Mega Thread Trade and List Management discussion

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Make of it what you will be Fox Footy believe that opposition recruiters are sniffing around the fringes of our list.

They wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they weren't.

 

[Dogsman16]

They wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they weren't.

No doubt.

I think we all know the players other clubs feel as though they might be able to obtain.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Such a bitter, personal and extended argument about a potential ruckman (stop patronising each other, you're all getting upset ).

It is perceived as a key area of deficiency, and not just by us supporters, but by the club. Although Kruezer might not be perfect, he would demonstrably be an improvement on Roughead. The club clearly didnt think so though, if there is any truth to the rumors he failed medicals. Thus it will never be and the continued angst about it appears fairly fruitless to my eye.

Campbell and Minson don't seem to fit how the game is being played at the moment, but they may in future. IMO Campbell is the best option though, as I dont rate Roughead. He is inconsistent, and when not on will make us pay badly.

I do wonder what we would throw up at the trade table to get a ruckman?

 

[fronkalicious]

Anyone think Prudden gets another shot somewhere next year?

 

[Dogsman16]

Anyone think Prudden gets another shot somewhere next year?

Surely he is better than some of the list cloggers at other clubs.

Whats happening to Honeychurch at the moment?? Doesn't look to be anywhere near senior selection at this stage.

 

[Ozil]

Anyone think Prudden gets another shot somewhere next year?

Yep. Doesn't suit our style at all but is reasonable overhead, a neat kick, has good hands and looks to be over the worst of his injuries.

Bit of a smoky pick in the first place, so he might not be on too many radars, but I'd back him to get a game at a few other clubs.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There's no point trading out fringe players for the sake of trading out fringe players when a lot of those players entrenched in the culture of the club, have friends etc. or at the very least, understand the game style better than trading in a player.

Nathan Hrovat, as a fringe player, is a case in point. We wanted to trade him out last year, other clubs were interested, but because he's part of the club culture, has friends here and enjoys the club and wants to be part of success with teammates, wanted to stay. I suppose if we really wanted to, we could have convinced him to leave, but we probably didn't.

That's probably a smart move. Through pick upgrades or mature aged players, we might be able to make incremental gains onto the list, make the list as a whole better, by trading out Hrovat. But are those incremental, marginal games worth trading out a player who wants to stay and is part of the club culture. There's also the "risk" factor, in that the new player might not "buy into" our club culture and our game style and tactics, when we already know that Hrovat has, even if that new player might be marginally better.

Not saying we shouldn't do our due diligence and trade out depth players where appropriate to improve our list, just look at Hawthorn trading out players like Hallahan and then upgrading their list with players like O'Rourke. But trading depth for the sake of trading depth because they might get games for other clubs is a risky business that we could screw up.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

There's no point trading out fringe players for the sake of trading out fringe players when a lot of those players entrenched in the culture of the club, have friends etc. or at the very least, understand the game style better than trading in a player.

Nathan Hrovat, as a fringe player, is a case in point. We wanted to trade him out last year, other clubs were interested, but because he's part of the club culture, has friends here and enjoys the club and wants to be part of success with teammates, wanted to stay. I suppose if we really wanted to, we could have convinced him to leave, but we probably didn't.

That's probably a smart move. Through pick upgrades or mature aged players, we might be able to make incremental gains onto the list, make the list as a whole better, by trading out Hrovat. But are those incremental, marginal games worth trading out a player who wants to stay and is part of the club culture. There's also the "risk" factor, in that the new player might not "buy into" our club culture and our game style and tactics, when we already know that Hrovat has, even if that new player might be marginally better.

I don't think anybody here is actively trying to trade out fringe players.

 

[Mutt]

Anyone think Prudden gets another shot somewhere next year?

Pruden would be a very good fit at St Kilda - they have no good young inside players.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think anybody here is actively trying to trade out fringe players.

Not even actively trying to trade them out.

For example if a club like Essendon or St Kilda or whatever came knocking and said "if you want to get trade, who's probably not even in your best 30 players but in our best 25" and then offered, say an upgrade of our late 3rd rounder to their early 2nd rounder in draft picks... it might seem tempting at first, seeing as that Prudden doesn't make any difference to our Best 22, but I would say no because of the fact he's entrenched in the culture of the club. If Prudden's not a perfect example, swap him out with Zaine Cordy, Lukas Webb, Mitch Honeychurch, to make the same point.

 

[ScragCity]

Stupid comment. If you want a top ruckman, prepare to part with your first and a player you don't want to lose. Are you prepared to do that?

The whole argument about Smith is based on the fact he cost 2 3rd rounders - it was a steal.

Stupid reply. Why trade in a ruck unless they are significantly better than what we have? You see a spud like Kreuzer have one good game and think you're nostradamus. Talk about a kneejerk reaction.

 

[immortalmike]

Making a trade to improve our ruck stocks would involve, you know, trading in a player to improve our ruck stocks.

I don't think Zac Clarke is a better player than Jordan Roughead.

Thanks thought I was going mad there for a second.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Not even actively trying to trade them out.

For example if a club like Essendon or St Kilda or whatever came knocking and said "if you want to get trade, who's probably not even in your best 30 players but in our best 25" and then offered, say an upgrade of our late 3rd rounder to their early 2nd rounder in draft picks... it might seem tempting at first, seeing as that Prudden doesn't make any difference to our Best 22, but I would say no because of the fact he's entrenched in the culture of the club. If Prudden's not a perfect example, swap him out with Zaine Cordy, Lukas Webb, Mitch Honeychurch, to make the same point.

Isn't that just common sense, that you weigh up what the player brings off-field and on-field (both now and in the future) compared to what you're getting in return? Sorry, not having a go, just not sure I'm getting your point here. Of course you have to take those sorts of things into account but you can't pre-emptively say no to trading any of the fringe players just because they're part of the culture.

I also think it's worth considering the very real possibility that some of these guys will be lured to/poached by other clubs with promises of greater opportunities, and as such don't think discussing potential trades/worth is that outrageous.

 

[Mofra]

I also think it's worth considering the very real possibility that some of these guys will be lured to/poached by other clubs with promises of greater opportunities, and as such don't think discussing potential trades/worth is that outrageous.

Agree, but some of these guys are worth little to nothing though - Tutt was a freebie to Carlton, Biggs to us (a finals performer who just had 35 touches) was worth virtually zero.
I imagine a guy like Prudden who would be useful to an Essendon or Carlton would be worth nothing at the trade table or we'd do some token trade to get him to his desired destination.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Isn't that just common sense, that you weigh up what the player brings off-field and on-field (both now and in the future) compared to what you're getting in return? Sorry, not having a go, just not sure I'm getting your point here. Of course you have to take those sorts of things into account but you can't pre-emptively say no to trading any of the fringe players just because they're part of the culture.

I also think it's worth considering the very real possibility that some of these guys will be lured to/poached by other clubs with promises of greater opportunities, and as such don't think discussing potential trades/worth is that outrageous.

I'm not claiming that you say preemptively no (I edited the original post to add that in but only after you quoted it), I just like the balance of discussion here, what is "common sense" is too heavily weighted to trading them for incremental gains, and that we should try to trend toward keeping our fringe players if we can.

 

[maddog37]

This board always goes kooky when talk of trading players out occurs.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Agree, but some of these guys are worth little to nothing though - Tutt was a freebie to Carlton, Biggs to us (a finals performer who just had 35 touches) was worth virtually zero.
I imagine a guy like Prudden who would be useful to an Essendon or Carlton would be worth nothing at the trade table or we'd do some token trade to get him to his desired destination.

Agree. I sort of viewed the Prudden discussion as being tangential (i.e. "will he get another chance elsewhere?" as compared to, "would he be worth anything if a club came knocking?") - I'm more talking about players like Webb, Hrovat, Honeychurch, Dale and so on (not that I'd necessarily want to trade those guys). You can see why clubs would go after them and similarly you can see why those players could be somewhat interested in the offer.

 

[King Harold]

Stupid reply. Why trade in a ruck unless they are significantly better than what we have? You see a spud like Kreuzer have one good game and think you're nostradamus. Talk about a kneejerk reaction.

What was that again ---- you want to play Boyd full back ?
Don't think you should be calling anyone stupid!

 

[Pugz89]

There's no point trading out fringe players for the sake of trading out fringe players when a lot of those players entrenched in the culture of the club, have friends etc. or at the very least, understand the game style better than trading in a player.

Nathan Hrovat, as a fringe player, is a case in point. We wanted to trade him out last year, other clubs were interested, but because he's part of the club culture, has friends here and enjoys the club and wants to be part of success with teammates, wanted to stay. I suppose if we really wanted to, we could have convinced him to leave, but we probably didn't.

That's probably a smart move. Through pick upgrades or mature aged players, we might be able to make incremental gains onto the list, make the list as a whole better, by trading out Hrovat. But are those incremental, marginal games worth trading out a player who wants to stay and is part of the club culture. There's also the "risk" factor, in that the new player might not "buy into" our club culture and our game style and tactics, when we already know that Hrovat has, even if that new player might be marginally better.

Not saying we shouldn't do our due diligence and trade out depth players where appropriate to improve our list, just look at Hawthorn trading out players like Hallahan and then upgrading their list with players like O'Rourke. But trading depth for the sake of trading depth because they might get games for other clubs is a risky business that we could screw up.

To be fair, i would expect that 44 players are entrenched in the club culture, have friends here and can play the game style better than a traded in player. So if you believe that is the main reason not to, then i guess we may as well not bother with trade week anymore. It's all about balance. And really, most players wouldn't begrudge a Hrovat or a Prudden for going to another club where they'll get more opportunities at senior footy. Would think Hrovat stays in Melbourne, so not like he'd never get to see his mates anyway.

 

[Pugz89]

Make of it what you will be Fox Footy believe that opposition recruiters are sniffing around the fringes of our list.

Also hypothetically speaking (not that I want him to leave at all) but what do you think Caleb Daniel's worth is?? I think the SA (in particular Adelaide) might come knocking hard.

Is there a link for the article or Ralphy just said it in passing somewhere?

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Stupid reply. Why trade in a ruck unless they are significantly better than what we have? You see a spud like Kreuzer have one good game and think you're nostradamus. Talk about a kneejerk reaction.

Haha love it.

 

[ScragCity]

What was that again ---- you want to play Boyd full back ?
Don't think you should be calling anyone stupid!

So some random comment I made about something not at all relevant to our ruck stocks means that my argument is invalid. Sound logic. I didn't say anyone was stupid and he was the first one to use that word.

 

[fronkalicious]

A yes or no on who you guys think will be chased by other clubs?

1) hrovat
2) Roberts
3) honeychurch
4) Webb (has he extended?)
5) Jong
6) campbell
7) Prudden

 

[immortalmike]

This board always was kooky.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[BRWB]

I'm not claiming that you say preemptively no (I edited the original post to add that in but only after you quoted it), I just like the balance of discussion here, what is "common sense" is too heavily weighted to trading them for incremental gains, and that we should try to trend toward keeping our fringe players if we can.

The club reportedly (from some here) agreed to trade Hrovat to GWS for two 2nd picks. That IMO would have been smart trading. Personally I'd have done it for one 2nd rd pick.

I don't see a 2nd rd pick as an incremental gain.

Sadly (for him and us) Hrovat stayed and will likely be opportunity starved and we will lose him for nix at years end.

That is a very poor outcome IMO. But not the club's fault. Can't blame Nathan for backing himself either.

But to suggest the club shouldn't have moved Hrovat on for a fair price because it damages some unquantifiable team fabric goes against what the club did and good list management principles IMO.

Fact is if we stand still we go backwards.