Talking trades

[LongWait]

I think your overall rating is a bit high but we were saved a bit by Dawes preferring Melbourne and Gumbleton not wanting to leave home.

We got a bit younger, got a couple of youngsters that want to play for us and picked up a father son pick for a good price. We also positioned ourselves for 3 early draft picks by resisting getting involved for trading picks 5 or 6 and we got some salary cap space.

I'd go with a neutral 5.5/6 out of 10.

I agree that our performance rating was higher than a pass but not special. I'm thinking about 6/10.

We got quite a lot younger so far over the off-season, going from the fifth oldest list at the end of the 2012 season to now having the third youngest list (behind only GWS and Gold Coast).

[GVGjr]

I agree that our performance rating was higher than a pass but not special. I'm thinking about 6/10.

We got quite a lot younger so far over the off-season, going from the fifth oldest list at the end of the 2012 season to now having the third youngest list (behind only GWS and Gold Coast).

Didn't realise that we dropped that far.
I'm starting to see why we are looking to accelerate the development of the younger guys.

After this trade period I think there is a message to our playing group that I hope they all understand.
- The younger guys on the list will be given a chance particularly if they work hard and have some good form behind them.
- The older guys on the list will be given opportunities but the must be consistent performers.

[LongWait]

Didn't realise that we dropped that far.
I'm starting to see why we are looking to accelerate the development of the younger guys.

After this trade period I think there is a message to our playing group that I hope they all understand.
- The younger guys on the list will be given a chance particularly if they work hard and have some good form behind them.
- The older guys on the list will be given opportunities but the must be consistent performers.

I should have said that the list age information was tweeted yesterday by Glen Luff, the author of The AFL Prospectus and retweeted by Mark Stevens, so I presume it's accurate.

I agree with your view about the messages to players and would add that the message to supporters is that our new age profile means we are a few years away from returning to the place on the ladder we became accustomed to a few years back.

Like you, I can also see why the club was trying to recruit in some youngish players with a few pre-seasons under their belt, hoping to lift our average age profile up a notch or two. We did so with only limited success. Good that we didn't overpay to achieve that goal (unlike Melbourne.)

[Bulldog4life]

Great post it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that just because a deal is done in the first day means that they weren't discussing it for weeks before.

They were. This is the point that a few on this Board won't or can't accept Ledge.

[LongWait]

They were. This is the point that a few on this Board won't or can't accept Ledge.

This article makes clear the dangers of holding on for a better deal, which may never come, or may come too late:

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-ne...#ixzz2ARPZhXfM

Some on here have also forgotten the botched attempted to trade Josh Hill to Hawthorn a couple of seasons ago. Apparently the Hawks held out on offering the pick we wanted until just before the trade deadline, but by then it was too late for us (we wanted the Hawks' pick 33 from memory to trade for Walker of Carlton, but Hawthorn didn't allow us enough time to get both deals lodged in time, so neither happened.)

[GVGjr]

This article makes clear the dangers of holding on for a better deal, which may never come, or may come too late:

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-ne...#ixzz2ARPZhXfM

It's a good article and shows that trading and brinkmanship often don't gel.

[Topdog]

Fair difference between trading on day 1 and being stupid until 30 minutes to go in trading period

[Topdog]

I think your overall rating is a bit high but we were saved a bit by Dawes preferring Melbourne and Gumbleton not wanting to leave home.

We got a bit younger, got a couple of youngsters that want to play for us and picked up a father son pick for a good price. We also positioned ourselves for 3 early draft picks by resisting getting involved for trading picks 5 or 6 and we got some salary cap space.

I'd go with a neutral 5.5/6 out of 10.

Was going to say 6.5 but went with 7. I might be heading higher as I fully expected us to piss away pick 22

[LongWait]

Fair difference between trading on day 1 and being stupid until 30 minutes to go in trading period

Agree Topdog, but if you hold out for a better deal it may never come, or it might come too late. If we held out on the Lake trade ,the Hawks may well have moved on and used pick 21 on someone else (Mitch Brown from WCE for example), or they may have traded in Jared Rivers or someone else for a lot less than 21.

We were trying to offload Hill to the Hawks and held out for the deal we wanted. We held out but couldn't control when the Hawks would make a better bid, or even if they would ever make a better bid. That didn't turn out too well for us!

[Sedat]

We were trying to offload Hill to the Hawks and held out for the deal we wanted. We held out but couldn't control when the Hawks would make a better bid, or even if they would ever make a better bid. That didn't turn out too well for us!

Glad you brought up the Hill comparison. There's holding out and then there's a complete failure to understand the value of your players - only one person in football thought Hill was worth pick 18 in that trade period and unfortunately it was our list manager at the time. And just because holding out didn't work on one isolated occasion, it doesn't mean that the club should avoid standing their ground in the future.

[ledge]

Glad you brought up the Hill comparison. There's holding out and then there's a complete failure to understand the value of your players - only one person in football thought Hill was worth pick 18 in that trade period and unfortunately it was our list manager at the time. And just because holding out didn't work on one isolated occasion, it doesn't mean that the club should avoid standing their ground in the future.

Problem is the longer you wait the more picks and players get moved around and you might miss out on who you were looking for , if you get the trade done earlier you have longer to look at other choices and do other deals.

[GVGjr]

How many times do we need to say Mitch Brown from Wce wasn't moving?
Now with Boumann being delisted it makes it 4 hawks defenders gone for 1 in. The value of this Lake trade is increasing even after the period ended.

Disagree. They still had Schoenmakers and Gibson and would have just focused on Rivers.

I see you rated the trade period 6. Is that being negative?
Others have rated 5.5. I agree but the difference had I had said that it I get blasted.
All I said in this thread was the simple fact we didn't try to maximize our return for Lake made it hard to come out of the trade period with on the positive side.

Disagree again. If you put it in some context rather than just in a negative manner I think you might find that people would listen to it rather than just reading it as another put down of the club we all support.

My rating differed to Topdogs and he didn't take it as a negative. No one is saying we nailed the trade period and the moderate ratings most have shared so far are in line with those views.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I think your overall rating is a bit high but we were saved a bit by Dawes preferring Melbourne and Gumbleton not wanting to leave home.

We got a bit younger, got a couple of youngsters that want to play for us and picked up a father son pick for a good price. We also positioned ourselves for 3 early draft picks by resisting getting involved for trading picks 5 or 6 and we got some salary cap space.

I'd go with a neutral 5.5/6 out of 10.

I'd agree with that assessment. Not terrible and there seems to have been a coordinated plan in mind that both takes in the needs for now ( securing some young but developed players in Stevens and Young) as well as for the future (keeping our early draft picks once we were out of the running to participate in the mini draft & freeing up cap room with Lake which will allow us money to retain the core of our list going forward).

What other scenario's during the trade period do you think may've moved your rating from a neutral position to a good or excellent one?

[GVGjr]

What other scenario's during the trade period do you think may've moved your rating from a neutral position to a good or excellent one?

We were somewhat inactive so you can expect much,

Probably getting a better pick for Lake might have been all I would have wanted.
Having a play for Jed Anderson or Ben Jacobs would have been OK with me as well.

[bornadog]

I rate our trading period an 8. You may say why?

We had a plan to only trade for young players that had been in the system for a couple of years. Big tick, thats what we did.

We were after a big bodied forward no older than around the 24 to 25 mark. We tried to trade for Dawes or Gumbleton by improving our draft position by moving Lake on early. Ok, we failed to get our man but ended up with pick 22, so we lose a couple of points out of 10.

Whether we moved Lake early or not, I really don't give two hoots. What I do know is we have three picks in the first round including 5 and 6 and we haven't had that chance since - what 2004/5? (I haven't looked it up.)

Overall a great job in the trade period and now looking forward to which young guns we can snare.