Will anyone ever want to deal with Hawthorn again in Trade Week?

[The Dustbin]

Pelchen is just doing his job and wants the best for his club. I don't see a problem with that at all.

Being a Essendon supporter i can understand his way of thinking...
Having said that though i don't think he/Hawthorn are anywhere near as bad to deal with as Essendon. Although after this week he might have a bit of a reputation.

Continue to do and get the best for your employer Pelchen?

 

[bluey blue]

Maybe, but we're talking about Thornton here. 24 and 33 was more than generous. I am glad Carlton said no.

Don't you think that T-Bird would be stoked to know that carlton valued him more than the Hawks.

 

[Books]

Don't you think that T-Bird would be stoked to know that carlton valued him more than the Hawks.

Fair point. I think the Hawthorn club valued him more highly than I do personally, and Carlton were obviously desperate to keep him for some reason.
Good luck to him. I expect he will sign with the Blues now if he knows they will pick him up anyway. Personally I would rather have picks 24 and 33. Just my opinion.

 

[Books]

I think Pelchen has done OK. He wanted the best deal for Hawthorn, which is what he is paid for. He thought (as I do) that Everitt could win a flag for Sydney and he thought that should be worth a lot to the Swans. In the end we got pick 33 in a good draft for a 32-year-old who did not want to play for us anymore.
All the to-ing and fro-ing up to then is just part of the process. He tried for more, in the end he did the sensible thing and accepted the best offer. Good work.

 

[sput1956]

Huddo mentioned on SEN that the hawks offere 24 and 33 for thornton. IMO that's more than fair.

Carlton obviously rate him higher than Hawthorn does. He will re-sign.

 

[Delisted]

Thornton has only played 100 games at the age of 22 because they have ****all players to fill in the role.

24, 33 > ''T-Bird''

 

[Tas]

How is it different to Rawlings not accepting Hawthorn's 2 year deal, and looking elsewhere, then deciding the Roos.

Rawlings wanted to stay with the Hawks, he just wanted a 3 year deal. He didn't stay with Hawks because the Hawks refused to give him 3 the deal. Carlton said they matched what Hawthorn offered.

Our two deals with the Roos:

Both times you accepted it, and at the time of trades were happy.

There were 3 deals in recent times. Rawlings, Thompson and then Hay.

Rawlings was poor, you went into the Veale deal and took the pick 6 bribe to push Rawlings into the PSD and you left it until 1:50 on Friday to do that deal with Bulldogs and Essendon and left us no time to look at other alternatives. In hindsight, I am thankful we were deceived in that deal.

Thompson was a good trade, the deal was done very fast and it was over quickly, no stuffing around.

Hay was fine, it was dragged on more because Port offered a bag of chips until late Friday. Price was driven up because Freo offered pick 10. Not much we could have done. The problem was that he was in Perth and he had a medical condition that we weren't told about (outside of the bipolar thing).

Overall, the trading between us has not been too bad, we kinda lost a year on Hay because he had to miss a big chunk of the pre-season last year. I would prefer we didn't deal with the Hawks if we could deal with someone else, Hawks should have taken the second round pick on Tuesday for Everitt but it was a lot of stuffing around going on.

Sydney ended up getting Spider for a second round pick. Very reasonable.

You drove them crazy for 5 days over a simple trade.

We offered 24 and 33 for Thornton, Also very reasonable.

Carlton need to learn to re-sign their required players much earlier and leave fringe players to be re-signed over trade week. Still, I think it is very suspicious that he turned from a loyal player to refusing to talk to them overnight, I hope there were no breach of the rules... it was just odd how he changed his tune so quickly and refused to even acknowledge when the competition's offer was met.

It just smells fishy. As I said, people will still deal with the Hawks but I think if they do not have to they may avoid doing so depending on the circumstances.

 

[Mr Lizard]

There were 3 deals in recent times. Rawlings, Thompson and then Hay.

Rawlings was poor, you went into the Veale deal and took the pick 6 bribe to push Rawlings into the PSD and you left it until 1:50 on Friday to do that deal with Bulldogs and Essendon and left us no time to look at other alternatives. In hindsight, I am thankful we were deceived in that deal.

You weren't in that deal though. You wouldn't offer us something we wanted.
The reason why the Veale deal had to go so late?
Well, what if that were tabled earlier, and then someone offered us what we wanted for Rawlings?
The Veale deal was reliant on Rawlings going into the PSD, which was only a certainty once trade week was over.

Rawlings wanted to stay with the Hawks, he just wanted a 3 year deal. He didn't stay with Hawks because the Hawks refused to give him 3 the deal. Carlton said they matched what Hawthorn offered.

It just smells fishy. As I said, people will still deal with the Hawks but I think if they do not have to they may avoid doing so depending on the circumstances.

I don't think they quite matched the offer. Nearly but not quite.
I don't think money is the total issue there.

Clubs only trade for one reason Tas, to improve their list. There is no other point to it.
If we propose the best trade for a club that wants to trade something, they will deal with us.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Peerless Pete]

I love how it's all about us, it's great!! it's the way the world should be.

Doggies stick it to Brisbane and actually pay less for a younger Aker than Sydney paid for Spida and hardly a word is spoken about them.

Roos clearly stated they would not trade their first or second round pick, then promptly does so. But Pelchin is the liar.

Carlton goes "under deep cover " for four and half days, surfacing 45 minutes before trade week ends and only for long enough to tell us "go **** yourself, no deal". This week you would've needed Henry Kissinger, Boutros Boutros Ghali and a ouija board to contact the blues and close a deal with them on Thornton. But no, apparently it was us who was stuffing around.

North has one trade with us that hasn't to date worked out quite how they imagined and 12 months later we're dubbed the "axis of evil" at the trade table.

It indicates an apprehension, a fear if you will, rising in our opponents as they realize the mighty hawks are once again on the verge of an era of dominance.

The future is nigh, and it's coloured all brown and gold.

I love it.

 

[sablenrouge]

I love how it's all about us, it's great!! it's the way the world should be.

Doggies stick it to Brisbane and actually pay less for a younger Aker than Sydney paid for Spida and hardly a word is spoken about them.

Roos clearly stated they would not trade their first or second round pick, then promptly does so. But Pelchin is the liar.

Carlton goes "under deep cover " for four and half days, surfacing 45 minutes before trade week ends and only for long enough to tell us "go **** yourself, no deal". This week you would've needed Henry Kissinger, Boutros Boutros Ghali and a ouija board to contact the blues and close a deal with them on Thornton. But no, apparently it was us who was stuffing around.

North has one trade with us that hasn't to date worked out quite how they imagined and 12 months later we're dubbed the "axis of evil" at the trade table.

It indicates an apprehension, a fear if you will, rising in our opponents as they realize the mighty hawks are once again on the verge of an era of dominance.

The future is nigh, and it's coloured all brown and gold.

I love it.

??

Get a hold of yourself!

Or should I say, stop getting a hold of yourself. Your words appear to be in English, however what you are saying and what the popular opinion of Hawthorn would be are diametrically opposed.

People are saying that Hawthorn is very difficult to trade with, more difficult than they should be. Don't pump that up to think it means people are somehow scared of Hawthorn on-field.

 

[mulhollanddrive]

We accepted the best deal that was offered up til 2PM on Friday, that's the definition of good trading. I suggest in the long run, that method is slighty better than refusing to trade for uncontracted players who want out.

Now people are saying we won't ever deal with Hawthorn again... People were saying they would never deal with Essendon because they are such arrogant a-sholes at trade week, didnt stop Collingwood last year and Freo this year, while 7 teams did nothing this year, Essendon and Hawthorn weren't one of them.

As long as other teams want something, or get a club/player recieve the best offer from us, it'll be back to the table.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Why is trade week so hard to understand for some people?

 

[seafordhawk]

I hope that trade week is reduced to 2 or 3 days so that the tyre kickers of the world are shown the door and the real players can go hard.

If people don't want to deal with the Hawks it will be short lived as we will have some great players to trade in the future when salary cap pressure means we will need to offload some talented players.

Watch the sydney ducks come running then,and the gold coast roos and the darwin blues.

 

[worthy]

Interesting to hear Pelchens excuses for not acquiring Thornton.

Appears to me he wasted so much time farting around with Spida he didn't have time in the end to negiotate with the Blues when they eventually came to him.

Pelchen = Poo

P.S. You don't do justice to the name Big game James. Your more a Kurt Rambis.

So you're saying i'm a cult figure?
Seriously though, a couple of things, Pelchen was negotiating with both parties and the lack of progress with Carlton stalled the Everitt deal, secondly, you can't keep making silly statements like:

Pelchen = Poo

And expect to have enough cred or respect to say I don't do anything justice.

 

[King Elvis]

Why is trade week so hard to understand for some people?

I think it's more to do with the fact that while we all understand that each club is out for themselves, we also expect them to deal with each other in a truthful, honest and respectful manner.

It seems as though the whole Nick Stevens debacle was the beginning of the end of that.

 

[Peerless Pete]

I think it's more to do with the fact that while we all understand that each club is out for themselves, we also expect them to deal with each other in a truthful, honest and respectful manner.

It seems as though the whole Nick Stevens debacle was the beginning of the end of that.[/quote]

So what should Port Adelaide have done. Just accept what they thought was not fair value for Stevens and let him go to Collingwood and thereby improve a team that was one of their main opponents at the time?

 

[D Mitchell]

... People were saying they would never deal with Essendon because they are such arrogant a-sholes at trade week, didnt stop Collingwood last year and Freo this year, ....

According to both the Australian and the Sun, the Collingwood - Fremantle deal only proceeded after Essendon was cut out. The Solomon deal slipped in by seconds. Three years ago, its Alvey deal missed the deadline. If it's true that Fremantle is a soft touch at trading, is prepared to forgo this year's draft to top up for a shot at the flag next year and the only trade Essendon could manage was a nothing trade for third round picks, that suggests that clubs are reluctant to trade with Essendon. It has been clearing out its list over the past couple of years by delisting rather than by trading. None of us know what really happens but I'd say that Essendon's past behaviour does count against it and that other clubs are reluctant to deal with it.

 

[ant555]

According to both the Australian and the Sun, the Collingwood - Fremantle deal only proceeded after Essendon was cut out. The Solomon deal slipped in by seconds. Three years ago, its Alvey deal missed the deadline. If it's true that Fremantle is a soft touch at trading, is prepared to forgo this year's draft to top up for a shot at the flag next year and the only trade Essendon could manage was a nothing trade for third round picks, that suggests that clubs are reluctant to trade with Essendon. It has been clearing out its list over the past couple of years by delisting rather than by trading. None of us know what really happens but I'd say that Essendon's past behaviour does count against it and that other clubs are reluctant to deal with it.

I know we do over do the trade period hard ball a bit but it is not like we havnt been involved in a number of successfull three way deals in the past.We have been reasonably good at coming to the party with three ways deals.
The trouble we seem to have is dealing with when Miller is involved for whatever reason.I wouldnt say our past behavior has anything to do with it. The problem was we didnt have anything decent to offer up other than draft picks we where not going to trade. You can see the difference in our trades running in a line with the decline of our list.We are simply at the stage where we dont have a lot to offer on the trade table unless we start putting up players like Lucas,Monfires,Stanton and co. Players we shouldnt be trading. The quality in the middle of our list has dropped of enormously which makes it hard to trade as no one wants the scraps from a team that won 3 1/2 games.
As for the nothing deal with Solomon it was better than simply letting him go into the PSD. He wasnt going to stay so we got soemthing for him.

 

[The invisible mullet]

The Hawks are the big loser from trade week as they made a mess out of a real chance to get a decent fullback and instead will go into the season without a real option there.

 

[D Mitchell]

The Hawks are the big loser from trade week as they made a mess out of a real chance to get a decent fullback and instead will go into the season without a real option there.

Carlton were never going to release Thornton. Hawthorn may well have cut its own throat by hanging out until the deadline to accept an offer that had been available for 5 days. That stopped it from being involved in other deals and has probably made it difficult for itself next year time. If there as a loser, I think that Fremantle paid too much for Tarrent and I can't see why it wanted Solomon but Connolly is happy and he knows more than me about Fremantle's needs.

 

[celtic_pride]

Least Thornton got a free dinner out of Hawthorn.

We'll grab him in the preseason draft.

In the words of Mark Williams
"JAYMIN YOU WERE WRONG"

Looks like the bumbers may have to settle with Shane woewodin or Clark keating in the PSD in line with Sheedy's recent top up policy
This is one year that actually finishing last was a blessing

 

[giantsully]

Why is trade week so hard to understand for some people?

Well, since it's pretty clear that you don't understand let me help you.

If Trade Week was a one-off game, your mate Pillock would be absolutely correct to go as hard as he possibly could to get the best deal, no matter what the long term cost.

Unfortunately for Pillock, Trade Week did not conclude at the end of the first week of October, 2005. Instead, year after year, Hawthorn needs to deal with the other clubs in exactly the same format & under the same rules.

After 2005 & his most recent trading master class, the other clubs now know the following about Hawthorn and Pillock:
- they know he will push for the hardest deal notwithstanding he knows (or at the least the club knows) that a player is fatally flawed in some shape or form;
- they know that he is prepared to lie about fictional offers (both received and made);
- they know that he will use the media to try to push his case;
- they know he (or someone at Hawthorn) will use their best endeavours to convince young uncontracted players to turn their back on their existing club;
- they know that he will bluff like the worst amateur poker player but collapse like a miscooked souffle at the last minute;
- they know he will waste hours of their time in useless protracted negotiations.

Because Trade Week is a recurrent game in game theory terms, your mate Pillock is now in a position where few clubs will want to have anything to woth him unless they must and if they must they will assume that his starting position is either false or a bluff. That's all bad news for Hawthorn fans I'm afraid.

 

[Hawk Dork]

I was under the impresion that every time you negotiate with someone you always tell the truth and so do they.

then I woke up

 

[worthy]

Well, since it's pretty clear that you don't understand let me help you.

If Trade Week was a one-off game, your mate Pillock would be absolutely correct to go as hard as he possibly could to get the best deal, no matter what the long term cost.

Unfortunately for Pillock, Trade Week did not conclude at the end of the first week of October, 2005. Instead, year after year, Hawthorn needs to deal with the other clubs in exactly the same format & under the same rules.

After 2005 & his most recent trading master class, the other clubs now know the following about Hawthorn and Pillock:
- they know he will push for the hardest deal notwithstanding he knows (or at the least the club knows) that a player is fatally flawed in some shape or form;
- they know that he is prepared to lie about fictional offers (both received and made);
- they know that he will use the media to try to push his case;
- they know he (or someone at Hawthorn) will use their best endeavours to convince young uncontracted players to turn their back on their existing club;
- they know that he will bluff like the worst amateur poker player but collapse like a miscooked souffle at the last minute;
- they know he will waste hours of their time in useless protracted negotiations.

Because Trade Week is a recurrent game in game theory terms, your mate Pillock is now in a position where few clubs will want to have anything to woth him unless they must and if they must they will assume that his starting position is either false or a bluff. That's all bad news for Hawthorn fans I'm afraid.

I wasn't going to be bothered with this but, just for you, what also became clear is that the Swans will fold and make at least one better offer, even after stating that their first offer is final and no other offers will be made. No wonder Pelchen waited, they caved on their first stance, makes sense to see if they would cave on their second.

 

[CyberKev]

I wasn't going to be bothered with this but, just for you, what also became clear is that the Swans will fold and make at least one better offer, even after stating that their first offer is final and no other offers will be made. No wonder Pelchen waited, they caved on their first stance, makes sense to see if they would cave on their second.

You shouldn't waste your time with tools like this, Worthy.

Its interesting that threads around Pelchin are invariably hijacked by the following four types of agenda-driven barrow pushers:

1) Carlton fans with short memories who are bitter beyond repair at Hawthorn having the temerity to take an interest in a player from their club who was disgruntled with their club and out of contract. Had roles been reversed they wouldn't have thought squat of the whole thing and the clear subtext from these types is that they're desperate to deflect attention from Carlton's ultra-depressing on going woes.

2) Sydney fans with short memories of past Sydney behaviour, spoilt by having the AFL bow to their every whim in recent times and appalled that Hawthorn could have the temerity to make them actually wait for something. Glad they lost the other weekend in retrospect.

3) Collingwood & Adelaide fans toting a clear anti-Pelchen bias derived from his past association with Port Adelaide (for the latter) and his role in the Stevens affair (for the former).

4) The usual Kangaroo, Tiger and Bomber Hawk-hating tragics who are in it solely for the troll.

Pretty much a motley crue linked only by their obvious lack of credibility.