Eade's trading record with us

[Twodogs]

He certainly works pretty hard at it. As a club we arent going to die wondering.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Very good post RT and co

Whilst we love Higgins and would not have wanted to trade him the reality is Higgins for Roughead is one of the few deals that would have made sense.

We would love to have Roughead on our list

[LostDoggy]

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.

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

[Go_Dogs]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

Interesting post Billy, you raise some good arguments.

From what I can gather, the depth of the draft isn't quite as bad as some people are making out (I'm sure mjp or someone more in the know can correct me if I'm wrong). Someone like Wonaeamirri, who imo would be a reasonable recruit, has barely had his name thrown around in many predictions or top 50's. I think there are certainly going to be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.

As far as the trades we participated in, I think we would be reasonably happy with the outcomes. Getting Hudson is a big win, he's a quality player and will enjoy Eade's coaching a lot more than I think he was Craig's. Callan is a bit more of a mystery, but he was basically free. Given the amount of depth we lost, we needed someone like that. He was a standout VFL player, training with the league's most successful outfit this past season.

I think Eade realised early on that if we were to chase a KP forward of any note, we would have to give up pick 5. Given our recent drafting history, I'm happy to keep the pick and pass on the KP forward. But we must begin to develop a few kids, and give them quality game time up forward. That should be Rocket's goal over the summer.

[LostDoggy]

From what I can gather, the depth of the draft isn't quite as bad as some people are making out (I'm sure mjp or someone more in the know can correct me if I'm wrong). Someone like Wonaeamirri, who imo would be a reasonable recruit, has barely had his name thrown around in many predictions or top 50's. I think there are certainly going to be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.

Like a lot of drafts some long term value can be found with late selections but this isn't a deep draft at all.

be good players available, whether we snare the right ones, who knows.

As far as the trades we participated in, I think we would be reasonably happy with the outcomes. Getting Hudson is a big win, he's a quality player and will enjoy Eade's coaching a lot more than I think he was Craig's. Callan is a bit more of a mystery, but he was basically free. Given the amount of depth we lost, we needed someone like that. He was a standout VFL player, training with the league's most successful outfit this past season.

Hudson was a good get but not a great one. Callan sounds good but the proof will be in his ability to get a spot, hold it and then become a solid player for us. Honestly it's going to be a big ask for him to achieve all that but he won't be a McMahon.

I think we could have got involved in a trade for Bradley and while he has had a few problems and has a long way to go he does have talent that could be extracted from him.

I think Eade realised early on that if we were to chase a KP forward of any note, we would have to give up pick 5. Given our recent drafting history, I'm happy to keep the pick and pass on the KP forward. But we must begin to develop a few kids, and give them quality game time up forward. That should be Rocket's goal over the summer.

We shouldn't judge Eade on maintaining an early pick because that is just to easy. We should judge Eade on his ability to deliver during the trade week and I don't think he did.

I don't know how it all pans out during the week but did we try to talk the Lions into giving us Wood and Brennan for pick 5? Would our team have been better? I don't know really but I just don't see how Eade can get us back on track let alone challenging as a top team with conservative trading.

[Topdog]

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

There were no quality keys available though.

It makes me laugh when people refer to Boyle as quality.

[Bulldog Revolution]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

IMO One of the posts of the year BillyB- and one that I really had to think about - I am normally an optimist but this post made me question that and say - "well, maybe we dont know what we are doing".

Hudson could be an upgrade but we sacrificed McMahon. Whichever way I look at trading McMahon I think it is a major failure for our club - now allocating blame is always difficult when a player does not fully realise their talents with a club but having a player of his enormous potential never reach the heights we suspect he could have is never a good thing - never.

Callan is just a different version of Power - and one with 60 games less experience. He could be a find, but Callan is not going to propel us up the ladder single handedly.

The only way the improving of the draft picks looks any good, is if Clayton does indeed find gems with a good portion of those picks - I mean if we upgrade picks and then select Wells, Baird, McCormack etc well it was a complete waste of time. If however he selects Everitt, Harbrow, Williams etc then clearly we are ecstatic.

When you look at this years trading and last years crop of draftees who need an enormous amount of development before they will be able to have an impact at a senior AFL footy it is really hard to see the direction we are headed in.

The clear outcome of our trading and drafting both this year and last is that we will only go as far as the players who were on the list at the end of 2005 will carry us.

We are almost completely relying on improvement from within - and in my eyes I have major doubts about our abilities to develop players.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I get the impression that Clayton thinks the upgrading of pick 22 to pick 19 is significant. He was very confident on radio over the weekend that we would get the player we had in mind. Perhaps the player involved told us Carlton or Melbourne were interested?

[Topdog]

Regarding player development. There haven't been many players that have developed as I thought they would since 2000 to be honest.

Finding the cause of this is the major thing but I honestly believe 90% of it is up to the player. Scott West emphasised a good point late this year when talking about the preparation of people at our club.

You just have to look at people like Cross and Boyd to realise how much a player can improve once they are in the AFL system.

[mjp]

All interesting stuff.

I went into trade week hoping for three things:

1/.That we got Hudson.
2/.That we kept McMahon.
3/.That we did not pick up any 'mediocre' players.

I am happy.

Hudson has struggled with discipline? I dont really know his history, but am not sure this is true. I also have him in the top tier of ruckman in the league - I am very pleased with this. Very, Very, Very pleased with this....did I mention I was pleased to have Hudson?

My thoughts on McMahon have been written elsewhere. I remain disappointed.

I am so pleased that we did not trade for any number of tall forwards - including Boyle, White, Schultz, Gardiner, Playfair, Whitnall, Watts etc etc etc - that I can barely speak. Perhaps the old adage that you are never truly finished as a footballer until you have been traded to Footscray as a Full Forward no longer applies? If so, praise the lord.

5 picks in the top 50 of the draft? Well, this is two more than we were otherwise entitled, so I think it is pretty good going. If we want talent brought into the club, this will be where it comes from - not from continuing our obsession with second rate talls we have all endured since (seemingly) the beginning of time.

As for a shallow draft? We always hear this sort of thing - look through the lists season by season and decide which years are best for yourself...the number of good players is usually comparable - it is just not always quite so easy to find them.

[Twodogs]

Callan is just a different version of Power - and one with 60 games less experience. He could be a find, but Callan is not going to propel us up the ladder single handedly.

No offence but Callan and Power are nothing like one another. Callan is a little fella with a lot of mongrel and Power is a mid size 'tweener.



They both have relatives who were/are guns though.

[Topdog]

Perhaps the old adage that you are never truly finished as a footballer until you have been traded to Footscray as a Full Forward no longer applies? If so, praise the lord.

That would be reason enough to have a celebretory drink!

If we don't trade for another recycled forward next year I will start believing it to be true.

[Bulldog Revolution]

No offence but Callan and Power are nothing like one another. Callan is a little fella with a lot of mongrel and Power is a mid size 'tweener.

They both have relatives who were/are guns though.

I just meant a fringe player rather than performing the same actual role in the team.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Regarding player development. There haven't been many players that have developed as I thought they would since 2000 to be honest.

Finding the cause of this is the major thing but I honestly believe 90% of it is up to the player. Scott West emphasised a good point late this year when talking about the preparation of people at our club.

You just have to look at people like Cross and Boyd to realise how much a player can improve once they are in the AFL system.

Part of me agrees with you, however no footy side is ever going to have a list full of Boyds, Cross' and Wests. Nor would you necessarily win a premiership if you did. A team will always have a range of guys who all walk to the beat of different drums (no I'm not going to quote different strokes too much).

For the guys who dont walk to the same beat of the drum as West, Boyd and Cross then we have to create an environment that helps propel them forward. IMO we just haven't done a good enough job of that. We've had too many players who for too long have not been serious enough about being elite AFL footballers. They want to be good players but I think guys from other clubs have done more.

[Raw Toast]

This is a great read Raw Toast but I wanted to focus on the area above in particular.

Thanks for the detailed reply BB. You made some interesting points but I think I differ on a few of them, so I'll go through them in turn.

From what I have read, the footy experts regard this draft as a shallow one past pick 30.
To that end we really haven't improved to much. In fact our real improvement only becomes evident in the third round of the draft. I really don't class the moving up three positions from 22 to 19 and 38 to 35 as huge wins for us at all but we did get some improved later picks.
We all know the Eade and Clayton will put a positive spin on every draft selection we get and do the sell again but I have my doubts we are on the right track at the moment.

Couple of things to say here. First as MJP and others have noted, previous drafts that have been called weak now stack up pretty well against those that were supposed to be strong. Assessing the potential of potential draftees is a science and an art that I don't have much knowledge of, but I do know it's complicated and that there is significant debate as to the depth of the current lot on offer. One assessment I read was that there were fewer 'complete' players on offer, but lots who had many strengths and one or two weaknesses.

Second, Clayton wanted two picks in the top twenty and worked hard to get the two extra picks in the top 50 so I reckon he rates the potential on offer. I guess the question is whether one trusts Clayton, which I generally do.

My main point however, was that under Eade we've worked hard in the last two drafts to squeeze the maximum value out of trading picks for players, and I like this approach. Even if the extra value accrued by Hudson and Ackermanis trades is small, it will hopefully add up over time.

In player terms we lost a talented under achieving defender and a versatile depth player.
We gained a ruckman who has had some trouble with the discipline required from elite footballers and another who has only racked up a few games of senior football during his career. Whilst his team mates eventually went on the marauding way throughout 2007 he was banished to the seconds due to falling out of favour with the assistant coaches.

I don't hold this against the players though because history will tell us of the success stories like Martin Pike and Cam Mooney but this isn't exactly a huge win fin for us even though we all acknowledge that we needed a ruckman and a tagger.

In as much as you can tell before-hand, recruiting Hudson seems like a big win atm. I would argue that our biggest structural weakness in the second-half of the season was our midfield (our game plan was also exposed but that is a different issue). Our rucks had very little if any positive influence on games and we were continaully smashed in clearences.

We needed a ruckman who could step in straight away. Hudon not only had far better 2007 form than anyone else on offer (King, Wood and Meesen in that order), he also led the league in clearences until he got a leg injury late in the year. So he's better at palming the ball to advantage than anyone we've currently got (though Minson has at times been promising in this area), and he should also be able to win the ball at stoppages which we clearly need to do more of.

As far as I know Hudson broke the very strict Adelaide curfew once, so I'm not sure it's fair to question his ability to be disciplined enough to make it as an elite player.

McMahon is a big loss, although there were questions regarding his ability to fulfill his great promise. I certainly don't class losing him as a win, but am glad that we got close to the most we currently could for him.

As I've written before, I would've liked Power to stay but he wanted to go and I think we did ok to get pick 48 for him. We got Callan basically for free and again he matches the profile of what we need - someone with hardness who can play a shut-down role in defence or the midfield. It will be a bonus if he can cement a place in our first 22.

The fact is though Eade went on record wanting a quality key during the trade week and came up well short. I acknowledge that it's not that easy to acquire a key forward but we never made a push for Boyle or a few others because we weren't prepared to gamble.

Eade is calculating and does his homework no doubt but I'd also say that he might be too conservative as well. We have come away from the trade week with a good ruckman but on paper I'm not sure we are a lot stronger either.

For a team that fell well short of expectations in 2007 that the coach, the media and our supporters put on us I expected us to have been a bigger player during this trade period than what we were.

The key part of your post here is that Eade wanted to add a quality forward. Eade was clearly keen to get a forward and was disappointed to fail in this aim. He clearly worked hard to get Robertson and thought he had him, White failed a medical (and the asking price was very high), and Brisbane refused to trade Brennan in the hope that he re-signs with them.

What many of us are delighted with, is that when Eade realised he was not going to be able to get a forward that he rated as quality, he didn't take the desperate option of gambling on a dud or a journeyman like Playfair or Boyle. Our trading history is littered with the speculative recruitment of recycled talls who failed to make the grade. Rhode specialised in this but was not alone.

Instead of trading away picks in a gamble that history has shown is likely to fail, Eade and Clayton not only kept the picks, they managed to create a few more of them that were better (even if only slightly) than the ones we had. Now we have the chance to keep building our list from the ground-up, ala Hawthorn. I'm much happier with this than with paying over the odds for someone like Boyle who has been ok as a third tall, but seems likely to be smashed if asked to be the key target.