Eade's trading record with us

[Raw Toast]

So after four trade periods under Eade what have learnt about what he's likely to do?

We didn't learn much in the 2004 trading week except that he was willing to give everyone a year to perform (or not).

In 2005 we learnt that he was willing to get rid of under-performing players even if it seemed we lost in the deal (like the Rawlings trade). Looks like we were correct to get rid of both Rawlings and Bowden though their drafted replacements (Baird and Montgomery) didn't give us a great win here.

In 2006 we learnt that Eade's prepared to chase a big name if they become available and can persuade them to demand a trade to us. That he's also keen to think laterally to see if the picks we trade can be put to more than one purpose (getting McDougall and Ackermanis effectively for the same pick). Though we held the upper hand he also seemed to work hard to not damage our relationship with Brisbane (as opposed to Essendon with Mal Micheal and this year with Brennan). And that he's willing to help a player who wants to leave go to the club of their choice (Birss).

This year we learnt that he won't pay over the odds and do a desperate short-term deal to solve a structural weakness (a nice counter-point to Rhode and I reckon Wallace a bit as well). Also that he'll focus on what he identifies as our biggest weakness and try and remedy that first. In this case rucks.

The rest of this trade week followed the patterns of last year. Though McMahon and Power both seem to have been offered contracts by us, there were no public histronics directed at either. We just worked to try and get the best deal.

And again Eade showed the ability to really work to get the most out of the picks that were traded. He was the only one to make use of the new rule that picks could be swapped with picks, and the deal with the Weagles was very impressive imo. Look for other clubs to try and do similar things in coming years.

There's been a bit of confusion about all the picks flying around and the end result of our wheeling and dealing of draft picks. I reckon it makes sense to compare the draft picks we had before with what we have now.

Before the trade period we had seven picks we could use in the national draft (in the unlikely even that we delist another player or so then obviously we'll have more picks):

#5, #22, #38, #54, #70, #86, #102

now as well as basically swapping two players we have:

#5, #19, #35, #43, #48, #66, #70.

It's clearly a marked improvement and I get the sense that Eade's someone who really enjoys trying to nut out this kind of 'value adding'.

Lots of people got freaked with all the rumours flying around, and after the Rhode years who can blame them (with me it was the never-ending stream of Higgins threads late yesterday that scared me). However, though we didn't get all we wanted, at least we can enter future trade week's under Eade with some confidence that he'll have done his homework, won't get stupidly desperate, and will work hard to winkle added advantages out of the trades.

[LostDoggy]

Don't even try to explain to some on BF.

[LostDoggy]

That was an excellent post, and it's helped clear my mind a little.

and whats the go with these Higgins threads or something?

[Go_Dogs]

Good summary. I think Eade and Clayton have shown good nous over the past 2 trade periods, really working hard to maximise deals to our benefit, and think outside the box a bit. The trade of picks with the Eagles clearly shows this, and it enabled us to satisfy the Crows without crucifying ourselves in the process.

[LostDoggy]

Great summary, Eade's been fantastic during trade week as far as keeping in good terms with clubs, and also in moving on players that want to. This year every time I read something on Bigfooty, my mum would end up telling me the same thing the next day after she read the paper, which ended in me saying 'rumour, next' because I'd know who started it, or continued to spread it. Hopefully things work out with those picks, I think giving up McMahon and Power, especially seeing as they wanted to go, for a good ruckman and Callan is a good deal for us, with the improved draft picks another bonus.

[Raw Toast]

That was an excellent post, and it's helped clear my mind a little.

and whats the go with these Higgins threads or something?

Thanks.

Seems like the Higgins drama was a combination of a few things. The Hawks were apparently super-keen on Higgins in 2005 but went for Ellis and a kp (Dowler). They apparently asked if Higgins was available and we (reportedly) said yes but only for Roughead.

This meant his name presumably cropped up in a few rumours, and in addition a lot of Hawks fans believe they need a crumber to complement their foward line structure, and many rate Higgins v highly (despite the crap posted by some Hawks supporters on the main board). Also seemed like a few trolls then decided to have a lot of fun (I certainly didn't enjoy it though).

I think Eade and Clayton have shown good nous over the past 2 trade periods, really working hard to maximise deals to our benefit, and think outside the box a bit. The trade of picks with the Eagles clearly shows this, and it enabled us to satisfy the Crows without crucifying ourselves in the process.

Yep. And clearly Clayton is a pretty important person in all this. Must be glad like the rest of us to be working with Eade rather than with Rhode.

[Dry Rot]

This year we learnt that he won't pay over the odds and do a desperate short-term deal to solve a structural weakness (a nice counter-point to Rhode and I reckon Wallace a bit as well). Also that he'll focus on what he identifies as our biggest weakness and try and remedy that first. In this case rucks.

Great summary but a query about the above.

Sure we had a need but really Hudson was handed to us on a plate - he wanted to come here.

A big what if - if he wasn't available, then we would have been pitched into getting Wood or King I presume.

I suppose there's also an argument that our need for a tall forward is as great as a ruckman?

Our poor clearances always made me wonder if it was the ruckman's or midfield's fault - suppose we'll find out now....

[dog town]

Eade always comes across very organised and methodical during trade week. They go in with a plan and stick to it.

[Raw Toast]

Great summary, Eade's been fantastic during trade week as far as keeping in good terms with clubs, and also in moving on players that want to. This year every time I read something on Bigfooty, my mum would end up telling me the same thing the next day after she read the paper, which ended in me saying 'rumour, next' because I'd know who started it, or continued to spread it. Hopefully things work out with those picks, I think giving up McMahon and Power, especially seeing as they wanted to go, for a good ruckman and Callan is a good deal for us, with the improved draft picks another bonus.

The internet is a mixed blessing isn't it. I was enjoying the profusion of rumours until the Higgins ones.

Sure we had a need but really Hudson was handed to us on a plate - he wanted to come here.

A big what if - if he wasn't available, then we would have been pitched into getting Wood or King I presume.

I suppose there's also an argument that our need for a tall forward is as great as a ruckman?

My reading of it was that we'd been in Hudson's ear for at least awhile, possible quite a long while. We sounded out some other likely types mid-year, so we may have approached Hudson then, if not before. He was certainly rumoured to be coming to us before the season ended IIRC

Eade said a ruckman was our priority pretty much as soon as our season ended, and I reckon he would've said as much even if we didn't have Hudson in the bag, though he is an astute communicator. Most dogs supporters who thought about it agreed that any kp forward we got was going to get starved of the ball unless the midfield stopped being smashed around the stoppages. (Though as DT noted, our game-plan had come unstuck as well.)

I reckon we would've gone v hard for Wood and/or Meesen if Hudson was unavailable. Doubt we would've gone for King as I think his body's just too big a risk. We did, it seems go in pretty hard after some forwards' (though interestingly Eade seemed to think Robertson would be the answer, so he wasn't necessarily after a tall forward), but this year it was rucks on the move, the kps weren't budging (Charlie Gardner's not a kp in my book, while Playfair if he makes it, it will be as a defender I reckon).

Our poor clearances always made me wonder if it was the ruckman's or midfield's fault - suppose we'll find out now....

The beauty of Hudson is that he should be able to help both with directing the ball to the midfield, and with winning a fair few clearences himself as well.

[Mofra]

The beauty of Hudson is that he should be able to help both with directing the ball to the midfield, and with winning a fair few clearences himself as well.

Bingo, two birds, one stone.

We will make our own KPP rather than trading for one.

[bornadog]

Raw Toast, your right about Gardiner, I also heard Eade say the same thing about him.

[Max469]

I think Eade and co do okay with the trading. It would be a hard job to do - we need this type of player - is this person available, what can we offer, what else can we get? All this decisions have to be made.

At times, I am sure we all think we can do better - I know I did over the years.

We have done some stupid things in my opinion over the years, but that is the nature of trading.

Trading period is when no name is safe from speculation - this year Higgins name who popped up. I for one would have been very disappointed if he had gone to another club. An exciting player to watch - would he have gone on like so many before him and became a brownlow medalist at another club? Thank God at this point of time we wont know.

I didn't like it when I heard Rob Murphy being mentioned to join Wallace and Brown - now that is when I would have had plenty to say.

This year we are saying good bye to Jordy and Power. I liked Jordy, but if they want to go - whether it is for money or to play with someone they think is better or better opportunities, let them go. I don't want anyone to play for the team that I love, if they don't want to be there and aren't going to give 110%. I have knocked Brown for being a Judas many a time - but now I think Karma has played his part and I am over it. So if a player wants to go and thinks he can do better elsewhere - see ya.

All we can do is wish our out going players well and open our arms and hearts to the new ones and hope to God they will be the ones, who will help to realise our dream.

So welcome to the club - Hudson and Callan.

[G-Mo77]

#5, #22, #38, #54, #70, #86, #102

now as well as basically swapping two players we have:

#5, #19, #35, #43, #48, #66, #70.

Excellent, so in the end it was McMahon and Power for Hudson and Callan as well as upgrade in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round. What a fantastic result.

After the Hudson deal went through I really couldn't get my head around it but when you see a before and after result we really did win in all deals IMO.

[westdog54]

Excellent, so in the end it was McMahon and Power for Hudson and Callan as well as upgrade in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round. What a fantastic result.

After the Hudson deal went through I really couldn't get my head around it but when you see a before and after result we really did win in all deals IMO.

I think that's the thing most people forget. People whinge that we lost pick 22 for Hudson, but have a look at the final picture. We picked up 2 players that fill a need, lost two that people have been calling on to be traded anyway, and upgraded all of our picks bar pick 5.

Quite frankly, given the quality of tall forwards available for trade, I dont see how anyone can be all that unhappy with the overall result.

Some very good work done by Eade and Clayton this week. I'd be curious to find out how they pulled off that deal with West Coast to snare Hudson.

[Topdog]

I'd be curious to find out how they pulled off that deal with West Coast to snare Hudson.

It was actually a fairly simple trade from both points of view.

Once WC got pick 35 that gave them 30 and 35. They saw an opportunity to go up 8 spots in the draft and we saw an opportunity to get an extra pick in the 3rd round. We sweetened the deal by letting them go up 8 spots again in the 4th round.

It's very smart trading by both camps and very similar to what we did with them last year.