Official Trade Period Discussion 2012 Thread (#3)

[markm106]

Why do people including the Herald Sun say Melbourne got Hogan and Barry for 3 and 13. We also got 20.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ So, Hogan, Barry and Dawes for 3 and 13.

Yeah, that makes it look heaps better.

 

[SpaceCow]

There was also a third round downgrade in there for Melbourne.

 

[Lana]

I would bow to Richo83's knowledge of Melbournes list and what was required.After all if anyone understands poor drafting it would be Richmond.lol

Except there past that and there list looks quite good and able to challenge for a top 8 position. While melbourne's drafting, trading, poor list management and bad development have cost it the last 5 years and with take at least that to get where to where richmond is now. .... so lol

 

[apuchar]

Does anyone one here have an opinion on Lucas Cook from Melbourne. Anyone regularly see him play in the VFL?

 

[slowedawg]

Does anyone one here have an opinion on Lucas Cook from Melbourne. Anyone regularly see him play in the VFL?

Ended up getting dropped to the VFL 2's this year, just hasn't been able to get big enough and put in enough effort at Casey to really get himself going, struggled big time.

A fresh start at a new club could do him some good. Sometimes it's a jolt a young kid needs to realise that he's not able to just ride the coat tails of his junior football to success, he needs to work his ass off to become an elite player. Hope he does well wherever he goes.

 

[coryne]

That's the nett result of the Hogan/Viney draft package

Viney for 27
Hogan, Barry, 20 for 3 + 13
then
Dawes + 63 for 20 + 45

Ask IanW to explain how it all works ...

But tell me this, why did you OVER PAY the GWS when it was the GCS who were in the prime position to nominate for Viney ??? The GWS were never going to bid on Viney, and the GCS don't appear to have recieved anything for their complience in the "don't vote for Viney" deal (they still paid a premium for MD1 and didn't recieve anything from Melbourne or the GWS to even it out)

I mean the GWS did BLOODY WELL for both the MD selections, with both netting the BEST PICK available (MD1 netted ND#2 and the MD2 then netted the next best available, #3, PLUS #13) The GWS basically bent over both clubs, there was NO WAY they were going to get a better offer than ND#2 for MD1, and there is NO WAY they would have got a better offer than #4 let alone #3 let alone #3 + #13 for MD2 (even with #20 going back Melbournes way)

 

[pantskyle]

I'm calling BS on the 'close', they had a month and Brown was on the table from day 1. Wasn't the whole point of extending trade period is so we don't have another situation of that Richmond bloke sprinting down the hallways of Etihad again?

Except that WC said Brown was never on the table. Sure we may have entertained the Saints but he wasn't being traded.

 

[apuchar]

Ended up getting dropped to the VFL 2's this year, just hasn't been able to get big enough and put in enough effort at Casey to really get himself going, struggled big time.

A fresh start at a new club could do him some good. Sometimes it's a jolt a young kid needs to realise that he's not able to just ride the coat tails of his junior football to success, he needs to work his arse off to become an elite player. Hope he does well wherever he goes.

Thanks for that. From what you have said you seem to think someone will pick him up. Cheers

 

[Morris Major]

Except that WC said Brown was never on the table. Sure we may have entertained the Saints but he wasn't being traded.

poorly worded from myself

didn't mean 'on the table', more along the lines of discussed/entertained/whatever

i think we can agree the saints were never closer

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ Depends upon who you believe - Saints said it was close, WC said it wasn't.

WC have a fine record of honesty and scrupulous fairness, so I can see how you reached your conclusion

 

[pantskyle]

poorly worded from myself

didn't mean 'on the table', more along the lines of discussed/entertained/whatever

i think we can agree the saints were never closer

Fair enough.

^ Depends upon who you believe - Saints said it was close, WC said it wasn't.

WC have a fine record of honesty and scrupulous fairness, so I can see how you reached your conclusion

Not every club would have gifted you McKinley and Edwards.

 

[Morris Major]

^ Depends upon who you believe - Saints said it was close, WC said it wasn't.

WC have a fine record of honesty and scrupulous fairness, so I can see how you reached your conclusion

I don't believe anyone, just judging from the outcome and the lead up.

 

[old55]

But tell me this, why did you OVER PAY the GWS when it was the GCS who were in the prime position to nominate for Viney ??? The GWS were never going to bid on Viney, and the GCS don't appear to have recieved anything for their complience in the "don't vote for Viney" deal (they still paid a premium for MD1 and didn't recieve anything from Melbourne or the GWS to even it out)

I mean the GWS did BLOODY WELL for both the MD selections, with both netting the BEST PICK available (MD1 netted ND#2 and the MD2 then netted the next best available, #3, PLUS #13) The GWS basically bent over both clubs, there was NO WAY they were going to get a better offer than ND#2 for MD1, and there is NO WAY they would have got a better offer than #4 let alone #3 let alone #3 + #13 for MD2 (even with #20 gingback Melbournes way)

I don't have THE answer but I suspect it went something like:
GC: "We'll give you pick 2 for MD 1"
GWS: "MFC offered us 3 + 13 for an MD pick - that's pretty good, probably better than pick 2"
GC: "maybe they'll take MD 2"
GWS: "maybe they will, there'll need to be some garnish all around"

 

[coryne]

I don't have THE answer but I suspect it went something like:
GC: "We'll give you pick 2 for MD 1"
GWS: "MFC offered us 3 + 13 for an MD pick - that's pretty good, probably better than pick 2"
GC: "maybe they'll take MD 2"
GWS: "maybe they will, there'll need to be some garnish all around"

Or the GCS just nominate for Viney, forcing Melbourne to use #3 on Viney. It blocks Melbourne's ability to bid on the MD selections, thus reducing the expected price they would need to pay for MD1. (Melbourne would be unlikely to use #4 for a MD trade if #3 was gone).


The GWS are not going to turn around and say "Hey GCS, wtf are you doing making Melbourne use #3 on Viney for, we wanted that pick! We are now not going to trade a MD selection to you". The GWS would just traded for the best deal they could.

Again the GCS payed a premium for MD1 and didn't get anything in return, and Melbourne payed more for MD2 even though it was the GCS who were the likely suitor for Viney. The GWS made out like absolute bandits in both deals.

 

[Snowplough]

Miller: 14 goals in 10 games
Dawes: 16 goals in 23.

Don't get me wrong, I wish you all the best. But I hate to see others making the sort of mistakes we used to make. I get that you need to sell hope, but heavens, you have overpaid. IMO, of course. $2m for Dawes, offering pick 4 for Dawes and Wellingham - just nuts. Crazy stuff.

Paying down your debt was fine, but you didnt invest in footy. We elected to go halves between debt reduction and resourcing the footy/ recruiting/ trading department. That's an investment that is bearing fruit and we are far less likely to splurge on impulse buys that are regretted soon after being unwrapped.

Good luck.

Anyone want to bag the Dawes trade now, in retrospect?
Any more Richmond supporters want to hold up their trading as a shining light and the path for Melbourne to follow?

 

[TradeDraft]

Anyone want to bag the Dawes trade now, in retrospect?
Any more Richmond supporters want to hold up their trading as a shining light and the path for Melbourne to follow?

Rather traded Cloke instead