Following our exes...................

[1eyedog]

Don't want to be the master of hindsight, but with the prospect of Hrovat leaving the kennel we are looking at a situation whereby Lake ends up playing more games for Hawthorn than Hrovat did for us - oh, and the small matter of 3 flags and a Norm Smith as well.

I am a huge advocate of list regeneration to ensure that new talent continues to come through, but if you are going to trade out established senior players you'd want to make sure you are getting true market value (my thoughts on the poor value we received on the Lake trade has been aired numerous times). Furthermore, I would resist trading out genuine elite talent (of which Lake most certainly is) unless they are out of contract and are adamant they want to leave (eg: Griff, Higgins, Cooney), and there is more than adequate talent coming through to replace that player (Markovic and Austin don't qualify as adequate replacements, and they did the bulk of our FB heavy lifting in the years immediately after trading out Lake).

We haven't made many poor list management decisions in the last few years but we read the Lake situation terribly at the time IMO. We even hastened the decision by deciding to play one of the finest FB's this century as a key forward to give opportunities to plodders now no longer on our list, which means we still have a glaring weakness in the area that Lake brilliantly filled for us. Sure we might get more value out of whoever we bring to the club from the Hrovat trade (pick or player) but that is not really the point.

It was pretty clear that Lake wanted out and was disgruntled with the club. We certainly didn't help that situation. I'm still ok with getting Hrovat but there's no question we under-estimated Lake's longevity and in hindsight considering what Hawthorn got out of him he was worth more.

[Sedat]

It was pretty clear that Lake wanted out and was disgruntled with the club. We certainly didn't help that situation. I'm still ok with getting Hrovat but there's no question we under-estimated Lake's longevity and in hindsight considering what Hawthorn got out of him he was worth more.

Agree with the bolded bit, and I'm also ok with getting a draft slider like Hrovat with the pick (instead of reaching for a Spencer White type for example). But I suspect that Lake was disgruntled due to our ambivalence about him at the time - and the PR spin at the time about "getting something for him now instead of losing him for nothing a year later" insults the intelligence of the fans. Reality is that we didn't rate his future contributions at the time and were more than happy to offload him - we read that assessment as incorrectly as you could get. That's not to mention that we dropped our pants on day 1 of a 3 week trade period with Hawthorn's first offer for a player type they desperately needed - Hawthorn lost the 2011 PF and 2012 GF almost purely because of the lack of a quality gorilla key defender. And that's also not to mention that we didn't have anyone of note coming through to replace Lake at FB - when Scarlett retired, Lonergan and Taylor were already established in the senior team and ready to assume the added responsibilities.

[1eyedog]

No doubt we should have kept our powder dry until they coughed up a better deal. We could have also nabbed a reasonable player to compliment the second rounder we got. There must have been more internal strife at our club than what we were aware of. I'm struggling to believe that Dalrymple would have simply buckled like he did. He may have had pressure from elsewhere within the club to accept the trade in order to move Brian as quickly as possible. It was obvious Monty wanted him out and there was no doubt that Rocket was voicing his displeasure about Lake to his assistants.

I can't remember if any other clubs inquired after Lake at that time. Perhaps we thought it was Hawthorn or bust, needed him gone pretty badly, under-estimated his market value (and that's the real issue here as you state), and just took whatever we could get.

Interestingly Lake just retired from the AFL.

[Sedat]

No doubt we should have kept our powder dry until they coughed up a better deal. We could have also nabbed a reasonable player to compliment the second rounder we got. There must have been more internal strife at our club than what we were aware of. I'm struggling to believe that Dalrymple would have simply buckled like he did. He may have had pressure from elsewhere within the club to accept the trade in order to move Brian as quickly as possible. It was obvious Monty wanted him out and there was no doubt that Rocket was voicing his displeasure about Lake to his assistants.

I can't remember if any other clubs inquired after Lake at that time. Perhaps we thought it was Hawthorn or bust, needed him gone pretty badly, under-estimated his market value (and that's the real issue here as you state), and just took whatever we could get.

Interestingly Lake just retired from the AFL.

BMac had already coached for a season when the decision was made to trade Lake out.

[Greystache]

BMac had already coached for a season when the decision was made to trade Lake out.

The seed was well and truly sewn by the time BMac took over. Lake knew he had to have a good season in 2012 so he could get to the club of his choice, he couldn't do that after an injury ruined 2011, plus his reputation had taken a battering after the way he was handled and publicly questioned by his own club, but make no mistake he was counting down the days until he could leave.

2012 was only about convincing the external market he could still play.

[Bulldog4life]

The seed was well and truly sewn by the time BMac took over. Lake knew he had to have a good season in 2012 so he could get to the club of his choice, he couldn't do that after an injury ruined 2011, plus his reputation had taken a battering after the way he was handled and publicly questioned by his own club, but make no mistake he was counting down the days until he could leave.

2012 was only about convincing the external market he could still play.

That's how I remember it too.

[azabob]

Didn't Pask opening the conversation with "trade him now, or risk free agency in 12 months time"

[Happy Days]

Pretty sure a LOT of posters on here called this in 2012.

[chef]

Pretty happy with Stevens and Hrovat (hope we don't trade him) for Lake and Obrien. Win/win trade

[boydogs]

We got unders in the Lake & Griffen trades because we were in weak negotiating positions. Not because of poor negotiation or list management

[Sedat]

We got unders in the Lake & Griffen trades because we were in weak negotiating positions. Not because of poor negotiation or list management

Absolutely correct in the Griffen scenario but how on earth can you conclude we were in a weak position on day 1 of a 3 week trade period with the Lake scenario? There was no negotiation - we simply accepted the first ambit claim offered to us. We had the commodity that the other party was desperate for - Clarko just lost the 2011 PF by a kick and the 2012 GF by a kick and was not prepared to wait around for another 12 months to fix up his defence. Lake was now or never for them - we knew this and yet we made it awfully easy for them to get him.

[bornadog]

Absolutely correct in the Griffen scenario but how on earth can you conclude we were in a weak position on day 1 of a 3 week trade period with the Lake scenario? There was no negotiation - we simply accepted the first ambit claim offered to us. We had the commodity that the other party was desperate for - Clarko just lost the 2011 PF by a kick and the 2012 GF by a kick and was not prepared to wait around for another 12 months to fix up his defence. Lake was now or never for them - we knew this and yet we made it awfully easy for them to get him.

Yep, we folded bloody quickly. Unfortunately we didn't have the team we have now in List management.

[Happy Days]

Absolutely correct in the Griffen scenario but how on earth can you conclude we were in a weak position on day 1 of a 3 week trade period with the Lake scenario? There was no negotiation - we simply accepted the first ambit claim offered to us.

GOTTA CALL BURNS! Maybe I can still get that drink!

The Lake trade was unbelievable man-mismanagement then, now and forever. Given who was at the club at the time it's absolutely no surprise, too.

[boydogs]

Absolutely correct in the Griffen scenario but how on earth can you conclude we were in a weak position on day 1 of a 3 week trade period with the Lake scenario?

He was gone for nothing the year after. Day 1 of the trade period means little, think how much trade talk there has been this year already and trade period hasn't started yet

[jeemak]

I don't think we botched the trade as badly as some of you.

We were never going to secure the Hawks first round pick, and they were never going to trade out a player worthy of a first round pick in order to use it in the Lake trade.

Sure, we could have postured for higher ground and seen a significant portion of the trade period move on by but that could have resulted in us missing Stevens and securing a dud in the eventual deal.