Tweet
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.
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.
Comment