People were calling to trade valuable senior players long before Merrett requested his trade. We were presented with a great opportunity to turn a 30 year old into some fresh young talent, and we didn’t do it. The “if we traded him then we’d have to trade everybody that’s unhappy” argument is idiotic. If a player is contracted the club can always choose to keep them. Doesn’t mean it’s always the correct decision. Merrett will not be on the list when we’re contending next, full stop. We could have cashed out but didn’t.
5 Likes
The deal wasn’t good enough. If they had thrown in 2027 first and taken out pick 22 I would have said yes as we could use the ff1 to help get Bewick. The deal they offered just wasn’t what we needed.
10 Likes
Welcome back pal!
1 Like
The deal was absolutely good enough - people got greedy and emboldened by our “swagger” mantra thinking we’d get something that we never would.
This situation was never simply about letting Merrett go because he wanted to - it was about capitalising on a rare opportunity to cash out on a valuable but aging asset. It was absolutely the thing that a mature club in our situation would do. You can’t push out a player like Merrett, but if he wants to leave? CHA CHING.
Instead we had a new agent of chaos at the steering wheel of the club - promising to make things different by ironically repeating the mistakes of the past. Insanity.
3 Likes
No, just the ones who betray the club, attempt to break contract, have no bearing on our future success and can be traded for capital which hopefully will be around for future.
6 Likes
The fact he didn’t get traded validates the opinions of many - it wasn’t a fair deal. A bunch of late round draft selections impacted by concessions to the Suns, doesn’t equate to greed or swagger; it’s just a sh1tty proposal for your best player/captain.
Don’t get me wrong, my love for Merrett is completely gone. I think he’s a Judas weasel POS. But if you want a premium product, you have to pay for it, or as our friend Borat says:
9 Likes
We didn’t want to trade Merrett, hence why any offer for him was never going to cut it. We had a new president tether his presidency to not trading him. It was never happening.
My point is that we should have wanted to trade Merrett - if we were a mature, calculating club. Had we wanted to trade Merrett then the offer was fine. Not the overs that everyone wanted, but fine.
2 Likes
I take your point that the club didn’t want to trade him. I disagree that the offer was fine if the club was up for trading him. Agree to disagree.
2 Likes
It’s a very simplistic way to look at it as “we just let everyone go who asks to leave”. I am all for keeping people to their contract but in this case he was the captain. The guy who should be all-in and should be taking the next generation with him not someone saying that I want out because this club won’t give me success in the remaining 6 or 7 seasons I may have left. That’s where I feel the difference is. Plus you say the deal was no good for 14/23/23 - who says that’s what picks they would have been? They very much could have gone backwards after adding him for multiple reasons. Plus if it ended up being those picks you mentioned, who says they wouldn’t end up being superstars - we drafted him with pick 26 and had a chance to replace a near 30 old for 3 young players that could grow with the current young group.
The absolute GOAT of Blitz has returned in signature WOB style.
As per usual, hit all the right notes. Good to have you back 
1 Like
We didn’t have the list space to do that though.
1 Like
We can always trade Merrett next year and get dealings for 2028 to setup for that draft
Have to believe that’s the goal, but ya never know with this team
Reckon I could down a ginger beer (Matso or Brookvale) and clear some more list spots in 10 mins if I really set my mind to it.
1 Like
You and I could but the club wouldn’t have and it creates issues if you start delisting contracted players all over the shop.
Looks like the failed Merrett trade talk is back on. Hell yeah.
Yes, the key take away from it all was the Hawthorn were ■■■■■ and in the same breath, we handled it poorly. Everyone/everything is for sale provided the price is right so unless it was some type of bargaining strategy, screw the whole ‘he’s not for sale’ thing.
We needed to do more and sooner. Let it be known that we’re fielding offers and do it early. Get other clubs involved to keep Hawthorn honest and allow as much time as possible to generate a bidding war. Then, when Hawthorn (or someone else, who knows?) are forced to up their offer, you pounce. Ain’t rocket science.
Welshy seems convinced that he can turn things around and fast. Otherwise, he’d have let this germ go. Ballsy move. Hope he’s right and me and plenty of others are made look like fools. I’d have played the whole thing differently but that’s why he’s in charge and worth millions and am I’m some bloke on a forum.
3 Likes
We could easily have. It would have been Merritt out and 2 in, either 1 to replace Martin/Setterfield or pay someone out for the last year of their contract - there are always ways.
1 Like
Clubs would pass drafting players all the time if they have heard the player doesn’t want to be there.
In reality, the focus should be on making an environment that players don’t want to leave. If that means you have to take some short term pain and trade players who don’t want to stay around, then so be it.
Anything you said could have been said in 2019 when we decided to keep Joe. That decision turned out great didn’t it…
5 Likes
I’m several glasses of 1991 lakes folly in at the moment and just wanted to say ■■■■ Zach Merrett and ■■■■ hawthorn. No real reason.
14 Likes
Never need a reason to ■■■■ Hawthorn
3 Likes