Proactive trading?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I know there are a lot of trade threads around but this is more a general club philosophy question than specifically about this trade period.

Previously we have been almost reluctant participants in trade week, only getting involved if a player wants to leave. We have rarely hawked our players around or used them as Groom-style pawns. Our attitude would be well received by the players you'd think, help build a feeling of team unity and loyalty. In theory anyway.

The flipside is that we rarely have a strong trade hand, compared to trading out players who are contracted where the worst result is that we keep them.

Taking this further, what impact does it have on a player/club culture if their club shops them around?

 

[Vader]

What do you mean "Previously". As far as I'm aware there has been no change to the trading policy since Sando took over - it's still the same policy for which Craig was frequently criticised. Yes. we've been more active in trade week since Craig's departure, but only because we've had more players asking for out -
2011 - Armstrong, Maric, Gunston
2012 - Tippett

 

[Elder van Berlo]

What do you mean "Previously". As far as I'm aware there has been no change to the trading policy since Sando took over - it's still the same policy for which Craig was frequently criticised. Yes. we've been more active in trade week since Craig's departure, but only because we've had more players asking for out -
2011 - Armstrong, Maric, Gunston
2012 - Tippett

Appeared to me he was just saying "previously", as in "in the past". Not specifically referring to Craig/Sando, or any other era in particular.

On topic, I think it's an area we can improve on. You should always be looking for areas of your list where you have players who are surplus to requirements, and looking to use good players who you don't necessarily need as pawns to try to improve the areas of your list you need to improve.

For example, we have a string of 3rd tall defenders - Otten, Shaw, L Thompson, Henderson was used there... We should be doing what we can to cash in on one of them and address an area of need (outside mid, back-up ruck, KPD).

 

[SydCrow]

I thought the Crouch, Brown and Jenkins trades last year were pro-active and an improvement

 

[VSTone]

it gives a subtle hint that the player might want to pull their finger out at the next opportunity they get, be that here or there, so i reckon shop them. Otherwise you must believe you have a team that will be able to achieve success and if you don't achieve that success it becomes your head on the chopping block...the old kill or be killed scenario!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What do you mean "Previously". As far as I'm aware there has been no change to the trading policy since Sando took over - it's still the same policy for which Craig was frequently criticised. Yes. we've been more active in trade week since Craig's departure, but only because we've had more players asking for out -
2011 - Armstrong, Maric, Gunston
2012 - Tippett

Last year wasn't the Craig era. And if you actually read the OP there is no criticism.

Can you please get over your Craig criticism phobia and not imagine things that aren't there.

Please delete your post as well as this reply so the topic can be discussed. Or cmndstab / Allefgib if you can do the honours.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I thought the Crouch, Brown and Jenkins trades last year were pro-active and an improvement

Absolutely they were, particularly the Crouch one. I'd throw in the Jacobs one the previous year as another proactive trade, initiated by us. Again a brilliant result.

With both though we parted with a draft pick. There is no 'human face' on a draft pick. Much easier to trade them out and keep it all happy families.

Our actions were actually along the lines of a theory that Crow-mo (RIP) often floated, that you should always trade out your first round pick because they are valued more highly in the AFL club land than their hit rate warrants.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

it gives a subtle hint that the player might want to pull their finger out at the next opportunity they get, be that here or there, so i reckon shop them. Otherwise you must believe you have a team that will be able to achieve success and if you don't achieve that success it becomes your head on the chopping block...the old kill or be killed scenario!

This is why I'm asking the question.

Let's take Ryan Griffen as an example. We want him home so we make a play. We float David Mackay past the Bulldogs. Not interested. So we float Daniel Talia as well. Both Victorian boys, Talia a young KPP united with his brother...

Now, we've probably gone down the path with Mackay and Talia sounding them out about whether they would be receptive to this potential trade scenario. How would they react to this? It is an unknown and would perhaps open a can of worms.

What if the Bulldogs (or Griffen) still say no? He's our marquee player, we're building our midfield around him...

Then the AFC are left with no Griffen plus a disgruntled Mackay and Talia. Are we going to shop them around next season?

Brisbane went on a fire sale a few years ago and were shopping their players around. It didn't go down well at all. A few trades fell through and Bradshaw decided he wanted out anyway if the club didn't want him.

It is a very delicate balance. We can strengthen our trade position by treating our players more like commodities. But what is the cost of doing this?

Is the cost of the attitude of the AFC has displayed the disappointing trade returns: Tippett, Gunston

But is the benefit the sense of club and culture that helps us re-sign Danger, Walker, Sloane in the face of tempting interstate offers?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Righto... first ever quadruple post.

Given that trade time hasn't been a pleasant place the last couple of years, it's worth looking at how some of our competitors are doing it. Particularly Collingwood.

Collingwood identify players they can afford to lose: Leon Davis, Chris Dawes, Sharrod Wellingham. All good players (ok, maybe Dawes is a stretch) but Collingwood understand that you can't keep all your players happy and content, retain all your stars AND make plays at big name recruits all at the same time. Something has to miss out. There is going to be some fall out. Davis and Wellingham were low-balled and chose to leave, Dawes' role taken by a recruit.

"Losing" these three players hasn't made their list much worse (if at all), has freed up cap space and/or given them currency at trade time. The Pies are copping a small loss for a bigger gain.

We haven't historically behaved in this way and for years trumpeted that we didn't overpay our stars as though it was a major cultural positive. Given that all clubs have the same salary cap and a similar number of 1st/2nd year players, that can only mean that our mid-rangers were getting paid more than similar players at other clubs. This attitude seems to have changed in the last few years but I wonder how much.

For us to have more control during trade week, we need to identify some players on our list that:
a) are good players and will generate interest
b) we can afford to lose
c) will have multiple suitors (ie are Victorian)

As harsh as it sounds, we need to low-ball some of the Vics on our list.

They either take the deal (you beauty, win for us) or decide they want to go back home. But it needs to be engineered by us. Gunston and Tippett have seemingly caught us completely on the hop - we have no control of the situation, they head off with our attitude seeming they can go where they want and we'll just get whatever the hell we can in return.

When Collingwood recruited Lynch to play as a tall forward / second ruck, what did they think Dawes would do? They basically drove him out of the club and hey presto there is a buyer waiting armed with a decent pick. Even if the trade fell through, he was still contracted so they couldn't lose. They were in a powerful position. When they were busy shelling out big $$$ to retain Swan, Pendlebury, Beams and Cloke with Wellingham unsigned, what did they think would happen? Hey presto Wellingham doesn't accept his low ball offer and one of his local clubs is there waiting armed with a 1st rounder. It's not quite the same as 'shopping players around' but essentially it is being in control of the situation.

Chris Groom and Sean Wellman are two of the most significant names in our club history but we're talking more than 15 years ago. Don't let the Freo-McLeod jokes fool you - Groom was a gun. Went to Freo and did he knee. Traded to the Kangas and did his knee. Retired. Both very talented players who we could afford to lose. We seemed to have a more cut-throat attitude then. I think it was the Darren Jarman/Hawthorn fiasco that did it - we realised very early it was dog eat dog and we gave as good as we got.

 

[jackster83]

Isn't this basically what we did with Armstrong? Offer him a one year deal on shit $$$, basically encouraging him to look at other options.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Isn't this basically what we did with Armstrong? Offer him a one year deal on shit $$$, basically encouraging him to look at other options.

It probably is, but as a trade strategy it falls down in two of the three categories:

For us to have more control during trade week, we need to identify some players on our list that:
a) are good players and will generate interest
b) we can afford to lose
c) will have multiple suitors (ie are Victorian)

 

[VSTone]

you'd have to imagine a "the door is always open" policy is in play at every club...and every option looked at

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

you'd have to imagine a "the door is always open" policy is in play at every club...and every option looked at

I think the attitude differs greatly from club to club.

Some sit back and see what eventuates. "Make us an offer" or have their trades initiated by their players.

Others seek out opportunities.

 

[headache1]

In regards to Collingwood, not only are they trying to trade Dawes, they've already signed a better replacement for him, albeit a short term one, in Lynch via Free Agency, so anything they get in the trade is effectively a bonus. They're also a shot to sign Young for nothing to replace Wellingham. They've played this draft/free-agency period like a fiddle.

 

[dylan123]

I sort of hope this will come with another year or two being high up on the ladder. I'd say there would be big questions whether some of the players you've mentioned at Collingwood would look as good as they do at other weaker clubs as they do at Collingwood. However, since the side makes most of the players that play look very good it generates plenty of interest in them from other clubs. Collingwood of course don't want to just give these guys away/just throw them openly on the trade market, but instead offer them less than what they could possibly get elsewhere. I believe this helps with their trading bargaining as well since these guys are viewed as "required" players who they're not opening trying to get rid of, thus making teams offer up more than they really should to try and persuade Collingwood into trading with them. Having only really had our first good year in a few seasons, the value of most of our guys to other sides wouldn't be as high I don't believe and doesn't have clubs chasing and willing to give up 'overs' for guys who are boarder line best 22 material. Like I said before, I think with another solid season or two we will probably see this start to happen and hopefully we can make the most of it when it does.

As you mentioned with Brisbane, I wouldn't be too hot on offering our players around trying to get bites from other clubs as it can backfire badly with Brisbane losing their B&F winner of the year along with a long time servant of the club because of this. More importantly, they didn't get a trade done and the following year these guys wanted out and Brisbane didn't get much in return for them (in a way we could look at that with our current situation with Tippett where we looked to see what we could get for him, although prehaps we knew he wanted out at the end of his current contract back then...). I guess at the end of the day, the only players you'd be happy with the club offering up are those they're willing to lose for next to nothing if everything goes wrong and they hold a grudge about it.

When Collingwood recruited Lynch to play as a tall forward / second ruck, what did they think Dawes would do? They basically drove him out of the club and hey presto there is a buyer waiting armed with a decent pick.

On Dawes, I actually thought Lynch coming would have been a good thing for him as it meant he could return to being a full time full forward and Lynch coming in to play that Leigh Brown sort of role we saw them using under Malthouse.

 

[Vader]

It probably is, but as a trade strategy it falls down in two of the three categories:

To be fair, trading Armstrong did land us Johnston. I'm yet to be convinced that Johnston is better than Armstrong, who I didn't rate at all, but at least Johnston fits a need.

 

[VSTone]

I think the attitude differs greatly from club to club.

Some sit back and see what eventuates. "Make us an offer" or have their trades initiated by their players.

Others seek out opportunities.

yep that seems pretty fair, is that a club directive or personnel thing (recruitment managers style) and which is the better way to go? I'm in the seek out opportunities basket...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

To be fair, trading Armstrong did land us Johnston. I'm yet to be convinced that Johnston is better than Armstrong, who I didn't rate at all, but at least Johnston fits a need.

Pretty much this. I thought Armstrong was a pretty decent player but he was permanently stuck on the fringe when he was at the Crows. With the loss of Tippett, the Johnston trade looks even more important. I haven't seen a lot of the guy though. I've heard he's a very good set shot but I don't know how good he is at the contest.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

It is a myth that we haven't been active trade participants. If you look at current squads only the Swans have more players on their list that have come from trades than us.​

​

Lists as at now... Players obtained via trades... these figures do not include free agent transactions...​

​

10 Sydney​

7 Adelaide, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda​

6 Brisbane​

4 Port, Fremantle, West Coast​

3 Richmond, North​

2 GWS, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Bulldogs​

1 Essendon, Geelong​

 

[Vader]

I count 8 - but that might be cheating. I've included both Symes (delisted) and Crouch (yet to be upgraded):
Crouch, Brown, Jenkins, Lynch, Johnston, Jacobs, Tambling, Symes.

What it doesn't include is players selected with draft picks which Adelaide received by way of trading. I'd get all sorts of headaches if I tried to work out those.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

I count 8 - but that might be cheating. I've included both Symes (delisted) and Crouch (yet to be upgraded):
Crouch, Brown, Jenkins, Lynch, Johnston, Jacobs, Tambling, Symes.

What it doesn't include is players selected with draft picks which Adelaide received by way of trading. I'd get all sorts of headaches if I tried to work out those.

Yeah, I had Thompson and excluded Symes and Crouch. Technically, Crouch could either be included or excluded, I guess.

 

[Crows#1]

It's a bit of an indictment on the club that five of seven (eight) were traded in last year.

 

[Vader]

Yeah, I had Thompson and excluded Symes and Crouch. Technically, Crouch could either be included or excluded, I guess.

Forgot Thompson.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

yep that seems pretty fair, is that a club directive or personnel thing (recruitment managers style) and which is the better way to go? I'm in the seek out opportunities basket...

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a downside to proactive trading.

It's one thing to keep an eye out for talent you can bring into your club and to see your current players as possible pawns in the trade game. The downside is the Brisbane scenario, where players being treated as commodities lose their sense of belonging and loyalty to the club. This can undermine what you are trying to achieve in terms of club culture.

What I'm asking is are there some other (better) ways of doing it?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It is a myth that we haven't been active trade participants. If you look at current squads only the Swans have more players on their list that have come from trades than us.​

​

Lists as at now... Players obtained via trades... these figures do not include free agent transactions...​

​

10 Sydney​

7 Adelaide, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda​

6 Brisbane​

4 Port, Fremantle, West Coast​

3 Richmond, North​

2 GWS, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Bulldogs​

1 Essendon, Geelong​

Who cares how many total players there are? Who are the big (or biggish) names we targeted, went after, were prepared to spend up on and got? Very few, because we aren't prepared to part with any good players and until last season trading out first rounders has been frowned upon since Wells/Carey.

A reserves player (Armstrong) leaves and we get a Sydney reserves player in return. That's a plus one? No. It's nothing. As is trading for a St Kilda reserves player (Lynch) to play in our reserves. Or Symes. Or Tambling. They have minimal impact on our fortunes. Players walking out... Maric, Armstrong, Welsh, Gunston, Tippett - who either have minimal currency or have placed us in weak trading position. None of them are examples of us on the front foot getting what we want.

Rather than us all moaning about how Tippett/Gunston have done us wrong, we need to be looking at how the leading clubs position themselves during trade periods, how they generate currency, cap space etc.

We've got part way there - Crouch and Jacobs are significant trades. Parting with picks is one thing. If we're going to land a key difference maker though (a Griffen or Gibbs) we need to up the ante.