Toast Trade Masters

Remove this Banner Ad

So happy with the direction and execution of this years trading.
For years our biggest problem was the quality of our 'B' and 'C' graders ( and perhaps number of them).
What we've achieved here is a collective increase in talent across that middle tier.
This spread of input is key to season long success.
Can't wait to see the new dynamic these guys bring.
Worth mentioning we now have really good depth and injury cover at both ends as well as in the middle.
Were primed for success in 2017
 
johnnomac said:
I'm left wondering if the club has changed its strategy (ie chasing ex-local boys, rather than non-WA 'stars') or this year presented us gettable opportunities?
Academic in the end, I suppose, as we have 4 great new players. It will be interesting to see what the Lloyd/Bond team do next year.
Click to expand...

The Bulldogs get eliminated in the elimination round and the Hawks/Swans win yet again and I reckon we thrash about trying to lure every superstar under the sun.

The Doggies showed that you can taste success with a strong, talented albeit superhero-less side. That pertains more to culture, dedication and calculating management.

So that's why we've gone for good players that want to be there. We have our one superfreak, and that's all we need.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I hope you don't mind Big Animal but I'd like to revisit your post from the Cam McCarthy thread a few weeks back.
BA posted a comparison of pick 3 and pick 7 for the last 7 years. For me there is not a significant amount of difference between the 2 picks in terms of the quality of the player.
Mills probably slightly ahead of Hopper at this stage. Brayshaw and Ahern (if he gets fit) will probably both be reasonable, Billings and Aish probably similar quality, Wines maybe slightly ahead of Plowman etc.
Anyway the point is that downgrading pick 3 to 7 was a very clever approach to getting Cam on our list and the recruitment team would have got an A from me for this one trade alone. The other trades are just a massive bonus.
Therefore, Lloydy, in the words of Juan Antonio Samaranch, "you have presented to the world the best trade period (sic) ever".

2015: Callum Mills or Jacob Hopper
2014: Angus Brayshaw or Paul Ahern
2013: Jack Billings or James Aish
2012: Lachie Plowman or Ollie Wines
2011: Dom Tyson or Nick Haynes
2010: Sam Day or Josh Caddy
2009: Dustin Martin or Brad Sheppard
 
Is it too early to call for a humble pie eating competition from all those MANY posters who have lambasted the Lloyd and Bond show for the past few seasons? You know who you are, get in here now!;)
 
Tayl0r said:
I think the success needs to be reviewed at the end of next season.
Click to expand...
We have got all the pieces, let's hope the coaches can put it together.
ikea-instructions.jpg

(Insert Ikea instruction guide here)
 
Last edited:
This trade week is a year in the making. I am hoping/expecting that Lyon and every other part of the machine has put the same amount of prep into next season.
 
Every alternate day run 10km should be ready to go.
 
Tayl0r said:
When Mundy was returning from his ankle injury he claimed to be running 16km a day to try and prove his fitness.
Click to expand...
Then everybody should either run half Marathon everyday or go full marathon altenate day.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Looks pretty decent still I prefer to wait until a few recruits start firing. When Bennell does as well we probably can finally say for the first time in history we are able to do a good trade.

But like already that we haven't sold the house.
 
So I've looked through how all the other clubs faired during the trade period. I have no idea how anyone claiming to be unbiased couldn't have us the winner overall of the trade period. Or am I just being biased?

We started the period with picks 3, 43, 61, 79, 97...

And finished with picks 7, 35, 40, 71, 79, 97... (our 3rd rounder became a 2nd and we added an extra second rounder)

So we have a stronger hand at this year's draft than we started with even though we gained four players that fill some important gaps on our list. 1 quality young KPF, 1 quality young KPD, a quality attacking outside mid, and a solid 3rd KPF. And none of them were freebie veterans at the end of their careers (with only 1-3 years left). All of them are 21-23 with their prime years still to come.

All we spent to get the job done was some minor pick downgrades on #3 & #61, our future 2nd, and lost Mayne (a general forward) to FA. And we even got a future 4th back that should be a pretty early one.

The bookies have halved our odds to win the flag and now fully expect us to make the finals (from 3rd bottom this year). As the big movers we probably forced Nathan Schmuck's hand to erase his automated 'C-' rating and replace with an 'A'. But apparently it was still not good enough to be BOG. I didn't understand so had a look at the other contenders during trade period:

St Kilda - did a number on desperate Hawthorn by getting their future 1st but they spent their future 2nd and their pick 10 meaning their first pick this year is now only 23 (a 2nd rounder). Added Steele (an average mid/fwd) and N.Brown (a solid but aging KPD)... they are regarded by plenty as the clear trade week winners worthy of an 'A+' rating apparently. Other than upgrading a future 2nd into a 1st what am I missing that was so amazing?

West Coast - poached Sam Mitchell for a cheeky final year of his career (power to them), and an injury prone Vardy as ruck backup for injured rucks. Cost them nothing and might make their midfield slightly better (but even slower) for a year but are they serious contenders next year without Nic Nat? Worth an 'A' apparently and Travis King has them ahead of us :huh:

Melbourne - similar to West Coast but with Lewis and maybe an extra year or two out of him. Hibberd cost them market rate and they did little else meaning they now go in to the draft starting at #47! How you can head in to a draft period like that and get an 'A' for your trade period? Makes no sense to me.

GWS - ended trade period with 9000 picks (give or take) from trading out a similar number of players, many for peanuts (to Carlton). Watching them spend their picks like candy to get pick #2 and then Deledio only reminds us of the ridiculous plastic monster the AFL has created. Like a generous billionaire tipping a taxi driver, they don't even blink whilst discarding players they took with previous first rounders. A worthy 'A', just like they will be a worthy 'premiership winner' when they 'win' their first sometime over the next year or three.

Brisbane - lost a quality player in Pearce Hanley but got equal quality back with Jack Frost (lol - no, not being serious). They improved their picks with an extra 2nd this year, and upgraded their future 2nd to a 1st (although their future 2nd will almost be a 1st anyway). I don't see how they gained anything worthy of an 'A' rating - weren't terrible but had far from a great trade period.

I hate the fact that I feel I need to have a whinge about the media but just once I'd love to read some unbiased journalism when it comes to the Fremantle Dockers. We contribute our share to the millions in revenue, surely the AFL can use some of that to replace some of these existing hacks with half decent journalists?
 
wayToGo_ said:
So I've looked through how all the other clubs faired during the trade period. I have no idea how anyone claiming to be unbiased couldn't have us the winner overall of the trade period. Or am I just being biased?

We started the period with picks 3, 43, 61, 79, 97...

And finished with picks 7, 35, 40, 71, 79, 97... (our 3rd rounder became a 2nd and we added an extra second rounder)

So we have a stronger hand at this year's draft than we started with even though we gained four players that fill some important gaps on our list. 1 quality young KPF, 1 quality young KPD, a quality attacking outside mid, and a solid 3rd KPF. And none of them were freebie veterans at the end of their careers (with only 1-3 years left). All of them are 21-23 with their prime years still to come.

All we spent to get the job done was some minor pick downgrades on #3 & #61, our future 2nd, and lost Mayne (a general forward) to FA. And we even got a future 4th back that should be a pretty early one.

The bookies have halved our odds to win the flag and now fully expect us to make the finals (from 3rd bottom this year). As the big movers we probably forced Nathan Schmuck's hand to erase his automated 'C-' rating and replace with an 'A'. But apparently it was still not good enough to be BOG. I didn't understand so had a look at the other contenders during trade period:

St Kilda - did a number on desperate Hawthorn by getting their future 1st but they spent their future 2nd and their pick 10 meaning their first pick this year is now only 23 (a 2nd rounder). Added Steele (an average mid/fwd) and N.Brown (a solid but aging KPD)... they are regarded by plenty as the clear trade week winners worthy of an 'A+' rating apparently. Other than upgrading a future 2nd into a 1st what am I missing that was so amazing?

West Coast - poached Sam Mitchell for a cheeky final year of his career (power to them), and an injury prone Vardy as ruck backup for injured rucks. Cost them nothing and might make their midfield slightly better (but even slower) for a year but are they serious contenders next year without Nic Nat? Worth an 'A' apparently and Travis King has them ahead of us :huh:

Melbourne - similar to West Coast but with Lewis and maybe an extra year or two out of him. Hibberd cost them market rate and they did little else meaning they now go in to the draft starting at #47! How you can head in to a draft period like that and get an 'A' for your trade period? Makes no sense to me.

GWS - ended trade period with 9000 picks (give or take) from trading out a similar number of players, many for peanuts (to Carlton). Watching them spend their picks like candy to get pick #2 and then Deledio only reminds us of the ridiculous plastic monster the AFL has created. Like a generous billionaire tipping a taxi driver, they don't even blink whilst discarding players they took with previous first rounders. A worthy 'A', just like they will be a worthy 'premiership winner' when they 'win' their first sometime over the next year or three.

Brisbane - lost a quality player in Pearce Hanley but got equal quality back with Jack Frost (lol - no, not being serious). They improved their picks with an extra 2nd this year, and upgraded their future 2nd to a 1st (although their future 2nd will almost be a 1st anyway). I don't see how they gained anything worthy of an 'A' rating - weren't terrible but had far from a great trade period.

I hate the fact that I feel I need to have a whinge about the media but just once I'd love to read some unbiased journalism when it comes to the Fremantle Dockers. We contribute our share to the millions in revenue, surely the AFL can use some of that to replace some of these existing hacks with half decent journalists?
Click to expand...
Who cares what they think mate.

The proof will be in the pudding when we're carving up the competition with our speed. 2016 was an anomaly and 2017 will be the start of a new era. Freo will be pushing into the 8 and the collective media will be licking the egg off their faces.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
wayToGo_ said:
GWS - ended trade period with 9000 picks (give or take) from trading out a similar number of players, many for peanuts (to Carlton). Watching them spend their picks like candy to get pick #2 and then Deledio only reminds us of the ridiculous plastic monster the AFL has created. Like a generous billionaire tipping a taxi driver, they don't even blink whilst discarding players they took with previous first rounders. A worthy 'A', just like they will be a worthy 'premiership winner' when they 'win' their first sometime over the next year or three.
Click to expand...

That is sensational writing mate. Love the last line especially.
 
wayToGo_ said:
So I've looked through how all the other clubs faired during the trade period. I have no idea how anyone claiming to be unbiased couldn't have us the winner overall of the trade period. Or am I just being biased?

We started the period with picks 3, 43, 61, 79, 97...

And finished with picks 7, 35, 40, 71, 79, 97... (our 3rd rounder became a 2nd and we added an extra second rounder)

So we have a stronger hand at this year's draft than we started with even though we gained four players that fill some important gaps on our list. 1 quality young KPF, 1 quality young KPD, a quality attacking outside mid, and a solid 3rd KPF. And none of them were freebie veterans at the end of their careers (with only 1-3 years left). All of them are 21-23 with their prime years still to come.

All we spent to get the job done was some minor pick downgrades on #3 & #61, our future 2nd, and lost Mayne (a general forward) to FA. And we even got a future 4th back that should be a pretty early one.

The bookies have halved our odds to win the flag and now fully expect us to make the finals (from 3rd bottom this year). As the big movers we probably forced Nathan Schmuck's hand to erase his automated 'C-' rating and replace with an 'A'. But apparently it was still not good enough to be BOG. I didn't understand so had a look at the other contenders during trade period:

St Kilda - did a number on desperate Hawthorn by getting their future 1st but they spent their future 2nd and their pick 10 meaning their first pick this year is now only 23 (a 2nd rounder). Added Steele (an average mid/fwd) and N.Brown (a solid but aging KPD)... they are regarded by plenty as the clear trade week winners worthy of an 'A+' rating apparently. Other than upgrading a future 2nd into a 1st what am I missing that was so amazing?

West Coast - poached Sam Mitchell for a cheeky final year of his career (power to them), and an injury prone Vardy as ruck backup for injured rucks. Cost them nothing and might make their midfield slightly better (but even slower) for a year but are they serious contenders next year without Nic Nat? Worth an 'A' apparently and Travis King has them ahead of us :huh:

Melbourne - similar to West Coast but with Lewis and maybe an extra year or two out of him. Hibberd cost them market rate and they did little else meaning they now go in to the draft starting at #47! How you can head in to a draft period like that and get an 'A' for your trade period? Makes no sense to me.

GWS - ended trade period with 9000 picks (give or take) from trading out a similar number of players, many for peanuts (to Carlton). Watching them spend their picks like candy to get pick #2 and then Deledio only reminds us of the ridiculous plastic monster the AFL has created. Like a generous billionaire tipping a taxi driver, they don't even blink whilst discarding players they took with previous first rounders. A worthy 'A', just like they will be a worthy 'premiership winner' when they 'win' their first sometime over the next year or three.

Brisbane - lost a quality player in Pearce Hanley but got equal quality back with Jack Frost (lol - no, not being serious). They improved their picks with an extra 2nd this year, and upgraded their future 2nd to a 1st (although their future 2nd will almost be a 1st anyway). I don't see how they gained anything worthy of an 'A' rating - weren't terrible but had far from a great trade period.

I hate the fact that I feel I need to have a whinge about the media but just once I'd love to read some unbiased journalism when it comes to the Fremantle Dockers. We contribute our share to the millions in revenue, surely the AFL can use some of that to replace some of these existing hacks with half decent journalists?
Click to expand...
I like what St Kilda did. They are benefiting from the continued development of young talent they've recruited over the past three/four years and have set themselves up nicely to bring in KPP's in next year's draft when they can expect the likes of Riewoldt, Fisher, Dempster etc. to retire and/or land a free agent to add the icing to their list. And they pulled Hawthorn's pants down.

Agreed, we didn't get top billing according to the media, but who cares? I'd rather we went under the radar and surprised the competition than yahooing about how great we did only to finish 16th again next season. Better to under promise and over deliver.
 
Tayl0r said:
I still expect us to win a final before St Kilda do.

They are so deep into a rebuild that for us to bounce after one season will be so sweet.
Click to expand...
Yes. But really only want to bounce with the opportunity for sustainability, which I am fairly confident about depending on Fyfe and Bennell. Geelong seemed to be engineering a nice little reload, but I cannot see it sustaining.
 
theGav56 said:
Yes. But really only want to bounce with the opportunity for sustainability, which I am fairly confident about depending on Fyfe and Bennell. Geelong seemed to be engineering a nice little reload, but I cannot see it sustaining.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think Geelong are in more trouble than North, i dont think I've ever seen a top 4 team really more on two players than Geelong at the moment. They already lacked depth and now they have lost Enright, Bartel, Caddy, Kersten, Vardy and got Touhy for it. They are a couple of injuries away next year from plummeting. They also have no good young players coming through (debates still out on Cockatoo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gimme the Fyfe
Game tickets/Resale/Trade
Replies
5
Views
314
freo_leo29
freo_leo29
apuchar
Strategy WE MUST TRADE EVERYONE
Replies
11
Views
917
Deathly
Deathly
s_wd6
WE MUST TRADE RYAN
Replies
14
Views
837
Big Animal
Big Animal
freo1997
WE MUST TRADE DARCY
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
5K
freo1997
freo1997
go_the_dockers
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets
180 181 182 183 184
Replies
5K
Views
228K
Deathly
Deathly
serial_thrilla
WE MUST TRADE PETER BELL
Replies
7
Views
895
BigRang
BigRang
Freo Big Fella
WE MUST TRADE BAILEY BANFIELD
Replies
19
Views
1K
Purple Jesus
Purple Jesus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top