Aggressive Trading

[Old Spice]

With the trading of Dawes and Wellingham last year we had a portent into the future. There was some disquiet about those moves and I won't hazard a guess yet about the futures of all the young players, but we can certainly say that the Wellingham trade - which netted us the pick for Grundy - was a win in a double sense.

It was a win because Grundy projects as a fantastic prospect in a position not always easy to fill but also because we built Wellingham up from the rookie draft which allowed us to nab pick 17 (18) from WC.

Dawes was taken at 28 and converted in the end to pick 20. It is true that Dawes was a tall and Broomhead is still raw in his development but the club has shown that they are looking to correct the imbalance through FA or late picks (Lynch and White).

That is one question I'm really interested in here. The conversion by the club of picks into something higher on the trade table through our talent spotting and development system.

The other is the willingness in general to trade or let go of big name players in order to climb the draft or bring in young talent. And to cover any positional deficiencies and inculcate competition for spots via mature age drafting and Free Agency.

It seems to me we are being much more aggressive in our trading.

It is a risk of sorts, but if we believe our recruiters and development program can produce top-quality talent, it is a very interesting dynamic which might really pay off.

Culturally speaking, the horse has bolted here with Shaw and Daisy gone which leads me to think anyone is fair game for a trade in future to help us climb up the draft order and let our development system do the rest.

I don't mean flippant trading, but being willing to look at anyone surplus to requirements being used to climb up the order in future. We clearly are using savvy mature-age recruitment and Free Agency to address deficiencies in the list.

We've had 5 first round players in two drafts and Adams who is the equivalent. I imagine the club might keep trying to claw their way up with stock that has currency.

I don't think any other club has adjusted better to the changes in Free Agency and shown a more ruthless approach than the Pies. Our rookie drafting in particular has been fantastic.

 

[SpongePie]

Well it is interesting, I was thinking similar as well. Hine has said that next year is a very good draft with great KPP options. Makes me wonder what we could possibly have to give up to secure some of next years "super" draft group. Do we have anything left to give up?

 

[Dynamics]

Players are off-limits until the right deal comes along.

That's what I've taken from this new era of free agency and proactive, "aggressive" trading.

Regardless of whether I like this cultural shift or not, it is our new reality. What's pleasing to me is that the club has chosen once again to lead, rather than to follow. I may be accused of talking about Carlton too much, but their approach serves as an effective contrast. They are a reactive club, looking at what others are doing and mimicking it like a moustachioed monkey.

Players have made it clear that they can and will put their career above their club, and clubs that want to put their fingers in their ears and scream "LOYALTY!" will be left behind. The Cats get it. The Hawks now get it. The Swans get it and we get it. Players approaching a FA will be traded aggressively, and clubs on the verge of a premiership will also pursue such players aggressively.

If I am going to crystal ball, I'll say this: We will again be sufficiently ruthless to be seriously involved in 2014's strong draft, stocking up on KPPs. Then look for us to to hunt a FA or two in the two years after that.
The proof is in the pudding, which means premierships. If we win one in the next 3-5, it's been a success.

 

[Old Spice]

I think we have players who could help in a trade up while they still have some lustre. And I don't necessarily mean being a total mercenary about it, I mean those who might be told they might have limited opportunity (eg. Dawes) and would advance elsewhere.

You don't wait to the last gasp and delist them for nothing but through forward planning be frank about opportunities at the Pies V elsewhere. That can prolong a career that might otherwise be cut short and help us into the bargain.

 

[jimmy35]

I like the way the club is going about the trading/drafting/FA period now. No doubt it's a Buckley thing.

 

[jonbe54]

Good thread Spicey and clear thinking - from my perspective. Buckley is part of the new wave of coaches in that he isn't tied to systems and attitudes that have been prevelant for decades. Some of our established players baulked at his demand for a more ruthless approach, they got handed their walking papers. From what we can tell as outsiders this group is now gone and Buckley has a clean slate.

Aggressive trading over the last couple of years has rejuvinated the list and weeded out the divisiveness, whether you regret the passing of the old days and ways or not a club divided against itself is doomed to failure.

I may be getting close to pension age but I love the new ruthless attitude and the demand for self evaluation and self criticism in the search for improvement.

We can all be better than what we are, the only determining factor is our determination to accept the responsibility for achieving that ourselves

 

[Old Spice]

I like the way the club is going about the trading/drafting/FA period now. No doubt it's a Buckley thing.

I think so, Hine has got two hands now to work the list.

 

[TheWing121]

I actually think we have also been a victim of circumstances. If you look at the trades.
Wellingham (requested to go home), Dawes (not 100% what happened appears he requested trade once his position wasn't guaranteed), Thomas (we chose not to match a big offer). Shaw is probably the only player we have actively traded who wanted to stay at the club and this could either be aggressive draft position or his attitude probably a bit of both.

 

[Giant Sphinx]

Don't think there is anyone we will be happy to give up to get a earlier pick next year. Someone might fall out with the coach or just want more oppertunity at another club. The good thing is if its filled with a lot of good KPP next year it might mean we get another gun onballer that gets overlooked for one of them.

The clubs just in a great spot at them moment.

 

[Old Spice]

Good thread Spicey and clear thinking - from my perspective. Buckley is part of the new wave of coaches in that he isn't tied to systems and attitudes that have been prevelant for decades. Some of our established players baulked at his demand for a more ruthless approach, they got handed their walking papers. From what we can tell as outsiders this group is now gone and Buckley has a clean slate.

Aggressive trading over the last couple of years has rejuvinated the list and weeded out the divisiveness, whether you regret the passing of the old days and ways or not a club divided against itself is doomed to failure.

I may be getting close to pension age but I love the new ruthless attitude and the demand for self evaluation and self criticism in the search for improvement.

We can all be better than what we are, the only determining factor is our determination to accept the responsibility for achieving that ourselves

I think in the trade period we forget the capacity of our development system to maximise good draft and trade decisions. It's more common to assume that when draft picks work out it started and ended at the recruitment table, but clearly development is a massive factor.

A few years ago no-one had more first round picks than Carlton, who at that point had 7: Walker, Murphy, Gibbs, Yarran, Kruezer, Russell and Judd (swapped or Kennedy who was taken at #4). Those players are all good, but they were lay down miseres for success. The real question is why Carlton couldn't develop the rest of the list to any heights. I'd be pretty certain if we had 7 top 10 picks we could create a behemoth.

We need to take advantage of our development system which improves the quality and currency of players and trade up where possible. We have a machine for improving stock and now we have an aggressive mindset to allow us to take advantage of that.

It's about turning As into A pluses, B's into A minuses and rookies into steak knives. It's a comparative advantage the club has and should take advantage of it.

 

[lwebb]

I think the club is very aware of the expansion clubs and the early picks they have amassed. By trading out players surplus to needs it holds us in good stead when gws and GC begin to mature.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Old Spice]

I actually think we have also been a victim of circumstances. If you look at the trades.
Wellingham (requested to go home), Dawes (not 100% what happened appears he requested trade once his position wasn't guaranteed), Thomas (we chose not to match a big offer). Shaw is probably the only player we have actively traded who wanted to stay at the club and this could either be aggressive draft position or his attitude probably a bit of both.

Wellingham did want to go home but then again I don't know we were desperate to hang on, a la Thomas.

Dawes was told he was no lock as the 2nd tall given his trampoline hands and ruck prowess. Once again if we wanted him he wouldn't be at Melbourne.

The Shaw issue I think shows we are dead serious about standards and willing to trade high profile players. I think it did show as well a belief in our draft and development system and a willingness to be aggressive and ruthless.

Too many players got away with blue murder in the past. The attitude toward excellence and ruthlessness dovetails now.

 

[Old Spice]

Don't think there is anyone we will be happy to give up to get a earlier pick next year. Someone might fall out with the coach or just want more oppertunity at another club. The good thing is if its filled with a lot of good KPP next year it might mean we get another gun onballer that gets overlooked for one of them.

The clubs just in a great spot at them moment.

Macaffer, Blair, O'Brien, Goldsack, Dwyer. I can think of a few players who might get the squeeze and yet retain some trade currency.

Again, I don't think you push them out the door but if they have cachet, there is intense and foreboding competition for their spot and would invite interest and drive you up the order, it becomes a consideration.

I can see a future where Collingwood (and slavishly, other clubs) seek 4 picks in the top 30 as a matter of course. And take some project players or mature agers to polish up. We should consider ourselves a manufacturer of player development and cash in on it.

 

[Hinequarters]

Now that's how trading is done Mick

 

[jonbe54]

I think in the trade period we forget the capacity of our development system to maximise good draft and trade decisions. It's more common to assume that when draft picks work out it started and ended at the recruitment table, but clearly development is a massive factor.

A few years ago no-one had more first round picks than Carlton, who at that point had 7: Walker, Murphy, Gibbs, Yarran, Kruezer, Russell and Judd (swapped or Kennedy who was taken at #4). Those players are all good, but they were lay down miseres for success. The real question is why Carlton couldn't develop the rest of the list to any heights. I'd be pretty certain if we had 7 top 10 picks we could create a behemoth.

We need to take advantage of our development system which improves the quality and currency of players and trade up where possible. We have a machine for improving stock and now we have an aggressive mindset to allow us to take advantage of that.

It's about turning As into A pluses, B's into A minuses and rookies into steak knives. It's a comparative advantage the club has and should take advantage of it.

I see your thinking and agree Spicey - after all any international economist worth his salt will tell you that the most successful places are those that add value - which is why Oz is in a pickle when the mining boom fizzes out, we really do not add value here, just r@pe the cr@p out of our natural resources and sell O/S at rock bottom (excuse pun) prices for other nations to make the real profit out of value adding - if we can turn the club into a process (not automated but very hands on) we can force our way back up to the very top where we belong through sheer productivity and excellence.

 

[SchuPie]

This strategy may pay off by getting aggressive in another way.
If i was Hine I'd be talking up the coming 2014 draft every time i left the house; put a premium price on first rounders.

Then I'd trade out of it. Wait wait wait, hear me out.

Clubs are going to be desperate to trade into the 1st round - so target either a KPF or KPD we think is exceptional at GWS (that we hear may be keen to move home) and then work out what they're looking for (maybe a small forward and another mid) and then set it up like this:

- GWS: Gain - Small forward / mid (whatever it is they need) / Pies 2nd Rounder
- Team X: Gain - Pies 1st Rounder
- Pies" Gain - ?? or Patton or Jaksch (...these names are arbitrary, we're just talking a player that we really rate)

If first rounders become valuable then trade for absolute quality youth.

 

[Matz]

Its funny how the guys that have left pies as of recent have all played terrible (Dawes, Wellingham) let's hope this continues with Daisy but not so much heater. ..lol

 

[Old Spice]

Its funny how the guys that have left pies as of recent have all played terrible (Dawes, Wellingham) let's hope this continues with Daisy but not so much heater. ..lol

They played well when they played.

That's the risk though, it's not a zero-sum game where they become shit when they leave but that we trust our trading and development system to turn our picks into something better when they arrive, to claw our way up metre by metre.

 

[Old Spice]

How do you press home your advantage in a competition that is constantly looking to even the ledger? That' the question.

For me our recruiting (recruiting staff) and development system (staff and facilities) is really the difference and anyone who thinks otherwise believes in magic and chance.

To my view it's about improving listed players who we may pick, but it's also compressing later picks and turning them into earlier picks. You spot talent and improve talent on the list but if you can turn surplus into a trade-up, you do it.

It can't be merciless, but in a situation where we consider some young players are pushing up to spill a player or limit opportunity we and the player are better placed to have a frank conversation about the future. That may be best for all parties.

 

[Dynamics]

It's a fine line between getting value for players that may be better off elsewhere (read: we think we can get a good deal for you and also convince you that it's best for you), and damaging the relationship with the group. Players still have to buy in and commit absolutely in order to obtain success. Too many Heath Shaw situations and players may start thinking "am I next?"

I think that's where top shelf man management comes to the fore - The best staff will know what rein to pull and when to pull it. A lot of it will be up to Bucks.

I have faith.

 

[Avatar]

How do you press home your advantage in a competition that is constantly looking to even the ledger? That' the question.

This really is the million dollar question and there is no simple answer.
As you say recruiting and development system are a big part of being able to create an advantage and point of difference.

In terms of taking later picks and flipping them for better picks/players there are risks with this strategy. It could become akin to the raid on our assistance coaches of late, where just being part of a successful team increases your value, possibly more than it should. If this occurs with players it makes it harder to keep them given the salary cap constraints and sure you may be able to turn a late selection or rookie pick into a high pick but is it 2 steps back for 1 step forward? You are losing a player who knows your system and structure for the unknown in many respects.

This is the challenge of all successful teams however, it does demonstrate how well Geelong have done it over the last 7-8 years in terms of development and keeping all the players they have wanted and needed to maintain excellent results.

 

[Avatar]

They played well when they played.

That's the risk though, it's not a zero-sum game where they become shit when they leave but that we trust our trading and development system to turn our picks into something better when they arrive, to claw our way up metre by metre.

The performance of Dawes, Wellingham, Shaw, Thomas, Young, Paine and whoever else may be traded out is really not of concern to Collingwood. This isn't like Sliding Doors where we are seeing 2 scenarios and can directly compare them. Once the player leaves the only way to assess the success of the trade is the performance of the incoming players.

 

[Avatar]

Players are off-limits until the right deal comes along.

That's what I've taken from this new era of free agency and proactive, "aggressive" trading.

Regardless of whether I like this cultural shift or not, it is our new reality. What's pleasing to me is that the club has chosen once again to lead, rather than to follow. I may be accused of talking about Carlton too much, but their approach serves as an effective contrast. They are a reactive club, looking at what others are doing and mimicking it like a moustachioed monkey.

Players have made it clear that they can and will put their career above their club, and clubs that want to put their fingers in their ears and scream "LOYALTY!" will be left behind. The Cats get it. The Hawks now get it. The Swans get it and we get it. Players approaching a FA will be traded aggressively, and clubs on the verge of a premiership will also pursue such players aggressively.

If I am going to crystal ball, I'll say this: We will again be sufficiently ruthless to be seriously involved in 2014's strong draft, stocking up on KPPs. Then look for us to to hunt a FA or two in the two years after that.
The proof is in the pudding, which means premierships. If we win one in the next 3-5, it's been a success.

I really think that a lot of people have not seen the big picture. The reality is FA is here to stay and is definitely going to increase. Sure there will be some small year to year changes given the strength of the draft class and standard of FAs available but every year every team will be looking to shake up their list through draft, trade, FA. There are 17 teams each year who have fallen short and even the premiership team cannot rest on their laurels and will be players.

Collingwood have to remain at the top of the list in terms of desirable locations. We have the facilities, the supporters, have been in the finals consistently - keep this up and we are set.

 

[eddiebankbalance]

Let's see how Brown goes about it next year.

 

[Old Spice]

This really is the million dollar question and there is no simple answer.
As you say recruiting and development system are a big part of being able to create an advantage and point of difference.

In terms of taking later picks and flipping them for better picks/players there are risks with this strategy. It could become akin to the raid on our assistance coaches of late, where just being part of a successful team increases your value, possibly more than it should. If this occurs with players it makes it harder to keep them given the salary cap constraints and sure you may be able to turn a late selection or rookie pick into a high pick but is it 2 steps back for 1 step forward? You are losing a player who knows your system and structure for the unknown in many respects.

This is the challenge of all successful teams however, it does demonstrate how well Geelong have done it over the last 7-8 years in terms of development and keeping all the players they have wanted and needed to maintain excellent results.

I'm glad you raised it because the 'unknown' is what we are speculating upon.

Now we are quick on the board to praise our recruiting and development (and I think correctly) but if we have A grade depts there, we should be comfortable to trade out to trade up into the future.

If you think about it, obviously all our past players are the result of our recruitment and development program. If we adopt an attitude that our program is excellent in and of itself, and not the result of chance, then we should be able to reproduce that outcome again and again into the future.

As I say above, it's not flippant approach where you trade a key forward like Cloke or an A grade gun like Pendlebury, but a situation where you have 2-3 players capable and probable of pushing out an established player.

It's better to find them a home rather than let them wither on the vine and in the process upgrade in the draft.