Why Hawks can’t lose on Blake Hardwick
A reader's view on the non-dilemma dilemma that is Dimma's contract status
We love contributions from the Hawks Insiders community, and today HI Subscriber Brenton Alp (@wokwokwok2222) looks at what he believes is a win-win situation - Blake Hardwick’s contract status.
Myself included, there is not a Hawthorn fan in the land that wants to lose Blake Hardwick.
His ‘do-as-I-do’ style of leadership, his dogged determination to never be beaten down back, and more recently showing that he could be one of the very best mid-sized forwards in the competition, makes him a valuable commodity.
Underrated outside of Hawthorn circles for so long, we are nearly halfway through his free agency year and with ‘Dimma’ still unsigned, it has become apparent that Hawthorn will be the winners regardless of his decision to stay or go.
Why so you ask?
Well, firstly if Hardwick stays that’s exactly what we want.
If Hardwick goes however he is a restricted free agent, meaning the Hawks can match any bid for him that another club makes (if he chooses to take up that offer) or alternatively take the compensation for him.
But what does this mean?
It means that if Hardwick leaves, Hawthorn hold all the power to almost choose what the compensation is for him, much like North Melbourne did with Ben McKay last year.
The AFL’s compensation ‘system’ or lack thereof, works on multiple factors including age of player, length of contract, value of contract and other non disclosed factors.
It’s widely reported that Ben McKay went to Essendon on $800,000 a year last year and that triggered a first round compensation pick directly after their original first round pick.
What do the Hawks have to do?
For Hawthorn to achieve a win-win situation all the Hawks have to do is offer Hardwick above the threshold for a first round compensation pick.
The salary cap has gone up so it would be somewhere around $900,000 over five years.
Yes, I hear yo u… 900k - it’s a lot.
But does it really matter? It’s slightly overs but in reality if he keeps doing what he’s doing in the forward line it’s about right. Hawthorn can also front end the contract, $4.5 million over five years could look something like:
Year one: $1.2 million;
Year two: $1.2 million;
Year three: $700,000;
Year four: $700,000;
Year five: $700,000.
This puts us in a position to pay him bucketloads and satisfy the compensation threshold, yet still not put us in salary cap trouble when our youngsters come into their prime and we have to start paying them properly.
No one wants to lose Hardwick — it would leave a huge hole for us — however Hawthorn’s job is to get the best outcome if he does go.
Imagine a world where we have picks four and five in this year’s draft and the options that could open up for us.
Anyone remember the riots when Hawthorn traded Trent Croad? That ended up alright for us.
Want to contribute to HI? Email hawksinsiders at gmail dot com.
Don’t forget to listen in as the HI team goes live on Wednesday nights on X (Twitter). Follow us on social media through the links below:
HFC are saving the announcement for Inside the Huddle on Tuesday 25th. Hoping we get a few more contract renewals as well.
Hardwick is the type of player we can’t afford to lose at this stage of our development. Consistent, smart, versatile, brave but low key and a leader by example rather than profile or publicity. However if he were to go we need to be very careful with what we do. High draft picks are great in theory but two of our most recent ones are currently looking shaky. DGB getting close to a bust and Josh Ward has plenty to do to be a top liner. If you look at where our recent wins are they are some lower picks and cheapies, D’Ambrosio, Dear, Ginnivan, Blanck etc. Weddle an exception to this and hopefully Watson will be too. So in my opinion if we are prepared to lose Hardwick we need to be very clear what we want with compensation and be confident we can get it eg Mackay last year.
Who would we target?