OUR DRAFTING/TRADING QUESTIONS

[BOP66]

Ok I'll try & make this as short & specific as possible here.

I think we get rolled at the trade table TBH.

In both the S.Mitchell & J.Lewis trades why did we have to give up 2 draft picks & the said player?

As we gave up 2 draft picks for each & a player, shouldn't we of got a extra pick back as well?
Also happened with the JOM deal, we got the pick 10 from the saints & 68 for 23,36 & 2017 1st rd pick.
So there is another case of 3 picks for 2.

I just think we roll over too easily at trade time. There are quite a few cases of it actually in the last few years.
B.Lake we gave up 2 picks, I think 1 in the 20's & early 40's for a 31 yo. Now don't get me wrong here he worked out fine no qualms here on that trade. But makes me think we gave away Sam & Jordan way too cheap. Should of played harder ball there & try get as many low picks as we can.
We're screaming for some high end talent here & it's come back to bite us a bit now.

I just don't get it look at St Kilda they got that Jack Steele for a future 2nd round pick??
We gave GWS pick #19 for JOR- that's poor in my eyes! Also look at Carlton getting all these GWS players for a song!

It's all well & good to get these deals done nice & early (JOM deal accept ion) but we got to look at the big picture here. Even the McEvoy deal we got pants-ed a bit by the Saints pick 18 & Savage then down grading # 19 to #24?

If a more enlightened individual could explain the swapping of more picks to get deals done I'd much appreciate it also.

 

[Mr Lizard]

 

[tige19]

We rolled over because there was a genuine concern that the JOM deal was not going to go through, we went into panic mode and needed to deal. I'm still of the belief we will win the trade with JOM, and we are clearly in front with the Titch deal.

 

[threesixpio]

Ok I'll try & make this as short & specific as possible here.

I think we get rolled at the trade table TBH.

In both the S.Mitchell & J.Lewis trades why did we have to give up 2 draft picks & the said player?

As we gave up 2 draft picks for each & a player, shouldn't we of got a extra pick back as well?
Also happened with the JOM deal, we got the pick 10 from the saints & 68 for 23,36 & 2017 1st rd pick.
So there is another case of 3 picks for 2.

I just think we roll over too easily at trade time. There are quite a few cases of it actually in the last few years.
B.Lake we gave up 2 picks, I think 1 in the 20's & early 40's for a 31 yo. Now don't get me wrong here he worked out fine no qualms here on that trade. But makes me think we gave away Sam & Jordan way too cheap. Should of played harder ball there & try get as many low picks as we can.
We're screaming for some high end talent here & it's come back to bite us a bit now.

I just don't get it look at St Kilda they got that Jack Steele for a future 2nd round pick??
We gave GWS pick #19 for JOR- that's poor in my eyes! Also look at Carlton getting all these GWS players for a song!

It's all well & good to get these deals done nice & early (JOM deal accept ion) but we got to look at the big picture here. Even the McEvoy deal we got pants-ed a bit by the Saints pick 18 & Savage then down grading # 19 to #24?

If a more enlightened individual could explain the swapping of more picks to get deals done I'd much appreciate it also.

Did we get what we were after - tick
Did it lead to success - ken oath and then some
Are we forgetting how awesome the last 8 years or so has been because of three games in 2017........

Goodness me. This board is losing the plot

 

[BOP66]

Did we get what we were after - tick
Did it lead to success - ken oath and then some
Are we forgetting how awesome the last 8 years or so has been because of three games in 2017........

Goodness me. This board is losing the plot

Who's losing what here?
Just stating the obvious OK.
Fair enough we've had an awesome era the last 10 years, have been the envy of all no doubt.
But to say you can't criticize the current trend of giving away too much to gain less, that I don't get!

 

[BOP66]

View attachment 356648

LOL I know you love & respect her highly Liz!

 

[MasterSamurai]

Who's losing what here?
Just stating the obvious OK.
Fair enough we've had an awesome era the last 10 years, have been the envy of all no doubt.
But to say you can't criticize the current trend of giving away too much to gain less, that I don't get!

dont worry, there are plenty of 'how dare you' police around here. I agree with you wholeheartedly, we are smug-easy-types to deal with.

 

[RobHawk]

I must say I am a little perplexed at the generosity towards Carlton by GWS at the trade table.Obtaining former top ten draft picks from Giants for virtually nothing. Marchbank,Pickett,Plowman,Sumner,Phillips and Palmer amongst others.Why did we not enquire about some of those players?

 

[Brishawk]

dont worry, there are plenty of 'how dare you' police around here. I agree with you wholeheartedly, we are smug-easy-types to deal with.

Surely the success we had on the field is adequate compensation for being easy to deal with at the trade table? Possibly the strategy is no longer as beneficial but actions don't occur in isolation. A player might more confidently nominate us if they know we can get deals done. I'd say no other club could have landed both Mitchell and omeara in the same trade period.

 

[OzJohnnie]

Coming at this from another angle, which side trades better than we do? Who, over the last four years, has done better with the talent they have collected at the bargaining table?

By better, I mean the talent that is on their list. Not the draft picks they have collected, but the feet that have put on the pitch.

To help me better understand what you're demanding of the club it would be useful to have an example of what good look likes.

 

[Spursfan]

I must say I am a little perplexed at the generosity towards Carlton by GWS at the trade table.Obtaining former top ten draft picks from Giants for virtually nothing. Marchbank,Pickett,Plowman,Sumner,Phillips and Palmer amongst others.Why did we not enquire about some of those players?

GWS had to dump their salaries I think.. Of those Marchbank will be a really good player, Plowman will be ok (need to see more) maybe Pickett too. Rest are list cloggers

 

[Mr Lizard]

LOL I know you love & respect her highly Liz!

Your teeth gnashing opening post contains inaccuracies. We gave up our first two picks for Lake as well as pick 27.

We traded a washed up Gilham for Jed Anderson, who we ended up trading to North for the Ryan Burton pick.

2012 1st & 2nd round + Gilham traded for Lake + Burton + O'Brien. Oversimplified but near enough.

(and I never said or implied or came close to thinking that I love and respect Caro; I just thought you were a bit off in your criticisms...much like you are in this thread)

 

[VandoHawk]

It's a well known fact that we pay overs to facilitate trades. At the time of the Burgoyne trade it looked like we paid overs. At the Gunston trade it looked like we paid overs for an unproven player. At the Lake trade it looked like we paid overs for a cooked player. Even for Hale and Gibson we gave up recently relatively early second round picks for what seemed to be VFL quality players at the time. Look at how beautifully all those trades worked out. When we identify players that will help our structure we tend to pay what is considered to be 'overs' at the time but a masterstroke later on.

There's also the notion that unproven picks don't guarantee talent even higher up in the draft. In the Burgoyne trade Port Adelaide selected Andrew Moore with the Pick 9 they received. In the Hale trade North selected Aaron Black. In the Lake trade the Dogs selected Hrovat. I'm not saying you get spuds all the time with draft picks, but even some higher picks don't work out. Remember Dowler and Thorp? No one forgets Tambling. So you could make a case that - in order to get in guaranteed talent - the picks are expendable. Especially picks outside the first round which require you to select players who may be diamonds in the rough.

• McEvoy trade: At the time McEvoy was a 23/24 year old ruckman who had developed beautifully at St. Kilda but stagnated the year before. Max Bailey had just retired and we needed a ruck. We were going after Billy Longer (who ironically could be gettable this trade period) but from reports Brisbane were asking an exorbant price for an unproven player (from memory Franklin Comp + Second Round Selection + Savage) for a 9 game ruckman. St Kilda offered us McEvoy for essentially the same price and was the best ruck available at the time. While it's probably true that we paid overs McEvoy did perform on two of the biggest days of his career against Sydney and West Coast. He may look cooked now - and been average throughout the seasons - but he performed when required.

• O'Rourke trade: Pick 2 that was hampered by injuries at GWS. Massive ceiling. It's easy to say in hindsight how much we gave up for him but at the time he was touted as one of the best younger players available and 'better than anyone we could select with that pick' (actually quite from AFL website). It's a pity he hasn't been able to perform anywhere near what he's capable of.

• Trading for Pick 10: Weird trade this one. Didn't think we needed to trade our second round pick along with Pick 21 but perhaps St. Kilda would have been less helpful then. I think we may have thought Pick 10 and maybe a swap of later picks would be enough for O'Meara - I've been told that Gold Coast recruiting manager (Ashcroft?) was content with that. But Cochrane VETO'd the trade due to stupidity. So we had to call in Carlton for a few favours.

Mitchell and Lewis trades were done more for the personal benefits of the player. Lewis was traded at probably slightly unders what he was worth but at his age it's hard to get very high picks. Would have liked Neal-Alex Bullen Mitchell's trade was just a novelty. Might as well have just handed him to West Coast for a packet of crisps.

 

[BOP66]

Your teeth gnashing opening post contains inaccuracies. We gave up our first two picks for Lake as well as pick 27.

We traded a washed up Gilham for Jed Anderson, who we ended up trading to North for the Ryan Burton pick.

2012 1st & 2nd round + Gilham traded for Lake + Burton + O'Brien. Oversimplified but near enough.

(and I never said or implied or came close to thinking that I love and respect Caro; I just thought you were a bit off in your criticisms...much like you are in this thread)

You love & respect her that's your prerogative Liz.
Excuse me if I wasn't accurate to the letter of the law there, with some of the picks mentioned. Your drawing a short bow there I think.

Yes we've done well in some of the picks we've received as compensation ie- 46 we got Stratts for the Kennedy/Mcglynn deal.
Overall though our genorisity at the trade table has been too one-sided.

Oh & BTW don't really care what you think personally Caro's pet & my opinion is just that - my opinion.

Trust me at this rate we'll have to trade out some talent in the near future to bring in high end picks.

 

[BOP66]

It's a well known fact that we pay overs to facilitate trades. At the time of the Burgoyne trade it looked like we paid overs. At the Gunston trade it looked like we paid overs for an unproven player. At the Lake trade it looked like we paid overs for a cooked player. Even for Hale and Gibson we gave up recently relatively early second round picks for what seemed to be VFL quality players at the time. Look at how beautifully all those trades worked out. When we identify players that will help our structure we tend to pay what is considered to be 'overs' at the time but a masterstroke later on.

There's also the notion that unproven picks don't guarantee talent even higher up in the draft. In the Burgoyne trade Port Adelaide selected Andrew Moore with the Pick 9 they received. In the Hale trade North selected Aaron Black. In the Lake trade the Dogs selected Hrovat. I'm not saying you get spuds all the time with draft picks, but even some higher picks don't work out. Remember Dowler and Thorp? No one forgets Tambling. So you could make a case that - in order to get in guaranteed talent - the picks are expendable. Especially picks outside the first round which require you to select players who may be diamonds in the rough.

• McEvoy trade: At the time McEvoy was a 23/24 year old ruckman who had developed beautifully at St. Kilda but stagnated the year before. Max Bailey had just retired and we needed a ruck. We were going after Billy Longer (who ironically could be gettable this trade period) but from reports Brisbane were asking an exorbant price for an unproven player (from memory Franklin Comp + Second Round Selection + Savage) for a 9 game ruckman. St Kilda offered us McEvoy for essentially the same price and was the best ruck available at the time. While it's probably true that we paid overs McEvoy did perform on two of the biggest days of his career against Sydney and West Coast. He may look cooked now - and been average throughout the seasons - but he performed when required.

• O'Rourke trade: Pick 2 that was hampered by injuries at GWS. Massive ceiling. It's easy to say in hindsight how much we gave up for him but at the time he was touted as one of the best younger players available and 'better than anyone we could select with that pick' (actually quite from AFL website). It's a pity he hasn't been able to perform anywhere near what he's capable of.

• Trading for Pick 10: Weird trade this one. Didn't think we needed to trade our second round pick along with Pick 21 but perhaps St. Kilda would have been less helpful then. I think we may have thought Pick 10 and maybe a swap of later picks would be enough for O'Meara - I've been told that Gold Coast recruiting manager (Ashcroft?) was content with that. But Cochrane VETO'd the trade due to stupidity. So we had to call in Carlton for a few favours.

Mitchell and Lewis trades were done more for the personal benefits of the player. Lewis was traded at probably slightly unders what he was worth but at his age it's hard to get very high picks. Would have liked Neal-Alex Bullen Mitchell's trade was just a novelty. Might as well have just handed him to West Coast for a packet of crisps.

Thanks mate for this insight.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Excuse me if I wasn't accurate to the letter of the law there, with some of the picks mentioned.

Teeth gnashing after early season losses, and leaving out half our trades to suit your narrative.

Hawthorn gets bent over at the trade table? Bad call, poorly researched call.

 

[BOP66]

Teeth gnashing after early season losses, and leaving out half our trades to suit your narrative.

Hawthorn gets bent over at the trade table? Bad call, poorly researched call.

Proves it then, you may be her bastard love child. LOL

 

[Mr Lizard]

Trust proves it you may be here bastard love child. LOL

you'll need to translate that for me chief

 

[tige19]

1 thing that frustrates me is the whole "well haven't we had success in the past 8 years, isn't that enough?". Seriously, cmon. I gave the Spurs and Popovich situation as an example, does Pop say "Well we have been in the playoffs 35 out of the last 40 years, we have multiples titles, been Western conference champs a dozen times, isn't that good enough for you fans and for the organisation?"

Yesterday isn't good enough for today in business, last week isn't good enough for tomorrow in football. Yes, we are successful, yes we have a great footy club but that doesn't mean supporters, members and the public can't pick apart our mistakes and offer opinions on solutions whether that be right or wrong.

 

[BOP66]

you'll need to translate that for me chief

Dont know what happened then LIZ... here you go
Proves it then, you may be her bastard love child. LOL

 

[Davo23]

It's a well known fact that we pay overs to facilitate trades. At the time of the Burgoyne trade it looked like we paid overs. At the Gunston trade it looked like we paid overs for an unproven player. At the Lake trade it looked like we paid overs for a cooked player. Even for Hale and Gibson we gave up recently relatively early second round picks for what seemed to be VFL quality players at the time. Look at how beautifully all those trades worked out. When we identify players that will help our structure we tend to pay what is considered to be 'overs' at the time but a masterstroke later on.

There's also the notion that unproven picks don't guarantee talent even higher up in the draft. In the Burgoyne trade Port Adelaide selected Andrew Moore with the Pick 9 they received. In the Hale trade North selected Aaron Black. In the Lake trade the Dogs selected Hrovat. I'm not saying you get spuds all the time with draft picks, but even some higher picks don't work out. Remember Dowler and Thorp? No one forgets Tambling. So you could make a case that - in order to get in guaranteed talent - the picks are expendable. Especially picks outside the first round which require you to select players who may be diamonds in the rough.

• McEvoy trade: At the time McEvoy was a 23/24 year old ruckman who had developed beautifully at St. Kilda but stagnated the year before. Max Bailey had just retired and we needed a ruck. We were going after Billy Longer (who ironically could be gettable this trade period) but from reports Brisbane were asking an exorbant price for an unproven player (from memory Franklin Comp + Second Round Selection + Savage) for a 9 game ruckman. St Kilda offered us McEvoy for essentially the same price and was the best ruck available at the time. While it's probably true that we paid overs McEvoy did perform on two of the biggest days of his career against Sydney and West Coast. He may look cooked now - and been average throughout the seasons - but he performed when required.

• O'Rourke trade: Pick 2 that was hampered by injuries at GWS. Massive ceiling. It's easy to say in hindsight how much we gave up for him but at the time he was touted as one of the best younger players available and 'better than anyone we could select with that pick' (actually quite from AFL website). It's a pity he hasn't been able to perform anywhere near what he's capable of.

• Trading for Pick 10: Weird trade this one. Didn't think we needed to trade our second round pick along with Pick 21 but perhaps St. Kilda would have been less helpful then. I think we may have thought Pick 10 and maybe a swap of later picks would be enough for O'Meara - I've been told that Gold Coast recruiting manager (Ashcroft?) was content with that. But Cochrane VETO'd the trade due to stupidity. So we had to call in Carlton for a few favours.

Mitchell and Lewis trades were done more for the personal benefits of the player. Lewis was traded at probably slightly unders what he was worth but at his age it's hard to get very high picks. Would have liked Neal-Alex Bullen Mitchell's trade was just a novelty. Might as well have just handed him to West Coast for a packet of crisps.

Great post.
I think that's the most rational, sensible articulation I've ever seen on our recent trading on the Forum.

Though you'll never get a job anywhere in the media!

 

[Randy Campbell]

All depends on how much you value draft picks.

 

[Todman]

Maybe the question is which clubs are worth trading with? i.e. trade and get good players, trade and get not so good players. Historically the Hawks have done well with North, Port and the Saints. not so good with GWS, Sydney, Richmond, Carlton.

 

[Hawks1994]

Trading and drafting of players in any professional sport is always a tricky subject to really nail accurately and debates over weather that trade was good or that trade was bad, or this draft pick was wrong and that one was a steal, can go around in circles for forever.

The scouts and/or recruitment staff work extremely hard to provide as detailed and accurate report on any which player they fancy, I think that would be a given yes? Unfortunately, that pesky thing hindsight comes into play when we or others critique these processes and the processes of trading and drafting.

A major factor in this debate is ones own opinion on the subject. One person may feel that the trade/draft selection was poor or paying overs, whilst another feels the trade was even and maybe even got a bargain. To me, it seems like when our staff go to get these deals done, they go in looking to acquire their target by any means.
No-one would go into any sort of deal (financial, assests, sports trading, contracts, whatever) where they feel they are losing majorly, unless I suppose in some circumstances where the decision just has to be made.

If the Hawthorn recruitment staff, coaches, etc. are happy with the deals they have done, both players coming in and going out, then I am happy to trust their decisions

 

[HODGEYROAD]

If we do end up finishing bottom 5 this year then we'd want jaeger to be a top 10 player in the competition to justify what we gave up for him. Its going to hurt terribly this year if we finish bottom 4 and our 1st pick at the draft is just inside the top 40.