So how do you rate our 2015 trade period?

[Toffee Lion]

We got in Walker & will be drafting Schache for KPP.

What A-grade talent was available for us to get? We didn't even lose any A-grade talent to do a swap.

2 first round picks for what? We're drafting academy players this year, those picks would be useless which is why we did what we did.

Effectively we will get 3 top 20 draftee's this year, on top of the early 20's mature talent we brought in (Bell, Jansen, Walker & Basti).

AND we have set-up for next year's draft already.

Personally, after a day has gone by - I'd almost give us a B+

 

[lukiuslion]

To assess the trade period you need to use relevant criteria. The additional ones you raised are either fanciful or were ones that our recruiting team met.

The reason most of the media are giving us a C is that they struggle to understand how the system changed this year, are high draft pick obsessed and/or are factoring in retention issues without a full understanding.

The criteria I raised, are the criteria that our team required to meet in order to have an 'outstanding' trade period IMO. The reasons they arn't or wern't met, are fine and reasonable, but what's the point of reviewing the trade period if you are going to conveniently ignore some of the key criteria we needed to tick off on? The Criteria I raised were obvious needs of the club or standards that we set for ourselves (A GRADE talent, not buckling on Aish etc) - we got an 'ok' outcome on Aish, I was happy with it, but we didn't 'take them to town' did we? all I am saying is, yes the trade period was great with what we had available, but some criteria where not met.

Also - you conveniently twisted the results of the Walker, academy picks and the aish deal to satasfy the answer to those criteria, but lets not get bogged down in semantics.

 

[lukiuslion]

We got in Walker & will be drafting Schache for KPP.

What A-grade talent was available for us to get? We didn't even lose any A-grade talent to do a swap.

2 first round picks for what? We're drafting academy players this year, those picks would be useless which is why we did what we did.

Effectively we will get 3 top 20 draftee's this year, on top of the early 20's mature talent we brought in (Bell, Jansen, Walker & Basti).

AND we have set-up for next year's draft already.

Personally, after a day has gone by - I'd almost give us a B+

Yeah as I said, I was responding to a post that only set 3 elements of criteria that we ticked off on, but ignored some other criteria I think we could have met. I am happy with the trade period, but I think it's healthy we be subjective whilst directing what would have been an 'outstanding' trade period or an 'ok' trade period.. regardless of the reasons certain results were unobtainable.

 

[notting18]

Your'e missing the point of my post mate. I am not saying that I DEMAND these criteria be met, I am generally happy with the results of the trade period. I was saying, that I felt this post (and some others) only raised the questions that we got a good result in, whilst ignoring several others.
It doesen't matter what the answer to the criteria I raised are, they were areas for one reason (most valid) or another we couldn't satisfy.

Bring in #1 KPP forwards and real A grade talent (ie Beams) werepretty much fanciful options for this trade period. Unless you can name one player who we had a greater than 5% chance of signing, you are judging us on the equivalent of a criterion of "how many three legged players did we trade in?"

Also - you conveniently twisted the results of the Walker, academy picks and the aish deal to satasfy the answer to those criteria, but lets not get bogged down in semantics.

Nah come, on let's get bogged down in semantics. It is pretty clear that you just don't understand things.

How is Walker not a KPP player to help our forwards/backs? He is a KPP foward who is best 22 and could free up McStay or Close to go back.

How are our draft picks not equivalent to 3 first round picks? With the points system it is clear we went from Pick 2 and enough Pick 10 to adding in Pick 11 if required.

How did we not trade Aish for two second round picks? Seeing as...you know...that's the deal we did.

 

[Schache It Off]

We got a B from Trade wrap also, probably around that is our result imo.

 

[lukiuslion]

Bring in #1 KPP forwards and real A grade talent (ie Beams) werepretty much fanciful options for this trade period. Unless you can name one player who we had a greater than 5% chance of signing, you are judging us on the equivalent of a criterion of "how many three legged players did we trade in?"



Nah come, on let's get bogged down in semantics. It is pretty clear that you just don't understand things.

How is Walker not a KPP player to help our forwards/backs? He is a KPP foward who is best 22 and could free up McStay or Close to go back.

How are our draft picks not equivalent to 3 first round picks? With the points system it is clear we went from Pick 2 and enough Pick 10 to adding in Pick 11 if required.

How did we not trade Aish for two second round picks? Seeing as...you know...that's the deal we did.

I mentioned some criteria that was set by the club it's self? we chased Charlie Dixon, we said we wanted more A- grade talent? All I threw up was an example of how if you take your rose coloured glasses off for just one second, we potentially could have gotten more out of the trade period - it's called being subjective. So our KPP player issues are sorted, because we bought in an unproven C grade forward and we can now shuffle some kids around? lol.. and depending on how you shuffle the Aish deal around you can make it look however you want, but the general summation is we 'just broke even', you can't dismiss criteria we require because it was hard to get it done, that would be like me arguing we shouldn't praise the good work we did because those players we bought in were struggling to get a game at their clubs and approached us and we didn't have to do anything much, so that's not a tick.

anyway, as per my original post I am generally happy with the trade period, i am excited about the new players, I am excited about our list, I commend Schwab and co for what we were able to do. My post was highlighting whilst we did well given our situation there were some criteria we couldn't address, regardless of it being difficult.

we didn't fill our mature KPP needs we are left exposed, we didn't bring in any elite talent, we didn't secure suckling which in hindsight would have been a win, we didn't get a number 1 key forward and we didn't out right win the Aish deal.. but we did replace Redden to an extent, we did secure the picks needed to get the academy kids, we did trade for aish which was a great decision, we did bring in Tom bell which is a great thing for the club, we did get a quick good deal for redden.

all i am encouraging is we be subjective about our needs and if they were met, not just outright praise every element of everything done and refuse to even raise other criteria because it was too hard for us so we can't talk about that.

 

[Ironmonger]

My thoughts from most to least positive:

• Walker and Jansen appear to be players we've targeted, that we've got for a bargain price we don't even have to pay until next year. It's like when your washer and dryer break and the store lets you take replacements and pay in a year's time. Superb.
• Bell might not be exactly the type of player we need, but he's proven that he can play, he's in form, he's a local with affection for the club, and he can do well in a struggling team. Plus I think it's great we were able to bring him home to be with his dad.
• The new points system and the likely draft positions of our academy players set up a system that was ripe for exploitation, and we exploited accordingly. The club took a savvy, pragmatic approach here.
• Redden for pick 17 is a good return. But it seemed to defeat the purpose a little bit when we ontraded that pick in the Aish/Bastinac trade and received points and St Kilda's future second round pick in return. It feels like we probably could have gotten most if not all of those points and that second rounder for Aish without pick 17, so perhaps we could have held onto Redden and let Bastinac slide. But then, it might be irrelevant if the coaching staff really don't rate Redden or if we knew he was definitely not sticking around after becoming FA eligible next year.
• It looks like we mucked up the Leuenberger situation. I know the AFL created a state of affairs that looked like it could be taken advantage of, but free agency has always been a 'crap shoot' and we shouldn't have left ourselves open to that risk. I'm not sure exactly what the club's plans were with that pick 22 and how they were mucked up but I don't think we should ever have relied on that. On the flip side, at least we got a handful of points that will be useful. And I'm glad we didn't try to match the compo and force a trade.
• We overpaid for Bastinac. There seem to be some differences of opinion on his ability, but I am definitely at the lower end of the scale. He is a useful, durable player who'd become surplus to requirements at his team, and possibly even was preventing them from freeing up the cap space they needed to top up their list. We've taken him off their hands for a very generous upgrade in picks. He has his good qualities, but also some pretty serious limitations, particularly a lack of pace and ability to find the ball. He's more of a slightly better Ryan Lester than a Redden replacement. I think we were a little boxed in when we ended up agreeing on these terms.
• The common theme is that the club couldn't have gotten any more for Aish than they did, and that's hard to disagree with. But honestly I don't think we got any better value than we did for most of the go home five, and once again one of our kids gets to pick their club and they get there. We didn't do anything to make the target on our backs smaller and we wound up with a poor return on our investment. The only alternative might have been to send him to the draft and get nothing, and that would still have been a terrible set of circumstances. But this is yet another reminder of how much harder it is for us and that there's no sign things are getting easier.

And on that last point, I note the complete absence of any media commentary along the lines of 'Gee. Things really are bad for northern states clubs. Let's talk about ways to make things better'.

 

[lukiuslion]

My thoughts from most to least positive:

• Walker and Jansen appear to be players we've targeted, that we've got for a bargain price we don't even have to pay until next year. It's like when your washer and dryer break and the store lets you take replacements and pay in a year's time. Superb.
• Bell might not be exactly the type of player we need, but he's proven that he can play, he's in form, he's a local with affection for the club, and he can do well in a struggling team. Plus I think it's great we were able to bring him home to be with his dad.
• The new points system and the likely draft positions of our academy players set up a system that was ripe for exploitation, and we exploited accordingly. The club took a savvy, pragmatic approach here.
• Redden for pick 17 is a good return. But it seemed to defeat the purpose a little bit when we ontraded that pick in the Aish/Bastinac trade and received points and St Kilda's future second round pick in return. It feels like we probably could have gotten most if not all of those points and that second rounder for Aish without pick 17, so perhaps we could have held onto Redden and let Bastinac slide. But then, it might be irrelevant if the coaching staff really don't rate Redden or if we knew he was definitely not sticking around after becoming FA eligible next year.
• It looks like we mucked up the Leuenberger situation. I know the AFL created a state of affairs that looked like it could be taken advantage of, but free agency has always been a 'crap shoot' and we shouldn't have left ourselves open to that risk. I'm not sure exactly what the club's plans were with that pick 22 and how they were mucked up but I don't think we should ever have relied on that. On the flip side, at least we got a handful of points that will be useful. And I'm glad we didn't try to match the compo and force a trade.
• We overpaid for Bastinac. There seem to be some differences of opinion on his ability, but I am definitely at the lower end of the scale. He is a useful, durable player who'd become surplus to requirements at his team, and possibly even was preventing them from freeing up the cap space they needed to top up their list. We've taken him off their hands for a very generous upgrade in picks. He has his good qualities, but also some pretty serious limitations, particularly a lack of pace and ability to find the ball. He's more of a slightly better Ryan Lester than a Redden replacement. I think we were a little boxed in when we ended up agreeing on these terms.
• The common theme is that the club couldn't have gotten any more for Aish than they did, and that's hard to disagree with. But honestly I don't think we got any better value than we did for most of the go home five, and once again one of our kids gets to pick their club and they get there. We didn't do anything to make the target on our backs smaller and we wound up with a poor return on our investment. The only alternative might have been to send him to the draft and get nothing, and that would still have been a terrible set of circumstances. But this is yet another reminder of how much harder it is for us and that there's no sign things are getting easier.

And on that last point, I note the complete absence of any media commentary along the lines of 'Gee. Things really are bad for northern states clubs. Let's talk about ways to make things better'.

excellent, balanced, summation of the trade period for us, most of it rings pretty true for me. Do you think we could have gone harder for, spent more focus on the lack of Mature talls in the 23-25 age bracket? or did you back another year of development for Darcy, Clarke, Andrews etc - to hold us over for another 12 months?

I really was impressed by our active approach to the period, we need list turn over and a shake up - glad we didn't sit on our hands.

 

[winged1]

excellent, balanced, summation of the trade period for us, most of it rings pretty true for me. Do you think we could have gone harder for, spent more focus on the lack of Mature talls in the 23-25 age bracket? or did you back another year of development for Darcy, Clarke, Andrews etc - to hold us over for another 12 months?

I really was impressed by our active approach to the period, we need list turn over and a shake up - glad we didn't sit on our hands.

But who could they have got? they went hard after Rance, Talia wanted to go to Sydney. I think they got best available to them in Walker, (im not convinced Dixon will see out his next contract). Astbury if they really wanted him would of got here, so either he was asking too much or the medical didnt come up good. Another year for the kids (I include Clarke there) can only be good for them. Doesnt matter how good the backline is they will look crap if the mids keep turning it over for a fast break coming back. We need good ball users in the middle.

 

[rockypls]

I haven't seen much of Walker, is it likely that he can kick 30+?

Can't see why not to be honest. Still young although he finally got an extended run at senior level last season - kicking 19 goals in 16 games. Add another pre-season under his belt, guaranteed senior games (possible as the lead forward) and hopefully some better delivery inside the fifty he could reach that target. We usually average more inside fifties per game last season but could never turn that into scores due to the inexperience.

 

[lukiuslion]

But who could they have got? they went hard after Rance, Talia wanted to go to Sydney. I think they got best available to them in Walker, (im not convinced Dixon will see out his next contract). Astbury if they really wanted him would of got here, so either he was asking too much or the medical didnt come up good. Another year for the kids (I include Clarke there) can only be good for them. Doesnt matter how good the backline is they will look crap if the mids keep turning it over for a fast break coming back. We need good ball users in the middle.

Yeah fair summation. That's the answer I am looking for from people. I believe with cap space on hand we could have gone pretty hard at a number of out of favour KPP's in or out of contract from various clubs (B grade C grade calibre), but it is hard to speculate over who they might have been. Our focus was clearly on mids again, which as you mentioned has a good logic behind it, part of me hopes we don't rue not at least adding one KPD. As i said this isn't a scathing attack, I am happy with most elements, just had a wave of anxiety last night when it dawned on me we are largely rolling with the same structure down back again.

 

[notting18]

• The common theme is that the club couldn't have gotten any more for Aish than they did, and that's hard to disagree with. But honestly I don't think we got any better value than we did for most of the go home five, and once again one of our kids gets to pick their club and they get there. We didn't do anything to make the target on our backs smaller and we wound up with a poor return on our investment. The only alternative might have been to send him to the draft and get nothing, and that would still have been a terrible set of circumstances. But this is yet another reminder of how much harder it is for us and that there's no sign things are getting easier.

FWIW we got double the value for Aish than we did the GH5.

 

[Ironmonger]

FWIW we got double the value for Aish than we did the GH5.

What do you mean, notting?

 

[notting18]

What do you mean, notting?

We traded Aish for Pick 26 and St Kilda's 2016 2nd round pick. So let's say Picks 26 and 27.

With the GH5, we traded Yeo for Pick 28, Docherty for Pick 33, Karnezis for Paine, Longer + 48 for 25 and 41 as well as Polec+ 45 +21 for 14 +34.

Pretty much each of the GH5 deals works out at a 2nd round pick in value. For Aish, we got double that.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I think we did really well.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

It is pretty clear that our entire trade strategy changed once we got dudded by the AFL on the Leuenberger compo. But I don't see what we could have done differently. I don't think it's fair to say club 'relied' on getting pick 22 for him, but it probably expected it or something close to it. And fair enough. When they didn't they obviously had to do the best with what they were given. As for Bastinac, on paper we gave overs but in reality we got what we needed, points for this year and next. Time will tell if the academy boys are worth it but that is what we had to do. My only concern will be if we can't get some of the lesser academy boys, in particular Chol. As things stand (correct me if I'm wrong), we have one Qld rookie spot and one senior spot available, although the latter might be earmarked for Whitecross. Unless of course we delist someone.

 

[Leemas]

Lol at all the people still firing up over our trade period. Draft picks are irrelevant for us now outside the top 10. Draft pick VALUE is what is important to pick up our academy kids. We succeeded in getting enough value for our kids while maintaining our pick 2 in the draft. Brought in some mature talent to add some experience and big bodies around the ground. Addition of walker is massive, remember how good we looked when we had one of McGuane or staker playing alongside freeman? All of a sudden our forward line doesn't look so bleak. I think our trade period was excellent. Missing out on Rance would be the only mark off. 9/10 very very impressed.

 

[Ironmonger]

We traded Aish for Pick 26 and St Kilda's 2016 2nd round pick. So let's say Picks 26 and 27.

With the GH5, we traded Yeo for Pick 28, Docherty for Pick 33, Karnezis for Paine, Longer + 48 for 25 and 41 as well as Polec+ 45 +21 for 14 +34.

Pretty much each of the GH5 deals works out at a 2nd round pick in value. For Aish, we got double that.

Actually yeah, that's a fair way to look at it.

I think I'd be happier if it was separate from the Bastinac trade.

 

[lukiuslion]

Lol at all the people still firing up over our trade period. Draft picks are irrelevant for us now outside the top 10. Draft pick VALUE is what is important to pick up our academy kids. We succeeded in getting enough value for our kids while maintaining our pick 2 in the draft. Brought in some mature talent to add some experience and big bodies around the ground. Addition of walker is massive, remember how good we looked when we had one of McGuane or staker playing alongside freeman? All of a sudden our forward line doesn't look so bleak. I think our trade period was excellent. Missing out on Rance would be the only mark off. 9/10 very very impressed.

Just to clarify my position. As I said in the Aish thread I was 100% in support of the deal, I was 100% in favor of the Walker deal and used the Mcguane example myself several times and I am generally happy.

 

[Ray Button]

A nagging thought - I keep hearing that we have enough points accrued with picks 38 to 42 to cover the discounted aggregate points (2130) to cover picks 10 and 12 for Hipwood and Keays.

In actuality, what happens if/when pick 10 is bid for one of them. In order to cover the discounted points required (1116), the Lions would have to use picks 38 (465), 39 (446) and still need 205 of the 429 points for pick 40. Can we use half a pick? Or do we lose all of pick 40 and then only have picks 41 and 42 to cover our next academy kid? If so we would have to hope the second kid goes for pick 18 or more rather than the pick 12 being considered covered?

 

[dlanod]

A nagging thought - I keep hearing that we have enough points accrued with picks 38 to 42 to cover the discounted aggregate points (2130) to cover picks 10 and 12 for Hipwood and Keays.

In actuality, what happens if/when pick 10 is bid for one of them. In order to cover the discounted points required (1116), the Lions would have to use picks 38 (465), 39 (446) and still need 205 of the 429 points for pick 40. Can we use half a pick? Or do we lose all of pick 40 and then only have picks 41 and 42 to cover our next academy kid? If so we would have to hope the second kid goes for pick 18 or more rather than the pick 12 being considered covered?

The points sit in escrow until we need them, since it was a first round bid. If it was after the first round we get a pick corresponding to the number of points back. Either way we don't lose the points.

 

[notting18]

Actually yeah, that's a fair way to look at it.

I think I'd be happier if it was separate from the Bastinac trade.

Well it was lodged separately with the AFL. But I agree, would be clearer without the Bastinac trade which I feel most feel was our 'most overpaid trade' (me included).

 

[winged1]

Yeah fair summation. That's the answer I am looking for from people. I believe with cap space on hand we could have gone pretty hard at a number of out of favour KPP's in or out of contract from various clubs (B grade C grade calibre), but it is hard to speculate over who they might have been. Our focus was clearly on mids again, which as you mentioned has a good logic behind it, part of me hopes we don't rue not at least adding one KPD. As i said this isn't a scathing attack, I am happy with most elements, just had a wave of anxiety last night when it dawned on me we are largely rolling with the same structure down back again.

I suppose where I am different to many is I dont think the backline is the primary problem at the moment. If Sauce can get two more years the others will mature around him. Sauce being out for much of the year really hurt the backline structure. Clarke got 1, Gardiner got 2, Paps was asked to play third tall, the knock on effect really hurt us. This was especially borne out when Paps was on McInnes in the WC game and was getting thrown around.

So if Merrett and Clarke are one and two, with Andrews developing (what achieved in his first year considering the level of experience around him was phenomenal) Gardiner as an angry third, Paps as the running cover, Harwood back, McGrath back (remember he was very good before the injury), Cutler, Rich, Hanley, Claye Beams, Dawson, plus Beasely, Watts, McGuiness developing and McStay as a swingman. I think it looks reasonably solid.

 

[winged1]

What I dont ever want to see is Rich trying to do a 20 metre pass from the kick in.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

You are of course entitled to your opinion. So am I.

I prefer to not get involved in the complexities of trading, drafting etc because as far as I can understand it only a nuclear physicist is equipped to come to grips with the process.

My black and white comments are confined to on-field success or otherwise. We haven't had any success recently. That's a fact.

Anyone can debate the merits of our recruiting strategies. There's no debate about our performances.

As to LM's comments having "... their desired effect". You've got to be joking. The only effect was to diminish his standing in the game. If you're going to make bald statements then you've got to be prepared to back them up. Swann is in the same position of course. I must admit I was completely taken in by what they both said. Stupidly, I actually thought they meant it.

You said it yourself..... You don't follow it closely enough and find it hard to follow.

You're right about Leigh though.. His standing in the game is tarnished forever
No one will remember

4x VFL Premiership: 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983 - (Captain)
8x Hawthorn Best & Fairest: 1971-1972, 1974, 1976-1978, 1980, 1982
VFLPA MVP Award (Leigh Matthews Trophy): 1982
Award renamed in 2002 in Matthews honour
All-Australian team: 1972
2x VFL Team of the Year: 1982-1983
Coleman Medal: 1975
6x Hawthorn leading goal kicker: 1973, 1975, 1981-1984
Hawthorn Captain: 1981-1985
Player of the 20th Century
AFL Team of the Century (forward pocket)
Australian Football Hall of Fame - Legend Status: (Inaugural Legend)
Hawthorn Team of the Century (rover)
Hawthorn Hall of Fame: Legend Status
Championship of Australia Championship: 1971
NFL Night Series Championship: 1976
2x VFL Night Series Premiership: 1969, 1977
Representative

2x Australian National Football Carnival Championship: 1972, 1975
Captain of Victoria
Coaching

4x AFL Premiership: 1990, 2001, 2002, 2003
3x All-Australian team: 2001-2003
AFL Team of the Year: 1990
Collingwood Hall of Fame
Brisbane Lions Hall of Fame