A serious assessment of how your club fared in trade week

Remove this Banner Ad

What is this trade week you speak of...?
 
The club will probably be annoyed they didn't get Hale, we seemed pretty keen on him. Personally, I think we dodged a bullet there. He would have improved us next year but not by much and we would eventually want someone better I think.

Cheney is a good trade for us, we really see him as capable depth with limited improvement so we have been able to send him to a good home and in the process free up list space. I'm not sure we will use pick we got for him but it's an improved pick anyway.

Besides that I don't think we were seriously keen on anyone nor do I think there was anyone we were trying to sell off for anything of realistic value.
 
aneale said:
We gave up 33 + 67 for Sam Jacobs, got 61 from Freo for Jon Griffin and gave up what was 28 and 50 for Tambling who was contracted.

That leaves us with pick 14 & 61 which we will probably pass on. We well then upgrade Ricky Henderson and Matthew Jaensch who are better than anyone we would get with pick 33, 50 61 or 67 anyway.

We needed a ruckman and an outside mid/HFF with leg speed. Both well do well at the AFC.

Definite win :thumbsu:

we also stared down the magic and wondrous combination of Swann and Icke who rumour has it fleece everyone for first rounders in return for any of their players. We were lucky to come out alive apparently, altho' word is Rendell is now blind from staring at them directly.
Click to expand...

We picked up what we needed, a pacy outside mid slash half back flanker in Tambling, we picked up what we wanted, a strengthening of our ruck department in Jacobs. In exchange we gave up our second round pick (Car), our third round pick (Ric), our fourth round pick (Car), and the decidedly unsatisfactory compensation pick for Bock worth around 28 (Ric).

We held onto our first round pick (14), got a third round pick (61) back for letting Griffin return home unhindered, and held onto all of the players we wanted to keep.

We then plan to use only 14 and 61 as live picks in the draft - as it turns out, getting 61 meant we were never going to use the fourth round pick we gave for Jacobs anyway - with the remaining picks used to upgrade Ricky Henderson, Matthew Jaensch, Chris Schmidt, and I believe one more rookie.

I think we did ok, but it's going to take a season of observing Tambling especially before making any definite claims.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dazb86 said:
Pretty happy. We addressed list deficiency's ie: lack of pace pretty well.

Think we probably lost the Everitt trade but Vespremi if he comes on would be more valuable to us than Everitt in the long run.
Click to expand...

Vespremi looked ok a year or two back. May well suit your side as he plays a similar style to Johno.

Similarly, Everitt is a a good fit for the swans.

Both may never play senior AFL, but on paper it seems a win-win trade to me.
 
Richmond: 72/100 (B)

Trading Collins for Grigg raises a question mark, but the truth is, we wanted both Houli & Grigg, through the PSD we could only take one, so it only makes sense to sensibly deal with either Carlton or Essendon. The Tambling deal was fantastic.

Carlton: 54/100 (D)

Good trade for Collins, but unfortunately lots of players thrown as trade bait and no one took a bite.

North Melbourne: 87/100 (A)

How the heck did they get McKinley for Pick 86? Here are Essendon claiming Pick 46 is worthless to them, but North Melbourne pick up what could be a handy forward for pick 86! Fantastic effort for that team.

Collingwood: 81/100 (A)

This club does not budge in trade week do they? In the end of the day, they did whats best for Collingwood, they got Kraks & Tarrant for very little.

Essendon: 38/100 (Fail)

They refuse to turnover their list, allow Houli to slip away for nothing (even though most clubs would love to have pick 46) and did not actively participate in draft week even though their list is weak.

West Coast: 16/100 (Massive Fail)

Ben McKinely for 86? That's silly, they could have gotten a little more than that. Other than that, didn't do much!

Western Bulldogs: 95/100 (A+)

Smashed It.

Gold Coast: 99/100 (A+)

Collingwood got a little bit of something out of them, but they bent the comp over backwards.

Geelong: 53/100 (D)

Didn't do anything at all other than gain pick 57 for a player that had potential. Gained their compo picks for Ablett, didn't give them away, that was a positive.

Melbourne: 71/100 (B)

They have a settled list now, and they don't really need to fill in holes, they just need to develop, so there was no need for Melbourne to find gold in a shit tip. They did the right thing and won in trade week for it.

St. Kilda: 68/100 (C+)

They have their premiership list, they didn't need to trade, they just need to win a premiership, its good they didn't do much. Sometimes its better to do nothing at all, rather than picking up another Lovett.

Adelaide: 69/100 (C+)

They did great, people shit on them for Tambling, but he is just as much of a gamble as the picks they gave up for him, but the advantage is that he has 100 games of experience and needs a fresh start. They also got their man Jacobs and retained their first round pick.

Hawthorn: 63/100 (C)

Not very active in trade week, needed a ruckman and got him, so a successful trade is worth the points.

Brisbane: 73/100 (B)

They did really well here, they lost a lot of players and to upgrade their pick from 10 to 5 is a big win from them, they are looking to the future, not the past and also solved their salary cap issues. They made the best of an awkward situation, and thats what the draft is all about.

Fremantle: 58/100 (D+)

Lost out to Collingwood, but atleast they were unlike Essendon and gave away Tarrant for nothing.

Port Adelaide: 52/100 (D)

Did they think trade week began next week? Philips could work out for them though.

Sydney: 42/100 (Fail)

Threw everything at Sherman and didn't get him. An unsuccessful trade is failure at the trade table.
 
Donakebab said:
What is this trade week you speak of...?
Click to expand...

i laughed .. well put

i am happy with the pies, krakour is a nice pick up, especially if he shows the form of this year
ceglar is a kid, essentially a free draft pick and taz is back as insurance
my only concern is the rat pack is getting back together, but they are all a bit older, wiser and all but one are premiership players, so they should keep their heads screwed on
 
CNB1990 said:
Richmond: 72/100 (B)

Trading Collins for Grigg raises a question mark, but the truth is, we wanted both Houli & Grigg, through the PSD we could only take one, so it only makes sense to sensibly deal with either Carlton or Essendon. The Tambling deal was fantastic.

Carlton: 54/100 (D)

Good trade for Collins, but unfortunately lots of players thrown as trade bait and no one took a bite.

North Melbourne: 87/100 (A)

How the heck did they get McKinley for Pick 86? Here are Essendon claiming Pick 46 is worthless to them, but North Melbourne pick up what could be a handy forward for pick 86! Fantastic effort for that team.

Collingwood: 81/100 (A)

This club does not budge in trade week do they? In the end of the day, they did whats best for Collingwood, they got Kraks & Tarrant for very little.

Essendon: 38/100 (Fail)

They refuse to turnover their list, allow Houli to slip away for nothing (even though most clubs would love to have pick 46) and did not actively participate in draft week even though their list is weak.

West Coast: 16/100 (Massive Fail)

Ben McKinely for 86? That's silly, they could have gotten a little more than that. Other than that, didn't do much!

Western Bulldogs: 95/100 (A+)

Smashed It.

Gold Coast: 99/100 (A+)

Collingwood got a little bit of something out of them, but they bent the comp over backwards.

Geelong: 53/100 (D)

Didn't do anything at all other than gain pick 57 for a player that had potential. Gained their compo picks for Ablett, didn't give them away, that was a positive.

Melbourne: 71/100 (B)

They have a settled list now, and they don't really need to fill in holes, they just need to develop, so there was no need for Melbourne to find gold in a shit tip. They did the right thing and won in trade week for it.

St. Kilda: 68/100 (C+)

They have their premiership list, they didn't need to trade, they just need to win a premiership, its good they didn't do much. Sometimes its better to do nothing at all, rather than picking up another Lovett.

Adelaide: 69/100 (C+)

They did great, people shit on them for Tambling, but he is just as much of a gamble as the picks they gave up for him, but the advantage is that he has 100 games of experience and needs a fresh start. They also got their man Jacobs and retained their first round pick.

Hawthorn: 63/100 (C)

Not very active in trade week, needed a ruckman and got him, so a successful trade is worth the points.

Brisbane: 73/100 (B)

They did really well here, they lost a lot of players and to upgrade their pick from 10 to 5 is a big win from them, they are looking to the future, not the past and also solved their salary cap issues. They made the best of an awkward situation, and thats what the draft is all about.

Fremantle: 58/100 (D+)

Lost out to Collingwood, but atleast they were unlike Essendon and gave away Tarrant for nothing.

Port Adelaide: 52/100 (D)

Did they think trade week began next week? Philips could work out for them though.

Sydney: 42/100 (Fail)

Threw everything at Sherman and didn't get him. An unsuccessful trade is failure at the trade table.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is not Bay 13.
 
jerry springer said:
basically ecstatic that we kept a hold of John Anthony who with his ability to play forward and back will be a great asset next year
Click to expand...

You are kidding yourself.

Good list at Collingwood, but if you think Mr Potato Head is a swingman you are deluded. Looked like a deer in the headlights at AFL level in the back half.

The guy is a reliable kick for goal if you can get the ball in his hands. That's about it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ziad said:
Truert,

Delisting McKinlay while allowing him to have another go is a good outcome.

To retain a player who fails at WAFL level would be an error.
Click to expand...



McKinley kicked 42.29 from 11 WAFL games this season, with a chunk of that in the midfield.


Real "failure".
 
Donakebab said:
What is this trade week you speak of...?
Click to expand...

It's that time of the year where Geelong gives away all its depth for draft picks we are unlikely to use
 
Biggest objective was to get rid of Motlop and that failed, but unless he magically gets over all his problems and back to 08 form he'll be gone this time next year. Other than that, was never going to be a big player in trade week this year. Walker could have been okay, but not a big loss. Turns out we got the fairly unknown Phillips essentially for free as the bundled pick 35 was when our compo pick that was traded for him would have been if used this year, so I guess it's hard to fault that.
 
I think Port did ok. We got a player that fills a need in the side (pacey crumbing forward) and getting a pick back means we essentially got Phillips for nothing. We didnt pay over the odds for an injury prone back flanker so kept our first pick. Overall ok. I do think we need to get more involved in trade week though.
 
I thought the crows did the best. I would have loved Jacobs with us.

Ambivalent on missing Hill. IF he was the hard running, goal kicking machine he would have had a few more suitors. We seem to take a better to have loved and lost attitude to trade week.

Surprised the bombers were so quiet.
 
Very happy.

We were resigned to losing Brennan and Sherman before trade week started, and the objective was to come out the other side with some good draft picks.

Mission accomplished.

Got plenty of value for Brennan by upgrading pick 10 to 5, and getting picks 25, 27 and Rohan Bewick who looks promising and will add a mature body to our depleted midfield.

Getting pick 21 from Sydney for Sherman would have been nice, but even getting the Harbrow compo pick was a great deal, especially as the Bulldogs are taking on Sherman's backended contract.

Depending on what compensation picks we decide to use, we can have up to 6 picks in the top 35, including pick 5 (Dyson Heppell come on down!).

We've traditionally rolled over like a trained poodle at trade week, but now Gubby Allan is gone (he's your problem now GWS), his replacement Rob Kerr seems like a muchy ballsier negotiator. Thank god for that.
 
yeah-nah said:
We strengthened a young, still dveloping premiership list considerably and gave up very little. Scary.
Click to expand...


i used to think the eagles were the masters of trade week - but i think we face****ed a gagging geelong once too often and nobody wants to play with us any more (except carlty poos - but who didnt want judd)

collingwood are now the undisputed heavyweight champions of ballgagging and treating other teams as the gimp
 

Remove this Banner Ad

A serious assessment of how your club fared in trade week

Similar threads

PerthBoy86
How emotionally invested do you get when your team isn't playing?
Replies
4
Views
169
Billy ray
Billy ray
L
Opinion AFL Bye Week(s). How to fix?
Replies
12
Views
525
Walshawk
Walshawk
MadMundy
Where do you *realistically* see your club going in the next 5 years?
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
3K
tugga
tugga
Cleansweep17
Opinion Which player from your club contributed the most in flag years?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Partridge
Partridge
Cleansweep17
Opinion What best describes your fav 3 players from your club?
Replies
0
Views
391
Cleansweep17
Cleansweep17
Cleric
How did the draft work in the 1980s?
Replies
6
Views
317
Billy ray
Billy ray
dirtyratz
Who is the greatest #8 to ever play for your club
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
CURVE
CURVE

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top