Most of teams around us are improving thier list!

[KUNG FU]

Realistically, what would Reilly or Douglas acquire anyway? #20-35 sort of range? If we were being a bit optimistic even. Now turn the tables. If these trades were available from another club, many people would jump at this opportunity, because you would realise whilst their objective value is quite low, their potential is still high (especially in Dougie's case), they suit our needs and who really cares about that second rounder anyway? Why would we not try to get the best out of these players ourselves seeing as we've proven ourselves capable before. Of course if the right deal comes along, we need one of these guys to get a different deal across or a club is willing to pay a bit over on the basis of potential, then go for it.

Clubs don't have their list management meeting and say "I think we should trade a lot this year!" Its fairly meaningless unless you can identify some good possibilities. These chats happen all year. Adelaide would have been involved in many a quiet phone call throughout the year. Its like G20 or APEC. The PMs rock up, put on customes, shake hands, wave to the cameras and sign off on largely pre-ordained agreements. When it didn't appear anything major was coming our way Rendell & Reid wanted to play down expectations to the media. But that doesn't mean they're running a BBQ out on the porch.

 

[Crow-mo]

No, it's not our job, but the fact that people can't even come up with a plausible example is illustration of the fact that trading is not as simple as people think.
Unsubstantiated assertion. The fact that the club has not completed a trade in any given year (which may be for any number of reasons, including the unavailability of players who might actually improve our list, for the right price) is not evidence that the club does not think it can improve.

no, but there statements in the media to that effect are. discuss?

And we don't know what "pursuit" has been made by the AFC. We don't know if Douglas or Griffin, for example, were tabled and whether there were any offers that would genuinely improve our list. And we never will.
It is exactly what has been said (by one poster). Listing premiership teams with traded players in them, and implying a correlation.

this is flimsy if we're being kind.

how did Burgoyne, suddenly want to leave, and want to go to hawthorn? he wasn't tabled, and unknown offers came in - the hawks have been in his ear most of the season...

and we still have know what deal will happen, but you're tactic seems to be that we supporters should know what the deal must be when its not the way it works in reality!

Well that's the nub of it, I suppose. Our club's relative inaction in trade week over recent years (and I'm not sure that's a given) is taken by some as evidence that we "actively snub our nose" at trading, or we are complacent, or we don't believe our list can be improved. It is taken by others as evidence that "the club knows what it is doing". The latter is probably as hopelessly optimistic as the former, but on the other hand I suspect it is closer to the truth (and our strong performance in recruiting via other means in the past few years is also, IMHO, evidence, that we're not exactly hopeless in this area).

do we set our stall out as not being hopeless? we are after all, swimming against the tide here.

if we were leading the way, then yes swim upstream. but seem just as likely frozen for fear of making a mistake.

 

[Crow-mo]

You said all this last year and yet we went from 8th to 5th with no trading and clearly our younger players are coming on strong.

we went for 8th to 5th did we? nothing to do with Essendon both years huh?
there were some improvements under the bonnet, but our performance was basically the same. we missed 4th by % last year. remember


do you think there won't be any fall back from our senior players?

 

[Crow-mo]

Cheers! Yes, that was my point.

not a good one then. these guys would be fringe performers, not like the examples regularly pointed out.

 

[Crow-mo]

. I'm still yet to see those critical of our approach name specific opportunities we should be getting on.

that's because proving a negative is a tactic of obfuscation, nothing more.

Burgoyne was an opportunity that was available, it was one created.

 

[Jars458]

1. I 3. It is beyond me why we would want to offer up Reilly for trade unless there was something very, very - very - good on offer.

Because Reilly isn't very very very good or essential to our game plan or team, despite being a valuable player.

Not saying we should trade him but he certainly would not be untouchable.

 

[BACCS]

I probably rate us as highly as they do, but I'd still be asking around, looking for opportunities. Hopefully they've at least done that much.

Well Reidy has said all week Griffin's name has been put out there, but because of the bigger deals going on, most clubs aren't really taking interest, except Port. But if we get anything less than a 2nd rounder for Griff from Port, he may as well stay, which is what I believe will happen.

 

[BACCS]

Because Reilly isn't very very very good or essential to our game plan or team, despite being a valuable player.

Not saying we should trade him but he certainly would not be untouchable.

He's by no means 'untouchable', but we aren't going to get much better than a draft pick that may not work out, or another fringe player. There is really no point in trading Reilly as it won't improve our list, which is why we signed him up for a further 2 years.

 

[Crow-mo]

Still and all, my response was to this from Crow-Mo:
Which I think is an overstatement. I also think that in 2009 in particular, the argument that we should be actively trading to improve our list overlooks the fact that our current list is (IMHO) one of the strongest and deepest we have ever had (particularly in terms of young players). That is not a reason for complacency, and certainly not an argument against trading if it's possible, but I think it does moderate the "we should be trading more" argument in this year at least.

this does nothing to address the competitive balance with our competitors, or answer the questions raised by it. presuming we live in a vacuum, and only have to measure ourselves answers none of the questions raised.

Yes, that is a fair point. If our recruiting and player development hadn't been so successful in recent times, it would be a stronger point.

again, why measure ourselves against our ourselves.

It would also be interesting to see how many trades each other club has done over the past 4-5 years, that were not the result of players wanting to leave their clubs. I think we'd find that we're not all that unusual.

why shift the goal posts to trades completed, when the issue is attempts.

I'm not trying to argue that I think the club has got everything right and that the attitude to trading is just fine. I just don't think the argument in the other direction is necessarily all that justified.

but you haven't addressed the argument at all, you've made vague circular positions that circle around the arguments raised.

in response to "every other club is taking a different line" you're position is "i'm sure we know what we are doing". that is avoiding the argument, not addressing it or pointing out any way that it is not justified.

The other point which might be relevant is that (IMHO) maybe our club is better than most at keeping its plans in house. Half (more than half) the publicity around other clubs is speculation and rumour. Speculation about Club A wanting to trade agressively for Player B, prepared to offer Players C and D in exchange - and it never happens - gets mixed up with real trade activity in some people's minds.

you are still missing the point, or not reading closely what people are actually saying.

whilst we say we don't need anything, other clubs, clubs just as good or better say they do. even if they don't complete the trade, the intention remains constant. and we can measure intentions.

Strip it all away, and you're left with what's actually happening. Are we guilty of judging Adelaide's attitude to trades based on the talk, as much as the action?

both? should ignore what the club does and says?

 

[Crow-mo]

Hang on, are we looking for any of them? Pointless in going after a player "just because" another team is. The only time we SHOULD trade is when there is a player that we want who will fill a specific role in our team.

are you sponsored by the roll eyes icon?

 

[Crow-mo]

For a bit of perspective - let's look at the trades that have been done so far this year. I am prepared to be corrected if I get the "motivation" wrong in some cases.

1. North Melbourne exchanges Josh Gibson and its Round Five selection (currently number 69) to Hawthorn for its Round Two selection (currently number 25) and its Round Three selection (currently number 41).
Voluntary trade (by both clubs), upgrading draft picks / picking up a wanted player. Qualifies as a "genuine" trade in terms of seeking a player to improve their list (by Hawthorn, at least).

2. The Sydney Swans exchange Amon Buchanan to the Brisbane Lions for its Round Two selection (currently number 28).
Ditto, but who would argue that the Swans' needs for list improvement are a bit more dire than ours right now? (Did Buchanan ask for a trade? I will give the benefit of the doubt and say No for the purpose of this listing).

3. The Brisbane Lions exchange Bradd Dalziell to West Coast for Brent Staker and its Round Three selection (currently number 39).
Staker wanted out. Same as Adelaide's recent trades.

4. West Coast exchanges Mark Seaby to the Sydney Swans for its Round Two selection (currently number 22).
Seaby wanted out?

5. Melbourne exchanges Brock McLean to Carlton for its Round One selection (currently number 11).
McLean asked for a trade.

6. The Sydney Swans exchange Barry Hall to the Western Bulldogs for its Round Three selection (currently number 47).
The club wanted Hall out.

7. The Sydney Swans on-trade its Round Three selection (currently number 47) to the Brisbane Lions for its Round Three on-traded selection (currently number 39).
Related to Trade #2

8. Essendon exchange Andrew Lovett to St Kilda for its Round One selection (currently number 16).
Straight out voluntary trade? Again, I will give the benefit of the doubt. EDIT: Whoops, Lovett wanted out.

So of the 8 trades completed to date, only three (EDIT: two) are the result of clubs actively pursuing a trade to improve their list by trading a player who had not asked for a trade.

And Luke Ball, Fevola and Burgoyne trades, if they happen, will all fall into the "not actively seeking list improvement / player wanted out" category.

As I said, I'm prepared to be corrected on the motivation. But doesn't this put a bit of perspective on things?

where this is very wrong. is that it continues a misguided focus on deals done, not intent.

it also, conveniently ignores that players wanting out usually coincides with the player being approached. they don't just decide they want to go to Carlton, Hawthorn or Collingwood.

 

[Crow-mo]

A few posters have argued that nearly every premiership team has traded players and that those trades have contributed to them winning that premiership. I believe that argument is trite.

that's nice. but you've not presented an argument, and no one has said "every premier has traded players". its a bit more nuanced than that.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't think this should be underestimated. Looking around at some of our competitors and how they have fallen apart from the inside, I think the club culture is incredibly valuable and one of the reasons we have kept players who many thought would want to leave.

so Brisbane and Voss, and Geelong don't know anything about culture?

 

[Crow-mo]

Luke Ball wanted out of St Kilda.

why? he randomly pulled collingwood out of a hat did he?

funny isn't it, how players who want to leave mysteriously all want to choose these active clubs.

i'm sure it pure coincidence...

 

[Ferris_rules]

Sorry Crow-mo but your whole post has as many buts and if's involved in it as anyone else's.

There are no certainties in AFL, getting a better player doesn't automatically make your team better nor does losing a good player automatically make your team worse (and yes I realise you haven't said that specifically).

You also assume the Crows thinks their list is perfect, assume we aren't doing anything about it and assume that just because 5 or 6 teams do something its the right way to do it.

I think they call that tyranny by the majority

Good call , its that kind of arrogance where supporters/club think they are satisfied with our list will lead to our downfall always strive to improve at almost all costs!

 

[weneverland]

that's nice. but you've not presented an argument, and no one has said "every premier has traded players". its a bit more nuanced than that.

Actually I thought I had.

 

[Macca19]

Look out Kurt Tippett....theres a new king in this town

 

[Southerntakeover]

Ban the troll ^

 

[Gets!]

Did Reidy have anything to say on 5AA? I missed it

 

[magtrev]

Look out Kurt Tippett....theres a new king in this town

You guys need to trade for Simon Hogan, now, at any cost.

ANY COST!

 

[StonesThrow]

Look out Kurt Tippett....theres a new king in this town

haha my favourite port poster

 

[amer]

Did Reidy have anything to say on 5AA? I missed it

Said we won't go trading for middle-aged players looking for their second crack (or something along those lines) when we have kids like Davis, Sloane, Armstrong and Cook that we want to play.

 

[dylan123]

Are we the only club yet to do any trades in the trade week? Cannot think of any other club that has not done a trade but i may be wrong.

I don't think there is much we can trade for. I would love for us to go for Leon Davis but i cant see Collingwood really wanting Reilly and a first/second round draft pick for Davis. I think he would be worth more then that.

 

[Elite Crow]

Cameron Wood for pick 13

 

[dylan123]

Cameron Wood for pick 13

Why do you think Cameron Wood for pick 13 would be good? I don't believe he would be worth a first round pick. Cameron Wood has had a few alright games this year (one against us) but has had a lot of disappointing games this year. He has been the number one ruck for a few weeks when Fraser was not playing and did not really shine at all i do not believe. I don't really rate his skills and when Collingwood was playing us in the finals i think he made a few bad mistakes like trying to take the mark from behind in Collingwood's backline rather then spoil then been out marked by a smaller opponent. He did it again later on in that match which i thought was pretty poor, I would rather give our other ruckman more of a shot then trade away our first round pick for Wood.