Aggressive Trading

[MagpieJoel]

Hey guys, sorry to intrude.

But could you possibly trade us Pendles? Seriously love the guy, my favourite player in the AFL.

Carry on.

GTFO!

 

[4#Didak#4]

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.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-chief-executive-gary-pert-outlines-the-dangers-of-free-agency/story-fni5f6hd-1226743312680

I think what you are suggesting is a slippery slope.

As it is free agency has imposed a level of uncertainty within clubs which I see as unhealthy & a source of instability. The recent experiences of Thomas & Cloke have been far from ideal in this regard & probably shaped my thinking on this.

I think an agressive trading strategy will in the end, throw fuel on the free agancy fire by undermining the players confidence that the club will look after their best interest. It will serve the players best in this circumstance to look after their own interests and that makes it almost impossible to have a cohesive playing group who are all on the same page.

I think Gary Pert's comments on this issue show that Collingwood is well aware of how mismanaging this new era of player movement could be very detrimental to the club.

Mutually beneficial trades will still happen, but I think we will see far less of the ruthless trades that Dawes & Shaw were involved in. The last two years have in my mind been a clean out of the list and a mini rebuild so as to reset our future path.

I think Buckley is looking for a stable long term list of players to stick with and build together over time. The age profile of the list now is almost perfectly setup in this regard. That is how premierships are won, not chopping & changing your list every year via agressive trading. Its imperative from now on to keep this current group together to allow them to develop into a cohesive unit to be feared. The only threat to that happening is free agency and club mismanagement.

 

[Old Spice]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-chief-executive-gary-pert-outlines-the-dangers-of-free-agency/story-fni5f6hd-1226743312680

I think what you are suggesting is a slippery slope.

As it is free agency has imposed a level of uncertainty within clubs which I see as unhealthy & a source of instability. The recent experiences of Thomas & Cloke have been far from ideal in this regard & probably shaped my thinking on this.

I think an agressive trading strategy will in the end, throw fuel on the free agancy fire by undermining the players confidence that the club will look after their best interest. It will serve the players best in this circumstance to look after their own interests and that makes it almost impossible to have a cohesive playing group who are all on the same page.

I think Gary Pert's comments on this issue show that Collingwood is well aware of how mismanaging this new era of player movement could be very detrimental to the club.

Mutually beneficial trades will still happen, but I think we will see far less of the ruthless trades that Dawes & Shaw were involved in. The last two years have in my mind been a clean out of the list and a mini rebuild so as to reset our future path.

I think Buckley is looking for a stable long term list of players to stick with and build together over time. The age profile of the list now is almost perfectly setup in this regard. That is how premierships are won, not chopping & changing your list every year via agressive trading. Its imperative from now on to keep this current group together to allow them to develop into a cohesive unit to be feared. The only threat to that happening is free agency and club mismanagement.

I'm pretty certain most players don't think they have tenure at a club and the truth about player longevity has been an established fact for a long time. Most will play on average under four years.

This idea that a player would not feel secure under the new system is a fallacy. In fact, if you can negotiate a trade elsewhere when a position is uncertain means you may just extend that players career at the club where demand or those services are higher and where the incumbent club has an over abundance there.

I think it's much more mature and sturdy for a player to know what is happening rather than 2nd guessing what a Committee behind closed doors may be thinking about your future.

Is it better for a player to be eclipsed by another on the last year of their contract and then - through lack of game time - give opposition clubs the impression that this player is washed up. If instead you look to trade this player - knowing that they might get crowded out the next year - you give them another 2-3 years elsewhere and conceivably more money.

You look at some of the players going out this year and you realise some didn't see it coming. I think it's better to be frank and hopefully deliver a win-win for player and club while their allure is still high.

 

[4#Didak#4]

I'm pretty certain most players don't think they have tenure at a club and the truth about player longevity has been an established fact for a long time. Most will play on average under four years.

This idea that a player would not feel secure under the new system is a fallacy. In fact, if you can negotiate a trade elsewhere when a position is uncertain means you may just extend that players career at the club where demand or those services are higher and where the incumbent club has an over abundance there.

I think it's much more mature and sturdy for a player to know what is happening rather than 2nd guessing what a Committee behind closed doors may be thinking about your future.

Is it better for a player to be eclipsed by another on the last year of their contract and then - through lack of game time - give opposition clubs the impression that this player is washed up. If instead you look to trade this player - knowing that they might get crowded out the next year - you give them another 2-3 years elsewhere and conceivably more money.

You look at some of the players going out this year and you realise some didn't see it coming. I think it's better to be frank and hopefully deliver a win-win for player and club while their allure is still high.

Its not about the player feeling insecure, in fact with free agency this gives players much more financial security & will also be winners if there is clubs haggling over trades, especially if you get shipped off to the GWS.

If the clubs stance is aggressive trading and to basically say everyone is fair game if the circumstances permit and then go a step further & communicate this to the players, then the players focus is shifted away from the club to themselves and their future. Its far less likely they will buy in to what the club is pushing which more or less always revolves around unity & in the Pies case "side by side".

I see your argument that if you communicate it during the year then the sting & uncertainty is taken out of it, however I can't see the benefit of telling a player (particulalry if they are playing senior footy) mid year that our intentions are to trade you because your value is up. I can't see that helping anyone other than saving some hurt feelings at years end.

I also don't think we would play a player just to drive up their trade value. Clubs are smart enough to work out why players were not getting game time....at least I hope so in the case of Tony Armstrong.

There was plenty who didn't see it coming, particularly the older generation and I think that needs better communication as you said.

I think Heath Shaw is an interesting example. Clearly throughout the year the coaching staff were trying to get some certain results out of him and Heath did not quite do what they wanted. I doubt that they said to him mid year, if you can't do x, y & z then we are going to trade you. They would have kept pushing their message and then explained to Heath at the end that they came to the decision because he didn't do x, y & z. I am sure Heath never imagined the end consequences of not following what the coaches told him, but in the end it is a result of his own actions not the coaches.

Imagine the fall out if Heath was told mid year he was going or they threatened him with trade. He would have been a totally destabilising influence.

At the end of the day they are grown men and should be aware of the realities & cut and thrust that happens at years end. I just think that opting to have the sword of damocles dangling over your playing group all year is not great. A continuous aggressive trading stance does that.

 

[Old Spice]

Its not about the player feeling insecure, in fact with free agency this gives players much more financial security & will also be winners if there is clubs haggling over trades, especially if you get shipped off to the GWS.

If the clubs stance is aggressive trading and to basically say everyone is fair game if the circumstances permit and then go a step further & communicate this to the players, then the players focus is shifted away from the club to themselves and their future. Its far less likely they will buy in to what the club is pushing which more or less always revolves around unity & in the Pies case "side by side".

Everyone isn't 'fair game', hence why I mentioned you wouldn't be trading Pendlebury, Reid or Cloke etc. You look at players where we have a surplus of their type and trading at the right time.

A cursory glance at our trading history will show that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of the list is turned over every year whether through de-listings or trades.

This idea that players will start playing as individuals because they may get traded is quite off the mark.

Firstly, selfish play doesn't really enamour a player to another club, in fact it's a turn off. It's actually more likely they will understand their position and work hard to prove their value.

Secondly, everyone already understands that they can be delisted but many players as it stands don't see it coming. Do remaining players become less 'side by side' after players are turned over? Not at all, they probably get on their bikes. That's thenature of the business.

What is preferable is to allow them a chance to extend their career elsewhere while they have earning and trade currency.

I see your argument that if you communicate it during the year then the sting & uncertainty is taken out of it, however I can't see the benefit of telling a player (particulalry if they are playing senior footy) mid year that our intentions are to trade you because your value is up. I can't see that helping anyone other than saving some hurt feelings at years end.

Who says you need to have the conversation mid-year? You might recognise come years end that someone is hanging onto their position by the skin of their teeth so you have an honest conversation about it?

They know where they stand and can trade in on their value if it suits both parties.

I also don't think we would play a player just to drive up their trade value. Clubs are smart enough to work out why players were not getting game time....at least I hope so in the case of Tony Armstrong.

There was plenty who didn't see it coming, particularly the older generation and I think that needs better communication as you said.

I think Heath Shaw is an interesting example. Clearly throughout the year the coaching staff were trying to get some certain results out of him and Heath did not quite do what they wanted. I doubt that they said to him mid year, if you can't do x, y & z then we are going to trade you. They would have kept pushing their message and then explained to Heath at the end that they came to the decision because he didn't do x, y & z. I am sure Heath never imagined the end consequences of not following what the coaches told him, but in the end it is a result of his own actions not the coaches.

Imagine the fall out if Heath was told mid year he was going or they threatened him with trade. He would have been a totally destabilising influence.

Who said play a player to drive up trade value? I'm talking about making an assumption that players x and y can fulfil player x's role next year, so you discuss the prospect of a trade where this player's services and opportunities may dry up.

We all know that some clubs have a surfeit of particular player types and others have a lack thereof. Many players trade value will drop right off if they are in the shadows.

You say clubs are smart enough to know why players aren't getting game time, but the fact is if you aren't playing at senior level, it's very hard to gauge and the player's stock drops, there is nothing surer.

At the end of the day they are grown men and should be aware of the realities & cut and thrust that happens at years end. I just think that opting to have the sword of damocles dangling over your playing group all year is not great. A continuous aggressive trading stance does that.

It's always there and it's quite naive to think otherwise.

Misty eyed aphorisms are just that. Players get the short sword all the time in the best interests of the club and sometimes they do that to the club.

The players wanted Free Agency and got it, so this is really an extension of that but much more grown-up. You allow players to consider plying their craft elsewhere where there is need, rather than have them drop off the cliff one season, never to return.