Brian Lake to Hawthorn

[Redemption97]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

I might be the only one but I'm fine with this trade. Lake wanted to go... Let's not forget that Lake lovers. He served us well and has a chance now to do what he wouldn't have done had he remained. Yes it's sad he's gone but it's worked out ok for us and it is obviously what he wanted too.

I'm not sure what more you all expect? He has two years left and would be taking the spot of a kid that has a chance to develop with the rest of our side. I'm ok with the pick upgrade and 41... In time this could be seen as defining draft for us. These picks might be the difference to making this the draft we all want it to be?

[Bornadog]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Don't I know it Superdog. I read a tweet at work and it said we got pick 21, I thought to myself that's about right. By the time I got home I found out we'd given them #27 and got #41 as well. The rage virus sunk in not long after that.

Would have been more palatable if we had 21 and 27.

[Bornadog]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Side with BAD on this one. For the past 2 years even when we weren't involved I have called the picks 1-17(now 18) as first round. The AFL has ruined that with their compo picks and what not but 21 for me is the 3rd pick in the 2nd round.

Thank you, I wasn't being negative, I should have explained it like you have.

[LongWait]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

It's been speculated, but do we really know Brian "put us in the situation"?

Lake's manager said that the trade was their idea (Pask and Lake) and was suggested to avoid the situation where Lake would leave as an unrestricted free agent and the club would be at the mercy of the AFL for any compensation we might get.

I think that we had no choice but to trade Lake given that he didn't want to stay. We don't want a disinterested senior player on the books, costing us a fortune and possibly undermining what the coaching staff are trying to achieve with the "total footy" approach.

We may have, probably did have, something to do with Lake wanting to leave though, if that's what you are getting at Andrew? Probably with good reason on the club's behalf. Can't have players dictating which positions they are prepared to play in.

[jeemak]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

It's only a technicality though. We got pick #21 and #41 for Lake and #27. Take the round number out of it and it looks like crap.

Unless we have a specific player in mind to draft that we don't think will be available at pick 27.

We use pick 21 on the player we want, and we have another player in mind that we think will be available at pick 41. The club may have made a determination that there's not going to be any difference between having pick 27 and 41 when it comes to securring the player we're after.

We probably weren't interested in receiving any players that Hawthorn may have thrown in with the deal, and there's no way Hawthorn would deem having their first pick at 41 as being a reasonable outcome, meaning they would have to trade a player out (when they may not want to) to secure a lower pick. It's easy to act as if we held all the cards, but there would be limitations to how far Hawthorn would be prepared to go, for a player that may only marginally improve their performance, if at all. A lot still has to go right for them to be as competitive next year as they were in 2012, and they would surely be pragmatic enough to understand that a 31 year old with a recent chequered injury history will not make the difference, and will only be a small piece of the puzzle.

I suppose more will be revealed when we see if we draft for specific need or best available after pick 21.

[Dry Rot]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Would have been more palatable if we had 21 and 27.

Were you prepared for us to pay his 2013 salary?

I might have been, if it meant we retained or bought pick 27.

[Bornadog]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Were you prepared for us to pay his 2013 salary?

I might have been, if it meant we retained or bought pick 27.

Maybe that's the reason for giving up pick 27. Its a tough one.

[Sedat]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

It's easy to act as if we held all the cards, but there would be limitations to how far Hawthorn would be prepared to go

I think you and quite a few other posters are underestimating the urgency of Hawthorn's needs. They are neck-deep in contention mode and one of the only areas they have a deficiency in is down back with their key defensive posts. We have an AA key defender still near enough to his best, and Hawthorn would have be salivating over the prospect of immediately bolstering their area of deficiency - and as we all know, good key defenders do not grow on trees. With Lake being under contract, we held all the cards.

A week is a long time in footy, let alone 12 months. Hawthorn could be finished as a contender this time next year or they could be a premiership team. Hawthorn was the more desperate of the two parties to orchestrate this trade and we failed to take advantage of the situation.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Lake's manager said that the trade was their idea (Pask and Lake) and was suggested to avoid the situation where Lake would leave as an unrestricted free agent and the club would be at the mercy of the AFL for any compensation we might get.

Fair enough, hadn't seen that.

We may have, probably did have, something to do with Lake wanting to leave though, if that's what you are getting at Andrew? Probably with good reason on the club's behalf. Can't have players dictating which positions they are prepared to play in.

Perhaps. IF it transpired as such, then I'm more understanding. I just don't think it is a good move to send your teams only true KPP packing as easy as that, for the return of picks that may become good players, or my end up in the Spotswood 2's ( no offence to the Spotswood 2's )

[Bornadog]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

I think you and quite a few other posters are underestimating the urgency of Hawthorn's needs. They are neck-deep in contention mode and one of the only areas they have a deficiency in is down back with their key defensive posts. We have an AA key defender still near enough to his best, and Hawthorn would have be salivating over the prospect of immediately bolstering their area of deficiency - and as we all know, good key defenders do not grow on trees. With Lake being under contract, we held all the cards.

A week is a long time in footy, let alone 12 months. Hawthorn could be finished as a contender this time next year or they could be a premiership team. Hawthorn was the more desperate of the two parties to orchestrate this trade and we failed to take advantage of the situation.

What do you think would have been a fair trade? Personally, pick 21 and 41 for Lake and thats it and we keep 27, they take over his contract. Would that be too much?

[jeemak]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

I think you and quite a few other posters are underestimating the urgency of Hawthorn's needs. They are neck-deep in contention mode and one of the only areas they have a deficiency in is down back with their key defensive posts. We have an AA key defender still near enough to his best, and Hawthorn would have be salivating over the prospect of immediately bolstering their area of deficiency - and as we all know, good key defenders do not grow on trees. With Lake being under contract, we held all the cards.

A week is a long time in footy, let alone 12 months. Hawthorn could be finished as a contender this time next year or they could be a premiership team. Hawthorn was the more desperate of the two parties to orchestrate this trade and we failed to take advantage of the situation.

Perhaps we have differing views on Hawthorn's summation of Lake's potential impact, rather than the urgency of Hawthorn's situation.

I truly believe that leaving them with pick 41 as their first live pick would be completely unnacceptable to them, meaning they would have to trade a depth player as a minimum to gain a pick in the top 30, to potentially snare a player they had in mind. Losing any such player might not be supplemented by the recruitment of Lake.

While the Hawks have undeniable star power in certain areas of the ground, they rely on a system that sees medium tier players (and in some cases depth players) as being extremely valuable to their success.

[Dry Rot]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

What do you think would have been a fair trade? Personally, pick 21 and 41 for Lake and thats it and we keep 27, they take over his contract. Would that be too much?

I do.

IMO, we should have "brought" ie retained our pick 27 and paid most of his salary, in return for their pick 21 only.

If we're worried about paying out salary for nothing, we should reflect on Mr Cooney in 2013.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

The players don't run the show.
Lake should play where the coach instructs him to.
Brian and his manager facilitated a trade ( their words)
Comparing the Compo to Goddard is silly to begin with.
One is 31 and the other is 27 for Christ sake.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

I heard from someone close to the club late last year (and I don't know if its true) that Rodney Eade was on the verge of being reappointed, he then lost the job when his presentation included the concept that he wanted to trade Lake and Cooney and engage in a list rebuild. Don't know if its true but that is what I heard. Interesting that some of the posters here are now questioning the value of Cooney and Lake is gone.

[KT31]

Re: Brian Lake to Hawthorn

Does anyone actually know if or what we are paying of Brian salary next season ?