Bulldogs Trade Analysis

[jazzadogs]

So now it's all over, how did we fare?

Gained: Koby Stevens, Tom Young, Pick 21 (now 22)

Lose: Brian Lake, Pick 27, Pick 71

Pick 41 (now 44) was part of the Lake trade, then used for Stevens.

This leaves us with Picks 5, 6, 22, 51, 89 etc in the draft, plus Lachlan Hunter with pick 50.


Overall, I am fairly neutral about this trade period. We have made no incredible gains, and suffered no insurmountable losses.

As has been robustly discussed on the forum, the outcome of trading Lake will largely be determined by the player we draft at pick 22. I have no issue with the timing of the trade, and have faith in the people involved that adequate discussion and negotiation took place over the week leading up to the Trade Period. I am completely supportive of the decision to seek a trade, given his age, injuries and contract/free agent status. As with almost all supporters, I would have loved for us to hold on to pick 27 but it wasn't to be.

I like the pick-up of Stevens, and for pick 44 I hope that we come out as winners. He seems to fit the mantra, and I look forward to seeing him work with our current midfield.

Tom Young is unlikely to be a superstar, but when you're only giving up #71 I have no issue with it. Back in our development academy to get the best out of him.

The most important thing for me is we still have picks 5, 6 and 22. Surely we can't stuff up 5 and 6. 22 is the important one, it needs to be a win.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Given today's washup with the Hawks using our pick 27 from the Lake deal to secure Jed Anderson I think its been a less than ideal trade period. That's where my real disappointment has come from.

Add to that I think our accommodating West Coasts demands for pick 44 for Koby Stevens which allowed them to trade for Cripps was poor. Stevens will play a role, but I would've preferred we showed some spine and let him go through to the draft if West Coast weren't going to accept pick 51.

Tom Young.....meh didn't give up much, but then again I don't think we have secured a future 150 game player either. Collingwood don't let those types go for pick 71.

[choconmientay]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Consider we were sticking with our philosophy to build up a young list, I think we did OK. Happy with high picks in hand. Also Stevens and Young will add a bit to the young list we have.

btw, just heard on SEN that Sherman is moved on and will enter the PSD. It's a shame that we do not get anything for him.

[G-Mo77]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

I pretty much agree with you word for word but I'll edit this paragraph to suit my thoughts.

As has been robustly discussed on the forum, the outcome of trading Lake will largely be determined by the player we draft at pick 22. I have issues with the timing of the trade, and have no faith in the people involved that adequate discussion and negotiation took place over the week leading up to the Trade Period. I am completely supportive of the decision to seek a trade, given his age, injuries and contract/free agent status. As with almost all supporters, I would have loved for us to hold on to pick 27 but it wasn't to be because we didn't even attempt to keep it.

Not having a go Jazza but I'm pretty much the complete opposite.

Really disappointed we couldn't unload a Sherman or Veszpremi it means Panos, Skinner or both are in serious trouble of keeping their spots. 8 off the list, 2 in and a father son selection so we've got 5 live picks. It doesn't leave much room for rookie upgrades. I'm guessing it will only be 2 of the 4 which I'm really gutted about as any of the 4 deserve to be on the main list over the likes of Sherman.

At a guess Panos and Greenwood to be delisted, Campbell and JJ elevated, Jong, Austin and Redpath retained.

Leaves us with #5, #6, #22, #51 and 1 rookie selection.

Edit: Maybe Panos is safe?

[G-Mo77]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

btw, just heard on SEN that Sherman is moved on and will enter the PSD. It's a shame that we do not anything for him.

[choconmientay]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Yeah, I know what you mean. Part of me said the same thing. He did more harm than good to our club since he joined but I still think we should have got something for him through the trade period.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Okay for mine. Hard to get a read on Stevens ( could be a bargain)
Young will be a squad player at best( steak knife deal)
Kept the three big picks ( thank Christ)
Not upset in losing Lake, he was clearly wanting to go.

[G-Mo77]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Yeah, I know what you mean. Part of me said the same thing. He did more harm than good to our club since he joined but I still think we should have got something for him through the trade period.

It would have been a throw away pick anyway that wouldn't have been used. The empty spot on our list is value enough. Call it addition by subtraction.

[Sedat]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

On the surface it is not a horrible trade period but it should have been a whole lot better. And I disagree 100% about the timing of the Lake trade. Hawthorn were obviously keen to shed Gilham off the list (injury prone and similar type to Shoey, Stratton) and bring in a bigger bodied defender - nobody else in the competition was better credentialled and equipped than Lake who could possibly have been available so there was a strong need to get him to the club. We reacted in fear because of the threat of Lake becoming a FA in 12 months' time - what the hell might happen in 1 weeks' time let alone a year? And anyway Lake would have commanded some compenation next year if he walked - probasbly around a pick in the 40's, which is sort of the net effect that we got for him this year (and then gave to WC for Stevens). Hawthorn should have been made to sweat big time for Lake, and we should not have budged from a position of pick 21 or nothing. That would have meant we kept pick 27 and either save it for the ND or use it in a trade for an Anderson or someone else we had our eye on.

Stevens for pick 44 is not a big deal in isolation, but it is just another example of us blinking first in a stalemate scenario. Again there was a rush to get the deal finalised quicker than needed - it could have waited until this morning to get finalised.

Young for pick 71 has meh written all over it. Provided Dalrymple had a hand in this decision and is comfortable that there wasn't a smoky he had his eye on around this pick that was a better prospect than Young, I'm fine with it.

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those. And just to show that I call poor decisions during the Eade era, hurriedly throwing away the Harbrow compensation pick on Sherman was one of the dumbest decisions our footy dept has made in the last couple of years. We should have held onto that pick until this year, which would have been a low 20's selection, to further strengthen our trade and draft position this year.

Nothing will convince me that we aren't piss-poor negotiators when it comes to dealing with other clubs, and this trade period has been no exception.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

At a guess Panos and Greenwood to be delisted, Campbell and JJ elevated, Jong, Austin and Redpath retained.

Leaves us with #5, #6, #22, #51 and 1 rookie selection.

Edit: Maybe Panos is safe?

I will be really surprised if Greenwood goes. I thought he made a lot of progress to be a good contributor at Williamstown.

More chance of Vez being shown the door in my view.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

Brian Lake was pick 71 ...................I'm scared too

[Bornadog]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those.

.

maybe no one was interested

[G-Mo77]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

I will be really surprised if Greenwood goes. I thougt he made a lot of progress to be a good contributor at Williamstown.

More chance of Vez being shown the door in my view.

I didn't realise Sherman had gone when I typed that so there is still a chance 3 of the 4 or even all 4 of the rookies get elevated. In that case Greenwood stays.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those.

Nothing will convince me that we aren't piss-poor negotiators when it comes to dealing with other clubs, and this trade period has been no exception.

The problem of course is that every club knew he would go and he was so devalued by his time with us, that he had no appeal.

May not get picked up at all, but then he has been paid for 2013 anyway so might get a gig in a State League.

[Bornadog]

Re: Bulldogs Trade Analysis

I didn't realise Sherman had gone when I typed that so there is still a chance 3 of the 4 or even all 4 of the rookies get elevated. In that case Greenwood stays.

Does that make it 9 off the list now?

By guess is we go to the draft with the first 5, upgrade Campbell, Austin, Johannisen and Jong, keep Greenwood and Redpath on the rookie list and pick up two more rookies.