Trade week - the wash-up thread

[WCE_phil]

Looking forward to 2011, the following players are out of contract and should be gawnnnn:

-Nicko
-Lynch
-Hansen
-Mcginnihack
-Bones
-Embley

Can't wait.

AFAIK Mcginnity signed a new 2 year deal in the middle of this season. The others will all be uncontracted.

 

[Pat_Footy]

Yer actively selling our players for d picks to help our rebuild. Would of definitely traded kerr, lynch, and rosa. if it was up to me for the highest picks available. Could have easily gotten 1 first, 1 second and a third rounder for those players.

WC may have kept Rosa and Lynch because next year a lot of players are going to be delisted unless some have remarkable seasons. Already hardly any players have 100+ games and that's essential.

Trading one or both of Kerr and Cox could have set the Eagles up in this draft. But, it might also have had a negative impact on the club seeing as they both wanted to stay. I can just imagine another Brisbane exodus happening.

 

[Keys]

I would have traded Ebert to Port Adelaide for their first rounder or worked out a three way trade with them an another club. I would have waited for a better pick for McKinley, work harder to trade Spangher and traded for Josh Hill (who would have come this way as Hawthorn couldn't offer a trade). I would have shopped Kerr around and I would have quizzed Gold Coast on a trade for one of their listed players.

Ebert is more valuable to us than pick 16 IMO and we don't even know if that offer was on the table from Port in any case.

You would still be waiting for a better pick for McKinley and in any case we weren't going to use it anyway. He is arguably a better player than pick 86 would suggest but in the absence of anyone other than North having an interest in him we didn't have many options.

Given that we were prepared to trade McKinley for a pick we weren't going to use a club could have offered us a 7th round pick for Spangher and we would have taken it. Quite simply, no one wanted him so it wouldn't matter how we tried to offload him.

If we traded for Josh Hill we wouldn't have been in a position to use pick 28. Not sure if Hill was worth that.

I wonder what we might have got for Kerr - probably not a top 10 draft pick, maybe something in the top 20. Wouldn't have got his true value. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Scooter#10]

I would have traded Ebert to Port Adelaide for their first rounder or worked out a three way trade with them an another club. I would have waited for a better pick for McKinley, work harder to trade Spangher and traded for Josh Hill (who would have come this way as Hawthorn couldn't offer a trade). I would have shopped Kerr around and I would have quizzed Gold Coast on a trade for one of their listed players.

Hills manager, Peter Lenton, was on trade week radio and said that Hill did not want to return home to WA at all. He wanted to stay in Victoria. Bit hard to lure someone over who has no desire to

 

[Patron]

Good post, despite what others say I rate this guy's thoughts.

He does focus too much on the negative. But does have good ideas and i do agree with the majority of what he says the majority of the time.

I am disappointed we didn't do anything with kerr, lynch, spangher, mckinley, in trade week. Rosa and ebert as well would have been good to trade away as they are at peak value and could easily become surplus to requirements in the future.

And yes i know we traded mckinley however i dont think trading him for a pick we weren't going to use is considered doing something.

 

[r dub 19]

AFAIK Mcginnity signed a new 2 year deal in the middle of this season. The others will all be uncontracted.

FFS.

 

[WCErevival]

People saying trade out Kerr, if you think about it, he hasnt really played at all in the last 3 years. If he comes back and plays 22 games next year it is the equivelent of trading in an 'A' grade 26 year old midfielder for nothing.

We would of got nothing for Lynch either.

 

[footballfreak]

Trade week was basically the week to get rid of our deadwood. I'm annoyed we still kept some of our premiership players who have regressed over the years.

History shows that players who are recruited over this time aren't that great anyway. eg. Freo's active trading

The time to judge our recruiting is after we draft the next set of youngsters.

 

[Geoffe_Miles]

Firstly, Worsfold was in Broome from at least Wednesday of last week so it's fair to say he wasn't all that involved in trade week and was removed from the process.

Secondly, if Worsfold was trying to look after himself in the short term wouldn't he be doing what you suggested in the first part of your post and trying to shake out players at other clubs to trade in rather than keeping his high draft picks since they are the most likely option of building our list for the long term.

You want us to go after established players but want the coach to be removed from the process so that he doesn't make decisions that will help in the short term to prolong his career.

I didn't say established players, i said quality players. A quality player might a good young prospect at another club who has 20 games under his belt and is not necessarily established.

It doesn't matter what his physical location during trade week was. We are talking about his power to veto the trading out of players on the list. For example,what if we could have landed Mitch Clarke by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or another high draft pick by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or say pick 20 or quality 19 year old from another club by trading out other experienced players on the list (i won't name which players i would look to trade as it will derail the thread).

The draft picks you talk about are not of any help to Worsfold or any othe coach in his position in the next 12 months. Trading 25-30 year olds for 17-20 year olds are not going to help him win 8-10 games he needs to next year. So to answer your question, no he doesn't want picks and is not concerned with long term buidling. You can only worry about buidling a team when your own survival in the long term is assured.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Trade week was basically the week to get rid of our deadwood. I'm annoyed we still kept some of our premiership players who have regressed over the years.

Who of our regressing premiership players would have had the slightest bit of currency? Embley? Lynch? Hansen?

You could make the argument for Kerr, but he's still our #1 midfielder and frankly I'd rather have him back on the park than have a pick in the late teens, which is about all we'd get for him at most.

 

[Underdog]

I didn't say established players, i said quality players. A quality player might a good young prospect at another club who has 20 games under his belt and is not necessarily established.

It doesn't matter what his physical location during trade week was. We are talking about his power to veto the trading out of players on the list. For example,what if we could have landed Mitch Clarke by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or another high draft pick by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or say pick 20 or quality 19 year old from another club by trading out other experienced players on the list (i won't name which players i would look to trade as it will derail the thread).

You have no idea whatsoever what is or isn't his role during trade week.

 

[Jafa]

So to answer your question, no he doesn't want picks and is not concerned with long term buidling. You can only worry about buidling a team when your own survival in the long term is assured.

Sounds like there might be a bit of storytelling here. Could be true - probably bullshit.



Someone will believe it though

 

[Geoffe_Miles]

Was there any suggestion that Port would have offered up their first round pick for Ebert?
I expect West Coast asked the other clubs if they where up for anything better and got no interest on Mckinley - so they went with the offer in hand.
Are you sure Hill would have come this way or are you making that one up.
I assume Kerr would have given you his blessing before you shopped him around. If he wanted to go - he would have been on the table (or at the very least we would have heard about it).

Lets face it - alot of what was on offer wasn't particulary inspiring. You have a hard on for Freo at the moment and yet they have another Croadesque trade on their hands with Tarrant. You cracked the shits earlier in the week over Krakouer and completely glossed over it when it was pointed out that to you that in order to get him we would have paid a fair penny for it.

If we had been out there with the cheque book from months ago who knows which players we may have been able to tempt. What you are saying is that what was put on the block by other clubs this week wasn't inspiring. But thats not to say we couldn't have gotten some other players not mentioned this week interested if we had been out there trying to drum something up.

I don't understand people saying we didn the right thing in not even trying. It's like people saying a team that is chasing 300 in a one dayer can win by just coming out and blocking or the coach of a team 15 goals behind at half time should just keep all the same players in the same positions and not change tactics or match ups at all in case it gets worse and you lose by 20 goals.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Looking forward to 2011, the following players are out of contract and should be gawnnnn:

-Nicko
-Lynch
-Hansen
-Mcginnihack
-Bones
-Embley

Can't wait.

You can take McGinnity out of that list (as already stated) but add Dalziell in his place.

Hopefully one of Hansen or Nico is gone by the start of next year as well.

 

[larrikin]

I would have traded Ebert to Port Adelaide for their first rounder or worked out a three way trade with them an another club.

Who said Port's first rounder was available. Apart from some internet rumours (fueled by crap from his extended family in Adelaide) what actually told you that Port was actualy interested in Ebert. And even so, the kid is 20 and has shown a lot.

I would have waited for a better pick for McKinley, work harder to trade Spangher

No one wanted Spangher. No one. Even after we showed our hand with the McKinley trade no one bit. That should tell you something. And what were you hoping to fetch for McKinley? Pick 50? Another pick we wouldn't have used

and traded for Josh Hill (who would have come this way as Hawthorn couldn't offer a trade).

The Hawks offered their 2nd (mid 30's) and 4th rounders, which were knocked back, that came direct from Pelchin on SEN. So he would have at least cost us 28 - would you want to do that trade?

I would have shopped Kerr around

Trading a bloke at his lowest point in the market due to 2 years of injuries would be stupid - we'd get a pick in the mid 20's at best. The key to trading is buy low sell high.

and I would have quizzed Gold Coast on a trade for one of their listed players.

Who of Gold Coast pre-listed players would you of gone after? And how would you have fot them onto our list with the spaces available?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

If we had been out there with the cheque book from months ago who knows which players we may have been able to tempt. What you are saying is that what was put on the block by other clubs this week wasn't inspiring. But thats not to say we couldn't have gotten some other players not mentioned this week interested if we had been out there trying to drum something up.

I don't understand people saying we didn the right thing in not even trying. It's like people saying a team that is chasing 300 in a one dayer can win by just coming out and blocking or the coach of a team 15 goals behind at half time should just keep all the same players in the same positions and not change tactics or match ups at all in case it gets worse and you lose by 20 goals.

How do you know that we didn't go out there and wave the chequebook around?

How do you know that we didn't make overtures at Rich, Clark, Ryder and whoever else but got knocked back because the club's in turmoil and the senior coach is on borrowed time?

 

[Geoffe_Miles]

Sounds like there might be a bit of storytelling here. Could be true - probably bullshit.



Someone will believe it though

Your argument is that a coach fighting for his survival with one year left on his contract and needing a drastic improvement in form to keep his job is going to go to trade week arguing to trade out 25 year olds for draft picks and 17 year olds?

If you are going to have a go at me, mate, at least think it through first and try and make sense. Otherwise you look like a goose who's brain doesn't function.

 

[larrikin]

I didn't say established players, i said quality players. A quality player might a good young prospect at another club who has 20 games under his belt and is not necessarily established.

It doesn't matter what his physical location during trade week was. We are talking about his power to veto the trading out of players on the list. For example,what if we could have landed Mitch Clarke by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or another high draft pick by trading out Cox or Kerr. Or say pick 20 or quality 19 year old from another club by trading out other experienced players on the list (i won't name which players i would look to trade as it will derail the thread).

The draft picks you talk about are not of any help to Worsfold or any othe coach in his position in the next 12 months. Trading 25-30 year olds for 17-20 year olds are not going to help him win 8-10 games he needs to next year. So to answer your question, no he doesn't want picks and is not concerned with long term buidling. You can only worry about buidling a team when your own survival in the long term is assured.

What are you on about?

You are somehow trying to twist the fact that Worsfold didn't trade for established players as him going for a short term fix?

 

[beatlesmith]

Who said Port's first rounder was available. Apart from some internet rumours (fueled by crap from his extended family in Adelaide) what actually told you that Port was actualy interested in Ebert. And even so, the kid is 20 and has shown a lot.


No one wanted Spangher. No one. Even after we showed our hand with the McKinley trade no one bit. That should tell you something. And what were you hoping to fetch for McKinley? Pick 50? Another pick we wouldn't have used


The Hawks offered their 2nd (mid 30's) and 4th rounders, which were knocked back, that came direct from Pelchin on SEN. So he would have at least cost us 28 - would you want to do that trade?


Trading a bloke at his lowest point in the market due to 2 years of injuries would be stupid - we'd get a pick in the mid 20's at best. The key to trading is buy low sell high.


Who of Gold Coast pre-listed players would you of gone after? And how would you have fot them onto our list with the spaces available?

If you mess with the Larri, you'll get the horns.
Agree 100%. We had very little currency to play with. We're a team from WA at the bottom of the ladder, thus making it hard to attract players. We have little list space and no need for picks after 30.

We don't know who was shopped around, for how much and how many inquiries we made.

 

[Geoffe_Miles]

How do you know that we didn't go out there and wave the chequebook around?

How do you know that we didn't make overtures at Rich, Clark, Ryder and whoever else but got knocked back because the club's in turmoil and the senior coach is on borrowed time?

Well, as i work for myself i get to listen to all the sports programs from Perth and the east every day and that has been the way it has been described on all of them - that the eagles were content not to get involved. The other things is that i don't think that we could have the cheque book unless we were prepared to trade a highly paid player out which we ruled out a long time ago.

Clark even asked for a trade to a Perth club so the job was half done before we even lifted a finger and we didn't go after him.

Are you saying you think i am wrong and we were one of the more active clubs trying to make something happen?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Your argument is that a coach fighting for his survival with one year left on his contract and needing a drastic improvement in form to keep his job is going to go to trade week arguing to trade out 25 year olds for draft picks and 17 year olds?

If you are going to have a go at me, mate, at least think it through first and try and make sense. Otherwise you look like a goose who's brain doesn't function.

What 25 year olds could we have traded out for draft picks and 17 year olds? Meaningful draft picks that is, not picks in the 50s.

 

[larrikin]

Clark even asked for a trade to a Perth club so the job was half done before we even lifted a finger and we didn't go after him.

Actually, no. Clark asked for a trade to Fremantle

Are you saying you think i am wrong and we were one of the more active clubs trying to make something happen?

No, no one is arguing that. West Coast have always viewed trade week for what it is - a couple of genuine moves (generally based on geography) and then a fire sale for the rest of the crap that clubs don't want.

 

[dajesmac]

Continued from earlier thread.

Trades:
McKinley to North for pick 86 (won't be used)
Pick 45 to Collingwood for Josh Fraser compensation pick (to be taken after Collingwood's third round pick in any of the next 5 drafts)

Senior list changes:
Out: Glass (vets list)*, Embley (vets list)*, McKinley (North), Wilkes (delisted), Notte (delisted), Spangher (delisted)*
In: pick 4, pick 26, pick 28, pick 62 (Jacob Brennan, f/s), Strijk (promotion), Wilson (promotion)

I have a feeling we'll keep him, unless anyone's heard otherwise.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Well, as i work for myself i get to listen to all the sports programs from Perth and the east every day and that has been the way it has been described on all of them - that the eagles were content not to get involved. The other things is that i don't think that we could have the cheque book unless we were prepared to trade a highly paid player out which we ruled out a long time ago.

Clark even asked for a trade to a Perth club so the job was half done before we even lifted a finger and we didn't go after him.

Are you saying you think i am wrong and we were one of the more active clubs trying to make something happen?

The overtures you're talking about would have to have involved some groundwork well before trade week started. If we'd got knocked back then, then we would probably have sat back and done not much during trade week. By the time trade week came around there certainly wasn't much available that I personally would have been interested in.

Clark is probably the exception. His manager seemed to nominate Freo though, who knows what interest the club had in him? Out of interest, what would you have been prepared to give up for him?

 

[Geoffe_Miles]

What are you on about?

You are somehow trying to twist the fact that Worsfold didn't trade for established players as him going for a short term fix?

No, i am saying that Worsfold argued against turning over the list and trading any players out for picks or younger players to regenerate and exchange players who will only be there for another 2 years for a player who wil be there for 5-10 years and that this is a short term view for a club in our position.