Analysis Critical analysis of our current position.

[TBOW]

And who are you Cori?
Does it hurt you that much knowing that I'm right again.

There has been a fair bit of the ner ni ner ni ner ners going on in your posting of late Ernie.

 

[lachy]

FS. Sorry we aren't all player agents. A simple correction would have been nice, not a lecture.

Anyway does make sense if so, but was the Lake situation any different though? He had a contract with us, traded to Hawthorn and renegotiated at the time I think.

Apologies if it came across harsh. I am not a player agent though have looked into becoming one, just took the time to understand the rules. I am more than happy to be critical of the club and its decisions but find it frustrating when they are criticized and the alternatives offered as a reason for the criticism are illegal. For the Lake trade I am not convinced, however for him to remain he would have needed to be mentally switched on and want to bring the next group of players through. I am not sure this was the case and is why he was traded. I understand the rational at the time and was not in the room so will not be critical of the trade.

Lake is in the same boat as Griffen. What Hawthorn offered had to fit in with their TPP given the list they had lodged prior to the trade period beginning. FOr us though we were not bent over as much as we did not have salary to make up in our cap. The only issue that may have put us in a weaker decision would be his manager saying he would definitely walk the next year.

 

[TBOW]

The discussion about the Lake trade is another example of people rationalising poor club decisions.

We decided to release our only proven key position player at the time and one of the all time great full backs to an opposition club needing one final puzzle piece for another premiership, all for the meagre return of draft pick 43 and an upgrade from pick 27 to 21.

We used pick 43 to pick up a player who hadn't been able to establish himself at the West Coast Eagles, playing 11 games across three seasons.

So Hawthorn has scored two premierships, a Norm Smith medallist, and whatever else Lake helps them achieve.

We on the other end spent the next 2 years in the doldrums, and essentially picked up Koby Stevens, who still has potential but has thus far been a fringe player in a poor team.

A worst case assessment might suggest we actually got nothing in return for Lake because we picked up two players that we arguably could have picked up with our existing picks anyway. We could potentially have picked up Stevens for pick 70 if we were a bit better at negotiating, and the difference in the probability of success between pick 21 and pick 27 would be minimal. It's reasonably likely that we would have been able to select Hrovat (or someone just as good) with pick 27 anyway.

Why did we do this deal, rather than hold out for a better one?
We would have received better compensation if Lake left as a free agent a year later, and we would have had at least 1 decent key position player for 2013. Not to mention that we wouldn't have been majorly advancing the cause of one of our opponents.

Hmm... Yes. It is possible that the club, with all the information available to it, and having spoken to all the people
involved, made a worse decision than you would have made sitting on your couch yelling at your television. And yes it is possible that all of these posters are simply rationalising the deal, rather than acknowledging the same merits in the trade that the club saw.

OR...

and I realise that this is a pretty out there hypothesis... maybe you are wrong?

 

[lachy]

The discussion about the Lake trade is another example of people rationalising poor club decisions.

We decided to release our only proven key position player at the time and one of the all time great full backs to an opposition club needing one final puzzle piece for another premiership, all for the meagre return of draft pick 43 and an upgrade from pick 27 to 21.

We used pick 43 to pick up a player who hadn't been able to establish himself at the West Coast Eagles, playing 11 games across three seasons.

So Hawthorn has scored two premierships, a Norm Smith medallist, and whatever else Lake helps them achieve.

We on the other end spent the next 2 years in the doldrums, and essentially picked up Koby Stevens, who still has potential but has thus far been a fringe player in a poor team.

A worst case assessment might suggest we actually got nothing in return for Lake because we picked up two players that we arguably could have picked up with our existing picks anyway. We could potentially have picked up Stevens for pick 70 if we were a bit better at negotiating, and the difference in the probability of success between pick 21 and pick 27 would be minimal. It's reasonably likely that we would have been able to select Hrovat (or someone just as good) with pick 27 anyway.

Why did we do this deal, rather than hold out for a better one?
We would have received better compensation if Lake left as a free agent a year later, and we would have had at least 1 decent key position player for 2013. Not to mention that we wouldn't have been majorly advancing the cause of one of our opponents.

Firstly, and this is not meant in a condescending way so I hope you do not take it this way, but though I may disagree with the sentiments of your posts and we may be on apposing sides on most of them and some other posters may disagree me, your posts now are much more insightful and generate good debate and discussion than when we were discussing he who must not be mentioned.

Now for your post. It is interesting that your post above actually does nothing more than try to rationalise your position with the Lake trade.

Given the 2 years Lake had before the trade the likelihood of getting a better deal was minimal at best. he was certainly not the all Australian full back or close to the player of 2008 -2010. Whether we could have picked up the players elsewhere in the draft is subjective at best. Whether Lake was willing to remain at a team on the decline is subjective at best. Not being on the inside or part of the discussions with Lake and his management I am not critical of the decision, so if this is what you consider rationalising poor decisions, so be it.

All trade are inherently risky as are draft picks. They come off people look like geniuses. Look at Pelchen and the Hawks. The Roughy, Buddy, Lewis et el drafts he was considered a guru, then analyse each one after that whilst he was there, they were abject failures.

I do not have a strong opinion on the Lake trade and personally, which is only based on my opinion, I do not currently rate either Stevens or Hrovat as AFL class footballers in a top team. However, I hope this is one where my opinion is wrong as I would love to see both of the boys play 200 great games each

 

[ErnieSigley]

There has been a fair bit of the ner ni ner ni ner ners going on in your posting of late Ernie.

Yes when I've been attacked personally like on this occasion.
A lot of crap been written here including some by yourself and I've pointed it out. Not my fault.

 

[TBOW]

Yes when I've been attacked personally like on this occasion.
A lot of crap been written here including some by yourself and I've pointed it out. Not my fault.

Really? I honestly must have missed whatever crap of mine you've 'pointed out'. I for the most part have been a non contributor to the discussion you seem to keep harping back to. I really wish I knew what you were talking about so that I could rebut...

 

[ErnieSigley]

Really? I honestly must have missed whatever crap of mine you've 'pointed out'. I for the most part have been a non contributor to the discussion you seem to keep harping back to. I really wish I knew what you were talking about so that I could rebut...

I replied to it already, you didn't.

 

[Gmod23]

/thread
/thread
/thread

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Let it be. Ernie's baseless & yet inevitable condescension aside, the discussion has been robust.

Keeps it out of the other threads, too

 

[Gmod23]

Let it be. Ernie's baseless & yet inevitable condescension aside, the discussion has been robust.

Keeps it out of the other threads, too

How do you name change?

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

How do you name change?

Had the option there after I chipped in for player sponsorship

 

[Gmod23]

Had the option there after I chipped in for player sponsorship

Sounds like a plan

 

[Proffessor]

Firstly, and this is not meant in a condescending way so I hope you do not take it this way, but though I may disagree with the sentiments of your posts and we may be on apposing sides on most of them and some other posters may disagree me, your posts now are much more insightful and generate good debate and discussion than when we were discussing he who must not be mentioned.

Now for your post. It is interesting that your post above actually does nothing more than try to rationalise your position with the Lake trade.

Given the 2 years Lake had before the trade the likelihood of getting a better deal was minimal at best. he was certainly not the all Australian full back or close to the player of 2008 -2010. Whether we could have picked up the players elsewhere in the draft is subjective at best. Whether Lake was willing to remain at a team on the decline is subjective at best. Not being on the inside or part of the discussions with Lake and his management I am not critical of the decision, so if this is what you consider rationalising poor decisions, so be it.

All trade are inherently risky as are draft picks. They come off people look like geniuses. Look at Pelchen and the Hawks. The Roughy, Buddy, Lewis et el drafts he was considered a guru, then analyse each one after that whilst he was there, they were abject failures.

I do not have a strong opinion on the Lake trade and personally, which is only based on my opinion, I do not currently rate either Stevens or Hrovat as AFL class footballers in a top team. However, I hope this is one where my opinion is wrong as I would love to see both of the boys play 200 great games each

Perhaps you are also reading my posts with a different mindset, Lachy.

By the way, Lake was seriously injured in 2011, but actually had an excellent 2012. It may suit some peoples views to think his form had dropped off significantly, but he hadn't. Individually, he had a better year playing for us in 2012 than he did for Hawthorn in 2013.

Our whole problem with our trading and many peoples views of the trades, is that we tend to undervalue our own player assets and over value the assets that we are trading for. Lake was a star player, and we undervalued him. His norm smith medal just highlighted how badly we messed up our valuation.

 

[Ant_]

Had the option there after I chipped in for player sponsorship

Looks like chief gave you gold Bfsc membership. 50 was the limit on that, count yourself lucky

 

[lachy]

Perhaps you are also reading my posts with a different mindset, Lachy.

By the way, Lake was seriously injured in 2011, but actually had an excellent 2012. It may suit some peoples views to think his form had dropped off significantly, but he hadn't. Individually, he had a better year playing for us in 2012 than he did for Hawthorn in 2013.

Our whole problem with our trading and many peoples views of the trades, is that we tend to undervalue our own player assets and over value the assets that we are trading for. Lake was a star player, and we undervalued him. His norm smith medal just highlighted how badly we messed up our valuation.

As I have stated on numerous occasions I am on the fence with the Lake trade itself, however to say he had an excellent 2012 when he did not get in the top 10 of the best and fairest, given 10th place received 82 votes and the winner 273 would suggest this is a subjective assessment at best.

The role he played at Hawthorn was entirely different to what he would have had to play with us so the Norm Smith is not proof of his value to us.

It is your opinion that this was a bad trade, and fair enough, but this does not make your opinion right and others wrong supporting the trade. They can justifiably argue you over value our players and undervalue what we got. When an opinion is supported by mere subjectivity and not facts both sides of the argument are completely valid

 

[Tommycash]

Perhaps you are also reading my posts with a different mindset, Lachy.

By the way, Lake was seriously injured in 2011, but actually had an excellent 2012. It may suit some peoples views to think his form had dropped off significantly, but he hadn't. Individually, he had a better year playing for us in 2012 than he did for Hawthorn in 2013.

Our whole problem with our trading and many peoples views of the trades, is that we tend to undervalue our own player assets and over value the assets that we are trading for. Lake was a star player, and we undervalued him. His norm smith medal just highlighted how badly we messed up our valuation.

It's a possibility, if we had ended up trading in Tom Lonergan last year then I would definitely be agreeing with you. But as we stand, with Hamling, Talia and Roberts all now coming up to a make or break time, I think our list is in a better position for the trade. We probably could have received more in that deal though, but at the end of the day I am not unhappy with our lists position now.

 

[TBOW]

I replied to it already, you didn't.

What this?

At the moment neither Horvat or Stevens are key pieces in a premiership side and if one becomes Norm Smith medallist in that premiership then I'll call it even.

Sorry, I thought you were just being facetious.

Not really sure how you want me to respond to that. It is really more of a personal standpoint than a question or comment on anything.
Do you want me to tell you that you have unrealistic expectations?

 

[_Mike_]

The discussion about the Lake trade is another example of people rationalising poor club decisions.

We decided to release our only proven key position player at the time and one of the all time great full backs to an opposition club needing one final puzzle piece for another premiership, all for the meagre return of draft pick 43 and an upgrade from pick 27 to 21.

We used pick 43 to pick up a player who hadn't been able to establish himself at the West Coast Eagles, playing 11 games across three seasons.

So Hawthorn has scored two premierships, a Norm Smith medallist, and whatever else Lake helps them achieve.

Lets call Lake for having no loyalty then.. It works both ways.. Stevens was by no means equal trade and we should have done better out of it IMO.

We would have received better compensation if Lake left as a free agent a year later,

I wouldnt hold your breath there, look at what Hawthorn got in return for dual premiership player Franklin who walked as a free agent. If the AFL weren't going to adequately compensate Hawthorn for their franchise player, there's little hope that they would have given us a better deal had Lake walked as a FA

 

[StringyDog]

I wouldnt hold your breath there, look at what Hawthorn got in return for dual premiership player Franklin who walked as a free agent. If the AFL weren't going to adequately compensate Hawthorn for their franchise player, there's little hope that they would have given us a better deal had Lake walked as a FA

We had pick 42 the next year so even the lowest compensation band would have been same at pick 43, more likely slightly higher end of second round pick would have been gained. People can spin it all they like, but the bottom line is we traded Lake for a slight upgrade in a draft pick, it was a shocking deal and Professor is right with this one it was very poor negotiating when everyone knew Hawks had a hole in backline and needed that one piece to take them to the top

 

[Gmod23]

We had pick 42 the next year so even the lowest compensation band would have been same at pick 43, more likely slightly higher end of second round pick would have been gained. People can spin it all they like, but the bottom line is we traded Lake for a slight upgrade in a draft pick, it was a shocking deal and Professor is right with this one it was very poor negotiating when everyone knew Hawks had a hole in backline and needed that one piece to take them to the top

Everyone knew but no other clubs who also needed back line help put in a better offer.
Lambast the deal all you want but when it is a buyers market (only 1 offer), then you can't get much from the deal.

 

[TBOW]

I think a lot of people fail to realise how big a factor age is when determining free agency compensation.

 

[TBOW]

We had pick 42 the next year so even the lowest compensation band would have been same at pick 43, more likely slightly higher end of second round pick would have been gained. People can spin it all they like, but the bottom line is we traded Lake for a slight upgrade in a draft pick, it was a shocking deal and Professor is right with this one it was very poor negotiating when everyone knew Hawks had a hole in backline and needed that one piece to take them to the top

The lowest compensation band is no compensation. It is also the most common.

 

[ErnieSigley]

What this?

Sorry, I thought you were just being facetious.

Not really sure how you want me to respond to that. It is really more of a personal standpoint than a question or comment on anything.
Do you want me to tell you that you have unrealistic expectations?

I suppose you think it's unrealistic for our club and players to aim for that sort of success.
No matter how you paint we handed Hawthorn a premiership, obviously it ain't worth much to you.

 

[stefoid]

Saints got a 2nd round pick for a 29yo Nick Dal Santo in 2013 via Free Agency. That gives us some indication - we would absolutely get no more than that for Lake.

Had we held Lake to his 2013 contract to offload him to the hawks as 31yo Free Agent in '14, Im guessing we would have got end of 2nd round. (similar salary but older)

Which would have netted us a pick in the late 30s, like 39 or something.

I figure a 7 pick upgrade to the low 20s + a pick in the early 40s > a pick in the late 30s 12 months on.

Its impossible to say we should have held out for more in 2013 for Lake because its impossible to know if anyone was willing to give any more than that. All we can reasonably presume is we would have got less 12 months on.

Its early days, but I cant see anyone from James Stewart through to our next pick at Hunter that I would rather instead of Hrovat, at this stage.

 

[TBOW]

I suppose you think it's unrealistic for our club and players to aim for that sort of success.
No matter how you paint we handed Hawthorn a premiership, obviously it ain't worth much to you.

So your issue with the trade was that Hawthorn went on to win the flag??
I hate to tell you Ernie, but someone had to win the flag and it wasn't going to be us. Even with Lake on board.
There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't think it is unrealistic at all to aim for success. I think it is unrealistic to expect every player we bring into the club to win a Norm Smith. In fact it's not physically possible. But that is how you want to measure our transactions?