So how do you rate our 2015 trade period?

[carnthemlions]

We'll be seen as the biggest loser from this trade period for sure. I don't think that's really accurate though- it was a fairly neutral result for us in the end.

Leuenberger - caved after getting substandard compo.
Aish - caved and traded him after publicly stating he would be back at the Lions.
Bastinac - overpaid terribly for him.
Trade of picks - not good. Need to factor in the players we now need to delist.

Redden - got less than value but close.

Walker and Jansen - good value.
Bell - decent value.

C- is about as good as you could rate our performance. We have again signalled to the other teams that we are a soft touch and will fold every time. We need to get someone in who has some idea how to run a trade week.

I'm not overly enthused about our trade period in general. But the Leuenberger thing has been done to death- we didn't have a lot of alternatives.

First to admit I have a poor understanding of both the AFL points system and quantum physics, roughly equivalent in my mind in comprehensibility.

However, it seems to me we have to some extent at least been dudded. For a start, LM should either have kept his word about trading Aish or shut his mouth. He ends up looking like a total dill. No-one in the AFL world will ever treat a similar edict from on high with any level of believability. I think this is a very serious problem for our club- we are treated as a joke and provide ongoing proof that we are. LM's status has to have been seriously damaged. And he's probably our most senior asset. To me, this is the most important outcome of the draft for us. Just a joke.

And at the end of the day- for what? Aish got traded and from what I can see for nothing outstanding.

We are treated as crap because we are.

Let's be honest- it shouldn't be that difficult, you would think, to improve a club where we ran second last in the AFL and nowhere in the NEAFL. Personally, right now and before a ball has been misdirected, I don't think we can say we have, based on the ins. Rather, there's a hell of a lot of reliance being placed on a couple of kids who, from my admittedly limited observations on perhaps 4 occasions, are not going to get anywhere near to turning around our fortunes by themselves. Ok, probably no-one is actually saying they will, but some around here are coming close to it.

Let's hope our on-field performance proves the Herald-Sun, which rates us clear losers out of the trade period, wrong.

I am just looking for a reason to get optimistic- please.

While I do understand the frustration, I just don't think there were a lot of realistic alternatives available to us this time.

 

[Tassie4ever]

Theres ya positivety in spades.

Reddo and aisho didn't want to be here.

Hipwood and keays are top 15 picks which we will get.

Shache should turn out ok and more then likely will stay.

1] Maybe the point has escaped you- why didn't they want to be here?

2] It's not a question of "positivety" [sic]. I'm looking for reasons to be positive.

3] Just now, I don't see our club recruiters sitting around telling themselves we really creamed them this year, which last year they had at least they had some reason to.

I'm reminded a bit of those extended dissertations a few years ago by Rob Kerr on our detailed recruitment strategy. Telling all and sundry what geniuses we were up here, at the same time all the while getting belted on the field.

 

[Hirsty23]

Bastinac and Redden are of equal value in my opinion. Both good 5th or 6th best midfielders at a club.

As of immediate effect, Bell is probably a better player right now than Aish, i'm still not convinced Aish does anything remarkably well anyway.

Luey left, but he hasn't been crucial to us for years.

Jansen and Walker for minimal = good deal.

The swap of picks means absolutely sweet FA really, because the only 3 young players we'll be getting in are Schache, Hipwood and Keays anyway, we'll still be getting them so I don't know how anyone can judge us harshly based on the pick swaps. Plus we've added a 2nd rounder to next years draft.

We've adequately replaced the experienced bodies and will still have hold of all the picks necessary to draft our academy boys.

6.5/10. In no way a terrible period.

 

[Tassie4ever]

Just my opinion- I don't think Aish is that good either. If he'd been playing for a Melbourne club and ducked his head as I clearly recall he did in one game at the Gabba recently he'd have been flogged in the media.

Apart from this one episode, for extended performance I rate eg, Mayes much more highly, even though much finer minds than mine saw fit to play Mayes in the backline while he is far better suited at HF. IMHO.

That isn't the point with Aish though, as others have written. Once again we have demonstrated a lack of football nouse. It's the symbolism of the thing. Talk about a line in the sand. What line?

Just on Mayes, it always struck me that if one thing is really going to piss a player off is some numbskull edict that he has to learn a defensive side, even though he has proven real skill up forward. But then again, we are blessed with an over-abundance of goal-kicking forwards, aren't we. Would this be the source of Mayes' supposed discontent?

 

[Milux]

1] Maybe the point has escaped you- why didn't they want to be here?

2] It's not a question of "positivety" [sic]. I'm looking for reasons to be positive.

3] Just now, I don't see our club recruiters sitting around telling themselves we really creamed them this year, which last year they had at least they had some reason to.

I'm reminded a bit of those extended dissertations a few years ago by Rob Kerr on our detailed recruitment strategy. Telling all and sundry what geniuses we were up here, at the same time all the while getting belted on the field.

Some people just don't want to be here. Some people just dont want to stay in the same place as things change. We should ask rocky why he loves us so much.

Im with you in regards to our recruiters but in saying that if we keep our 2013 draft year intact minus aish and if our mids can stay on the park we will be ok.

Reasons to be positive are.

- We only really lost aish who we wanted to keep. (If we wanted to keep reddo it wouldnt have happened day one).
- We garunteed 2 highly rated qld prospect will be playing for us next year.
- We kept our pick 2 (hopefully schache.)
- We added one more option up forward (albeit not a gun player (yet)).
- We added more depth to our mids which would of helped last year.

 

[dlanod]

We'll be seen as the biggest loser from this trade period for sure. I don't think that's really accurate though- it was a fairly neutral result for us in the end.

I'm not overly enthused about our trade period in general. But the Leuenberger thing has been done to death- we didn't have a lot of alternatives.

While I do understand the frustration, I just don't think there were a lot of realistic alternatives available to us this time.

You'd be surprised. I know it's not the media, but the general response in http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/so-who-won-trade-week.1115834/ is... neutral. Which is probably about right.

 

[Milux]

Just my opinion- I don't think Aish is that good either. If he'd been playing for a Melbourne club and ducked his head as I clearly recall he did in one game at the Gabba recently he'd have been flogged in the media.
from this one episode for extended performance I rate eg, Mayes much more highly, even though much finer minds than mine saw fit to play Mayes in the backline while he is far better suited at HF. IMHO.

That isn't the point with Aish though, as others have written. Once again we have demonstrated a lack of football nouse. It's the symbolism of the thing. Talk about a line in the sand. What line?

Just on Mayes, it always struck me that if one thing is really going to piss a player off is some numbskull edict that he has to learn a defensive side, even though he has proven real skill up forward. But then again, we are blessed with an over-abundance of goal-kicking forwards, aren't we. Would this be the source of Mayes' supposed discontent?

Possibly. HOPEFULLY we see him play in his natural position next season.

 

[BRAB]

I think we did extraordinarily well this trade period

Mitigated some big losses and ended up breaking even

Compared to previous years breaking even shouldn't be considered just a pass, it was a huge effort

If it wasn't for Pickering linking the Aish and Bastinac deals together we would have had Collingwood in a much tighter corner

 

[Ray Button]

On the trades, it appears that we've lost three quality players (Redden, Leuenberger & Aish) and replaced them with three pretty useful ones (Bastinac, Bell & Walker) plus one with potential (Jansen). Probably an overall lose, but time will tell. Also, given that the three outs didn't want to be here, we've probably done as well as possible.

Normally, the above would be it as far as trading goes, but with picks and points involved the picture changes. Before and after trading, Pick 2 was always going to a high draftee, but the other original picks 21, 40 & 60 (1453 points) would not have allowed us to have a crack at two high-ranked academy kids, while the resultant trade picks 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 (2147 points) let us have a fair go. So, overall, a big win.

Additionally, the net gain of a second-round pick in 2016 gives us a head-start for academy kids next year.

All up, 7 out of 10.

 

[Roylion]

Leuenberger - caved after getting substandard compo.

What should we have done? Restricted Free Agent. Essendon weren't going to trade. A matched contract means he could still go to the ND/PSD and we'd lose him for not even a compensation pick

Aish - caved and traded him after publicly stating he would be back at the Lions.
Bastinac - overpaid terribly for him.

Brisbane gain: Ryan Bastinac, Pick 38, Pick 40, 2016 2nd rounder, 2016 3rd rounder
Brisbane lose: Pick 17 and James Aish

Trade of picks - not good. Need to factor in the players we now need to delist.

Why? Schwab said recently that the number of draft picks taken to the draft is not tied to the number of list spots you have available.

C- is about as good as you could rate our performance. We have again signalled to the other teams that we are a soft touch and will fold every time. We need to get someone in who has some idea how to run a trade week.

'B' in my view. Needed a key defender and another ruck for depth, which we didn't get. We may address that in the draft perhaps.

 

[Dylan12]

Not sure how anyone can deem today's trade a win.

Give up two very good picks in 17 and 26 for an average player that struggles getting a game plus North's 38 and 40 in addition to their 2016 third round pick (likely to be around pick 50)...why we didn't demand their second rounder is beyond me.

As fot the Aish trade; could we have been anymore bent over by Collingwood? Two years in a row they've gotten one over us and it reeks of being intimadated by the big bad Collingwood to the point that we meekly submit. So much for Leigh's comments or only accepting a win/win trade. I'd be ecstatic if I were a Collingwood fan with how easy and how little they had to give up.

 

[dlanod]

Not sure how anyone can deem today's trade a win.

Give up two very good picks in 17 and 26 for an average player that struggles getting a game plus North's 38 and 40 in addition to their 2016 third round pick (likely to be around pick 50)...why we didn't demand their second rounder is beyond me.

As fot the Aish trade; could we have been anymore bent over by Collingwood? Two years in a row they've gotten one over us and it reeks of being intimadated by the big bad Collingwood to the point that we meekly submit. So much for Leigh's comments or only accepting a win/win trade. I'd be ecstatic if I were a Collingwood fan with how easy and how little they had to give up.

First up, the Lions deal in a reality of draft pick value now, instead of actual draft picks. With Hipwood and Keays this year, and then Allison and possibly others next year we need the point value of picks, not picks themselves. Picks 17 and 26 are meaningless other than 1759 points to match bids on our academy players because those are the picks that are going to be taken first.

We got two second rounders for Aish. Assuming St Kilda doesn't surge up the ladder, we'd be looking in the vicinity of 1450 points for him, with half this year and half next. That's about pick 9. Would you have been more satisfied with pick 9 for him? If so, then what's the difference?

Picks 17 and 26 are 1759 points, we got 894 back. We effectively traded pick 21 for Bastinac and North's 3rd rounder next year, or a pick about 32 or 33 for Bastinac straight up. Would you consider that fair? It sounds like you'd have rather just not traded for Bastinac at all so probably not, though I'm not sure how 121 games in six years is "struggling to get a game".

You appear to be ranting out of a lack of knowledge about the new system Brisbane is working within. We filled in some list gaps, guaranteed ourselves the academy talent we'd be getting and we stockpiled some picks for the following year for the next lot of academy talent coming through.

I have no doubt that we asked for NM's 2nd rounder. Would the difference between their 2nd and 3rd rounder be worth letting the deal fall over for? Well, we wouldn't have Bastinac and we'd probably have a bunch of late picks still worth points that would be wasted because we didn't have the list spots to take enough players to use them all. Seems like shooting one's self in the feet to be honest.

 

[Roylion]

Not sure how anyone can deem today's trade a win.

Give up two very good picks in 17 and 26 for an average player that struggles getting a game plus North's 38 and 40 in addition to their 2016 third round pick (likely to be around pick 50)...why we didn't demand their second rounder is beyond me.

We gave up James Aish and Pick 17 only.

 

[Fatcat08]

I guess how you rate it depends on which view you take of trading. Do you look at the trade in isolation in the knowledge that the player was leaving anyway and that our bargaining position was reduced because of that. Or do you look at trading thinking that if we don't get something good then these players will magically be happy to stay at the club.

Overall if you look at the trades in isolation we probably get a B. If you then want to tack on the whole losing good players and retention issues and bundle that up with the actual trade then its probably a C-.

which is a clear indication that our player retention is still a D at best and is still something we need to keep working on. We've finally got the Lamberts back (although a season or two too late IMO) and are putting more resources into this but there's a tonne of work to do to turn it around. Next year is a very big one for the club. One more promising draftee walking out on us and we can pretty much just shut up shop and head home.

 

[Fatcat08]

We gave up James Aish and Pick 17 only.

not to mention we also got a future second rounder as well.

 

[Judge]

Bringing in Bastinac, Bell and Walker actually has me looking forward to next year with a modicum of hope.

That's at least a 9/10.

Given we weren't keeping Aish under any circumstances and we shouldn't have kept Leuenberger, Redden IMO is the only loss and we directly replaced him.

If you total the on-field contributions made by Leuey, Redden and Aish in 2015 we don't need the guys traded in to do too much to equal or exceed that output.

Let's face it, a Robbo-like season from just one of Bell, Bastinac or Walker (and maybe less) would give us a trade week win on its own, and I really like the thought of having some bigger bodies around the ball.

I'm happy enough with our result, it's a B, or 7/10, from me.

 

[Cockliff38]

I don't claim to be a genius when it comes to the new points system but if you struggle to understand it you shouldn't be able to vehemently label our trade period a failure.

The points we've been able to accrue from the Aish trade are good enough to secure one of Hipwood or Keays this year AND Jacob Allison next year. Highly rated Queensland talent with no go-home factor in addition to a seasoned mid (Bastinac) to replace Redden. Given the hand we're a dealt I think we've done brilliantly well. My hat goes off to Schwab and the team.

I'd give us a solid B grade

 

[hench]

I'll judge the trade period based on how many times I slam the remote in disgust someway through the 2nd quarter and decide not to watch the rest of the shellacking we are about to endure.

 

[Flea_29]

Considering we were facing a 'mass exodus' according to Damian Flog Barrett - we did very well. We only lost 3 players, less than a number of teams. In fact we lost just as many players as Collingwood.
When you consider that in our last game (win over Dogs), none of Aish, Berger and Redden were in that team, all the ins (Bell, Basti and Walker) will help us enormously.
I would have preferred NTH's 2016 2nd rounder, however, overall we have done very well.

7.5 / 10

 

[Fatcat08]

With Academy picks and points now so important, increasingly I think we'll have to rate our off season rather than just the trade period or draft in isolation given that they are now so intrinsically linked.

 

[gcsunsfc]

We'll be seen as the biggest loser from this trade period for sure. I don't think that's really accurate though- it was a fairly neutral result for us in the end.

I'm not overly enthused about our trade period in general. But the Leuenberger thing has been done to death- we didn't have a lot of alternatives.

While I do understand the frustration, I just don't think there were a lot of realistic alternatives available to us this time.

I thought Gold Coast losing Dixon, bennell and smith - 2 queenslanders - didn't fare too well. At least you guys bought in players.

 

[jackess]

I thought Gold Coast losing Dixon, bennell and smith - 2 queenslanders - didn't fare too well. At least you guys bought in players.

I agree, I thought GC and GWS were big losers trading out mature bodies and mainly getting picks which aren't as useful to young teams. Especially GC who don't have as much talent coming through their academy.

 

[mattesideburns]

I guess how you rate it depends on which view you take of trading. Do you look at the trade in isolation in the knowledge that the player was leaving anyway and that our bargaining position was reduced because of that. Or do you look at trading thinking that if we don't get something good then these players will magically be happy to stay at the club.

Overall if you look at the trades in isolation we probably get a B. If you then want to tack on the whole losing good players and retention issues and bundle that up with the actual trade then its probably a C-.

which is a clear indication that our player retention is still a D at best and is still something we need to keep working on. We've finally got the Lamberts back (although a season or two too late IMO) and are putting more resources into this but there's a tonne of work to do to turn it around. Next year is a very big one for the club. One more promising draftee walking out on us and we can pretty much just shut up shop and head home.

I agree with the rest of your post but I think you're being harsh on the player retention. Aish left because he was always going to and I don't think the club could have done anything to change that. However, the rest of his draft class have all re-signed and we'll be drafting mostly Queenslanders this year.
As for Redden and Leuey, I don't put their departures down to retention issues, just natural list turnover. I think a lot of us have been so burned by the dreaded player exodus scares that we think every player should play out their whole career with us. Redden and Leuey both needed a change and tbh we probably needed a change from them too. Leuey was overtaken as number one ruck and would have done himself a disservice to stay and be a backup (and we saw how playing him forward worked out). And whether it was injury or coaching or something else, Redden had stagnated. Hopefully the change will be good for him and for our new recruits.

 

[theteamtobeat]

BRISBANE
IN: Jarrad Jansen, Josh Walker (Geelong), Ryan Bastinac (North Melbourne), Tom Bell (Carlton)
OUT: Matthew Leuenberger (Essendon), Jack Redden (West Coast), James Aish (Collingwood)
DRAFT PICKS: 2, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 78, 96, 114,

Summary
Really average trade period for the club, compared to the excitement 12 months ago when we got Beams and Christensen. From the beginning of trade week it just felt like we were trying to find any player that would entertain wanting to come to us in order to patch holes up, due to the departures of Redden, Aish and Leuy.

Redden
The only thing I was disappointed in the Redden trade is the method of approach that was applied, our attitude and effort. I don't see the logic in trading Redden, day 1 of trade week. The club should of traded him in the last couple of days of trade week and demand overs for him like Gold Coast did with Dixon. By overs, I mean 1st round pick plus anything from a 2nd to 3rd round pick for him. The ball was firmly in our court and we basically caved in accepted the minimum compensation because it's fair. It's not about fairness, it's about getting the best possible deal for our club. We shouldn't be so quick to accept the minimum compensation and hopefully can improve on this next time around. It's a small thing to improve on, but it could be the difference between us getting more value from the trade or being other clubs B*tch.

For example, maybe we shouldn't traded Redden the first day of trade week. It might of allowed us to take advantaged of Matt Rosa leaving (in context of pick or player) or take Carlton's lead and trade Redden for West Coasts future 1st round pick, which then could be packaged up to be traded to GWS for pick 7. Instead of using a first round pick on a Academy kid it maybe could of allow us to add 4 elite talented kids to our list. Aish would of landed us couple of second round picks, which could of been downgraded even further (including picks 39 + 42) for points and that would of netted us Keays and Hipwood. All I'm saying is if we have taken this type of approach, it gives us options to get the best value out of Redden, rather then be dictated by West Coast to only accept their terms and conditions.

Aish
I loved the way we handled the Aish trade. I wish we had the same attitude in the Redden trade. I'm a bit disappointed we basically gave up pick 26 for North Melbourne's 2016 third round pick. I'm just happy Aish got to his destination club and wish him all the best for his career, playing for the Collingwood VFL team.

Bastinac
I don't mind Bastinac, he's a very well rounded footballer. Has good hands in congestion, very good endurance base, but he doesn't put his body on the line like Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell do. I don't think he was the right type of player to give up pick 17 for. My reasoning for this is because Bastinac is going to be our 9th best midfielder behind Beams, Rockliff, Robinson, Hanley, Rich, Zorko, Christensen and Bell.

Why would you give up a first round pick for the 9th best midfielder on our list?

That's the reason why I didn't like the deal. Right concept from the club, but the wrong player to give up such a high pick for. I'm not sure giving up pick 17 for a fringe/depth player in his prime is the best option for us. At least when West Coast gave up pick 17 for Redden, he was going to be their 4th best midfielder behind Priddis, Shuey, Gaff

Bell
I like Bell and it's great to get another Queenslander onto our list. Pick 21 for Bell seemed to high for my taste, but given his circumstances I'm looking forward to see what Bell has to offer next season and how much he can improve.

Jansen & Walker
We clearly done well out of this trade, but I don't think Geelong will give a rats ass about losing their depth players after getting Dangerfield, Henderson, Smith and Selwood. Hopefully they win the flag next year so Hawthorn fails it's four peat.

 

[Tom14]

Surely the biggest loser out of trade week is Cam McCarthy's Manager (aka the worst manager in the business, Colin Young) and to a lesser extent Freo. Though they got in Bennell they didn't address the area they had to if they were to have a chance of winning the flag next year.

Putting aside ongoing retention issues (which obviously are very concerning), I think we have done quite a bit better than them given we've gotten picks for academy players this year and next and picked up some decent mature recruits who are still young enough to be around for a minimum of 6 years.