Geelong show the other teams how to do trade week.

[blitzer]

Geelong were efficient in getting their trades with minimum fuss for sure - but really how much does that stuff matter at the end of the day. I've never once heard of clubs winning premierships because they are 'pleasant to trade with'. Hell there have been trades in the past where one side made out like bandits which had a big role in leading to premierships. This idea that there is one right way to trade is just silly. Every club has different list needs, priorities and should adopt a tailored approach in order to maximise their chances for success. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it goes through on day 1 with no fuss or on the last day after many arguments - its all quickly forgotten about and players will go to clubs that offer the best conditions and clubs will trade with anyone who can give them what they want regardless of personal feelings.

I for one am very pleased with how Essendon went in the trade period. Half of the stuff the OP said was complete rubbish. Pick 5 may have been slight overs (a lot of neutrals in the media said it was fair for the record) but it wasn't easy for Essendon and Saints to come up with a reasonable deal given the picks they had and ultimately involved a third club and a fairly complicated scenario - its not surprising it took a while to get that sorted. At the end of the day we got some very good value for players wanting to leave the club.

 

[GuzzLG]

So can Geelong show us how to deal on trade week when one of your star players are wanting out?

Can't see any evidence of Geelong's in that regard. But I'm sure if Ablett wasn't able to be taken for nothing by Gold Coast that the Cats would have got the deal done on day 1.

 

[Donakebab]

Can't fault our start to season 2016.

October Premiers - Geelong
Steven Wells clearly deserves the Ben Cousins Medal.

I just hope we can beat North for the January premiership.
Backing Blicavs to take home the Chris Masten medal.

Ummm....

 

[blackcat]

peter north does southpark

 

[JayJay35]

Meh, the pies targeted Aish & Treloar & got Aish & Treloar. I'm happy.

 

[jim boy]

Geelong were efficient in getting their trades with minimum fuss for sure - but really how much does that stuff matter at the end of the day. I've never once heard of clubs winning premierships because they are 'pleasant to trade with'. Hell there have been trades in the past where one side made out like bandits which had a big role in leading to premierships. This idea that there is one right way to trade is just silly. Every club has different list needs, priorities and should adopt a tailored approach in order to maximise their chances for success. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it goes through on day 1 with no fuss or on the last day after many arguments - its all quickly forgotten about and players will go to clubs that offer the best conditions and clubs will trade with anyone who can give them what they want regardless of personal feelings.

I for one am very pleased with how Essendon went in the trade period. Half of the stuff the OP said was complete rubbish. Pick 5 may have been slight overs (a lot of neutrals in the media said it was fair for the record) but it wasn't easy for Essendon and Saints to come up with a reasonable deal given the picks they had and ultimately involved a third club and a fairly complicated scenario - its not surprising it took a while to get that sorted. At the end of the day we got some very good value for players wanting to leave the club.

Maybe, but then you left yourself no room to do anything once that trade was over - if Geelong had adopted Essendon's approach, Geelong might have got PD cheaper, but then we probably would have missed out on Zac Smith and maybe Lachie Henderson. Then their is the issue that if you do gain a reputation for being difficult, either rightly or wrongly, then other clubs will avoid you if they have an alternative, limiting your ability to trade.
I dont think Geelong deserves singling out, other clubs are equally as accommodating, such as Hawthorn, and will simply get the deal done. It''s clearly an approach that is no worse than any other method whereas the Essendon approach isn't so clear cut. So you have to ask yourself, if you have nothing to lose by taking such an approach, then why not do it.

 

[King Elvis]

Geelong have shown up teams like Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton how to conduct Trade week.

Initially, it looked like the Patrick Dangerfield deal would drag out until the last day. On each club's message boards, there was arguments about what was acceptable, and it looked like it was going to get bloody. Other teams supporters and the media said that Geelong were going to bend Adelaide over and that Adelaide should make Geelong bleed.

So, what happened? The two clubs wrapped up the Dangerfield deal, Day 1. Not only that, but both clubs were happy with what they got, and didn't hold out for more.

Geelong then wrapped up a couple of other deals within the first few days, and ended up with every player they targeted, all the while other teams we dealt with acknowledged how accomodating Geelong were.

Compare that to Collingwood, who sent Adam Treloar for a mystery operation, and accused GWS of leaking a video of Treloar signing for Collingwood.

Essendon showed why they are the hardest team to deal with when they tried to bend over St. Kilda for pick 5. When Saints didn't say "How high" when Essendon told them to jump, the Bombers called Hawthorn to get them to make a deal, and force St. Kilda's hand. Then, once Carlisle was signed to the Saints, and Essendon got pick 5, the Bombers then leaked the video of Carlisle sniffing coke, to clip him on the way out.

While these teams pull these tactics, insult the other club they are dealing with, ask for overs, and then bag the player who changes teams, Geelong are transparent, look after the other club as well, ask for what is reasonable, and don't pot the player on the way out.

So, in future, other clubs should hope that if a player nominates a team to get traded to, that the player wants to go to Geelong, and not Essendon or Collingwood, so that the other club can just get the deal done, and get what is fair in return, and avoid a lot of headaches, and allowing the other team to get time to get other deals done.

Plus, Geelong have picked players who are of good character and have actual uses for next season and beyond, and when we have low draft picks, we often pick quality players. Many players we have picked at 30 or over have won numerous premierships.

Just like it says in our song, when it comes to trade week, Geelong is the "Greatest Team Of All".

You're just lucky we are softcocks.

 

[MadDawg]

You tell me, ace. Were you one of those Hawks convinced Danger was on his way?

No one wanted to come to Dingley - is that why you're in a tizz?

You nailed it.

I'm so frustrated with Hawthorn, they are going nowhere as a club.

I mean they literally finish in the same position year after year, its bulls#$t!

 

[TedDougChris]

Every club has its issues in this regard, we probably have 1 or 2 more than the average. For example, Bulldogs have Clay Smith, how will Libba return?, Easton Wood has been durable the last 2 years but was made of glass for several years prior. I'm pretty sure Morris has had some nasty injuries too. Hopefully our guys can turn things around ala Wood. We've certainly been patient with them.

There is a bit of apples and pears comparisons here, although I agree to a certain extent - all clubs have injuries.

Libba is coming back from his first serious injury.
Smith is certain in a similar boat to Menzel, we'd love him to get back but we aren't - nor should we be counting on him. While I'd love to see him return, I just don't think he will.
Morris has gone 14, 20, 22, 0 18, 21, 25, 25, 21, 24 - so one year out with a broken leg and then averages around 20+ games per year.
Wood is the only one who fits the bill of continual issues - hamstrings, calf etc.

Where I differ with you is that while your best 28 or so is really good, you've now essentially sold the next few years picks away to build that good 28 or so players **. Whereas we finished 6th last year, while having our best midfielder out all year (as a one off freak injury, not a recurring one at this stage) and have 3 picks this year inside 30.

It appears (on the surface only) to be a very boom or bust type scenario for you guys. It's a bold risky strategy, which is great... But I am a naturally conservative type.

What we have to hope is that our 30 year olds - Murphy, Morris, Boyd in the main - hold onto form or gradually decline, allowing the kids to develop and gradually replace them. If they drop off a cliff, we've got the wrong list profile to be seriously challenging.

** - not an exact count, just a guess-timate.

 

[Roby]

The previous thirty sentences were ruined by the absolute cringe of the last sentence.

You got that far. Only looked because of your post.

 

[GTOA]

You're just lucky we are softcocks.

The only soft**** deal I think we did this year for Steve Johnson to GWS for a third-round future pick.

We should have asked for at least one first-round draft pick, or a round one pick from GWS for 2016. This was a man who the Giants were prepared to offer two-first round picks (or a first-round and Dylan Shiels was another offer I heard back then), and we turned it down. We should have taken it then. Stevie J hasn't dropped off that much in a year, so we should have demanded a first-rounder from GWS, or trade SJ to another club instead, who would give us a better offer.

Who else were we softcocks for?

Patrick Dangerfield, (a top 5 player in the league), for Dean Gore (some first-year player who couldn't even get a game in a team who missed finals). We won that deal.

Scott Selwood for nothing. We won that deal, and even if Selwood doesn't stand up, we lost nothing for him.

Lachie Henderson for a future-first round is a bit steep, but if he produces his AA form, he could be worth it.

Zac Smith for a third-round future pick, which we got back for trading out Josh Walker and Jarrad Jansen.

We lost Jarrad Jansen, another kid who couldn't get a game in a side who missed finals. We can't expect the world for him (getting a superstar for an unproven player won't fall in our lap twice in a draft period).

Dawson Simpson is useless, can't get through a season, and is surplus to needs. He is like a big, lumbering Mark Blake type ruckman, but at least Blake didn't get injured every season. Good riddance.

Most people here don't rate Josh Walker, so I don't see how any of you can complain. Like Travis Varcoe last year, he is a player most of you would be glad to see the back of.

I think we have done quite well considering. I would rather lose Dean Gore than Gregson or Murdoch, Simpson and Jansen are no losses (I didn't hear anyone complaining about us offloading Joel Hamling last year). Most of you don't consider Walker a loss, and we retired Stevie J anyway. In exchange, we got Adelaide's best player in the last decade, an AA CHB, a B & F vice-captain, and a young ruckman who can cover our needs.

So, we gave up some early draft picks, so what. We won three flags off the back of teams which were picked thirty or later in the draft. Only Selwood, Bartel and Mackie were top-ten picks for us. Early draft picks are overrated, and two of the teams who most consistently make finals in the fifteen years (Geelong and Sydney) have had few top ten picks. How well have Melbourne and Carlton done with heaps of early picks?

Stephen Wells is a wizard. He will pick some rough diamonds out of that lot, players other would ignore. I read the other day that no other team rated Harry Taylor when we picked him in the draft, and he is a dual premeirship CHB now. A couple of the later picks will also be rookie upgrades, probably Bates and Cunico. Also, we had a lot of players 29 and over, a lot of kids 25 and under. This year, our recruits are between 25 to 29 years of age. The club know what they are doing.

 

[GTOA]

Geelong were efficient in getting their trades with minimum fuss for sure - but really how much does that stuff matter at the end of the day. I've never once heard of clubs winning premierships because they are 'pleasant to trade with'. Hell there have been trades in the past where one side made out like bandits which had a big role in leading to premierships. This idea that there is one right way to trade is just silly. Every club has different list needs, priorities and should adopt a tailored approach in order to maximise their chances for success. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it goes through on day 1 with no fuss or on the last day after many arguments - its all quickly forgotten about and players will go to clubs that offer the best conditions and clubs will trade with anyone who can give them what they want regardless of personal feelings.

I for one am very pleased with how Essendon went in the trade period. Half of the stuff the OP said was complete rubbish. Pick 5 may have been slight overs (a lot of neutrals in the media said it was fair for the record) but it wasn't easy for Essendon and Saints to come up with a reasonable deal given the picks they had and ultimately involved a third club and a fairly complicated scenario - its not surprising it took a while to get that sorted. At the end of the day we got some very good value for players wanting to leave the club.

Except that we have won three flags in the last decade. Hawthorn, who also offer value and are generous, have won four flags, and the last three.

How many flags has Essendon's hard-nosed approach netted them in the last decade. Also, Essendon don't have the stroke they once did, since a lot of players don't want to play for the injectors.

I think more players would want to be traded to Geelong sooner than Essendon. They get to their destination with a minimum of fuss, and if they want to see their former club looked after, we do that, and they are going to a club with a better culture, a club parents would want their children to go to (it's a long time since Geelong have had a drug scandal or sexual assault charges against its players, and when we do someone step out of line, the club takes immediate action and punishes the player themselves (such as suspending Johnson for six weeks in 2007, or Stokes for eight weeks in 2008).

Essendon are trading players out. You've lost Ryder, Crameri and Carlisle. You have only got back in this year a free-agent in Leuenberger and a guy desperate for a game in Bird. Geelong are trading in superstars like Patrick Dangerfield by comparison.

Also, I bet most clubs would rather deal with Stephen Wells than Adrian Diadora.

 

[blitzer]

Except that we have won three flags in the last decade. Hawthorn, who also offer value and are generous, have won four flags, and the last three.

How many flags has Essendon's hard-nosed approach netted them in the last decade. Also, Essendon don't have the stroke they once did, since a lot of players don't want to play for the injectors.

I think more players would want to be traded to Geelong sooner than Essendon. They get to their destination with a minimum of fuss, and if they want to see their former club looked after, we do that, and they are going to a club with a better culture, a club parents would want their children to go to (it's a long time since Geelong have had a drug scandal or sexual assault charges against its players, and when we do someone step out of line, the club takes immediate action and punishes the player themselves (such as suspending Johnson for six weeks in 2007, or Stokes for eight weeks in 2008).

Essendon are trading players out. You've lost Ryder, Crameri and Carlisle. You have only got back in this year a free-agent in Leuenberger and a guy desperate for a game in Bird. Geelong are trading in superstars like Patrick Dangerfield by comparison.

Also, I bet most clubs would rather deal with Stephen Wells than Adrian Diadora.

Honestly there's a lot in this post that has very little to do with how teams conduct themselves in trade week but i'll still address a few points.

Geelong's 3 flags had very little to do with successful trades. They made a few nice icing on the top type trades once their window was well and truly open but really the main factors that lead to their flags was being crap in 1999 and 2001 which were very good drafts and getting some great players in those years + a number of superstar father sons for cheap. Trades were a pretty minor factor and any team that's in their premiership window will be able to attract players more easily. In fact the only trade i can think of that Geelong did that was significant was bringing in Ottens.

Essendon haven't actually lost that many players recently but unfortunately we did lose some key players. However this was over a 3 year period - its not like players are leaving en masse and other clubs have lost far more than us recently.

I loved your sentence "Geelong are trading in superstars like Patrick Dangerfield by comparison" - can you please provide me an example of any other superstar you've traded in in the last 5 years? Or perhaps even a single player other than Patrick Dangerfield that you've traded in that's better than Goddard that willingly came to us. I'm sure it won't be hard since Geelong are such astute traders and such a desirable club and have been winning all those premierships.

Ultimately no one disputes that better clubs (on field performance wise) can attract players more easily. There is a fair debate to be had around how much difference it makes being agreeable during trade period in terms of future trades/attracting players.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Geelong have basically gone all in with the hopes of jagging a flag in the next year or two, but that's an enormously tall order from 10th, and probably lucky to be that high in 2015.

Having a player like Dangerfield fall in your laps and getting the deal done is a good effort, but the rest of the trades are a little crazy-Vossy for me. In modern football, you build through the draft. Talent identification at junior levels is miles ahead of where it's been in the past. They haven't had a single digit draft pick since 2006, and they wont until at least 2017 barring trading away some of their top few players.

They'll definitely improve with the players they've brought in, but well enough to make the top 4 and have a genuine run at a flag? I don't see it. There are plenty of other teams who were better than Geelong in 2015, and are still better post trade week. An awful lot would have to go right for them to be anywhere near a flag.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You nailed it.

I'm so frustrated with Hawthorn, they are going nowhere as a club.

I mean they literally finish in the same position year after year, its bulls#$t!

May you find peace, brother.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

In modern football, you build through the draft.

Wish you had have told Hawthorn that 6 years ago.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

This thread on the main board is cringeworthy. This is for the Geelong board.

Yes we had a good trade period but fellow cats fans, we don't need to try and show it off.

 

[GTOA]

Geelong have basically gone all in with the hopes of jagging a flag in the next year or two, but that's an enormously tall order from 10th, and probably lucky to be that high in 2015.

Having a player like Dangerfield fall in your laps and getting the deal done is a good effort, but the rest of the trades are a little crazy-Vossy for me. In modern football, you build through the draft. Talent identification at junior levels is miles ahead of where it's been in the past. They haven't had a single digit draft pick since 2006, and they wont until at least 2017 barring trading away some of their top few players.

They'll definitely improve with the players they've brought in, but well enough to make the top 4 and have a genuine run at a flag? I don't see it. There are plenty of other teams who were better than Geelong in 2015, and are still better post trade week. An awful lot would have to go right for them to be anywhere near a flag.

Our trading is nothing like what Voss did at Brisbane.

We have got in over the last three years, Dangerfield (superstar), Henderson (AA CHB), S.Selwood (B& F v-c), a young, promising ruckman in Zac Smith from Gold Coast, Mitch Clark (who, if he can get over his physical and mental problems is a good forward), Rhys Stanley (who St. Kilda didn't rate, but played really well for us until he got injured), and Josh Caddy from GC (who has the potential to be a superstar youngster). We also got three years good value from Jarrad Rivers.

Vossy got in Brendan Fevola, Anon Buchanan, Brent Staker and others. Not quite the class of who Geelong picked up. Besides, Fevola ultimately cost Brisbane Daniel Bradshaw, Michael Riscettelli, Lachie Henderson, Jarrad Brennan, and Luke Power, who all, for different reasons, but all linked back to the decision to get Fevola, left the club in acrimonious circumstances.

"You build through the draft".

Except Hawthorn, who get players such as Gunston, Frawley, Hale, Gibson, Burgoyne, McEvoy, Spanger and Lake who were from other clubs and have played in premierships. So, see, you can have success if you have a few players from other clubs.

Sydney have won flags, yet had Rhys Shaw, Ted Richards, Buddy, Tippett, Mumford, Kennedy and McGlynn who all came from other clubs.

Geelong were just outside the eight. So, if we improve our line-up, we should make finals. Now, a lot has to go our way, but this following 2016 team would be hard to beat (if we could get all these players on the field):-

B: Enright Lonergan Thurlow
HB:Mackie Henderson Taylor
C: Duncan Dangerfield Guthrie
HF:Vardy Clark Caddy
F: Motlop Hawkins Menzel
R: Smith J.Selwood Gregson
I: Bartel Blicavs Lang Stanley or S.Selwood

I could see that team making finals, top four and giving the flag a shake, if not winning it (if everything falls our way injury wise).

We also have Murdoch, Horlin-Smith, Cockatoo, Bates, Cunico and Bews waiting in the wings, who are all youngsters who could be anything, and will get more game time once Bartel, Lonergan and Enright retire.

All we have lost are players through natural retirement, Gary Ablett, Allan Christensen and Steve Johnson (who had a year left anyway). Brisbane, who you compared us to, had a lot of youngsters walk out the last three years (Yeo, Polac, Crisp, Aish, Docherty, Longer, Redden). So, I think when comparing the two, Geelong are in much better shape.

Besides, focus on how your "one-trick-pony" of a side performs next year. I tipped Port for the flag in 2015, and you didn't even make finals. You didn't have injuries, and all you have brought in is Ryder (who may be suspended for two years in November) and erratic Charlie Dixon. So, focus on how your team will make the eight, and stop saying how our team won't.

 

[millsy29gopies]

When did Henderson become an All Australian CHB? U18 doesn't count

 

[El_Scorcho]

You didn't have injuries

Yeah, I reckon you'll find we did.

I haven't said a word about Port in this thread. Attacking my club because you don't like my opinion is a little desperate.

And when was Henderson All Australian?

 

[1990crow]

Yeah, enjoy Dean Gore, who couldn't get a game with us in a year where we missed finals. We will enjoy your best player for a decade in return.

We bent you over worse than a prisoner dropping the soap.

(PS When is Tex out of contract. We might grab him too and he can help out Hawkins in the forward line. We have all your other stars (or is that, star?).)

10 years? Lol he will be lucky to last 5.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Wish you had have told Hawthorn that 6 years ago.

The core of their side was drafted pretty high, with Hodge pick 1 and the likes of Franklin, Roughead, Lewis and Rioli, Smith, Birchall, Schoenmakers all taken with first rounders.

They've built their side around those guys and topped up well by being able to offer players a genuine shot at a flag.

That's a sound strategy.

My argument is that your core isn't strong enough for these top ups to make you competitive unless an awful lot goes right for you.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I thought Pies nailed it for professionalism.

LOL

 

[Giant Pete]

The only soft**** deal I think we did this year for Steve Johnson to GWS for a third-round future pick.

We should have asked for at least one first-round draft pick, or a round one pick from GWS for 2016. This was a man who the Giants were prepared to offer two-first round picks (or a first-round and Dylan Shiels was another offer I heard back then), and we turned it down. We should have taken it then. Stevie J hasn't dropped off that much in a year, so we should have demanded a first-rounder from GWS, or trade SJ to another club instead, who would give us a better offer.

Who else were we softcocks for?

Patrick Dangerfield, (a top 5 player in the league), for Dean Gore (some first-year player who couldn't even get a game in a team who missed finals). We won that deal.

Scott Selwood for nothing. We won that deal, and even if Selwood doesn't stand up, we lost nothing for him.

Lachie Henderson for a future-first round is a bit steep, but if he produces his AA form, he could be worth it.

Zac Smith for a third-round future pick, which we got back for trading out Josh Walker and Jarrad Jansen.

We lost Jarrad Jansen, another kid who couldn't get a game in a side who missed finals. We can't expect the world for him (getting a superstar for an unproven player won't fall in our lap twice in a draft period).

Dawson Simpson is useless, can't get through a season, and is surplus to needs. He is like a big, lumbering Mark Blake type ruckman, but at least Blake didn't get injured every season. Good riddance.

Most people here don't rate Josh Walker, so I don't see how any of you can complain. Like Travis Varcoe last year, he is a player most of you would be glad to see the back of.

I think we have done quite well considering. I would rather lose Dean Gore than Gregson or Murdoch, Simpson and Jansen are no losses (I didn't hear anyone complaining about us offloading Joel Hamling last year). Most of you don't consider Walker a loss, and we retired Stevie J anyway. In exchange, we got Adelaide's best player in the last decade, an AA CHB, a B & F vice-captain, and a young ruckman who can cover our needs.

So, we gave up some early draft picks, so what. We won three flags off the back of teams which were picked thirty or later in the draft. Only Selwood, Bartel and Mackie were top-ten picks for us. Early draft picks are overrated, and two of the teams who most consistently make finals in the fifteen years (Geelong and Sydney) have had few top ten picks. How well have Melbourne and Carlton done with heaps of early picks?

Stephen Wells is a wizard. He will pick some rough diamonds out of that lot, players other would ignore. I read the other day that no other team rated Harry Taylor when we picked him in the draft, and he is a dual premeirship CHB now. A couple of the later picks will also be rookie upgrades, probably Bates and Cunico. Also, we had a lot of players 29 and over, a lot of kids 25 and under. This year, our recruits are between 25 to 29 years of age. The club know what they are doing.

Shiel and a top 10 pick for Johnson? Stop making stuff up.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

The only soft**** deal I think we did this year for Steve Johnson to GWS for a third-round future pick.

We should have asked for at least one first-round draft pick, or a round one pick from GWS for 2016. This was a man who the Giants were prepared to offer two-first round picks (or a first-round and Dylan Shiels was another offer I heard back then), and we turned it down. We should have taken it then. Stevie J hasn't dropped off that much in a year, so we should have demanded a first-rounder from GWS, or trade SJ to another club instead, who would give us a better offer.

Seriously?

If GWS start giving away first round picks for Stevie J, every club in the AFL would be queuing up to trade with them to offload players near the end of their careers. In Geelongs position even Essendon wouldn't ask for more than a second rounder and we would probably let him leave for nothing.

And where's all the demand for Johnson anyway? A couple of clubs with young lists showed moderate interest.