Autopsy 2018 post-trade week wrap!

[spotthedog1]

Lol wtf it ain't a conspiracy theory, this is what everybody has been trying to tell you in the other threads. It wasn't just some "imaginary corner" as you've put it that Noble backed the club out of, the Pies wanted to tie the Beams deal to the Neale trade so they didn't have to give up as much. Good lord lol.

Yeah, well that was the first line of my post. You are supposed to keep reading.

Yes, the club did a deal with GC because otherwise the Pies would've tried to leverage the situation. Duh. That wasn't some huge revelation. But a lot of people here are so used to us getting the shaft that they saw us having a weak position against Collingwood (because we "needed" their pick for Neale), and somehow also saw us as being in a weak position against Freo (even though they needed our pick for Hogan). It was identical situations, and people were painting as "we are in the position of weakness against both Pies and Freo" and "Noble had to become an olympic gymnast to get out of the corner Collingwood and Freo had painted us in". Which I found laughable. We always had more options to find late teens-early 20s pick than Freo did to find a 5-7 pick. Freo needed us far more than we needed Collingwood. As was eventually proven.

That the Pies tried to assume a position of power was not exactly difficult to see. It's the exact same reason that Noble came out in the media early on and told everyone that we weren't offering more than just pick 5 for Neale because other clubs needed our high pick in their deals. Noble was trying to leverage the situation, and claiming a position of power, just like Collingwood did.

The part that I suggested a conspiracy theory around was the GC trade. We could accept a loss on the GC trade, or we could accept a loss on the Collingwood trade. In my opinion, the GC trade was both a bigger loss, and had more downside risk attached to it, than the Collingwood trade. I theorised that we may have turned down Collingwood, and took a slightly larger hit on the GC trade, because of factors other than "who offered us a better deal" - which in my opinion was Collingwood. Purely on ins-and-outs, I think we'd be in a better position if we accepted the 1st rounder and 2nd rounder that Collingwood had offered, than making the trade we did with Gold Coast. So I looked at whether there could be other factors at play - these factors include things like building a bit of credit with our QLD neighbours, and the fact that giving Collingwood a trade win at our expense was more harmful long term than giving Gold Coast a trade win at our expense.

I was also speaking entirely of my own thoughts, with no inside knowledge, and no certainty at all that I was correct, so I labelled it a "conspiracy theory", so that people would know that I wasn't suggesting that this is 100% what happened. I was suggesting "here is a narrative that might fit, but could also be completely wrong".

 

[LionsMaw]

I know a business person in the Essendon inner circle.

You are wrong. All the Melbourne clubs have as one of their principal recruitment strategies bringing the boys home. From day one.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

So you know one person and somehow that means you know for definite the truth of the essendon mentality? Mal Micheal retired. Then a short while later he surfaced again to go play for the bombers after telling The Lions that his playing days were over because he wanted to focus on his charity work. We got nothing for him. Why was essendon bothering to talk to Michael if he had already retired from the game? Calling essendon "sneaky bastards" is being polite.

 

[Tassie4ever]

So you know one person and somehow that means you know for definite the truth of the essendon mentality? Mal Micheal retired. Then a short while later he surfaced again to go play for the bombers after telling The Lions that his playing days were over because he wanted to focus on his charity work. We got nothing for him. Why was essendon bothering to talk to Michael if he had already retired from the game? Calling essendon "sneaky bastards" is being polite.

Just so you are aware, as many of us here know, Mal Michael "retired" for entirely non-football related reasons. If you'd like to delve deeper, no doubt you could discover the truth, but I have no wish to disclose the unsavoury details.

It was obvious at the time that Kevin Sheedy had been having talks with Mal before, during and after all this farago.

As to Mal's New Guinea "charity", no-one, apart from maybe you it seems, believes in this.

My point is that all the Melbourne power clubs conduct non-official fishing expeditions. We need to reciprocate. Nothing at all sneaky about it.

 

[lioninthesand]

Reason why l hated us losing our 1st pick next year is that for 2 years straight, we have managed to grab guns (Cameron and Neale) as well as a few other players. I wouldn't be surprised if another tried to come next year but we won't have that big pick anymore

Collingwoods future pick and one of our many second rounders should get trade done for 95% of players in the AFL if required. And if it's the case that it's a player that requires more than that, well... that's a great problem to have and we can hopefully work out that issue if it arises.

 

[lioninthesand]

Lol wtf it ain't a conspiracy theory, this is what everybody has been trying to tell you in the other threads. It wasn't just some "imaginary corner" as you've put it that Noble backed the club out of, the Pies wanted to tie the Beams deal to the Neale trade so they didn't have to give up as much. Good lord lol.

Noble addressed this a a 'Strategic move' that we paid a high price to employ, such was the bind that the Neale / Beams position put us in.. LOL - yet still we have people, oddly, trying to argue it was completely circumstantial and an absolute non event, mind boggling to say the least.

 

[spotthedog1]

Noble addressed this a a 'Strategic move' that we paid a high price to employ, such was the bind that the Neale / Beams position put us in.. LOL - yet still we have people, oddly, trying to argue it was completely circumstantial and an absolute non event, mind boggling to say the least.

Never tried to argue it was circumstantial. Why would anyone say that? It was hardly written in hieroglyphs. I was arguing that just because he used that strategy, and achieved his aims, doesn't mean that it wasn't an expensive strategy, and potentially cost us as much or more than it would have just to accept Collingwood's earlier offer. I even ran both scenarios to show how accepting R1+R2 from Collingwood would've been just as good as making the trade with GC just to make the Pies pony up. Seriously, you have to read past the first line of a post.

 

[Sproj]

Quite simply, when looking at the trade period, you need to ask two questions:

1. Is the team stronger than before the trade period?
2. Does the side still have a decent hand in current and future drafts?

If the answer is yes and yes, it is a very good trade period.

 

[lioninthesand]

Never tried to argue it was circumstantial. Why would anyone say that? It was hardly written in hieroglyphs. I was arguing that just because he used that strategy, and achieved his aims, doesn't mean that it wasn't an expensive strategy, and potentially cost us as much or more than it would have just to accept Collingwood's earlier offer. I even ran both scenarios to show how accepting R1+R2 from Collingwood would've been just as good as making the trade with GC just to make the Pies pony up. Seriously, you have to read past the first line of a post.

I have read 15 diatribes from you on this one element of trade week, you have softened your stance on it though, which is good to see.

 

[spotthedog1]

I have read 15 diatribes from you on this one element of trade week, you have softened your stance on it though, which is good to see.

I can see how you'd say that. Funnily enough, my initial response was that while I didn't like all of the trades, both the Beams and Neale trades were reasonable, and considering my expectations, we came out of it OK. Much as I love Noble as our football head, I really think he's bad at trading, so I was expecting us to cave in both Neale and Beams deals. We caved a bit on the Neale trade, but it wasn't a bad deal.

Then I really tried to weigh up the GC trade, and found that I had no idea why the club would do that. And that irritated me a lot, because we sold off two top 10 picks for Neale, even though noone was asking for that much. It was such a bad deal, that I genuinely think we'd have been better up just to take the Collingwood deal.

Now I've calmed down a bit, because the past is the past. I still think it was a bad trade, but I've been considering whether there are other factors at play - why the club would really drive such a hard bargain with the Pies, only to overpay the Suns. Could be an anti-pies thing, or a pro-suns thing. Or could be a PR thing - most people perceive that there isn't a winner in trade swaps, so it was better from a PR point of view to do well off the pies trade. This concerns me, because I really wanted the days of football decisions being made for marketing/PR reasons to be behind us. But oh well, even though we'll never find out what they were really doing, that's just the way it goes.

In the end, I went from relieved it wasn't worse, to quite annoyed, and now to acceptance that it wasn't great, but oh well, we'll survive. At least it wasn't as bad as last trade period, where we bent over at every opportunity.

 

[BRAB]

I think for the 2019 period we should make a board wide effort to avoid the phrase "bent over" for at least a day.

 

[jackess]

If the options were pick 5 (2019) and Beams for picks 15 (2019), pick 18, pick 19 and pick 20 (2019)

Or Beams for picks 18 and pick 33 (2019)

That makes the Suns trade; pick 5 (2019) and pick 33 (2019) for pick 19, pick 15 (2019) and pick 20 (2019)

 

[Dizzle]

I think for the 2019 period we should make a board wife effort to avoid the phrase "bent over" for at least a day.

I've got one of those (but you spelt 'bored' wrong). Wish I had the chance to use the phrase more actually.

 

[briztoon]

Quite simply, when looking at the trade period, you need to ask two questions:

1. Is the team stronger than before the trade period?
2. Does the side still have a decent hand in current and future drafts?

If the answer is yes and yes, it is a very good trade period.

What if your answers are:
1. We are still at the same level. We've just changed one area of strength to a different area without actually improving. Until Adams and McCarthy can play 18+ games a season, you can't say they've made the team stronger.
2. Define decent, because I think we're currently worse off having traded out two high end firsts for 1 player, but have banked picks for depth kids and academy kids.

 

[Nunez]

What if your answers are:
1. We are still at the same level. We've just changed one area of strength to a different area without actually improving. Until Adams and McCarthy can play 18+ games a season, you can't say they've made the team stronger.
2. Define decent, because I think we're currently worse off having traded out two high end firsts for 1 player, but have banked picks for depth kids and academy kids.

You're still hurting after we traded out of the top end of the draft, aren't you.

 

[briztoon]

You're still hurting after we traded out of the top end of the draft, aren't you.

Not for the reason you're fishing for.

As I've gone in to depth previously, I strongly disagree with both the Adams and McCarthy trades, and this impacted upon the rest of our trading options. Giving up next years first to facilitate the Neale trade was a real bad move in my opinion, even with the Beams request/non request to move back "home".

I honestly believe this trade period will have a negative impact on the strength of our list long term. And I'll be over the moon to be proven wrong.

 

[BRAB]

Not for the reason you're fishing for.

As I've gone in to depth previously, I strongly disagree with both the Adams and McCarthy trades, and this impacted upon the rest of our trading options. Giving up next years first to facilitate the Neale trade was a real bad move in my opinion, even with the Beams request/non request to move back "home".

I honestly believe this trade period will have a negative impact on the strength of our list long term. And I'll be over the moon to be proven wrong.

In principle do you disagree with turning a 29 year old A grade mid into a 25 year old A grade mid?

It seems to make sense to me, but I'm not as in to this side of things as you are so maybe you can elaborate as to why the above is a bad thing.

Surely if one of McCarthy or Adams come off we're in a good spot?

 

[briztoon]

1. In principle do you disagree with turning a 29 year old A grade mid into a 25 year old A grade mid?
   
   It seems to make sense to me, but I'm not as in to this side of things as you are so maybe you can elaborate as to why the above is a bad thing.
   
   Surely if one of McCarthy or Adams come off we're in a good spot?

   
   I've explained my position enough.
   
   But to answer you, we didn't turn Beams in to Neale. We gave up much more than Beams to get Neale.
   
   Who we draft this year and next year with the Pies picks is what we traded Beams for.
   

 

[BRAB]

1. 
   
   I've explained my position enough.
   
   But to answer you, we didn't turn Beams in to Neale. We gave up much more than Beams to get Neale.
   
   Who we draft this year and next year with the Pies picks is what we traded Beams for.

Purely from a list management perspective, we now have a 25 year old A grader on our list instead of a 29 year old. Is this a good or bad thing?

 

[bungalow_bill]

Purely from a list management perspective, we now have a 25 year old A grader on our list instead of a 29 year old. Is this a good or bad thing?

Plus the loss of our 2019 first was offset by the Pies first. With some luck it may be a better pick. Most see it as a brilliant strategic move by Noble

 

[briztoon]

Plus the loss of our 2019 first was offset by the Pies first. With some luck it may be a better pick. Most see it as a brilliant strategic move by Noble

Much more like a consolation, one is not like the other.

Purely from a list management perspective, we now have a 25 year old A grader on our list instead of a 29 year old. Is this a good or bad thing?

Definitely a good thing. But the price was too steep as far as I am concerned.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

Much more like a consolation, one is not like the other.


Definitely a good thing. But the price was too steep as far as I am concerned.

While one most likely won’t turn out like the other, weve arguably gained pick 18 and a very early second rounder too.

I’m more than happy to back their judgement call on this. Hopefully we will be rewarded by good management or good luck, maybe both.

 

[Dalions]

And I'll be over the moon to be proven wrong.

I’ll Reckon we will all be calling you the Cow after the next couple of years.

We have removed a 29 yr old who doesn’t want to be here and got in a 25yr old who does.
1 far out ways the other for me, and not just in onfield playing ability.
The adverse effects of Beams remaining on the list for the next couple of years could be brutal.
We are building some respect within the competition again and losing Beams will not affect that.
The acquisition of Neale, McCarthy and Adams is not to be understated.
I think Adams could be the best of the lot actually. If we can keep him on the park?
Banking on Collingwood falling to the lower rungs of the 8 next year!

 

[spotthedog1]

Purely from a list management perspective, we now have a 25 year old A grader on our list instead of a 29 year old. Is this a good or bad thing?

Dayne Beams - 12/2/90
Lachie Neale - 24/5/93

If you're going to state Dayne is 29, you should state that Lachie is 26. There is about 3 and a quarter years difference between them.

That's one of those things that makes me hesitant about the idea of Lachie Neale in general. On the one hand, if you have A-grade players wanting to come to your club, you do whatever you can to get them in. On the other hand, we gave up pick 5 (De Goey), Pick 25, and Jack Crisp for Beams. History has shown that we did not win that trade. Admittedly, we don't know what we'd have done with pick 5, but they got a lot out of our proceeds, and while we had good service from Beams, he lost a lot of value over that period.

Now we've given up similar levels of compensation for another 25 year old, at absolute peak value, where he can only lose value from here, and there's no certainty that he'll still be around when we're pushing for a cup run.

In terms of is a 28/29 year old vs a 25/26 year old - from a list management perspective, absolutely you'd take the 25/26 year old. But if you're looking at the 28/29 year old and pick 5, or the 25/26 year old and pick 17 (simplified, I know), it becomes muddier, and really comes down to your expectations of the draft. When it's a highly regarded top 7/8... I don't think we did badly with the trades - but I'd say it looks pretty close (that's not a complaint - fair trades should look pretty close).

 

[davemc_lions]

Hindsight is great.. if we kept pick 5 we could of went for Ahern who went 7 and got injured only getting games with North this year
Or Weller as local who will ever know.
25 was on traded to North who picked Nielson who been de listed if I remember this year.

So it is chook lotto with picks.
Tambling over Franklin

Honestly said on a few threads you can see where the hawks are coming from. Pick mature or known players with late draft picks
Trade firsts for known players and pick up free agency players.
While moving on players for cap space.

 

[John_Proctor]

^ hawks situation (and swans before it) is really just evidence that whatever strategy you take you have to do it well.

We tried the hawks strategy in 2010 and it blew up in our faces.

And the hawks built their current period of dominance off the draft getting Sewell, buddy, roughy, hodge, Lewis, Mitchell into the team at about the same time.

One thing with the beams deal is he was 100% clear throughout the last few months he would leave when his contact was up in two years.

So we either got the best we could this year (using some of the proceeds to get a younger direct replacement was good). Or we try and trade him next year 1 year older and 1 less year on contract or trade/release him as a 31yo uncontracted player in 2 years.

It was a no brainer, and I doubt we could have done much better.