Talking trades

[Sedat]

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.

I think improving the age profile is sound in theory, but only if the players brought in add value to the list. The age profiles of all of Veszpremi, Sherman and Djerkurra were all ideal but combined they added nothing to our list. Dickson is a classic example of a player adding value and balancing out the age profile. Hopefully the Stevens and Young trades are as successful as the Dickson selection.

[Ghost Dog]

You'd like to think that.

Btw The Age trade analyst says we didn't get enough for Lake but now that I said yesterday it can't be true.

So ? The Herald Sun says we did the right thing. " Lake will play well, which will be frustrating for the Dogs, but the right call in a rebuilding team" or something like that.
Alot of it depends on what we get and how they play. Have to wait and see.

What's our last pick? 125? I love those late picks, seeing how they develop because you don't expect much and when they come good, you feel like you win big. If they don't it's no surprise.

Will the Tippet thing affect our picks? Suffer athletes who have tools for Dads doing all their negotiation. What a grand stuff up.

[LongWait]

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.

But Hawthorn did eventually offer up the pick we were after - they blew it though because they did so with only 20 minutes or so left in the trade period and we subsequently didn't go ahead with the trade because we couldn't get the trade with Carlton done before the deadline.

Hawthorn did think that Hill was worth whatever pick we were after - they just played it too cute and didn't factor in that we would only trade Hill if it meant we could get Walker.

[LongWait]

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.

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.

You think Mitch Brown wasn't moving and you've said it a lot! You'd also be wrong.

According to the WA media and St. Kilda, Brown would have been traded but only if West Coke could be assured of getting a replacement defender. That's why the attempt to get Cale Hooker to WC was crucial to the Brown deal. Read the article I posted and you'll see that two different strategies were used by St. Kilda - one involving a three way trade with Cale Hooker, and one involving St. Kilda coughing up draft picks. St. Kilda left their final bid too late and WC said they didn't have time to properly consider it.

As for my rating of the trade period at 6 - I'm just being as objective as I can be about our performance and felt it was neither good, nor bad. I passed no comment whatsoever on your rating of the trade period, so I have no idea what you are getting at or why you are raising it with me. So you think we are a 5.5 - so what? If you are feeling persecuted, perhaps you are just being paranoid, or perhaps you really are pissing people off with your negativity and your paranoia is well-founded. I really don't care.

[Sedat]

But Hawthorn did eventually offer up the pick we were after - they blew it though because they did so with only 20 minutes or so left in the trade period and we subsequently didn't go ahead with the trade because we couldn't get the trade with Carlton done before the deadline.

Hawthorn offered up pick 37 and 66 before the end of trade period. Our list manager knocked this offer back because he wanted pick 18 from Hawthorn. That is on the public record. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not this was an astute list management decision or otherwise.

[LongWait]

Hawthorn offered up pick 37 and 66 before the end of trade period. Our list manager knocked this offer back because he wanted pick 18 from Hawthorn. That is on the public record. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not this was an astute list management decision or otherwise.

Hawthorn offered the pick we wanted right before the trade period ended. That is also on the public record. And Pelchan did it again this year with the botched trade for Mitch Brown. Same guy and same mistake.

[LongWait]

Why are you arguing facts? How can I be wrong if he didn't move?

I'm not arguing the facts at all. You stated "How many times do we need to say Mitch Brown from Wce wasn't moving?"

Well Mitch Brown definitely could have been moving but for the very same stupid trading tactics that you are advocating we should have adopted in the Lake trade.

Your statement is not factual and therefore we are arguing over your opinion and not the facts.

[Topdog]

WCE said on day 1 of trade week that Brown wasn't leaving. They repeated this a further 10 times during trade week. He wasn't leaving.

[Remi Moses]

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.)

Also I think we were dealing with Chris Pelchen
The man who wanted a first rounder for Tim Boyle.
Probably the biggest insult after The Bombres wanted to swap Darren Welsh for Scott West!
( they delisted Welsh)

[Remi Moses]

WCE said on day 1 of trade week that Brown wasn't leaving. They repeated this a further 10 times during trade week. He wasn't leaving.

Waiting until 5 minutes to midnight has cost Stkilda a much needed Key Back.
In the end they tried to get Hooker to West Coast ( last minute bailout) to facilitate it.
Now they haven't got 12 or 13 to pick up even a young key back!

[Sockeye Salmon]

Hawthorn offered the pick we wanted right before the trade period ended. That is also on the public record. And Pelchan did it again this year with the botched trade for Mitch Brown. Same guy and same mistake.

On public record where?

I think you have made up a 'fact' to suit your argument.

At no stage did Hawthorn offer up what we wanted for Hill. Ridiculously we wanted a first rounder, no-one in their right mind would have paid that.

[GVGjr]

On public record where?

I think you have made up a 'fact' to suit your argument.

At no stage did Hawthorn offer up what we wanted for Hill. Ridiculously we wanted a first rounder, no-one in their right mind would have paid that.

I don't think this is a 100% correct because there was a few conflicting reports at the time. These would be the public records LongWait was referring to. You remember it one way and I remember it another.
Either way I think you're incorrect to say that LongWait made up the fact to suit his argument.

My understanding is that we asked for a pick inside of pick 40 but the Hawks initially baulked at it. Close to the end of the trade period the Hawks then agreed to the original pick we requested and we said no thanks. A few minutes later they then offered a sweetener with another reasonable draft pick and we still said no. We then asked for their first round pick which was 18 and they said no.

After the trade period we justified not moving on Hill by saying something like "some clubs thought he was worthy of a top 20 pick and we agreed with them".

Edit, I just found Pelchens response

Hawthorn list management guru Chris Pelchen said his club offered picks 37 and 66 for Bulldog Josh Hill, and he was "somewhat perplexed" as to why the deal had foundered, especially since the original deal was for only a second round pick. He felt the Dogs had simply changed their minds about trading the gifted but out-of-favour forward.


http://theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ta...=1286751524221

I'm sure we originally asked for pick 37 and then moved our demands to their first round pick 18 after they agreed to the original offer.

[LongWait]

I don't think this is a 100% correct because there was a few conflicting reports at the time. These would be the public records LongWait was referring to. You remember it one way and I remember it another.
Either way I think you're incorrect to say that LongWait made up the fact to suit his argument.

My understanding is that we asked for a pick inside of pick 40 but the Hawks initially baulked at it. Close to the end of the trade period the Hawks then agreed to the original pick we requested and we said no thanks. A few minutes later they then offered a sweetener with another reasonable draft pick and we still said no. We then asked for their first round pick which was 18 and they said no.

After the trade period we justified not moving on Hill by saying something like "some clubs thought he was worthy of a top 20 pick and we agreed with them".

Edit, I just found Pelchens response

Hawthorn list management guru Chris Pelchen said his club offered picks 37 and 66 for Bulldog Josh Hill, and he was "somewhat perplexed" as to why the deal had foundered, especially since the original deal was for only a second round pick. He felt the Dogs had simply changed their minds about trading the gifted but out-of-favour forward.


http://theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ta...=1286751524221

I'm sure we originally asked for pick 37 and then moved our demands to their first round pick 18 after they agreed to the original offer.

That is one of the articles I was referring to GVG - thanks. They not only offered what we asked, but upped their offer above our asking price but had left it too late.

[Sedat]

I'm sure we originally asked for pick 37 and then moved our demands to their first round pick 18 after they agreed to the original offer.

So we rejected Hawthorn's late offer, despite it being in excess of what we originally requested. Then we take pick 49 on its own for Hill 12 pointless months later. Be interested to conduct a straw poll on the merits or otherwise of that particular list management decision.

I guess we must have felt guilty for stuffing Hawthorn around with the Hill trade, so we more than made up for it 2 years later with the Lake one.

[azabob]

I guess we must have felt guilty for stuffing Hawthorn around with the Hill trade, so we more than made up for it 2 years later with the Lake one.

Perhaps not guilty, but starting to learn from our mistakes of the past.