List Mgmt. 2017 Trade and Free Agency Discussion - #Leverpulled and #Harleyrevved

[Cannon82]

Who said anything about psychological damage? We paid the market rate rather than trying to screw Adelaide over for unders which they probably wouldn't have accepted anyway. I don't understand how everyone is still so hung up over the Lever deal when it was definitely a fair price to pay and if this is the kind of thing that upsets you you're probably better off finding another hobby.

You brought up duty of care, ie you're suggesting that we had a moral / legal obligation to ensure Jake Lever's well-being in this case. If you weren't referring to psychological damage, are you suggesting Adelaide were going to break Jake's legs? Maybe "duty of care" wasn't the phrase you were looking for?

 

[Willo 17]

Question is what's better - a cooked Cramieri or pick 47.

Pick 47 and get Liam Ryan with it.

 

[Cannon82]

Melbourne: 'Hi Adelaide, it seems as though you are upset with Lever for wanting to leave'.

Adelaide: 'yes, he is a campaigner, and we are still butt sore about losing the GF. That's why we are sniping him in the press'.

Melbourne: 'well he's coming to us. You know it and we know it. How about we give you the other first rounder you're after and wrap this up quickly so that you can move on Gibbs and we can look at other things too. All we ask is that you don't pot him or his character any further, because we want our man to be perceived positively upon arrival, and we want to buy some loyalty by showing him that we will look after him from the outset'.

Adelaide: 'that is fair and reasonable. Done deal. Thanks Melbourne, you're a good guy and we'll come to you first next year, if we have any wantaways or deals we'd like to discuss'.

Melbourne: 'great. Enjoy our 2018 pick number 18'.

So all a club has to do to get overs out of us for a player who wants to come here is publicly badmouth them?

 

[Demon bhoy]

So all a club has to do to get overs out of us for a player who wants to come here is publicly badmouth them?

I don't think the club paid overs, we got a known quantity an AA squad member with big upside and 10 years in front of him and he has been a dee for 2 weeks already. Nobody will know the name of Adelaides 2018 first rounder for another 13 months, in the meantime they have Gibbs to help pass the days. Almost all the risk is with the crows and a big piece of puzzle can't help them anytime soon.

I reckon a reputation as a club who is fair and reasonable is a good thing to have when you only deal with 17 other clubs being on good terms with as many as possible can only be a positive.

 

[Cannon82]

I don't think the club paid overs, we got a known quantity an AA squad member with big upside and 10 years in front of him and he has been a dee for 2 weeks already. Nobody will know the name of Adelaides 2018 first rounder for another 13 months, in the meantime they have Gibbs to help pass the days. Almost all the risk is with the crows and a big piece of puzzle can't help them anytime soon.

I reckon a reputation as a club who is fair and reasonable is a good thing to have when you only deal with 17 other clubs being on good terms with as many as possible can only be a positive.

I'm not really sold on that. A player's progression isn't linear, and to sit here and say Lever is going to be an AA defender, 10 year defender, etc isn't locked in. Grimes, Trengove, McLean, etc started well and would've been locked in as long term players and potential AA teamers as well - obviously different reasons as to why they failed to progress, but Lever doesn't have a spotless injury history either, and he's now joining a different team with a new defence and a different style of play. We'll see on that front, though.

Depends on your perspective. I think we paid overs, and we've tended to overpay or undersell on deals in the past more often than we've extracted value. I more think we're cultivating a reputation as pushovers.

 

[Demon bhoy]

I'm not really sold on that. A player's progression isn't linear, and to sit here and say Lever is going to be an AA defender, 10 year defender, etc isn't locked in. Grimes, Trengove, McLean, etc started well and would've been locked in as long term players and potential AA teamers as well - obviously different reasons as to why they failed to progress, but Lever doesn't have a spotless injury history either, and he's now joining a different team with a new defence and a different style of play. We'll see on that front, though.

Depends on your perspective. I think we paid overs, and we've tended to overpay or undersell on deals in the past more often than we've extracted value. I more think we're cultivating a reputation as pushovers.

Definitely understand what your saying and I do tend to look at things in a positive way, I just believe the rewards are far greater than the risk with this trade. A lot of promising starts have gone bad, but there are a lot of first round picks who can't play as well and the crows won't even find that out for at least 2 years and that's without factoring in what JT does with the second rounder this year.

 

[00Stinger]

Billy Harting anybody?

Surely he is too good to be finished at 22 as an AFL player.....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Billy Harting anybody?

Surely he is too good to be finished at 22 as an AFL player.....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Given he was delisted by a club looking at a rebuild I'd say he's not.

 

[Demon 16]

So all a club has to do to get overs out of us for a player who wants to come here is publicly badmouth them?

Adelaide came out looking bad in this. I wouldn't recommend their behaviour, it has been well documented.

They finished top of the ladder and could have easily left him to the draft but we secured the deal.

The best we could have done would have been 5 or so picks into the second round with one of our other offer. We didn't sell the farm.

 

[PerfectFooty]

Given he was delisted by a club looking at a rebuild I'd say he's not.

Doesn't mean it's intelligence, it either can be or can't be. Targeting Vickey wasn't wise, but anything before that period was success.

Norf delisted a player in their best 22 every week

 

[liamjurrah]

Michael close? Ben Lennon?

 

[Cannon82]

Adelaide came out looking bad in this. I wouldn't recommend their behaviour, it has been well documented.

They finished top of the ladder and could have easily left him to the draft but we secured the deal.

The best we could have done would have been 5 or so picks into the second round with one of our other offer. We didn't sell the farm.

Adelaide's public commentary on the issue had them looking bad whether they got three first rounders or let him walk to the draft. Similarly, the public treatment of Watts wouldn't have reflected well on us either.

Is that the best we could have done? If it hadn't happened, I'd imagine Lachie Weller and pick 2 being traded would have been scoffed at as well.

 

[Cannon82]

Michael close? Ben Lennon?

No. Rookie, maybe. Says a bit that the Tigs have let him go when in theory he'd be good depth for their tilt at going back to back.

 

[Demon 16]

Adelaide's public commentary on the issue had them looking bad whether they got three first rounders or let him walk to the draft. Similarly, the public treatment of Watts wouldn't have reflected well on us either.

Is that the best we could have done? If it hadn't happened, I'd imagine Lachie Weller and pick 2 being traded would have been scoffed at as well.

There are 2 ways at approaching a negotiation I suppose.

Given we are limited to dealing with only 17 parties each year, I prefer the longer term, conciliatory approach, unless we are getting bent over.

You seem to be an advocate of the adversarial approach, but for the sake of a potential 5 pick upgrade or whatever, I don't agree with you in this instance.

We got a good deal and playing hardball might have got us a 5 pick upgrade at best in my opinion.

 

[Cannon82]

There are 2 ways at approaching a negotiation I suppose.

Given we are limited to dealing with only 17 parties each year, I prefer the longer term, conciliatory approach, unless we are getting bent over.

You seem to be an advocate of the adversarial approach, but for the sake of a potential 5 pick upgrade or whatever, I don't agree with you in this instance.

We got a good deal and playing hardball might have got us a 5 pick upgrade at best in my opinion.

The names at the table change all the time; I don't imagine rocking up to the table with a "we've been good to you in the past" is going to carry much stock in negotiations. Keep accounts current otherwise we'll be the ones who get burnt.

Again, you don't know what we could have gotten out of it if we'd actually applied a bit of pressure on Adelaide. They wanted Gibbs to help them push on for a flag and we gave them the ammunition to get him. We got the player we wanted, paid a bit overboard for him and I can't see any other tangible benefits to it. Drafting is a bit of a blind dip into the lucky bin, and I would have liked to have seen what we could've pulled out with another first round pick, or traded back into next year's first round. Anyway, I've been down this road before earlier and I don't want to keep banging the drum.

 

[Demon 16]

The names at the table change all the time; I don't imagine rocking up to the table with a "we've been good to you in the past" is going to carry much stock in negotiations. Keep accounts current otherwise we'll be the ones who get burnt.

Again, you don't know what we could have gotten out of it if we'd actually applied a bit of pressure on Adelaide. They wanted Gibbs to help them push on for a flag and we gave them the ammunition to get him. We got the player we wanted, paid a bit overboard for him and I can't see any other tangible benefits to it. Drafting is a bit of a blind dip into the lucky bin, and I would have liked to have seen what we could've pulled out with another first round pick, or traded back into next year's first round. Anyway, I've been down this road before earlier and I don't want to keep banging the drum.

You would hope our guys are planning on being there for a while. Even if they aren't, I think we can still point to previous dealings as a club.

Tell me Cannon82, what would have satisfied you for the Lever deal (don't tell me how hard you would have liked to rheem Adelaide, we all would have loved that)?

 

[Cannon82]

You would hope our guys are planning on being there for a while. Even if they aren't, I think we can still point to previous dealings as a club.

Tell me Cannon82, what would have satisfied you for the Lever deal (don't tell me how hard you would have liked to rheem Adelaide, we all would have loved that)?

I mean all clubs, not just our guys. Plenty of natural turnover. Point is though, if we're trying to play nice guys, then we either pay up front and in full (and then some), or if the other club isn't interested in playing ball, we then cop it even further. With this model, we either pay slight overs or get hung out to dry. There are no real wins to speak of. Not something I'm a fan of - football is adversarial and we should be negotiating on that basis.

First and a second should have been the ceiling, and keep our 2018 picks. I wouldn't have had that much of an issue letting him walk to the draft - our first there probably would have picked Lever up given the reticence clubs show to picking up players who are hellbent on going to a specific club.

 

[Russian Demon]

I think we did the right thing, as trading is basically just Settlers of Catan.

In this instance, the team that will end up having the best week is essentially no. Of trades x how well you did. The reality though is that you nearly never get a trade that is nearly all your way.... they tend to average out to 50/50. As there are 18 teams, the winner of trade week is the team that makes the largest number of mutually beneficial trades. If we make 5 trades with 5 teams, were up by 5 steps that improve our list and they are up by 1 each. Thus, more fair trades (and ensuring you have the maximum numbers of available partners to do so) is the best logical way to win long term.

 

[Russian Demon]

Oh yeah. And everyone hates the ore hoarding mother****er... or the lever hoarding Adelaide.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Proper Gander]

The names at the table change all the time; I don't imagine rocking up to the table with a "we've been good to you in the past" is going to carry much stock in negotiations. Keep accounts current otherwise we'll be the ones who get burnt.

Again, you don't know what we could have gotten out of it if we'd actually applied a bit of pressure on Adelaide. They wanted Gibbs to help them push on for a flag and we gave them the ammunition to get him. We got the player we wanted, paid a bit overboard for him and I can't see any other tangible benefits to it. Drafting is a bit of a blind dip into the lucky bin, and I would have liked to have seen what we could've pulled out with another first round pick, or traded back into next year's first round. Anyway, I've been down this road before earlier and I don't want to keep banging the drum.

I’m not a great fan of the trade, but if there is a benefit then it’s not so much in the relationship with Crows - I think it’s more that when we go a-poaching next time the poachee would be more likely to agree to nominate us believing that we will get it done then might be the case if we had entered a two week public fight and not got it over the line. I say this in a qualified way though, I could be talking myself into believing it. I wasn’t overawed by our trading.

But I do like Lever and Balic could turn out inspired, or at worst pretty cheap...

 

[LeverPuller]

On it, I guess what were the needs we all thought we had coming in?

I'd say an intercepting defender and a backup ruck.

One of those has been solved for the next decade, and the other isn't that big a deal given the success we had with Pedo.

We talk about outside class too, but that's what Stretch and second round picks are for grabbing.

 

[DemonTim]

I have heard a small rumour (not sure I even trust it) that we perhaps both clubs got a little call from the league saying it would be in both our best interests to not let this “lever going to the draft” talk drag on.

 

[Devastating Boris]

I have heard a small rumour (not sure I even trust it) that we perhaps both clubs got a little call from the league saying it would be in both our best interests to not let this “lever going to the draft” talk drag on.

I mentioned this the week before it happened. The AFL is trying to kill the notion of the draft being used as a way of players getting what they want. There is a “non-existent” understanding of this between the clubs and the AFL. [emoji6]

 

[DemonTim]

I mentioned this the week before it happened. The AFL is trying to kill the notion of the draft being used as a way of players getting what they want. There is a “non-existent” understanding of this between the clubs and the AFL. [emoji6]

The source isn’t someone I’ve ever had inside info or anything from but it made a lot of sense.

 

[Devastating Boris]

The source isn’t someone I’ve ever had inside info or anything from but it made a lot of sense.

It was that or go public with mediation. This was the best outcome for the AFL.