Delistings?

[LostDoggy]

Do we need to complete delistings yet or have our retirements covered our list changes?

[Cyberdoggie]

I believe it's by the end of this month (29th?)

We have finalized our list yet.

So far other than the retirements and trades, Shane Thorne i believe is the only 1 that has been officially been delisted.

Expect more.

[GVGjr]

Article in the Hun indicates we still haven't made up our mind if Hahn will get another season or not. Even if its a money issue that they are trying to work out it just strikes me as strange that we can't make up our mind one way or the other.

It will be interesting to hear the reason why he is either kept on for another 12 months or so or not.
If he is maintained it will be along the lines of "Mitch offers us a wealth of experience and someone that can still play senior football and given our late draft picks we couldn't get better" or "We have decided to go in another direction and Mitch doesn't meet long term plans".

I can't see the logic of waiting to make a last minute decision on Hahn.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Article in the Hun indicates we still haven't made up our mind if Hahn will get another season or not. Even if its a money issue that they are trying to work out it just strikes me as strange that we can't make up our mind one way or the other.

It will be interesting to hear the reason why he is either kept on for another 12 months or so or not.
If he is maintained it will be along the lines of "Mitch offers us a wealth of experience and someone that can still play senior football and given our late draft picks we couldn't get better" or "We have decided to go in another direction and Mitch doesn't meet long term plans".

I can't see the logic of waiting to make a last minute decision on Hahn.

Clearly we are trying to balance the books. I think we believed we would offload either Minson or Hill and now I think we might have some cap issues.

[GVGjr]

Clearly we are trying to balance the books. I think we believed we would offload either Minson or Hill and now I think we might have some cap issues.


Does that really explain why we are waiting until the last minute to either sign him or not?
I understand the cap issues but does that mean if he is reasonable with his financial demands we want to keep him?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Does that really explain why we are waiting until the last minute to either sign him or not?
I understand the cap issues but does that mean if he is reasonable with his financial demands we want to keep him?

I think you will find we are trying to re-negotiate other players existing contracts to find a way to fit him in.

Not to ask others to take pay cuts, but perhaps to move around when they get paid rather than how much.

[Cyberdoggie]

Does that really explain why we are waiting until the last minute to either sign him or not?
I understand the cap issues but does that mean if he is reasonable with his financial demands we want to keep him?

You would think we would treat a long serving player with all due respect, and that it wouldn't be along the lines of we haven't made our mind up yet.

We must have some serious number crunching to do to fit him in, and perhaps he's not as willing to accept bare minimum.

So I agree that i think the club wants him, but only at the money it can afford to pay him.

[Cyberdoggie]

Perhaps Mitch doesn't like the offer we have given him and might be asking around to see if any other clubs might be interested?

Although if this is the case then i'm sure the media might have picked up on it by now.

[Mantis]

I think you will find we are trying to re-negotiate other players existing contracts to find a way to fit him in.

Not to ask others to take pay cuts, but perhaps to move around when they get paid rather than how much.

We did the same with Eagleton last year. ie. Didn't make a decision until cut-off time.

[GVGjr]

I think you will find we are trying to re-negotiate other players existing contracts to find a way to fit him in.

Not to ask others to take pay cuts, but perhaps to move around when they get paid rather than how much.

So in a round-a-bout way the preference for the club is to keep him on with the proviso some others can shuffle their payments around (back load)?

I don't find this surprising, because we seem to have a preference to stick with the older guys, but I will be interested in how the club might justify it.

[LostDoggy]

I'd prefer to put up with a Tiller/Mulligan/Boumann/Markovic as defensive cover for the established defenders. What's the point of a one year deal for a player who's got the best out of his ability, but is clearly two steps behind todays pace? Also to push around players contracts to fit him in (if that's correct) for a year seems like a waste of time.

Give the younger blokes a chance, if it comes up. We know Hahns' limitations - we may never know theirs.

[LostDoggy]

I really do hope the club bites the bullet with players like Mitch as we have a history of remaining very loyal to the older players .... which is very noble. However it has also impeded the development of our younger players and the strategy has not been successful because we have been unable to get past the previous three PF"s.

Time to adopt a similar approach to Collingwod in regard to younger v ageing players who are unable to contribute on a consistent basis.

[GVGjr]

You would think we would treat a long serving player with all due respect, and that it wouldn't be along the lines of we haven't made our mind up yet.

We must have some serious number crunching to do to fit him in, and perhaps he's not as willing to accept bare minimum.

So I agree that i think the club wants him, but only at the money it can afford to pay him.

I'm all about respecting senior players and that is why I would have through a decision should have been made quickly one way or the other.
It would appear that we want to keep him and just have to get creative to do so.
If he stays he deserves more than the minimum.

[LostDoggy]

If we delist him would he be likely to enter the PS draft and be picked up by GC, considering he's a QLder and they have basically no experienced/established players up front?
I'm not sure of his family situation down here and i've never heard him state a desire to move back home, but he'd be almost guaranteed an extended run in their side with his experience and their lack of up fwd.

I couldn't see him being drafted by any other team.

[BulldogBelle]

Keeping Hahn in 2011 will hurt our chances in 2012 and onwards by not giving guys like Jones and Roughead a chance to develop at FF/CHF

Its a brutal and tough decision to make...but the team needs to be bigger than the individual.

We leart the shortcomings of keeping ageing veterans like Eagle, Johno and Aker this year.

Maybe the Gold Coast would be looking for a mature body, mentoring role & great clubman & could pick Mitch up for nothing in the PSD.

[OLD SCRAGGer]

Final de-listings need to be made by Friday, so let's not speculate anything...it's only 2 days away:D

[LostDoggy]

Keeping Hahn in 2011 will hurt our chances in 2012 and onwards by not giving guys like Jones and Roughead a chance to develop at FF/CHF

Not sure I'd agree with that. Firstly they don't play the same roles.
Also everyone thought it was the same with Eagleton this season yet by the end of season through injury/problems he was required.




Maybe the Gold Coast would be looking for a mature body, mentoring role & great clubman & could pick Mitch up for nothing in the PSD.
Not sure GCS will take a punt on him if we don't. Clayton isn't that silly.

[mighty_west]

Not sure GCS will take a punt on him if we don't. Clayton isn't that silly.

GC have no forwards what so ever, so he could be a decent fit for a season, maybe 2, that said, Clayton has said they won't be taking any more mature players.

[LostDoggy]

We are too soft.

As Dog House says, do we want to get games into our younger players to put us in a position to get past a PF?

The other option is to be soft and keep players like Mitch on our list because he has been a "loyal servant". However, this doesnt do anything for advancing the future of the club.

I want us to actually win a premiership and not "just" make the finals series and be everybody's second team because we are good blokes or because they feel sorry for us due to our lack of success.

[gohardorgohome]

To me it all depends if Mitch Hahn was playing with any injuries during the year and whether he is over them. From memory he was smashed a couple of times and that could have had impact on other parts of his body.

His form was not good but if he was playing hurt as a result of impact injuries, and he is now fully fit, and he is tested that his pace and agility under fatigue is up to scratch with previous years, then I would keep him on at a much reduced salary.

If Mitch cannot tick all of these boxes I would like to think he should be given a thank you send off by the club.

[LostDoggy]

What's the point of a one year deal for a player who's got the best out of his ability, but is clearly two steps behind todays pace?




Mitch is two steps behind the guys who are two steps behind today's pace.

He's been a terrific player for us; but he has to go. He played 19 games this season and his form did not warrant eight. The same thing would happen again next season if he played on.

[Remi Moses]

Agree entirely ^^^^a player can hit the wall very quickly the way Mitch plays.

[Bulldog Joe]

I'm all about respecting senior players and that is why I would have through a decision should have been made quickly one way or the other.
It would appear that we want to keep him and just have to get creative to do so.
If he stays he deserves more than the minimum.

Disagree GVG.
Mitch only warrants a minimum with match payments, which is better than delisting.
Option for Mitch is PSD if anyone else is interested.

Personally, I would like him retained. He could be important cover at the business end.

[comrade]

Personally, I would like him retained. He could be important cover at the business end.

We used him as cover at the business end this year and it got us nowhere.

BJ, I appreciate your insights but I can't stand that way of thinking. It reeks of conservatism; unfortunately, it probably means the footy department shares the same opinion as you.

When he is retained we'll hear a comment such as 'with the draft pool diluted, we felt a mature body like Mitch's was going to give us more than a late draftee'.

Obviously we've forgotten that it is possible to pick up players such as Lake, Boyd, Morris, Picken and Harbrow with late/rookie picks.

[GVGjr]

Disagree GVG.
Mitch only warrants a minimum with match payments, which is better than delisting.
Option for Mitch is PSD if anyone else is interested.

Personally, I would like him retained. He could be important cover at the business end.

I'm not saying that Hahn should be on an average wage but if he was maintained he should do a bit better than the minimum. Perhaps an incentive based contract might work well.

As for keeping him on, I can see your logic but I think we need to be testing the draft with a few picks that hopefully develop into decent players for us.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Obviously we've forgotten that it is possible to pick up players such as Lake, Boyd, Morris, Picken and Harbrow with late/rookie picks.

Or players the calibre of Brent Colbert, Paul O'Shea, Rowan Nayna, Gavin Hughes, Henry White and John Shaw

[GVGjr]

Or players the calibre of Brent Colbert, Paul O'Shea, Rowan Nayna, Gavin Hughes, Henry White and John Shaw

So your view is that we shouldn't look at late draft picks?
To me that is a sign that we don't have a lot of faith in our recruiting team. Why not back ourselves in to identify a talented player.

[Rocco Jones]

Or players the calibre of Brent Colbert, Paul O'Shea, Rowan Nayna, Gavin Hughes, Henry White and John Shaw

I think the point comrade was trying to raise is that we are well aware of these failures but seem to be ignoring the fact that late draft selections can also be successful.

[EasternWest]

I think the point comrade was trying to raise is that we are well aware of these failures but seem to be ignoring the fact that late draft selections can also be successful.

I think the point is noted, but I'd wager the hit/miss ratio is pretty high towards miss on that one.

[LostDoggy]

Or players the calibre of Brent Colbert, Paul O'Shea, Rowan Nayna, Gavin Hughes, Henry White and John Shaw

Sockeye ... I would prefer to see the club trying to recruit new players who "may" be able to add somthing to our list rather hold on to players "who have credits" but have not been able to get us past a PF.

No use keeping on doing the same because we havent advanced.

Someone used the comparison of the Bulldogs and the Australian Cricket team the other day and it was spot on. Harder to get out of the side than in.

[Bulldog4life]

Sockeye ... I would prefer to see the club trying to recruit new players who "may" be able to add somthing to our list rather hold on to players "who have credits" but have not been able to get us past a PF.

No use keeping on doing the same because we havent advanced.

Someone used the comparison of the Bulldogs and the Australian Cricket team the other day and it was spot on. Harder to get out of the side than in.

Which players who deserved a game this year couldn't get in?

[LostDoggy]

What was the story with the rookies as the AFL site doesn't list anything. Upgrades, retains or delistings.

[Bulldog4life]

What was the story with the rookies as the AFL site doesn't list anything. Upgrades, retains or delistings.

I read in the HUN that only 2 rookies were retained as rookies. Those being Panos & Prato.

[Bulldog Joe]

We used him as cover at the business end this year and it got us nowhere. BJ, I appreciate your insights but I can't stand that way of thinking. It reeks of conservatism; unfortunately, it probably means the footy department shares the same opinion as you.

When he is retained we'll hear a comment such as 'with the draft pool diluted, we felt a mature body like Mitch's was going to give us more than a late draftee'.

Obviously we've forgotten that it is possible to pick up players such as Lake, Boyd, Morris, Picken and Harbrow with late/rookie picks.

Mitch was ok in the pre-final and it is doubtful we can pick up someone with our available picks who can provide what Mitch will for 2011.

I understand the need for continual renewal, but we also need to maintain a premiership challenge. We have plenty of developing youth and if players like Jones and Cordy make the expected progress and Jarrad Grant takes another step we will be transitioning in a successful manner.

However, if something sets them back, Hahn provides a competitive player, who is capable.

[LostDoggy]

Couldn't agree more, even though I agree that Mitch has slowed up, I hate reading all the bagging of him on here.

[chef]

Mitch was ok in the pre-final and it is doubtful we can pick up someone with our available picks who can provide what Mitch will for 2011.

I understand the need for continual renewal, but we also need to maintain a premiership challenge. We have plenty of developing youth and if players like Jones and Cordy make the expected progress and Jarrad Grant takes another step we will be transitioning in a successful manner.

However, if something sets them back, Hahn provides a competitive player, who is capable.

I'm happy to keep Mitch on the list as insurance on Bazza's fitness and only give him games when he needs a rest or is injured/suspended..

[EasternWest]

Couldn't agree more, even though I agree that Mitch has slowed up, I hate reading all the bagging of him on here.

With respect, I'm not sure I've seen anyone bag Mitch. In fact I'd say it's the opposite. Most acknowledge what a great servant of our club he has been. He's been terrific.

Mitch's quality and service aside, most seem to think his time is up/there's no point keeping him at the expense of developing youth.

FWIW, I am with those that think Mitch is done as an AFL player, and thank him for his superb effort.

[LostDoggy]

I read in the HUN that only 2 rookies were retained as rookies. Those being Panos & Prato.

So Hooper and Moles upgraded, Panos and Prato retained, Rose and Daniels delisted?

[Bulldog4life]

So Hooper and Moles upgraded, Panos and Prato retained, Rose and Daniels delisted?

It mentioned the upgrades and the retained rookies but it didn't quote who the delisted rookies were. I assume you are right though.

[mjp]

However, if something sets them back, Hahn provides a competitive player, who is capable.

Competitive? Yes. Capable? No.

He is too slow to play back and does not provide a reliable forward option. I just don't understand the club's thought process here. We made the same move with Eagleton last year - one more year as a 'backup' - and exactly how did that work out for us?

He has been a great servant but his last 12-months have been poor and he has lost all of his leg-speed...

[boydogs]

We made the same move with Eagleton last year - one more year as a 'backup' - and exactly how did that work out for us?

I think using Eagleton as an example supports the opposite argument
Eagleton 2010 > Hahn 2010

[Mantis]

I think using Eagleton as an example supports the opposite argument
Eagleton 2010 > Hahn 2010

The point is that we got exactly from Eagleton what we expected, some reasonable to good footy against the weaker sides and then pretty much nothing against the quality teams.

It would be the same for Hahn.

[LostDoggy]

Hahn has been unable to show poise and balance to get to and win contests. An absolute must in today's football at the top level. As a result he ended being more a liability...fumbling, not able to bend over, missing the ball and colliding with players. I think he has been a great servant of our club but cannot fathom how, in the past, Rohan Smith was encouraged to retire when he lost his speed, yet Mitch appears to be treated differently.

[FrediKanoute]

So your view is that we shouldn't look at late draft picks?
To me that is a sign that we don't have a lot of faith in our recruiting team. Why not back ourselves in to identify a talented player.

Not sure its a sign of no confidence in the recruiting team more of a realisation that by the time you are getting to pick 140 in a draft the pool of talent is thin.....very thin and you then start balancing whether the highly speculative guy you pick will ever make it against a guy like Hahn who if asked could come in and contribute...maybe not at the level needed consistently, but he could still offer more than a 140th pick kid.

[LostDoggy]

I do think that Mitch provides value in the wet, rare as that is. May be useful for Willy though.

[jeemak]

Hahn has been unable to show poise and balance to get to and win contests. An absolute must in today's football at the top level. As a result he ended being more a liability...fumbling, not able to bend over, missing the ball and colliding with players. I think he has been a great servant of our club but cannot fathom how, in the past, Rohan Smith was encouraged to retire when he lost his speed, yet Mitch appears to be treated differently.

To be fair, Smith's game was more aligned with pace and line breaking than what Mitch's game is.

It's interesting to see where the team is at now, compared with 06 when Smith retired. It was considered back then, that if we were to take our list to the next level we had to move Smith on, we were a team that played some great football over the prvious two years but really needed to freshen up and get some younger players into roles guys like Smith were filling. Now, I think we're in a very similar situation to what we were back then. We're a much better team now, but we've found ourselves in a holding pattern of not quite being good enough to hit a GF appearance and we need to take our list a step further. We've lost Aker, Johnson and Eagleton, I think Hahn needs to follow them.

Not sure if the MC will do it though.

[Topdog]

Not sure its a sign of no confidence in the recruiting team more of a realisation that by the time you are getting to pick 140 in a draft the pool of talent is thin.....very thin and you then start balancing whether the highly speculative guy you pick will ever make it against a guy like Hahn who if asked could come in and contribute...maybe not at the level needed consistently, but he could still offer more than a 140th pick kid.

I never understand this line of thought. Why does Mitch need to be compared to whoever is around in pick 140. We still have 20 players not in the 22(1). Mitch will be competing for a spot against the guys ranked 23-30(ish). Our younger guys in Jones, Cordy, Howard , etc. are the ones who Mitch should be ranked against not some guy who we are selecting that we hope becomes good in 3-4 years.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Just thinking of the above points that all have made, I went to put together next years side to see how far down our lists goes before Mitch got a game. This is if all are fit and well and based on a few assumptions.
My side;
B: Morris, Lake, Wood
HB: Gilbee, Williams, Hargrave
C: Sherman, Cross, Ward
HF: Murphy, Grant, Higgo
F: Gia, Hall, Veszpremi
R: Hudson, Boyd, Cooney
I: Griffen, Moles, Picken

This leaves the sub spot open and with out the game plan I would rate the next players in this order.
Reid, Djerrhura, Hill, Jones, Hooper, Addison, Tiller, Hahn, Wallace, Howard, Libba That is with out a spare ruck which would be Roughy, Minson, Cordy.

Based on the attached list and the injury's we have had over the 3 years I would keep Mitch on but on a performance based contract as he could still be required to fill a gap over next season.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I never understand this line of thought. Why does Mitch need to be compared to whoever is around in pick 140. We still have 20 players not in the 22(1). Mitch will be competing for a spot against the guys ranked 23-30(ish). Our younger guys in Jones, Cordy, Howard , etc. are the ones who Mitch should be ranked against not some guy who we are selecting that we hope becomes good in 3-4 years.

It's not that hard to understand.

If Mitch gets delisted we get to draft another kid and our next pick is 90 or so.

The equation is simply is Mitch Hahn in 2011 > Some kid taken at pick 90 in 2011 onwards (for as long as he's on the list).

Personally, I think Hahn = zero. New kid might also = zero (and almost certainly will in 2011) but might not longer term.

[Topdog]

It's not that hard to understand.

If Mitch gets delisted we get to draft another kid and our next pick is 90 or so.

The equation is simply is Mitch Hahn in 2011 > Some kid taken at pick 90 in 2011 onwards (for as long as he's on the list).

Personally, I think Hahn = zero. New kid might also = zero (and almost certainly will in 2011) but might not longer term.

My point is that is an illogical way of looking at it. If you look at things that way they you never make anyone retire.

[LostDoggy]

Spoke to a guy who knows Jamason Daniels really well, and he said Daniels was told 3 weeks ago his services were no longer required. He also said that Jamason was heading over to the WAFL and hadn't given up his dream to get on an AFL list again.

[Jasper]

Think the game has past Hahn by, however, still think there is room for Hahn if Hall was unable to play. Would not like to see Hahn play except if Hall couldn't, and even then only if there was no-one else ready. Of our slower forwards, Jones, Cordy, and Roughead would hopefully be ahead of Hahn by commencement of next year.

Interesting to see what happens, I get the feeling the club will retain Hahn if they can - would prefer we didn't, and roll the dice on a youngster.

[Before I Die]

Spoke to a guy who knows Jamason Daniels really well, and he said Daniels was told 3 weeks ago his services were no longer required. He also said that Jamason was heading over to the WAFL and hadn't given up his dream to get on an AFL list again.

According to an AFL website article posted on Friday 5 November, both Daniels and Rose are gone. The article lists Panos and Prato as our only rookies.

[Cyberdoggie]

If your trying to make a mathematical equation of it, then you would need to minus points for Hahn taking a spot at Willy or in the dogs side instead of a younger player who could use the experience in that role.

In 2012 When Hahn is nothing but a memory, we might bring in a kid like Jones for example and then we would look back in hindsight and wished that we gave him a go in 2011 to get some valuable experience in him instead of persisting with a list clogger like Hahn.

For me, Hahn is washed up. Even if he did offer us something this year, he certainly wouldn't the following year. He's in the tail end of his career so naturally his performances will decline sharply if it hasn't already.

[EasternWest]

If your trying to make a mathematical equation of it, then you would need to minus points for Hahn taking a spot at Willy or in the dogs side instead of a younger player who could use the experience in that role.

In 2012 When Hahn is nothing but a memory, we might bring in a kid like Jones for example and then we would look back in hindsight and wished that we gave him a go in 2011 to get some valuable experience in him instead of persisting with a list clogger like Hahn.

For me, Hahn is washed up. Even if he did offer us something this year, he certainly wouldn't the following year. He's in the tail end of his career so naturally his performances will decline sharply if it hasn't already.

Harsh. Very harsh. I agree that his days are done, but he deserves better than to be given this moniker (even if it's intent is accurate).

Aaron Fiora. There's a list clogger of the highest order.

[Ghost Dog]

Harsh. Very harsh. I agree that his days are done, but he deserves better than to be given this moniker (even if it's intent is acurate).

.

I agree. I suppose I try to write comments imagining that a player might come on here and read them. Mitch is at the tail end of his career, that's true. The other part could have been expressed differently I guess. Anyone know what's going on with negotiations re-Mitch?

[Mitcha]

Take it as read, Hahn and Tiller gone.

[Desipura]

Take it as read, Hahn and Tiller gone.
When will it be announced? today?

[Desipura]

Jarrod Atkinson would be worth a rookie at least. Quick with the ability to run and carry.

[aker39]

Jarrod Atkinson would be worth a rookie at least. Quick with the ability to run and carry.

He was told last Friday by Essendon to shape up or ship out. He didn't turn up to training yesterday and then rang the club and told them he had lost the passion to play.

Don't touch him with a 10ft pole.

[BulldogBelle]

RE: Hahn

We would be better of recruiting a 'spare parts' player in a Leigh Brown mould rather than keeping Hahn. One that's younger and more mobile. Someone who doesnt cost us anything.

In the forwardline, Roughead, Jones and possibly Cordy, Minson or Reid could play Mitch's 2010 role far better than what he could in 2012.

[LostDoggy]

Wouldn't even think about Neagle. The Titanic still has a better turning circle.

[Desipura]

I was waiting for someone to say, I would rather Rowan Atkinson.

[wend1604]

According to an AFL website article posted on Friday 5 November, both Daniels and Rose are gone. The article lists Panos and Prato as our only rookies.

Patrick Rose has signed with VFL club Port Melbourne according to their website.

[Sedat]

I was waiting for someone to say, I would rather Rowan Atkinson.
I would, and I reckon Merv Neagle would have better athleticsm than Jay even today :)

Jarrod Atkinson would only be considered by the Dogs under the little-known "have a great game against one team, do stuff-all against anyone else, but then get picked up by that team" rule, otherwise known as the 'Daniel Bandy' rule. Josh Gibson was also picked up by the Hawks with this rule.

[Cyberdoggie]

Harsh. Very harsh. I agree that his days are done, but he deserves better than to be given this moniker (even if it's intent is accurate).

Aaron Fiora. There's a list clogger of the highest order.

True, he was a wonderful servant of the club. But the fact is if we keep him on and he doesn't play afl much next year then he is a list clogger.

Mitch has shown that he isn't much of a backman, and we now have 2x young forwards who now have priority over Mitch in the forward line. Mitch also struggles in that role since Barry has become the focal point, so what purpose will it serve to have him in the squad?.
It could only be in case of a severe emergency where Barry and maybe 1 of those forwards weren't available. If this is the case i'd rather try another option to give them experience.

Unfortunately Mitch's career was always going to end like this what with his style of game.
He's not someone you can hide on a back flank in his twilight years unfortunately.

[Mofra]

Mitch has shown that he isn't much of a backman, and we now have 2x young forwards who now have priority over Mitch in the forward line. Mitch also struggles in that role since Barry has become the focal point, so what purpose will it serve to have him in the squad?.
With all due respect to Mitch, there are more than 2 youngsters in front of him, as well as two oldies.
Hall & Gia aside (senior players, 1 & 2 on the goal tally) we have:

Hill - 5th on the goal kicking list, 2nd on goal ave, 6th in tackles
Grant - Breakout year, 3rd on the goal kicking list
Higgins - Ahead of Hhan in goals despite playing 2 games less
Jones - Set to be a permanent fixture this year, splits the tall defenders. Better goal ave than Mitch.

That's 6 right there before we consider Roughy will rest there, a resting mid may take up a spot, Veszpremi will get games, Djerkurra and Hooper may get games. Heck, even Stack was ahead of Hahn on average goals and I don't rate him at all.

[Scorlibo]

With all due respect to Mitch, there are more than 2 youngsters in front of him, as well as two oldies.
Hall & Gia aside (senior players, 1 & 2 on the goal tally) we have:

Hill - 5th on the goal kicking list, 2nd on goal ave, 6th in tackles
Grant - Breakout year, 3rd on the goal kicking list
Higgins - Ahead of Hhan in goals despite playing 2 games less
Jones - Set to be a permanent fixture this year, splits the tall defenders. Better goal ave than Mitch.

That's 6 right there before we consider Roughy will rest there, a resting mid may take up a spot, Veszpremi will get games, Djerkurra and Hooper may get games. Heck, even Stack was ahead of Hahn on average goals and I don't rate him at all.

Why are you looking at goals? Hill kicks a lot of goals, doesn't stop him from being useless. Hahn had a different role with Barry in the forwardline. He was never asked to kick bags. There's probably less pressure on Mitch to kick goals than there is on Cooney or Griffen.

He is still ahead of Hill, Grant and Jones. That may change in 2011 (I hope it does), but let's not kid ourselves, Grant was just a contributor in most the games he played and as for Jones, despite showing oodles of energy and effort, he was clearly out of his depth.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

We are too soft.

As Dog House says, do we want to get games into our younger players to put us in a position to get past a PF?

The other option is to be soft and keep players like Mitch on our list because he has been a "loyal servant". However, this doesnt do anything for advancing the future of the club.

I want us to actually win a premiership and not "just" make the finals series and be everybody's second team because we are good blokes or because they feel sorry for us due to our lack of success.

The situation that has arisen with Hahn is not all that dis- similar with other senior players who have been selected at different stages during the 2010 season, even though their form didn't justify it, for example players such as Minson, Gia, Gilbee and Hahn. There was a reluctance to persevere with young talent in Jones and Roughead. Our lack of depth
also proved a problem due in the main to poor recruiting.

[Mofra]

Why are you looking at goals? Hill kicks a lot of goals, doesn't stop him from being useless.
Call me old fasioned, but I tend to prefer it if we kick more goals than the opposition. Goals are actually a good thing.


Hahn had a different role with Barry in the forwardline. He was never asked to kick bags. There's probably less pressure on Mitch to kick goals than there is on Cooney or Griffen.
What role was that? If you're a forward I would hope that goals, assists, marks, tackles and defensive pressure by running/blocking space are important. Hahn dropped off markedly during the year, to the degree that his spot in the team is questioned.

Given he will arguably play as a "5th tall" at times next year with Hall, Grant, Jones & Roughead resting forward I'm not sure the role we need in 2011 is the same as the beginning of 2010, when Roughy & Jones had yet to debut, the interchange rule was different, and Grant was noweher near the best 22.


He is still ahead of Hill, Grant and Jones. That may change in 2011 (I hope it does), but let's not kid ourselves, Grant was just a contributor in most the games he played and as for Jones, despite showing oodles of energy and effort, he was clearly out of his depth.

I don't believe Jones looked out of his depth - raw perhaps, but his work with Hall was more than encouraging, he offered defensive pressure, chased, took a legitimate no 2 tall defender and all this a year after playing majority school football. Jones almost overtook Hahn in 2010, and given the pace issues with Hahn I'd expect Jones to be ahead of him by the end of the pre season.

Grant behind Hahn? Can't say I agree, and certainly don't think Hahn would be selected over Grant come around 1 2011.

Hill has one more year to prove he can become a member of our best 22, but if I was to pick one of them to stay on our list for next year, I'd say Hill.

Hahn has been a fantastic servant for us but to think he's suddenly going to gain enough pace to play the modern game, or the game will slow down enough for him with the interchange rule, is folly. He finished last year in defence - what does that say about his credentials as a forward?

[LostDoggy]

I appreciate your loyalty to a favourite player, Scorlibo, but really...




Hahn had a different role with Barry in the forwardline.

Yes, it's called redundant. Let's not forget that we took a first game player into a semi final in an attempt to find someone (hell anyone) capable of adding defensive pressure to our forward line.




He was never asked to kick bags.

True, but he was asked to influence the game. Thirteen possessions to Hahn were once as valuable as twenty six to a midfielder. This year he played far too many games in which he had no influence at all.




He is still ahead of Hill, Grant and Jones.

He most certainly is not ahead of Grant and Jones.




let's not kid ourselves

My thoughts exactly.




Grant was just a contributor in most the games he played

Grant was better than that. Nevertheless, he 'contributed' much more than Hahn this year. Mitch contributed very little.




as for Jones, despite showing oodles of energy and effort

At least he showed oodles of energy and effort. Mitch looked stuck in the mud all year.




he was clearly out of his depth.

Sadly, it is Hahn who is now out of his depth. An excellent contributor and a great clubman; but the game has passed him by.

His body cannot cope with the speed of the modern game, and he can't impose himself on a match when he can't get from contest to contest. The match committee is as loyal to him as you are, Scorlibo. He played nineteen games this year when his form warranted eight or nine, meaning he took games away from young players who would have benefited from the senior experience. If he remains on our list next year the same thing will happen. It's time for him to go.

[LostDoggy]

He is still ahead of Hill, Grant and Jones.

Wow. If Jonesey and Grant looked 'out of their depth' at times, Mitch just looked sad in most of the games he played. If getting towelled up in every position he played by certified hacks isn't 'out of his depth', I don't know what is. His only value that I saw was in cameos in the wet, when his lack of pace wasn't such a massive liability.

No way Mitch should be ahead of Hill -- we are talking about a bloke we wanted a 1st round pick for to trade to the Hawks, and a guy who may or may not be worth the last spot on the list. If Mitch played instead of Josh in finals last year, that says more about Josh's attitude, and the conservatism of our match committee, than their respective current value to an AFL team. Hawthorn offered a couple of middling picks for Hill. Ask them what they would have offered for Mitch.

[Remi Moses]

Why are you looking at goals? Hill kicks a lot of goals, doesn't stop him from being useless. Hahn had a different role with Barry in the forwardline. He was never asked to kick bags. There's probably less pressure on Mitch to kick goals than there is on Cooney or Griffen.

He is still ahead of Hill, Grant and Jones. That may change in 2011 (I hope it does), but let's not kid ourselves, Grant was just a contributor in most the games he played and as for Jones, despite showing oodles of energy and effort, he was clearly out of his depth.

Mate, you haven't seen a game in 2010!
Those players besides possibly Hill are ahead of Mitch and all have more upside than Mitch.
Mitch ended up playing on a half back basically because we had Morris out and he couldn't get near it on the forward line!
We all love Mitch and his selfless style but unfortunately it takes a huge toll on the body.

[Scorlibo]

Just offering the other end of the argument. Hahn's value has been beaten down significantly on this forum. If you rate Hahn's season and value so lowly I can't imagine what you must think of the MC who gave him 20 odd games this year. Just saying that if it was as clear-cut as everyone here is making out there wouldn't be a decision to be made, he would already be gone!

On current form he is definitely ahead of Hill and Jones. He is probably ahead of Grant, despite Grant closing fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Grant will be a star and I have great faith in Jones from what we saw this year, but there is the youth rule to be applied. The question to be asked is whether they will go past Hahn next year, whether Hill can muster up enough of the correct attitude to look like anything more than an uninterested ragdoll who feeds off others' good work, and whether after this we still have enough forward talent to last us the year.

Mitch is not one of my 'favourite' players. I am actually of the view that he should go, but it pains me to see such a one sided set of views when clearly he deserves more consideration than he is being afforded.

[EasternWest]

Just offering the other end of the argument. Hahn's value has been beaten down significantly on this forum. If you rate Hahn's season and value so lowly I can't imagine what you must think of the MC who gave him 20 odd games this year. Just saying that if it was as clear-cut as everyone here is making out there wouldn't be a decision to be made, he would already be gone!

On current form he is definitely ahead of Hill and Jones. He is probably ahead of Grant, despite Grant closing fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Grant will be a star and I have great faith in Jones from what we saw this year, but there is the youth rule to be applied. The question to be asked is whether they will go past Hahn next year, whether Hill can muster up enough of the correct attitude to look like anything more than an uninterested ragdoll who feeds off others' good work, and whether after this we still have enough forward talent to last us the year.

Mitch is not one of my 'favourite' players. I am actually of the view that he should go, but it pains me to see such a one sided set of views when clearly he deserves more consideration than he is being afforded.

I'm not sure that he does.

I appreciate your even handed post, but for me, if we play Mitch next year, we are going backwards.

I think our match committee can be too conservative with their selections, but they're a lot closer to who's in what shape etc than I'll ever be, so that's the way it is.

But for all Hahn has given us, I can't see the value in keeping him on. He shouldn't play AFL, and he's taking a younger guys spot at Willy. So where will that leave him, and us, if we retain him?

It's a cutthroat game, and it pains me to say that the curtain should be closed on Mitch's career, but it should. Don't hate me Mitch, I still love you.;)

[chef]

Just offering the other end of the argument. Hahn's value has been beaten down significantly on this forum. If you rate Hahn's season and value so lowly I can't imagine what you must think of the MC who gave him 20 odd games this year. Just saying that if it was as clear-cut as everyone here is making out there wouldn't be a decision to be made, he would already be gone!

On current form he is definitely ahead of Hill and Jones. He is probably ahead of Grant, despite Grant closing fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Grant will be a star and I have great faith in Jones from what we saw this year, but there is the youth rule to be applied. The question to be asked is whether they will go past Hahn next year, whether Hill can muster up enough of the correct attitude to look like anything more than an uninterested ragdoll who feeds off others' good work, and whether after this we still have enough forward talent to last us the year.

Mitch is not one of my 'favourite' players. I am actually of the view that he should go, but it pains me to see such a one sided set of views when clearly he deserves more consideration than he is being afforded.

But will he be in 12 months time, that is what the MC need to work out.

[Bulldog Joe]

The situation that has arisen with Hahn is not all that dis- similar with other senior players who have been selected at different stages during the 2010 season, even though their form didn't justify it, for example players such as Minson, Gia, Gilbee and Hahn. There was a reluctance to persevere with young talent in Jones and Roughead. Our lack of depth
also proved a problem due in the main to poor recruiting.

I think you are being unduly harsh. Gia particularly earnt his spot as evidenced by the B&F. Gilbee, although below standard on a few occasions was never in any serious danger of losing his spot on form and Minson was sent back to Williamstown and made to earn his games with dominant efforts in the VFL, where he was definitely better than Roughead. Hahn did lose his spot and played at Willi and only returned when there was a significant injury crisis.


Wow. If Jonesey and Grant looked 'out of their depth' at times, Mitch just looked sad in most of the games he played. If getting towelled up in every position he played by certified hacks isn't 'out of his depth', I don't know what is. His only value that I saw was in cameos in the wet, when his lack of pace wasn't such a massive liability.

No way Mitch should be ahead of Hill -- we are talking about a bloke we wanted a 1st round pick for to trade to the Hawks, and a guy who may or may not be worth the last spot on the list. If Mitch played instead of Josh in finals last year, that says more about Josh's attitude, and the conservatism of our match committee, than their respective current value to an AFL team. Hawthorn offered a couple of middling picks for Hill. Ask them what they would have offered for Mitch.

Well if we go back to the last game Mitch was light years ahead of Grant (very disappointing finals from Grant).

Although, I do agree that for 2011 we should expect Jones and Grant to be better players than Hahn. Hill has the talent to leave Mitch well behind, if he somehows finds the desire to do so.

From reading a few posts on here and elsewhere it appears that one of the serious problems for Josh could relate to his father.

Is there any chance we could trade Josh's Dad to Collingwood - I think he could be well placed in the cheer squad with Joffa.

[gohardorgohome]

It all depends if he was playing hurt throughout the year. If he can now perform sprint and agility and recovery running at a level that is as good or better than previous seasons, then I would consider keeping him.

I'd think the club would be giving him the best chance to get right for the pre season. If he is not up to this level then it's time to call it a day.

[divvydan]

Mark Stevens says Hahn is gone

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-cut-mitch-hahn/story-e6frf9jf-1225950361878


MITCH Hahn's career at the Western Bulldogs appears over.

It understood Hahn has been told of his de-listing, with an official statement from the club imminent.

The Dogs had to make a call either way on the 29-year-old before today's list lodgement deadline.

Hahn, a life member with 181 games to his name, struggled for form this season and was not helped by the Dogs being under salary cap pressure leading into next season.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-cut-mitch-hahn/story-e6frf9jf-1225950361878

No mention of Tiller or anyone else in that article.

* He mentions "today" rather than tomorrow as it is going to be in tomorrow's paper

[The Pie Man]

Mark Stevens says Hahn is gone

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-cut-mitch-hahn/story-e6frf9jf-1225950361878



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-cut-mitch-hahn/story-e6frf9jf-1225950361878

No mention of Tiller or anyone else in that article.

* He mentions "today" rather than tomorrow as it is going to be in tomorrow's paper

If Stevo is on the money (he generally is with Dogs news) then it's a time of mixed feelings....ultimately, I feel we move forward, but all would agree Mitch has been a tireless worker for the cause - and for someone with perceived poor kicking skills, he worked a technique that slotted more than he missed in his time as a forward.

Another door surely opens here, which has me excited.

[Before I Die]

Jake Niall has run with the same story

Link
(http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dogs-make-tough-call-on-hahn-20101109-17m12.html)

[soupman]

As much as I feel it is the right decision to end his career, it still pains me to see a player like Hahn go. One of those players who you are proud to see wearing your colours, and whilst never being your "favorite" was always up there in players you loved watching.

It's a shame his trademark "force way through multiple players from both sides whilst picking up the ball and seemingly randomly throwing it onto boot for goal" wasn't seen for the past few seasons, but at least in 2009 we got to see him beat up Essendon again.

In terms of list management it is the right choice. Considering our forward line next year will feature Hall, Gia, Jones and a ruck man it can't afford another slow player unless they really impact games, and Hahn in 2010 didn't.

[boydogs]

Considering our forward line next year will feature Hall, Gia, Jones and a ruck man it can't afford another slow player unless they really impact games, and Hahn in 2010 didn't.

Hall & Jones aren't bad for big guys, but you can add Higgins