Proactive trading?

[Danoz]

I have a good idea of how not to do it. Feed info on the clubs thoughts and movements to a poster on a public domain so opposition list management teams can peruse what cards you are holding at all times, knowing that the presented front is truly that, a front.

I think I just fell onto AIOF's way of thinking

 

[Tex200]

May be old ground but it is worth looking at the whole trading for a big fish issue and why we cant do it. I think we face challenges of who and what our city is. Say what you like but the reality is adelaide is not a popular destination to choose. Lots of reasons that have been analysed ad nauseum.

This is supported by the fact we do not land big trade targets. As an example does anyone beloeve we could land buddy as a FA. We might have the money, the team success etc etc. But he wont come to adelaide. We know it.

I believe we now need to be in the business of working draft picks. We need to be scouring the country for good kids who have no choice but to come to Adelaide. Rendell has said from day 1 that Paddy is a 200 game player...and he will be. Right kid, get them over and they will grow into the city.

Crouch is the template.

We can top up with trades to fill gaps here and there. But let's get some honesty and work around the disadvantages.

 

[Danoz]

I guess the main problem with getting that big fish is convincing him to come to or back to Adelaide. There aren't a lot of people that move away from Adelaide that say they hate Adelaide. The problem is that other cities offer a lot more, especially to 20-30 year olds. I've heard mentioned on here numerous times that its highly unlikely we'll ever get a Griffin, Gibbs or Trengove back to Adelaide. The reasons being 1. they are loyal and supportive to the clubs that have given them the opportunity to play AFL; 2. happy living elsewhere as the new city offers more.

We are much more likely to keep the likes of Sloane, Danger and Crouch, simply because we gave them that opportunity to play footy, and they like being here.

Rather than landing that big fish, should we be looking more at landing the higher draft picks, and looking for the guys like Patty, Rory and Brad. I'm not so sure about Rory, but Brad is from country Vic, Patty is from nearby Geelong, Tex is from Broken Hill. KT being from Glamour GC and Gunston from Melbourne City, have already experienced what living in a city that offers more than Adelaide is like.

Guess my point is, focus on the draft rather than trading for big fish, and get our hands on the country and SA boys.

 

[Tex200]

Danoz

Yes thats exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Danoz]

HA, serves me right for skim reading We're on the same page Pete.

 

[Allefgib]

This is all about Dougie isn't it Carl. Come on.. fess up

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This is all about Dougie isn't it Carl. Come on.. fess up

Well maybe

Certainly about identifying our Wellingham's

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

May be old ground but it is worth looking at the whole trading for a big fish issue and why we cant do it. I think we face challenges of who and what our city is. Say what you like but the reality is adelaide is not a popular destination to choose. Lots of reasons that have been analysed ad nauseum.

This is supported by the fact we do not land big trade targets. As an example does anyone beloeve we could land buddy as a FA. We might have the money, the team success etc etc. But he wont come to adelaide. We know it.

I believe we now need to be in the business of working draft picks. We need to be scouring the country for good kids who have no choice but to come to Adelaide. Rendell has said from day 1 that Paddy is a 200 game player...and he will be. Right kid, get them over and they will grow into the city.

Crouch is the template.

We can top up with trades to fill gaps here and there. But let's get some honesty and work around the disadvantages.

I guess the main problem with getting that big fish is convincing him to come to or back to Adelaide. There aren't a lot of people that move away from Adelaide that say they hate Adelaide. The problem is that other cities offer a lot more, especially to 20-30 year olds. I've heard mentioned on here numerous times that its highly unlikely we'll ever get a Griffin, Gibbs or Trengove back to Adelaide. The reasons being 1. they are loyal and supportive to the clubs that have given them the opportunity to play AFL; 2. happy living elsewhere as the new city offers more.

We are much more likely to keep the likes of Sloane, Danger and Crouch, simply because we gave them that opportunity to play footy, and they like being here.

Rather than landing that big fish, should we be looking more at landing the higher draft picks, and looking for the guys like Patty, Rory and Brad. I'm not so sure about Rory, but Brad is from country Vic, Patty is from nearby Geelong, Tex is from Broken Hill. KT being from Glamour GC and Gunston from Melbourne City, have already experienced what living in a city that offers more than Adelaide is like.

Guess my point is, focus on the draft rather than trading for big fish, and get our h

ands on the country and SA boys.

I don't mind the logic guys. It is an approach to make us better and a 'point of difference' or strategy that is a realistic option. And one we haven't tried before (except Crouch).

I don't totally agree though. We 'never land a big(ish) trade target, except when we do - Jarman, Carey, Thompson... How many quality players have we been prepared to part with? How many times have we traded to get ourselves a top 10 pick to then use as currency? How many big $ offers have we made to expatriate targets?

I would suggest that our ability to make meaningful trades is in direct correlation to our preparedness to trade away assets of value. The happy families syndrome.

 

[Tex200]

Carl with respect I think your puttung cart before horse.

Before you posture with trading out options we must have identified the trading in optiin. We have to convince player A to come, then we can trade for them. Tippett. and jack were approached and agreed to leave a long time before the trade.

We just can't get peopke to live in Adelaide unless they are forced here in draft, return.g home, or their career has no further option. That's our challenge.

 

[Danoz]

I don't mind the logic guys. It is an approach to make us better and a 'point of difference' or strategy that is a realistic option. And one we haven't tried before (except Crouch).

I don't totally agree though. We 'never land a big(ish) trade target, except when we do - Jarman, Carey, Thompson...

All, what 8 + years ago? Jacobs was a good get. Walker would've been a whole lot better than Tambling, but that's only in hindsight. Other than those guys, nobody we've picked up have been big fish, and Jacobs and Tambling are not really big guns anyway.

How many quality players have we been prepared to part with? How many times have we traded to get ourselves a top 10 pick to then use as currency? How many big $ offers have we made to expatriate targets?

Forgive me for going down this path, but more looking at the era rather than the person, Craigy's time seemed to have a "we'd rather develop our own, and trust our recruitment rather than move in a big fish" attitude. In reality, how much quality do we really have, that other teams may be interested in? I know we have our favourites that we want to shop around, but how much currency would a Douglas have in reality? Do we have any players we genuinely could afford to lose, who would get us a top 10 draft pick? I would say our top ten players are not guys we could afford to lose.

I would suggest that our ability to make meaningful trades is in direct correlation to our preparedness to trade away assets of value. The happy families syndrome.

And then when we do lose players of value (Tippett, Gunston, I wouldn't include Maric, as he wasn't a first 22 player for us when he left) we get squat (assuming here) back.

Another problem is that we consistently finish higher up the ladder, and so don't have high draft picks to trade for top quality players. Not many teams are interested in getting an average player plus an average pick for a top quality player, see current events.

 

[PyroCrow]

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

Just a few thoughts. Always make sure you only use the minimum number of picks possible for the ND, trade out any excess picks that are accumulated for proven AFL talent. Trade out 2nd and 3rd rounders whenever possible. Young rookie players who aren't on senior lists yet can be better value than late draft picks in the ND (e.g. Jenkins last year).

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl with respect I think your puttung cart before horse.

Before you posture with trading out options we must have identified the trading in optiin. We have to convince player A to come, then we can trade for them. Tippett. and jack were approached and agreed to leave a long time before the trade.

We just can't get peopke to live in Adelaide unless they are forced here in draft, return.g home, or their career has no further option. That's our challenge.

It goes hand in hand - you can't have one without the other.

There is no point identifying high quality trade targets if we aren't going to trade .away quality picks/players and generate cap space.

I get the impression that we wouldn't target a Gibbs because we know we wouldn't be prepared to do what it would take to get him here.

 

[Vader]

I don't mind the logic guys. It is an approach to make us better and a 'point of difference' or strategy that is a realistic option. And one we haven't tried before (except Crouch).

I don't totally agree though. We 'never land a big(ish) trade target, except when we do - Jarman, Carey, Thompson... How many quality players have we been prepared to part with? How many times have we traded to get ourselves a top 10 pick to then use as currency? How many big $ offers have we made to expatriate targets?

I would suggest that our ability to make meaningful trades is in direct correlation to our preparedness to trade away assets of value. The happy families syndrome.

Of the 3 trades you mentioned there, the Jarman trade is the only one which could be regarded as pro-active. In trading for Jarman we gave up a promising young defender (Wellman). I have no recollection as to whether or not he asked to be traded, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he didn't.

The Carey & Thompson trades were both built around players who wanted to go home - Kane Johnson and Tyson Stenglein. Without these players, neither of the Carey & Thompson trades go through. Neither of these trades were about pushing out mid-range talent in order to bring in guns, they were about trading guns who wanted to go home for guns who wanted to come home.

 

[Vader]

It goes hand in hand - you can't have one without the other.

There is no point identifying high quality trade targets if we aren't going to trade .away quality picks/players and generate cap space.

I get the impression that we wouldn't target a Gibbs because we know we wouldn't be prepared to do what it would take to get him here.

Or because Gibbs isn't worth what we'd have to give up in order to get him? Perhaps not the best example you could have used.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Or because Gibbs isn't worth what we'd have to give up in order to get him? Perhaps not the best example you could have used.

You understand what an example is don't you?

Don't bother haggling specifics because it deflective off topic pap.

Again, please delete your post so that the topic can be discussed.

 

[Danoz]

Another big problem with trading is that often what a player is worth to a club, is not the same as what said player would be worth in an open market.

Take Gumbleton for example. Essendon has put 6 years into him, picked him up with a high draft pick, spent LOTS of medical money on him. Is worth a lot more to Ess than than what most clubs would be willing to pay for him.

Opposite with Dawes. Seemingly surplus to Collingwood's needs, now with Lynch, he is worth a lot more to Melbourne, in need of another strong forward than to Collingwood, and so were willing to pay WAY overs to get him.

Or because Gibbs isn't worth what we'd have to give up in order to get him? Perhaps not the best example you could have used.

Again, Gibbs is worth more to Carlton, number one pick, 100 games, but under performing so other teams would not be willing to pay as much for him as Carlton (assuming what they asked for was fair) would want for him.

Tippett I think is an interesting case. Everyone seems to think his value is less than what clubs are willing to pay for him, and Sydney's trade proposals seem to be in line with this, what they are offering to pay him, however, does not reflect this.

 

[Vader]

So far you've come up with 4 examples, only 1 of which has anything approaching validity. It seems like your topic is floundering because it's a load of rubbish, not because of what I've posted. All I've done is pointed out some fairly obvious gaps in a theory which has more holes than a sieve.

 

[Danoz]

If you're going to trade in quality, generally you need to trade out something of similar quality.

Jarman in Wellman out
Thompson in Stenglein out
Carey in Johnson out

You can't say Gibbs is a bad example, as we don't know what would happen in a trade with him involved.

 

[Tex200]

It goes hand in hand - you can't have one without the other.

There is no point identifying high quality trade targets if we aren't going to trade .away quality picks/players and generate cap space.

I get the impression that we wouldn't target a Gibbs because we know we wouldn't be prepared to do what it would take to get him here.

I think gibbs is a perfect example.

Had we got him as a f/s pick, he would have played 200 games and happy in adel city environment.

However once exposed to melb lifestyle we will never get him back. We could wait until he is out of contract and try the same as sydney have done with tippett. Guaranteed he won't leave Carlton or melb. We might have the money, the trade deal, but it won't help.

 

[Bacon8]

Just to help with understanding why we can't trade in big fish, can you please list the big fish that have moved in the past 5 years (excluding free agency).

That way, we can retroactively look at what we could've done to attract these players?

I'll start my list of big fish moves in the last 5 years.

C Judd.


I can't think of any others.

 

[Bacon8]

I'm confident of Gibbs returning for the 2015 season, under RFA rules.

 

[Crowked]

One thing maybe we should be considering given the Tippet and Gunston problems, is trading highly rated players who wont commit to us before the year their contract expires. Should we be recontracting 12 months ahead of their expiry, and considering trading them if they dont want to do it ahead of time? I know not everyone is going to screw us over like Tippet and Gunston, but it is likely to happen again if we let contracts expire.

 

[fairfooty]

Recruitment 101 says perceived big city to little city moves are always going to be difficult. In the corporate world these difficulties are common (eg getting employees to move to regional areas, unless they pay big money eg mining) Generally little city to big, city is no problem. So rather than COL allowances to teams like Sydney, attraction allowances should be paid to teams like Adelaide, Port (yes Port), and possibly to a lesser degree Perth and Brisbane (a two tier system or variation on the theme).

Treating players as commodities or as pawns on a chessboard in a trade game is the absolutely the worst thing you can do. And the one thing I like about our club is we don't do this. I'm not saying we don't make tough decisions based on fit and performance - of course we do. But we don't treat people as expendable. And that's what helps create the culture that makes Patty and Rory decide to stay - they sure aren't here for the money. So what makes them stay? find out and do it again/ more as a retention strategy.

So then what should our recruiting strategy be?

1. Forget trying to entice kids from Melbourne Sydney Brisbane or Perth or at least reduce our apparent emphasis on it They are unlikely to come to Adelaide or stay if they do.
2. Target Tassie, the NT, places like Broken Hill, country Victoria and country WA and offer opportunities to promising kids they are unlikely to get elsewhere.
3. Set up an alliance network of feeder clubs who have produced people like Tex - make it a genuine partnership with coaching clinics, player experience at the Crows, facility use etc etc etc. ( the idea of a ressies side won't work IMO for a multitude of reasons unless it forms part of a greater Crows feeder network).
4. Assess kids wholistically to reduce the 'homesick' 'go home' factor. Assess the personal values and 'fit' as well as the footy skills and potential and avoid kids and families who are excessively driven by money and status.
5. Lastly, trade carefully using the same criteria to fill urgent gaps.

Look I'm sure this isn't news. And it's certainly not rocket science. But from the outside looking it looks like an area we could improve on - recruitment strategy, tactics and assessment.

The next Tex is out there - we just have to find him before the other eastern states clubs do.

 

[Tex200]

Like your thinking fairfooty.

To relate that back to OP we need to couple that with s trading strategy that delivers us a consistent look at top 20 draft picks. This is where hard trading decisions need to be made.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So far you've come up with 4 examples, only 1 of which has anything approaching validity. It seems like your topic is floundering because it's a load of rubbish, not because of what I've posted. All I've done is pointed out some fairly obvious gaps in a theory which has more holes than a sieve.

You dimwit.

That there are only a handful of examples is not a major positive regarding our previous actions, nor is it in any way a 'gap' in the theory that we should instigate more trades.

In fact it is the exact opposite.

Please stop posting. You're adding nothing.