Remove this Banner Ad

Aggressive Trading

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old Spice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

You are absolutely right, I had to go back and read your first post as I was quoting from the most recent which isn't always wise.

Surplus to requirements, positional deficiencies and competition for spots are really the keys here. Every club has deficiencies and if we are seen as a high quality supplier we should be able to get good returns.

The higher the pick the greater chance they will develop to be a competitor for a spot, being surplus or making someone else surplus so the more we have the better.

I do think we are slightly ahead of the curve with aggressive trading, as much as many like to talk down the succession plan I think it has certainly played a part in the acceleration of this approach.
 
Avatar said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, we'll never be able to properly compare players due to time lags and list needs etc, it's not comparable.

What we need to bank on though is the idea that our recruiting and development staff are ahead of the pack and will improve the skills of draftees better relative to a lot of other teams.

Our system is vaunted so we should cash in on it and to the extent that we do we should inch higher in draft picks. Again, not for the sake of it, but in situations where a plethora of players look like swallowing someone up anyway.
 
Dynamics said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the bolded scenario, particularly as keeping players on edge is always a good thing IMO.

Nobody should ever feel comfortable that goes for the #1 ranked player on the list all the way to the last ranked player on the list.

As Ed put it at our BnF, too many players began admiring the view at the top and forgot about what it takes to actually stay there.

There is a lot of talk about "buying in to the program" by many senior staff at Collingwood, most recently Derek Hine post draft.

If players are unwilling to buy into the program or setup, they don't have to play for Collingwood. There's 17 other teams they can go and play for. This message has been made perfect clear this off-season.
 
Old Spice said:
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.
.
Click to expand...


Interesting thought.

When people put up their best 22 and VFL 22 it is generally seen as a good thing to have the depth that we appear to have on paper. I think the problem though is that the best 22 doesn't scream premiership. Does having 2-3 players capable and probable of pushing out an established player reflect well on them or poorly on the established player? Or somewhere in the middle?

If you are trading out players surplus to requirements (and that you are happy to trade away) you would think that:

a) They are a good to very good player so you can expect a decent return. The question is why is a good to very good player surplus to requirements - is there a problem with list composition. Has the list achieved good results and salary cap pressure is imminent?

b) They are are below the good to very good range and you can expect a lesser return. Will the player(s) you get in return be able to become a good to very good player. Or are they a different type of player who although not good to very good are not part of a surplus.

I think this all comes back to this being a yearly event, with no sensible team ever sticking with the status quo.
If we can build a premiership list and have those 2-3 players on the fringe at a few positions we will be a huge chance of sustained success.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The reality is that players have their eyes over their shoulders anyway. It doesn't need to result in selfish play where the KPIs are clearly team oriented and mapped out. If you're honest with players, which you assume clubs are in reviews, then you know where you stand.

A trading strategy where a player still has currency is best for all and sundry because it gives the opportunity to grab a 2-3 year deal elsewhere for the player and the club to climb up the draft order. The alternative is death in the slow lane.
 
Hinequarters said:
Now that's how trading is done Mick

316qjoz.jpg
Click to expand...


Now there's no excuses from the coaching staff....
 
We need to trade into the top 5 next year to get one of the KPPs, so we have to give up something serious like Ben Reid to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Avatar said:
Interesting thought.

When people put up their best 22 and VFL 22 it is generally seen as a good thing to have the depth that we appear to have on paper. I think the problem though is that the best 22 doesn't scream premiership. Does having 2-3 players capable and probable of pushing out an established player reflect well on them or poorly on the established player? Or somewhere in the middle?

If you are trading out players surplus to requirements (and that you are happy to trade away) you would think that:

a) They are a good to very good player so you can expect a decent return. The question is why is a good to very good player surplus to requirements - is there a problem with list composition. Has the list achieved good results and salary cap pressure is imminent?

b) They are are below the good to very good range and you can expect a lesser return. Will the player(s) you get in return be able to become a good to very good player. Or are they a different type of player who although not good to very good are not part of a surplus.

I think this all comes back to this being a yearly event, with no sensible team ever sticking with the status quo.
If we can build a premiership list and have those 2-3 players on the fringe at a few positions we will be a huge chance of sustained success.
Click to expand...


Yeah very interesting stuff.

I don't want to sound glib about it all, yet. Concretely, I think we could say that Harry as an example could be squeezed out by a more defensive Seedsman or Oxley and retain trade currency. If that drove us 4 spots up in a draft, it's a consideration.

Clearly you wouldn't make stupid changes for the sake of it, but if it prolongs a career and helps the Pies, why not do it?
 
rose jam said:
We need to trade into the top 5 next year to get one of the KPPs, so we have to give up something serious like Ben Reid to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


are you being literal when you say ben reid? because if you are what is the point of trading out an already established and more importantly proven KPP for a speculative 18 yr old who may or may not be better. We would be taking a step backward if we do that.
 
rose jam said:
We need to trade into the top 5 next year to get one of the KPPs, so we have to give up something serious like Ben Reid to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That kind of trade I think is not worthwhile because it's a case of diminishing returns where the risk is too high. You can't give up a top 10 KPD in the hope of getting something better.
 
Pieku said:
Trim the withered vine
Ripened fruit depends upon
Tarrant on Hawkins
Click to expand...


Pieku, you need a seasonal reference in your Haiku.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rome wasn't built in a day but Xanadu can be created overnight.
 
Old Spice said:
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.
Click to expand...
We were basically forced to trade Shaw and Daisy as they weren't playing for Buckley, same probably went for Wellingham, he might have stayed if Malthouse hadn't left. Dawes was basically murdered by Bucks and confidence was shot.
All in all we've been lucky we could get players in return for premiership players. It could have been nasty really nasty. Hopefully we build the premiership team that was destroyed for no reason looking back. We are back on the right track as these new guys arent tarnished by the Malthouse/Buckley takeover.
 
They got fat and lazy on premiership success.. and luck had very little to do with how we orchestrated the off season.. a superb effort of addressing the culture and future success :thumbsu:
 
Hinequarters said:
They got fat and lazy on premiership success.. and luck had very little to do with how we orchestrated the off season.. a superb effort of addressing the culture and future success :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Agreed, Shaw after the betting incident worked his ass off and was a prime physical specimen come 2011 finals, come 2013 he was dropped for high skin folds, WTF happened? Complacency is what happened, Shaw only got the very best out of himself when he had a point to prove, same goes for Didak-Daisy.

compare that to Pendles hitting the Gym 3 weeks early this year! Pendles wants to get better by nature, chalk and cheese.
 
Old Spice said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was an absolute pleasure reading this, thank you.
 
As someone pointed out to me it's 7 first round picks in 12 months with Adams and Karnezis..

Not bad for a club that's won a flag and plays finals every year o_O
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Hinequarters said:
As someone pointed out to me it's 7 first round picks in 12 months with Adams and Karnezis..

Not bad for a club that's won a flag and plays finals every year o_O
Click to expand...

Well we might be stretching it a little with Karnezis being pick 25. First round in his draft class sure, but not usually.

What the heck, let's just go with it.
 
Old Spice said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that to a degree it's circumstantial. If you feel you have the balance right in terms of competition for a certain spot, along with the right blend of youth and experience in that position, trading someone out to fill a need in another area is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom