Opinion Our 2015 Trade Period

[dazbroncos]

Which in itself is fine, but the only player of the four who actually has that is Dangerfield. None of the others have proven exposed form recently.

On exposed form ok.

But can you acknowledge that the Blues environment was caustic and that it deteriorated to the point where Hendo and the team just called it a day - which was clearly the culmination of months of souring. Is it reasonable then to expect that Hendo will at least be able to reestablish the tone of good form and personal investment back into the GFC environment once the club gets back and going again or will you only take game performance= result.

I guess im looking for your POV on whether its possible for you to think things might get better than they were, or have been - say exposed form - given the influence of previous events or that it can only get better if you physically see it improve.

IMO, the GFC have looked at Hendo, the future, the list currently, and his long term and recent past and assessed the calculated risk was acceptable that he can buy in to the GFC ethos and do well as a player - perhaps even better than he was at Carlton.

Im not expecting you to do the same, to each their own, but do you consider that that they might get it right?


Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

Yep, safer.

Less likely to build an excellent side that way though.

What happened to 'In Wells We Trust'?

Id hope still there. He's needed, with his group, as much as ever and is no less important now than back in 99 or 01 or any draft since.

Just as the dynamic of the drafting and FA has changed, as has his role.
Now its not just picking raw talent but also looking at the developed talent as mature FA's. TBH - to be specific to Wells, his scouting report from 07 probably were addressed in the PD, Hendo, Scooter and Smith discussions. Was the relevance different - surely - but relevant still.

Go Catters

 

[Partridge]

IMO, the GFC have looked at Hendo, the future, the list currently, and his long term and recent past and assessed the calculated risk was acceptable that he can buy in to the GFC ethos and do well as a player - perhaps even better than he was at Carlton.

Im not expecting you to do the same, to each their own, but do you consider that that they might get it right?

Of course they might. But it seems now that an awful lot of players on our list fall into that category - they might all be great, but only if everything goes right. That applies to Henderson, Scott Selwood, Smith, Stanley, Clark, Menzel, Vardy, Cowan, McCarthy, and Delaney. Given the record of injury assessments versus actual output in recent years, let's just say I'll reserve judgement.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

On exposed form ok.

But can you acknowledge that the Blues environment was caustic and that it deteriorated to the point where Hendo and the team just called it a day - which was clearly the culmination of months of souring. Is it reasonable then to expect that Hendo will at least be able to reestablish the tone of good form and personal investment back into the GFC environment once the club gets back and going again or will you only take game performance= result.

I guess im looking for your POV on whether its possible for you to think things might get better than they were, or have been - say exposed form - given the influence of previous events or that it can only get better if you physically see it improve.

IMO, the GFC have looked at Hendo, the future, the list currently, and his long term and recent past and assessed the calculated risk was acceptable that he can buy in to the GFC ethos and do well as a player - perhaps even better than he was at Carlton.

Im not expecting you to do the same, to each their own, but do you consider that that they might get it right?


Go Catters

I think Henderson and Carlisle are similar in that regard. Both simply got to the point where enough was enough "this club is ****ed" he he he and needed a change of environment.

 

[darren forssman]

For half a career of a good key position player. He's no gun.

#16 also implies we will finish top 3 as well....we may well do, there may also be injuries, chemistry issues and poor form which could push us lower.

The Henderson trade was bad as we were trading against ourselves and ultimately gave up what was asked for.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

NSFB I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on the number of list spots we have coming into the draft paired with our lack of any draft picks above 60.

I recall you were very adamant earlier this year that picks past 60 were worthless, which is why we shouldn't delist the constantly-injured players, lest we be left with a gaping hole in the list that could only be filled with late picks. Whilst we haven't delisted those injury-prone players, that gaping hole is present and picks past 60 are all we have.

Okay I don't know, but in all likelihood. Let's say we got rid of our 3 most injury prone players at seasons end. Menzel, Vardy and Cowan. All would be replaced with a pick after our last, so likely to be 60+. We may get lucky and pick 1 decent player in that range but 3 is very improbable. For every success story in that range there would be 5, 6, 7 failures. Odds are not stacked in our favour at all.

Is it a good strategy to potentially bring in what could be 7 failures? How will that affect the side's depth and capacity to improve in the coming years?

 

[Lana]

Yep, safer.

Less likely to build an excellent side that way though.

What happened to 'In Wells We Trust'?

Given that it was Wells that did the four trades we are clearly trusting him.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

NSFB I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on the number of list spots we have coming into the draft paired with our lack of any draft picks above 60.

I recall you were very adamant earlier this year that picks past 60 were worthless, which is why we shouldn't delist the constantly-injured players, lest we be left with a gaping hole in the list that could only be filled with late picks. Whilst we haven't delisted those injury-prone players, that gaping hole is present and picks past 60 are all we have.




Is it a good strategy to potentially bring in what could be 7 failures? How will that affect the side's depth and capacity to improve in the coming years?

Worthless for starters is putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. We have 6 list spots available at present if we run at 40 spots, 4 if we decide to operate at the minimum of 38.

Now what I said is that the odds are not in your favour, so from our 4-6 late picks I'd be happy if we were able to find 1 player who can contribute for years to come. That'd be fine by me. I'd say chances aren't high we'd get more than that. Hope we do though.

Secondly the context was completely different, for starters it was predicated on injury prone players leaving, which none did of the ones I was referring to. So they're still here and showing signs of improvement in their health.

Lastly we did bring in 4 quite handy footballers btw and I think our depth is pretty good to about the best 30 players or so. It's the last 8-10 which needs work but how many games will they play. Not very many at all and of that 8-10, who knows maybe a couple of them really elevate over preseason.

Most of the outs were unavoidable too. Rivers, Hmac retired due to mainly injuries taking their toll. SJ is still unknown, Kelly and Stokes were cooked. Hartman decided afl was not for him. Toohey (rookie) had a heart complaint so nothing we can do there. Walker and Jansen sought greener pastures (OOC) while Gore was regrettably necessary to get us PFD. Blease retired through concussion. While Dawson saw the writing on the wall and also sought a fresh start. We've really only definitely as far as we know made the call on 3 players so it is what it is.

I'd still be very happy with the 4 we brought in as it outweighs what has gone out. As for the last part whilst it isn't 7 players, it's 4-6, is it a good strategy?

Well it's probably better than not getting the 4 players we did, still losing Jansen and Walker and then having to hit the draft from pick 9,28 etc. given that with our outs this year (many out of our control) we'd still have a few later picks but not those 4 players. So I guess I'm saying that regardless of trading for Danger, Smith, Henderson and FA Selwood the only definitive in would be Gore. So we had 11 senior list spots opened up and not getting those players I think it'd still have been likely we'd be taking late picks into the draft. All we've done here is trade our earlier picks for readymade quality players.

This way we still are trying to get a diamond in the rough but have brought in 4 best 22 footballers. Going to the draft instead had less certainty.

 

[Moggy]

...
However how many players have we taken via free agency? Three; Rivers, Blease and now Scott Selwood. Hardly a changing of the guard there!

McIntosh, Clark, Stanley, Dangerfield, Henderson and Smith coming to Geelong have nothing to do with free agency, and have all cost us significant utility going the other way (whether or not each trade was 'worth it' or not is another discussion completely).
...

Just to respond to one point in your post...

The Dangerfield trade had everything to do with free agency, even though he was eventually traded.

Free agency is having a significant knock-on effect - shaking players out of the tree. The introduction of future draft-pick trading exacerbates this.

 

[Partridge]

I recall you were very adamant earlier this year that picks past 60 were worthless, which is why we shouldn't delist the constantly-injured players, lest we be left with a gaping hole in the list that could only be filled with late picks. Whilst we haven't delisted those injury-prone players, that gaping hole is present and picks past 60 are all we have.

That's a tad unfair BB, it's only new draft picks above 60 or so that are unlikely to succeed. Existing selections - Lincoln McCarthy for instance, are just solid gold.

 

[EnjoyerOfDampCats]

we could have had pick 8. we have henderson instead. it really hurt missing out on frawley. perfect replacement for lonergan. i remember a few years back when henderson made white look like gary ablett. would much rather we went through the draft or kept our own such as hamling

 

[wcadams88]

That's a tad unfair BB, it's only new draft picks above 60 or so that are unlikely to succeed. Existing selections - Lincoln McCarthy for instance, are just solid gold.

It will be picks before 60 regardless with academy bidding

 

[you pick one]

we could have had pick 8. we have henderson instead. it really hurt missing out on frawley. perfect replacement for lonergan. i remember a few years back when henderson made white look like gary ablett. would much rather we went through the draft or kept our own such as hamling

That's not right we traded next years first rd pick for Henderson.

 

[Turbocat]

I was pretty happy with the construct of the other 3 deals. I understand we had to get this done, but I can't fault the assertion that we overpaid on this one.
Im sure we will get value for Hendo but its gonna take time to balance this ledger IMO.

GO Catters

Obviously we all have different takes on our stratagem , What we paid for Danger annoys me more than than the future pick value that we paid for Henderson... R1, R2 and Gore for a player that Im sure we calculated as being a FA. Grrrr. Our R1 from next year hurts a bit , no doubt , we do not really know the value of that yet and Hendersons "quality" leaves some to question the use of it. Obviously if he is poor then it will be a constant pebble in our shoe , for years to come , perhaps 5-10 years if the player we missed becomes a champ. In this sense it reminds me of a pick we used for Mooneys brother , we traded a pick to the Swans and they drafted Jude Bolton. Ouch. Hope Henderson gives us more than Jason.

However , I think LH has potential to be a lot better than some credit him with. Has he ever played in a good side? We all remember Ottens for what he did for us , but we forget the way he was looked upon at the end of his time at Rich. Our finish next year will play its part. If we are as the club estimates , the cost may well be much more reasonable than some think. Its speculation. No matter..what we have paid , we have done what we have done to deepen our list in that age group , and to overcome past choices and outcomes. Would we have done it if we got Frawley? If we had drafted Goddard?

Im not sure if we have trodden the perfect path the last few years , or if we have been perfect in our player targeting and acquisition . This years group is probably the most solid we have added (imo) , perhaps as we have come from a draft mindset and it has taken a while to come to terms with what was our best approach should be. Rivers good add but a little old and damaged. Hmac gamble that came up craps. Clark..not sure what we were thinking there except that his best is a high value. Stanley , a risk of another sort. Is it just me or have we been a little "Dogs Breakfast" here.

This years selections are closer to the mark. All good age. Their best good enough. Again with talls which makes me wonder where they all fit , but we needed help and they all should add that. Are the kids we have no good enough? Do we have enough of them? The cost of the add is the other side of the coin. Who we add , and what we get out of our late picks will be just as important to this stratagem. In this I think we are doing what SJ has mentioned, we are trying to find bargains that can deliver value.

Whether we have taken players with FA or trade , the market has changed for us and our competitors. They are building lists thru it as well. Players drafted now seem to want immediate entry to the senior side. How many second year players have moved this year. Could we build like we did 15 years ago , even if we tried? Even then we tried to add guys like Mooney and White. Im not sure we have even been totally focused in draft , without a bit of trade. Now its more because of competitors can build their side quicker thru mature adds. Even GWS have learnt to do this..and we could never match their talent build.

In the end , once we see the total result and the side we have , the vfl side , we will be able to assess this trading period period with more data rather than emotion.

 

[you pick one]

Obviously we all have different takes on our stratagem , What we paid for Danger annoys me more than than the future pick value that we paid for Henderson... R1, R2 and Gore for a player that Im sure we calculated as being a FA. Grrrr. Our R1 from next year hurts a bit , no doubt , we do not really know the value of that yet and Hendersons "quality" leaves some to question the use of it. Obviously if he is poor then it will be a constant pebble in our shoe , for years to come , perhaps 5-10 years if the player we missed becomes a champ. In this sense it reminds me of a pick we used for Mooneys brother , we traded a pick to the Swans and they drafted Jude Bolton. Ouch. Hope Henderson gives us more than Jason.

However , I think LH has potential to be a lot better than some credit him with. Has he ever played in a good side? We all remember Ottens for what he did for us , but we forget the way he was looked upon at the end of his time at Rich. Our finish next year will play its part. If we are as the club estimates , the cost may well be much more reasonable than some think. Its speculation. No matter..what we have paid , we have done what we have done to deepen our list in that age group , and to overcome past choices and outcomes. Would we have done it if we got Frawley? If we had drafted Goddard?

Im not sure if we have trodden the perfect path the last few years , or if we have been perfect in our player targeting and acquisition . This years group is probably the most solid we have added (imo) , perhaps as we have come from a draft mindset and it has taken a while to come to terms with what was our best approach should be. Rivers good add but a little old and damaged. Hmac gamble that came up craps. Clark..not sure what we were thinking there except that his best is a high value. Stanley , a risk of another sort. Is it just me or have we been a little "Dogs Breakfast" here.

This years selections are closer to the mark. All good age. Their best good enough. Again with talls which makes me wonder where they all fit , but we needed help and they all should add that. Are the kids we have no good enough? Do we have enough of them? The cost of the add is the other side of the coin. Who we add , and what we get out of our late picks will be just as important to this stratagem. In this I think we are doing what SJ has mentioned, we are trying to find bargains that can deliver value.

Whether we have taken players with FA or trade , the market has changed for us and our competitors. They are building lists thru it as well. Players drafted now seem to want immediate entry to the senior side. How many second year players have moved this year. Could we build like we did 15 years ago , even if we tried? Even then we tried to add guys like Mooney and White. Im not sure we have even been totally focused in draft , without a bit of trade. Now its more because of competitors can build their side quicker thru mature adds. Even GWS have learnt to do this..and we could never match their talent build.

In the end , once we see the total result and the side we have , the vfl side , we will be able to assess this trading period period with more data rather than emotion.

Top post.The game changer for me was Dangerfield nominating the Cats and to take full advantage we needed to fast track the rest of the side so S.Selwood Henderson and Smith come on board,it's a bit like grabbing McIntosh and Rivers last time we thought we had a sniff of a flag.Without Dangerfield I reckon we'd have sailed off on another course.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Top post.The game changer for me was Dangerfield nominating the Cats and to take full advantage we needed to fast track the rest of the side so S.Selwood Henderson and Smith come on board,it's a bit like grabbing McIntosh and Rivers last time we thought we had a sniff of a flag.Without Dangerfield I reckon we'd have sailed off on another course.

We'd have definitely gone on another course. Wells himself admitted that Dangerfield was the game changer.

 

[dazbroncos]

Obviously we all have different takes on our stratagem , What we paid for Danger annoys me more than than the future pick value that we paid for Henderson... R1, R2 and Gore for a player that Im sure we calculated as being a FA. Grrrr. Our R1 from next year hurts a bit , no doubt , we do not really know the value of that yet and Hendersons "quality" leaves some to question the use of it. Obviously if he is poor then it will be a constant pebble in our shoe , for years to come , perhaps 5-10 years if the player we missed becomes a champ. In this sense it reminds me of a pick we used for Mooneys brother , we traded a pick to the Swans and they drafted Jude Bolton. Ouch. Hope Henderson gives us more than Jason.

However , I think LH has potential to be a lot better than some credit him with. Has he ever played in a good side? We all remember Ottens for what he did for us , but we forget the way he was looked upon at the end of his time at Rich. Our finish next year will play its part. If we are as the club estimates , the cost may well be much more reasonable than some think. Its speculation. No matter..what we have paid , we have done what we have done to deepen our list in that age group , and to overcome past choices and outcomes. Would we have done it if we got Frawley? If we had drafted Goddard?

Im not sure if we have trodden the perfect path the last few years , or if we have been perfect in our player targeting and acquisition . This years group is probably the most solid we have added (imo) , perhaps as we have come from a draft mindset and it has taken a while to come to terms with what was our best approach should be. Rivers good add but a little old and damaged. Hmac gamble that came up craps. Clark..not sure what we were thinking there except that his best is a high value. Stanley , a risk of another sort. Is it just me or have we been a little "Dogs Breakfast" here.

This years selections are closer to the mark. All good age. Their best good enough. Again with talls which makes me wonder where they all fit , but we needed help and they all should add that. Are the kids we have no good enough? Do we have enough of them? The cost of the add is the other side of the coin. Who we add , and what we get out of our late picks will be just as important to this stratagem. In this I think we are doing what SJ has mentioned, we are trying to find bargains that can deliver value.

Whether we have taken players with FA or trade , the market has changed for us and our competitors. They are building lists thru it as well. Players drafted now seem to want immediate entry to the senior side. How many second year players have moved this year. Could we build like we did 15 years ago , even if we tried? Even then we tried to add guys like Mooney and White. Im not sure we have even been totally focused in draft , without a bit of trade. Now its more because of competitors can build their side quicker thru mature adds. Even GWS have learnt to do this..and we could never match their talent build.

In the end , once we see the total result and the side we have , the vfl side , we will be able to assess this trading period period with more data rather than emotion.

I think part of the equation that has been undervalued ( not necessarily by you) but in the conversation is the ability to get PD on a SC friendly pay structure well under the market value. While in essence he was a FA - to get that we had to make him an offer that would not be matched. I have no way of knowing what the AFC would or would not have done - but I think its reasonable to assume that any offer under 1 million a year would have been matched.

And you have to give to get. We gained the SC relief if you will but it cost us picks to get it. Conversley, to keep the picks was going to cost SC space.
So arbitrarily. what is of greater value to the club? 2015 picks and Dean Gore, or the SC space in the coming 6 years at say 300k per year.

Not sure there is an answer yet but clearly there have been preferences demonstrated.

Go Catters

 

[Turbocat]

Just to respond to one point in your post...

The Dangerfield trade had everything to do with free agency, even though he was eventually traded.

Free agency is having a significant knock-on effect - shaking players out of the tree. The introduction of future draft-pick trading exacerbates this.

I have great empathy toward SJ pov , but I feel you are correct. The market as whole has changed , other clubs ability to restructure and build has been heightened .. the expectation of kids seems to have also changed. Then we have seen the GWS and GC list which would exceed any talent stack that we could group. I think the long build up is a lot less likely now...probably still do able but not sure its obviously the way to go..as it once was.

 

[you pick one]

We'd have definitely gone on another course. Wells himself admitted that Dangerfield was the game changer.

Then he's a good judge.

 

[Turbocat]

I think part of the equation that has been undervalued ( not necessarily by you) but in the conversation is the ability to get PD on a SC friendly pay structure well under the market value. While in essence he was a FA - to get that we had to make him an offer that would not be matched. I have no way of knowing what the AFC would or would not have done - but I think its reasonable to assume that any offer under 1 million a year would have been matched.

And you have to give to get. We gained the SC relief if you will but it cost us picks to get it. Conversley, to keep the picks was going to cost SC space.
So arbitrarily. what is of greater value to the club? 2015 picks and Dean Gore, or the SC space in the coming 6 years at say 300k per year.

Not sure there is an answer yet but clearly there have been preferences demonstrated.

Go Catters

I would whole heartedly agree that cap space is a part of the clac...if only there was another FA that would be a likely target next year , that we could use it on.... it would even be more obvious. So perhaps it will again be an add of an A+ thru trade to utilise the cap space.
With still the likes of Enright , Bartel and Lonergan , maybe Mackie to be going in the next 2 years..cap relief was not too far away. Add SC being elevated.... I still would have liked us to not get caught up in the tier thing and gone bang for a 2 year offer... etc (old debate so ill not go there)

As I said if we find a Gore with one of the late picks this year , most will come to look at us being cagey , to have assesed the quality of the draft as being more dispersed , perhaps the top 20 or so are not quite as good as other years , perhaps the late kids are risky any year and Wells think he can find one or two. Only years in the system will settle this.

 

[The rabbi]

we could have had pick 8. we have henderson instead. it really hurt missing out on frawley. perfect replacement for lonergan. i remember a few years back when henderson made white look like gary ablett. would much rather we went through the draft or kept our own such as hamling

And I can remember the days when Lonergan looked horrible in defense.
He regularly panicked against the top forwards like Brown by constantly grabbing his jumper and being pinged for holding the man. I thought that he would never make it as a defender.

Henderson is not a kid anymore but probably in the prime years of his career.
We will see how he goes in a few months in the hoops, so I will hold off on judgment just yet.
I was surprised when they cut Hamling after putting so many years into him. Maybe they thought that he was never going to be big/physically strong enough to be a KPD and decided to look elsewhere.

 

[dazbroncos]

I would whole heartedly agree that cap space is a part of the clac...if only there was another FA that would be a likely target next year , that we could use it on.... it would even be more obvious. So perhaps it will again be an add of an A+ thru trade to utilise the cap space.
With still the likes of Enright , Bartel and Lonergan , maybe Mackie to be going in the next 2 years..cap relief was not too far away. Add SC being elevated.... I still would have liked us to not get caught up in the tier thing and gone bang for a 2 year offer... etc (old debate so ill not go there)

As I said if we find a Gore with one of the late picks this year , most will come to look at us being cagey , to have assesed the quality of the draft as being more dispersed , perhaps the top 20 or so are not quite as good as other years , perhaps the late kids are risky any year and Wells think he can find one or two. Only years in the system will settle this.

Good points about the SC use for a new FA - I was looking more internally about keeping mots, Duncan, Selwood, kolo et Al over the next 4 years as their deals come up.
I guess the bigger point is not so much whom it is used on but the benefit of giving up the picks is that we have the SC space period...

Go Catters

 

[Lana]

And I can remember the days when Lonergan looked horrible in defense.
He regularly panicked against the top forwards like Brown by constantly grabbing his jumper and being pinged for holding the man. I thought that he would never make it as a defender.

Henderson is not a kid anymore but probably in the prime years of his career.
We will see how he goes in a few months in the hoops, so I will hold off on judgment just yet.
I was surprised when they cut Hamling after putting so many years into him. Maybe they thought that he was never going to be big/physically strong enough to be a KPD and decided to look elsewhere.

There's only a few hundred days between Lonergan at the start of 2010 and Henderson at the start of 2016, we're probably hoping for a like for like.

 

[Turbocat]

There's only a few hundred days between Lonergan at the start of 2010 and Henderson at the start of 2016, we're probably hoping for a like for like.

Thats an interesting observation.

 

[you pick one]

And I can remember the days when Lonergan looked horrible in defense.
He regularly panicked against the top forwards like Brown by constantly grabbing his jumper and being pinged for holding the man. I thought that he would never make it as a defender.

Henderson is not a kid anymore but probably in the prime years of his career.
We will see how he goes in a few months in the hoops, so I will hold off on judgment just yet.
I was surprised when they cut Hamling after putting so many years into him. Maybe they thought that he was never going to be big/physically strong enough to be a KPD and decided to look elsewhere.

I was at the Gabba for Matthew Egans first crack at Johnathan Brown he looked horrible as well and they wouldn't be the only two stitched up by Johno,he had that effect/affect on backmen.