could compromise the Hill trade, which I believe is far more important.

I do not agree.

Getting Hale means we can de-list (please god make it so) Taylor.

Bailey may never come up.

I think getting Hale is a very wise move.