Talking trades

[Sedat]

Re: Talking trades

How can any of us assess the Lake trade when we know almost nothing about it?

There is plenty that we all know. We know that Lake was a contracted player. We know that there was a very keen suitor for his services, one who has been keen on him for a few years now. We know that the suitor in question had a glaring need to fill a hole on their list and that Lake was considered by them to be a prime candidate to fill that hole. We know that Lake's form improved markedly from 2012 compared to 2011, certainly enough to maintain the keen interest of the suitor in question. We know that 2011 was an anomoly in Lake's career with regard to his injury history, and that he returned to good health in 2012. We know that the Lake trade was finalised on day 1 of a month-long trade period. We know that our list manager placed an inordinate level of importance on the potential ramifications of losing Lake as a free agent in 12 months' time, and was extremely keen to point this out on public record after the trade was concluded.

With what we know, and with what I know about negotiating high-value contracts on a daily basis for the last 15 years, I am comfortable in openly questioning the end value we received out of this specific trade and the speed in which the trade was finalised. I will always support the team, but if there are decisions made that I as a supporter am uncomfortable with, I will continue to call it as I see it. I will also continue to respect the differing opinions of yourself and other posters.

[ledge]

Re: Talking trades

How can any of us assess the Lake trade when we know almost nothing about it? What we don't know about this trade could fill pages on this board.

I have not offered a "glowing assessment of the financial terms of the Lake trade." Please point to any post by me that does so.

Has it occurred to you that both parties may have done reasonably well from the Lake trade? Business, in my experience, is not usually about winning and losing - it is more often about both parties reaching common ground on the relative value of an asset. If every club tried to 'win' each trade there would soon be no trades being conducted.

I am trying to point out to Chops (and you it appears) that we know so little of what occured in the Lake trade that any analysis by us is necessarily guesswork and a reflection of reasonably superficial impressions we have. I'm also trying to demonstrate that sweeping generalisations such as 'we must have been bent over the table because the trade was done on the first day' are laughable - there are two parties to the trade and we could equally say that Hawthorn concluded the trade with undue haste and could have achieved a better deal had they hung out for longer.

I find it bloody amusing mostly, and infuriatingly frustrating at times, that some on here consider their own assessments and conclusions of trades as gospel. We all will have varying opinions on lots of subjects and I'm completely ok - no - I'm bloody glad, that I don't see the world through the dark, sceptical and pessimistic glasses that some on here constantly wear.

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.

[jeemak]

Re: Talking trades

How can any of us assess the Lake trade when we know almost nothing about it? What we don't know about this trade could fill pages on this board.

I have not offered a "glowing assessment of the financial terms of the Lake trade." Please point to any post by me that does so.

Has it occurred to you that both parties may have done reasonably well from the Lake trade? Business, in my experience, is not usually about winning and losing - it is more often about both parties reaching common ground on the relative value of an asset. If every club tried to 'win' each trade there would soon be no trades being conducted.

I am trying to point out to Chops (and you it appears) that we know so little of what occured in the Lake trade that any analysis by us is necessarily guesswork and a reflection of reasonably superficial impressions we have. I'm also trying to demonstrate that sweeping generalisations such as 'we must have been bent over the table because the trade was done on the first day' are laughable - there are two parties to the trade and we could equally say that Hawthorn concluded the trade with undue haste and could have achieved a better deal had they hung out for longer.

I find it bloody amusing mostly, and infuriatingly frustrating at times, that some on here consider their own assessments and conclusions of trades as gospel. We all will have varying opinions on lots of subjects and I'm completely ok - no - I'm bloody glad, that I don't see the world through the dark, sceptical and pessimistic glasses that some on here constantly wear.

There is plenty that we all know. We know that Lake was a contracted player. We know that there was a very keen suitor for his services, one who has been keen on him for a few years now. We know that the suitor in question had a glaring need to fill a hole on their list and that Lake was considered by them to be a prime candidate to fill that hole. We know that Lake's form improved markedly from 2012 compared to 2011, certainly enough to maintain the keen interest of the suitor in question. We know that 2011 was an anomoly in Lake's career with regard to his injury history, and that he returned to good health in 2012. We know that the Lake trade was finalised on day 1 of a month-long trade period. We know that our list manager placed an inordinate level of importance on the potential ramifications of losing Lake as a free agent in 12 months' time, and was extremely keen to point this out on public record after the trade was concluded.

With what we know, and with what I know about negotiating high-value contracts on a daily basis for the last 15 years, I am comfortable in openly questioning the end value we received out of this specific trade and the speed in which the trade was finalised. I will always support the team, but if there are decisions made that I as a supporter am uncomfortable with, I will continue to call it as I see it. I will also continue to respect the differing opinions of yourself and other posters.

Well, I enjoyed reading that.

I suppose it all comes down to how we value outcomes, and what we see as important for moving forwards. Getting the Lake deal done early granted us a pick of higher currency than we had to make a play for an established (yet maligned) strong bodied forward, and a mid range pick for which we could use on a younger player (Gumbleton or Stevens) to fill a need. The key to it all is we aren't privvy to the strategy of our match committee, and we don't know why they decided to take the pathway they decided upon. Sedat is right to question the merit of moving as quicly as we did. I don't necessarily agree with the fatalistic conclusions he's presenting, however.

We can all flop our negotiation wands out and have a contest surrounding whether size or how it's used is better, of course, but surely we need to accept there's a distinct possibility that we're happy with what we've ended up with, because it fell in line with the parameters we set to govern our decisions throughout the trade period as a whole. Looking at the Lake deal it's clear Hawthorn had an objective to get Brian Lake, and that's great, though why should we have spent our time making it as hard as possible for them to achieve that if it had the potential to damage the objectives we approached the trade period with? Different clubs have different needs and objectives to satisfy them. and I'd bet they'd all agree that it would be much harder to do that if they engaged in pissing contests over a few draft picks.

Longwait makes a very good point about the risks associated with not completing a deal when an outcome presented in the parameters you've set as being acceptable arises, and it should also be noted that concentrating on and holding out on one particular deal all but shuts out your ability to thoroughly explore deals that may arise in the future.

Anyway, I can't wait for us all to forget about the Lake deal, and concentrate on how poorly we'ver recruited in the draft period, only to be surprised by a few duds and be let down by a few guns in the future!

[chef]

Re: Talking trades

Well Put^^
Every decision,on here is met with extreme Negativity.
I mean EVERY DECISION

Yep, any excuse to kick a dog when he's down. This place has become quite sad while our club is rebuilding.

Wouldn't matter what the club did, the same people would be complaining about something that we could have done better.

Some people are never happy.

[chef]

Re: Talking trades

With your professional background LW, I'm now even more puzzled by your glowing assessment of the final terms of the Lake trade. The fact alone that the deal was constructed in haste and consummated on day 1 of the trade period suggests that no other alternatives with the other 16 clubs were seriously canvassed (or at least fully explored), which to me is lazy and ultimately poor business practice. Exploring all available options is a cornerstone of successful negotiating and I find it very hard to believe that the full due diligence was conducted by our footy dept on the Lake scenario.

You really think this deal was organised and signed off on in one day?

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Talking trades

I think Markoic fits the most important criteria to being an AFL player in the eyes of our coach.

I don't think supporters could fairly assess Marco 2012 with the amount of ball going into our backline. He can be slow to lead, but really tries his heart out in the 1 on 1 standing contest. He'll play a decent role I hope and am fairly confident in that.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Talking trades

There is plenty that we all know. We know that Lake was a contracted player. We know that there was a very keen suitor for his services, one who has been keen on him for a few years now. We know that the suitor in question had a glaring need to fill a hole on their list and that Lake was considered by them to be a prime candidate to fill that hole. We know that Lake's form improved markedly from 2012 compared to 2011, certainly enough to maintain the keen interest of the suitor in question. We know that 2011 was an anomoly in Lake's career with regard to his injury history, and that he returned to good health in 2012. We know that the Lake trade was finalised on day 1 of a month-long trade period. We know that our list manager placed an inordinate level of importance on the potential ramifications of losing Lake as a free agent in 12 months' time, and was extremely keen to point this out on public record after the trade was concluded.

With what we know, and with what I know about negotiating high-value contracts on a daily basis for the last 15 years, I am comfortable in openly questioning the end value we received out of this specific trade and the speed in which the trade was finalised. I will always support the team, but if there are decisions made that I as a supporter am uncomfortable with, I will continue to call it as I see it. I will also continue to respect the differing opinions of yourself and other posters.

Finalised on day 1, but according to the papers, they had been in negotiation some weeks before trade day 1.

[westdog54]

Re: Talking trades

You'd like to think that.
An example is who criticized the Stevens deal? In that deal a swap of later picks was mentioned. I questioned whether that would happen and it was thought I was being negative.

You aren't allowed to say anything slightly on 'this isn't right' side without the likes of yourself cracking it.
To me it's plain and obvious we aren't very good at the moment.
Just don't even hint it cos others don't want to believe it. Btw The Age trade analyst says we didn't get enough for Lake but now that I said yesterday it can't be true.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter rubbish.

We know we're not very good at the moment. There's plenty of well written criticism of the club and decisions that are made that's respected on debated on this board.

Unfortunately you don't write any of it. You're brand of 'this isn't right' as you so eloquently put it is nothing more than cheap shots devoid of any substance and seemingly immune from debate from other posters.

Hell, I'd love us to make the finals next year as well but with the list we've got it ain't gonna happen. The new coach has acknowledged that, even though some supporters seemingly haven't, and he's decided to try and rebuild the team from the ground up. In order to do that he's given game time to younger, inexperienced players that have struggled to run out games, hence our poor results towards the end of the year.

And then because we've had the gaul to do a deal for an ageing defender who's a shadow of his former self and who's body seems mere moments away from failing on him, all you can do is question what we got in return.

As for 'swapping of later picks' in the Stevens deal, that's a pedantic criticism of a decision bring in a young, tough as nails midfielder who, heaven forbid, actually wants to be a part of our club.

For heaven's sake drop your victim mentality.

[chef]

Re: Talking trades

Finalized on day 1, but according to the papers, they had been in negotiation some weeks before trade day 1.

Apparently 3 weeks in planning and the club worked with Lake to get him to where he wanted to go. Giving a long severing player a bit of respect, but I guess others would rather hock him off to the highest bidder.

[Mantis]

Re: Talking trades

Apparently 3 weeks in planning and the club worked with Lake to get him to where he wanted to go. Giving a long severing player a bit of respect, but I guess others would rather hock him off to the highest bidder.

That's fine, but did we get the maximum value from this trade?

I would have liked us to make Hawthorn wait a while such that they became 'edgy' as the trade period unfolded and upped their offer because in the end it's about get the best result possible from the trade and I don't know if this was achieved.

[GVGjr]

Re: Talking trades

That's fine, but did we get the maximum value from this trade?

I would have liked us to make Hawthorn wait a while such that they became 'edgy' as the trade period unfolded and upped their offer because in the end it's about get the best result possible from the trade and I don't know if this was achieved.

I don't think anyone can say that we did but given that Lake was indicating that it was the Hawks or he would stay for the next season (and probably just go through the motions) we might not have done a lot better. It was a 3 week trade window and I don't think the club wanted the potential Lake trade leaked early in the process and then turning it into a popularity contest amongst the fans over a long period of time.

Making the Hawks sweat sounds pretty good but they were also considering Rivers and most likely would have just moved onto that.

The way we parted ways with Lake sort of reminded me the way that Eade made the hard call on Scott West. He wasn't prepared for the news that West wouldn't be given another season to be leaked to media by anyone else but the club so they got on the front foot.

I don't think we wanted speculation that we were considering a trade for Lake.

As it was, it was quick and clean (and it shocked a lot of people) and the upside is that it's given us tremendous list management opportunities with contracts by freeing up a large chunk of salary cap space.

We are now well positioned for 3 early draft selections and maybe a speculative 1 or 2 later on.

[Topdog]

Re: Talking trades

And we did this?

Sounds like to me we put in three weeks of negotiations with the Hawks and signed off on the deal when Trade week started so we could focus of other deals.

Lol this time frame seems to increase every week. First it was 1 week, then 10 days and now 3 weeks. It was a poor deal but it's over and done with. IMO we did poor with Lake, stood our ground with Dawes and Gumby and pick 44/51 was a slight cave in but nothing to be concerned about. Think we did ok with Young too for a pick we would not have used.

Overall 7/10

[GVGjr]

Re: Talking trades

Lol this time frame seems to increase every week. First it was 1 week, then 10 days and now 3 weeks. It was a poor deal but it's over and done with. IMO we did poor with Lake, stood our ground with Dawes and Gumby and pick 44/51 was a slight cave in but nothing to be concerned about. Think we did ok with Young too for a pick we would not have used.

Overall 7/10

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.

[Doc26]

Re: Talking trades

That's fine, but did we get the maximum value from this trade?

I would have liked us to make Hawthorn wait a while such that they became 'edgy' as the trade period unfolded and upped their offer because in the end it's about get the best result possible from the trade and I don't know if this was achieved.

When the deal was first announced my immediate reaction was why did we go so early on this, why didn't we hang them out for longer ?

What if Hawthorn were steadfast in their resolve in not giving up anything better than what was landed for Lake ?

Although he brings potential upside to them he does carry risk for them as well given his age and recent history of hip and knee injuries whilst also having to move a number of players on to fit him in their cap.

Had Hawthorn chosen a different path with their available selections early in the trade period and given that Lake didn't want to be with us (and where he would be at mentally if we held onto him), given the large salary he commanded, given he had no more than ~20 games left with us, given where we're now at in our cycle and given he's soon to be a free agent, the outcome may well have been worse for us than improving our third pick selection to 22.

It's not a bad outcome but it could've been worse if we had held out for more and nothing came of it.

[LongWait]

Re: Talking trades

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).