bulldogtragic
28-02-2016, 02:32 PM
So all the conversation about the round 1 team makes a case for arguing we have a very, very strong list. Looking at Hawthorn as the blue print to making a dynasty - two issues come to mind, one is about players 23-35 staying as long as possible, and covering losses of players who want more opportunity or more cash.
Do we have the club culture or the sorts of players that will stay knowing they're not best 22 but better than 35 on the list? Hawthorn made an art form of depth players like Spangher, Simpkin etc hanging around and stepping up when injuries pop up, and persisting with later bloomers like Ceglar & Schoenmakers. It's one thing to have depth, but it's another thing about keeping them.
But Hawthorn also didn't keep all their good players, or many depth players. Josh Kennedy, McGlynn, Ellis, Suckling, Buddy Franklin, Renouf, Sierakowski, Lisle, Murphy, Young, Gilham, Hallahan, Anderson. I guess this says their narrative about one in, one out is true to an extent, but some players will willingly leave for cash or opportunity. The flip side, they traded well and used their picks from most of the above well.
So if it's anything to go on, we will be losing some players especially with Essendon needing to fill 15+ spots with a heap of cash. Recently, we've done well on the Cooney (he's shot), Griffen & Jones trades and allowing Higgins out. Assuming some more depth type players don't cement down spots, do you see guys like Hrovat, Jong, Honeychurch, Campbell, Roberts etc. as willing to be depth players, to give the playing roster the best chance at a flag? Are they willing to knock back better opportunities on more money? Should the club be proactively looking to have names out in the open market to get the best trades possible factoring some will go anyway so best get some more or better picks, or free some room and cash for free Agents?
Do we have the club culture or the sorts of players that will stay knowing they're not best 22 but better than 35 on the list? Hawthorn made an art form of depth players like Spangher, Simpkin etc hanging around and stepping up when injuries pop up, and persisting with later bloomers like Ceglar & Schoenmakers. It's one thing to have depth, but it's another thing about keeping them.
But Hawthorn also didn't keep all their good players, or many depth players. Josh Kennedy, McGlynn, Ellis, Suckling, Buddy Franklin, Renouf, Sierakowski, Lisle, Murphy, Young, Gilham, Hallahan, Anderson. I guess this says their narrative about one in, one out is true to an extent, but some players will willingly leave for cash or opportunity. The flip side, they traded well and used their picks from most of the above well.
So if it's anything to go on, we will be losing some players especially with Essendon needing to fill 15+ spots with a heap of cash. Recently, we've done well on the Cooney (he's shot), Griffen & Jones trades and allowing Higgins out. Assuming some more depth type players don't cement down spots, do you see guys like Hrovat, Jong, Honeychurch, Campbell, Roberts etc. as willing to be depth players, to give the playing roster the best chance at a flag? Are they willing to knock back better opportunities on more money? Should the club be proactively looking to have names out in the open market to get the best trades possible factoring some will go anyway so best get some more or better picks, or free some room and cash for free Agents?