Opinion An Analysis of our trading/mature age picks

[cecil]

Seen it come up a bit in the debate about Dawes regarding our hopeless trading/recruiting history, and thought I would actually look into it.

Since 99, our decisions look like this:

1999:
Traded Martin for Batlett and 32 - WIN! 32 ended up being Gia. Martin did little
Powell for 35 - Loss Wiggins didn't do much, Powell had a good career
Monty and 28 for Eagleton - Loss Monty went great at PA, and they drafted Guerra
Cameron for 37 and 66 - WIN! Hahn and Hargrave picked up. Massive trade!
Andrew Wills - Loss, but didnt cost a lot

2000:
Harrison for 41 - 50/50 went okay for us, few okay players picked around there

2001:
Hudson for 49 - bit of a nothing trade in the end
Picken and Rusca for 49 - same as above, although they did nothing for us
Bandy for Ellis and 26 - Loss - lots of great players picked up around here
James drafted - Loss, although didnt cost much

2002:
Hunter for 35 - win, although fluffed the pick
Penny for 17 - win
Bassett drafted - loss

2003:
Veale deal - keep pick 6 and it wouldv'e been good. Although, pretty well every part of the deal went bad for all clubs (maybe Jacobs aside)
Brown for 6 and 20 - Hand was forced, got okay picks
Koops for 19 - Loss
Morgan - Loss
Street - Loss, although the draft was crap that year

2004: N/A

2005:
Bowden for 56 (Monty) - Win - trade won us a final in 06
Rawlings and 43 for 46 - Loss, although it saved us a stack of cash

2006:
Aker for 34 - Win
McDougall 29 for 34 and 59 - Loss
Birss for 59 - Win

2007:
McMahon for 19 - WIN
Callan and 66 for 62 -Win
Hudson and 43 and 30 and 38 - Win
Power for 48 - Win
Welsh in PSD - Win

2008:
Ray and 48 for 31 - Win, improved at St Kilda though
Picken as a Rookie - Win

2009:
Hall fr 47 - Win
Marcovic drafted - Win, would take him over every player drafted after him bar one
Thorne drafted - Loss
Moles - Win, upgrading was bad in hindsight though

2010:
DJ for 57 - loss
Sherman for compo pick - loss
Vez and 91 for Everitt - Win - we still have Zeph who may tip it in our favour
Barlow - loss
Hahn - loss

2011:

Hill for 49 - win
Hudson for 70 - was going to retire anyway
Dickson - win
Campbell - win
Redpath - undecided yet

Looking back, we have probably traded/drafted mature ages at a success rate of over 50%.
We had a few shocking years (2003 and 2010), but also some good ones (2011, 1999).

I have probably missed a fair few though, I was just throwing it together quickly

 

[TedDougChris]

Good listing, thanks - be interesting to look at our ladder position against our success rate - i'm wondering if our wins and losses at the trade table match up with either a high or low finish around that time. Are we over/under rating our players at certain points in the cycle... ?

Will have a think and get back to you with comments....

 

[cecil]

Good listing, thanks - be interesting to look at our ladder position against our success rate - i'm wondering if our wins and losses at the trade table match up with either a high or low finish around that time. Are we over/under rating our players at certain points in the cycle... ?

Will have a think and get back to you with comments....

We seem to be quite good with trading off our fringe players (monty and powell being ones who burnt us) and with our mature age rookie picks. I think if anything it vouches that we should keep our first rounders at all costs, and cycle through our later picks every 3 years (i.e. guys like Skinner, Panos etc) and pick up trades for them where possible.

 

[dogwatch]

Good work Cecil but it's not the whole picture and certainly not the only measure of a successful trade.

Some of your analysis seems to be based on "who did better out of this ... us or the other club?" But in some cases it really can be a win-win (and perhaps a loss-loss at other times). For instance, Monty and 28 for Eagleton was certainly a win for Port and Monty but it was probably a win for us and Eagleton as well. Eagle went on to play something like 250 games for us. Can't really knock that sort of return.

The other problem I have is that the assessment of the trade is based on what players we drafted with the picks we got for that trade. That is a separate exercise and should be assessed separately. For instance I'd say Cameron for 37 and 66 was in Richmond's favour. The fact that we went on to draft two 200 gamers with late order picks says more about our talent-spotting (or good luck) than it does about our ability to negotiate a good trade.

I suppose it's a good bar-room conversation topic that could be argued from many angles for hours. You are probably familiar with this analysis: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...15-years-of-pissing-picks-up-the-wall.837159/

It's a lot more pessimistic than your assessment. Guido sums up his OP thus:
"Other than a couple of notable exceptions, history says that in the clear majority of cases, we clearly overpaid for what these recycled players ended up providing the club. Each recycled player had his associated cost, either in salary, draft picks or simply a spot on the list.

"Taking a conservative 1 in 3 strike rate of getting 100+ gamers with the picks traded away, IMO it can be confidently assumed the club's trading has cost it 5 or 6 long term quality players who could have contributed towards campaigns across at least 5 and up to 15 seasons ..."

 

[dogzrule]

In most cases you are better to take your chances in the draft, do it well and you set yourself up for a decade

 

[Rookie]

Wow it's interesting to note that (based on this analysis) out draft in '99 was so successful because we traded for a good range of draft picks and then nailed most of the selections. That's what I want us to do this year. Let's cut our losses with players (Lake was the first) and lets aggressively go to the draft and have a second class of '99 draft.

6 in the top 50 isn't bad but we can still improve it and still trade for one or two players.

 

[TedDougChris]

Wow it's interesting to note that (based on this analysis) out draft in '99 was so successful because we traded for a good range of draft picks and then nailed most of the selections. That's what I want us to do this year. Let's cut our losses with players (Lake was the first) and lets aggressively go to the draft and have a second class of '99 draft.

6 in the top 50 isn't bad but we can still improve it and still trade for one or two players.

I like this idea. Every year around this time there are dozens of 're-do the draft of XXXXXXX' type threads...

Let's make this draft one where everyone screams - How did player Y fall to the Dogs at pick 78 etc....

 

[dogwatch]

Wow it's interesting to note that (based on this analysis) out draft in '99 was so successful because we traded for a good range of draft picks and then nailed most of the selections. That's what I want us to do this year. Let's cut our losses with players (Lake was the first) and lets aggressively go to the draft and have a second class of '99 draft.

6 in the top 50 isn't bad but we can still improve it and still trade for one or two players.

We should be careful not to fall into the trap of modelling our recruiting strategy on one successful - perhaps lucky - year (1999). In 2007, for instance, we had 5 picks inside 50 and another at 63. Out of all of those we've got Jarrad Grant and Easton Wood left. One is at the crossroads in 2013 and the other is a regular best 22 ... but not top 10.

Having said that I think clearing out deadwood or dying wood (but not Easton Wood!) is a good idea and even if it only gets us a pick at 50-60 it is probably more use to us than keeping a fringe player who has reached his career peak and won't lift us any higher. We may get a dud (which we should discard after 2-3 years) or we may get another Ryan Hargrave, a Dane Swan, a Daniel Cross, a Sam Fisher, a Brian Lake, etc.

In line with that philosophy I'd rather we kept picks 21 and 47 and let Dawes go to Melbourne or Brisbane.

 

[TedDougChris]

We should be careful not to fall into the trap of modelling our recruiting strategy on one successful - perhaps lucky - year (1999). In 2007, for instance, we had 5 picks inside 50 and another at 63. Out of all of those we've got Jarrad Grant and Easton Wood left. One is at the crossroads in 2013 and the other is a regular best 22 ... but not top 10.

Having said that I think clearing out deadwood or dying wood (but not Easton Wood!) is a good idea and even if it only gets us a pick at 50-60 it is probably more use to us than keeping a fringe player who has reached his career peak and won't lift us any higher. We may get a dud (which we should discard after 2-3 years) or we may get another Ryan Hargrave, a Dane Swan, a Daniel Cross, a Sam Fisher, a Brian Lake, etc.

In line with that philosophy I'd rather we kept picks 21 and 47 and let Dawes go to Melbourne or Brisbane.

Fair comments Dogwatch, but hopefully if we do our due dilligence and look closely at the gaps in our list, we can have a good draft and build from here... I think we should be looking at youth and talent and then draft/trade for needs a little later..