I agree they’ve been more consistent, but disagree on value. It is more about future output, impact to a team, and the rarity of dominant key forwards vs the number of gun mids around.
Curnow is 2 years younger than Merrett and coming in to his prime for a key forward. Plus quality key forwards always attract a premium.
Sydney offered a better trade deal to us for Daniher, who had not shown as much as Curnow, and hadn’t even been on the park for 2 years.
If we wanted best 23 players, then im don’t think we ran the right strategy.
If our messaging is “we aren’t entertaining offers” then why would Hawks talk to good players about a move. That strategy leads to Hawks coming late with a Hail Mary offer.
Rather, should we have said to Hawks early in the period: we will trade Zach for 9, F1 and Mackenzie, or ■■■■ off. We still play hardball, but get the ball rolling earlier in the period
Nothing to do with me being on big footy.
I’m sicked tired of bottom teams being feeder clubs for the top sides by coming and stealing thier contracted superstars for peanuts.
Saints also made a stand by not trading Marshall to Geelong.
This years trade period is only the beginning we will see more bottom teams doing the exact same thing next year it’s time power goes back to the clubs
On the AFL site there are a few CEOs and Heads of Football doing the debriefs, doesn’t look that unusual.
It’s because they desperately needed Merrett to improve their team, and now all of the other sides fighting for the 5th - 8th ladder range that the Hawks sit in have all improved by a fair bit, and if anything, the Hawks are weaker after the trade period. They couldn’t have had a worse trade period. They’ve even admitted as much.
■■■■ them indeed, but if I was on their side of it watching basically every high ranking person at Essendon talk like Merrett was their decision, with no indication that they were willing to even talk, I sure as hell wouldn’t be spending effort trying to convince a highly rated young player to leave when it’s entirely possible Essendon are just going to say “cool but nah” because they’ve given no indication a) they are in fact going to engage in any sort of discussion and b) who is even the right person to talk to.
One thing to Hawthorn’s credit
They at least had the decency to wine and dine Zach before they ■■■■■■ him
Exactly.
It’s also interesting that Blues and GC didn’t play as much hardball as us, but got great deals. Was our ultra hardball strategy the best approach to get good outcomes?
Though maybe it wasn’t a “strategy” and we just didn’t want to trade Zach at all
Which is fine (it’s not my stance, but fine), but then don’t make counteroffers.
■■■■ me, Petracca, Rowell and Anderson are going to absolutely crush Hawthorn’s ■■■■■■ midfield in an elimination final next season. That will be my grand final.
Do you think if Hawthorn said early last week, we’ll trade you a first round and then some best 22 players, will you come to the party?, I think we would have been open to it. Hawks didn’t want to trade players. Gold Coast and the Swans did
4 R1 with a future 2nd apparently.
Guessing 10, 22 (not really a first), 2026 R1, 2027 R1, and another Future 2nd
I want our club to be a football club, maybe in the next 20 years it might become one
Carlton refused Geelong’s offer.
At least Sydney were prepared to give up some decent players to get Curnow their view is you gotta give something up to get something.
If Hawks came and offerd some one like Weedle that would have got Essendon talking straight away and traded Zac.
But nope they just wanted to bully Essendon and make us blink if failed big time
To reverse it: if we said to Hawks we’ll trade Zach for two firsts and Mackenzie, do you think the Hawks would have tried to accommodate it?
They had to present it, not us. We lose Bargaining power if we suggest it.
It’s a chicken and egg situation though, as contracted players have to agree to a trade.
Yep
Hawks didn’t try
Bingo.
I’m not convinced that was the right call, but it was definitely THE call.