Looking Back at Trade Week

[chef]

With the dust of trade week well and truly settled Western Bulldogs Recruiting Manager Simon Dalrymple has taken some time out to discuss what was a very busy period for the Club.

Simon first of all thank you for joining us, you must have been very happy with the calibre of players we have bought into the Club.

It was a really positive week, we targeted 3 players and we were very happy to secure them. We think they will add leg speed to our team for Season 2011 and they are all under 24 years of age.

Now in gaining Patrick Veszpremi from Sydney we have traded Andrejs Everitt, were you pleased with that outcome?

Yes it is an interesting one. Andrejs has played more football than Patrick over the last 4 years, due largely to the fact that Pat had some injury issues and came into the system a year later. It would be fair to say then that Andrejs has achieved more at the AFL level but we believe Patrick has a lot to offer as a forward. He was also an All Australian Under 18 small defender and I have known him since he was 13 when he came through the Northern Knights program. There is a lot of talent there and he has shown in the past that he has responded well to a kick in the backside. He won’t be happy with his time in Sydney and we know we have a player that is very keen to prove a point.

It was disappointing to lose a player like Andrejs but at the same time we are wrapt to have Patrick because we know he can kick goals, has speed, is a beautiful kick and can also play down back.Looks like we may have something to look forward to there. So along with Sherman, Veszpremi and Djerrkura we also managed to secure Liberatore and Wallis under the father-son rule which means we may be a little quiet at the upcoming Draft.

Yes we have given up our first 2 Picks but we had planned on that for a while now. We are very happy to have both the boys, they are already on training programs for the off season which is a huge advantage for us. We believe that we have got an absolute bargain to get both of these boys who we rated in the top 20 of the Draft. So we really have bought in 2 first round selections into the side and traded our 3rd round selection for Nathan Djerrkura.

We had our sights set on Nathan mid-way through the year, we had someone watching him every week and we have done a lot of homework on him. He has had 4 years at a really strong club in Geelong and given the opportunity he can play as both a small forward and midfielder. Nathan has terrific speed and agility and we think he will be very good for us.

Now ahead of the Draft that leaves us with our 4th and two 5th round selections which will be a challenge, but we are working through a process now of targeting players that we think may be available in that range. We are looking closely at the character of our potential draftees, late in the Draft there will be individuals with some weaknesses but we want guys with really strong character. They will need to be prepared to work on their deficiencies and that is our number 1 criteria.

We are working very hard at the moment to interview the potential players, investigating their backgrounds, reviewing all of our data and vision. History says you can still get very good ‘role players’ in that range in the draft.

There was obviously some interest in Josh Hill throughout Trade Week from Hawthorn, can you explain to us what happened there?
Josh did attract some interest but we were not prepared to trade Josh unless we got something valuable in return. To be honest Pick 37 in this year’s Draft, when you consider the number of players who have already been taken out of the pool, it is basically the equivalent to Pick 50. It is not a strong Draft and we were not prepared to give him up unless we could use that Pick in another deal.

We had spoken to the Gold Coast about doing that, but by the time Hawthorn had bought that offer to us late on the final day any chance of dealing with the Suns had gone. Cameron Richardson, Peter Faulks and Tendai Mzungu were 3 guys who were on our radar but they had already gone in other deals. So if Hawthorn had come through with an earlier offer we might have been able to negotiate but unfortunately that did not come through.

In saying that we are very happy to keep Josh and we believe he can play a substantial role for us next year. You have to remember that Brad Johnson, Nathan Eagleton and Jason Akermanis are no longer with us and we now need medium size forwards to stand up. We believe Josh can play that role and also on the wing, his 2009 form showed his is a proven goal kicker at AFL level.


Was it disappointing to lose Faulks from underneath your nose?
He was one of a couple of other mature age players that we targeted. We only had one 4th round selection and two 5th round selections which meant we did not have a lot of currency to negotiate with the Gold Coast. Unfortunately Fremantle became aware of our interest in Peter and they were able to do the deal with the Suns. We needed the earlier Pick’s to make it happen.

So fans should not be too worried about us not being involved until late in the Draft?
Yes I mentioned we have the late Picks in the 70’s and we will be really targeting players with the right character, who can play a role with our team. Through the Trade Week and father-son rule we have already bought in plenty of talent, we now need youngsters who can play roles.

Well I guess the fans should have cause for optimism given the Club’s tremendous track record with making the most of late Picks and Rookie selections.

Dale Morris, Matthew Boyd, Brian Lake are great examples. You only have to look at the last Grand Final to see that you can still find quality late in the Draft. Collingwood had Rookies Alan Toovey and Harry O’Brien in their side, so we will be leaving no stone unturned to unearth the next batch of young kids to bring into our Club.

Well Simon thanks for your time, I know you have a fair bit on your plate and best of luck with the upcoming Draft!http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/season2010/news/newsarticle/tabid/4112/newsid/104277/default.aspx

[GVGjr]

Sounds like trading for Djerrkura probably cost us a chance of landing Faulks

[azabob]

Sounds like trading for Djerrkura probably cost us a chance of landing Faulks

Yes. Wonder what role they have in mind for him as on face value and from whats been said he and Veszpremi will play similar roles, and once we secured Veszpremi perhaps they could've gone after Faulks?

However as Dalrymple says they had some watching Djerrkura for the entire second half of the season as German would've been watching Faulks. This again is interesting in the fact we know how highly German rates Faulks.

Only time will tell which way we should've gone.

[GVGjr]

Yes. Wonder what role they have in mind for him as on face value and from whats been said he and Veszpremi will play similar roles, and once we secured Veszpremi perhaps they could've gone after Faulks?

However as Dalrymple says they had some watching Djerrkura for the entire second half of the season as German would've been watching Faulks. This again is interesting in the fact we know how highly German rates Faulks.

Only time will tell which way we should've gone.

German was also at Fremantle and they obviously kept tabs on Faulks.

Do we really have the resources to watch someone like Djerrkura all season?
If so, then there is no excuses if he doesn't measure up.

[bulldogsman]

Sounds like trading for Djerrkura probably cost us a chance of landing Faulks

Or we could just blame Hawthorn ;)

[boydogs]

Sounds like trading for Djerrkura probably cost us a chance of landing Faulks

Freo got him by swapping 55 for 61, surely our 4th rounder could have gotten it done?

[hujsh]

German was also at Fremantle and they obviously kept tabs on Faulks.

Do we really have the resources to watch someone like Djerrkura all season?
If so, then there is no excuses if he doesn't measure up.

Could we have not tried trading 57 to the GC for 61 and Faulks, then trading that pick to the Cats? It seems like a situation where we could have had both players, unless Cats wouldn't accept 61 (surely unlikely) or GC wouldn't go for a slightly inferior deal (also would be strange). Feels like we could have played this one better and it's not been often (since Eade came in) that I've felt that way

[GVGjr]

Freo got him by swapping 55 for 61, surely our 4th rounder could have gotten it done?

Probably so. I guess the third rounder straight up would have worked.
It doesn't appear like we thought another side would deal with Gold Coast for him and we hoped to land him in the draft.

[GVGjr]

Could we have not tried trading 57 to the GC for 61 and Faulks, then trading that pick to the Cats? It seems like a situation where we could have had both players, unless Cats wouldn't accept 61 (surely unlikely) or GC wouldn't go for a slightly inferior deal (also would be strange). Feels like we could have played this one better and it's not been often (since Eade came in) that I've felt that way

It doesn't appear that we tried too hard for him. Perhaps we were under the impression he would just go through to the draft.

[LostDoggy]

It doesn't appear that we tried too hard for him. Perhaps we were under the impression he would just go through to the draft.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Should have made a play -- that's the whole point of trade week.

May have gone too conservative here -- overpaid for one and missed out on another based on a nothing assumption. Faulks himself would have been a factor as well if there was a small bidding war as he would surely have preferred to stay at a club where he was already comfortable and highly rated.

We screwed this one up badly -- and that's not a great look when we already screwed up last years' draft pretty spectacularly. Darymple isn't inspiring a lot of confidence -- he's only had a few opportunities to influence events and the vast majority of them have been largely disappointing.

[Sockeye Salmon]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Should have made a play -- that's the whole point of trade week.

May have gone too conservative here -- overpaid for one and missed out on another based on a nothing assumption. Faulks himself would have been a factor as well if there was a small bidding war as he would surely have preferred to stay at a club where he was already comfortable and highly rated.

We screwed this one up badly -- and that's not a great look when we already screwed up last years' draft pretty spectacularly. Darymple isn't inspiring a lot of confidence -- he's only had a few opportunities to influence events and the vast majority of them have been largely disappointing.

We are assuming we had anything more than a casual interest anyway. Sure he was a good spoiler but he was no David Dench.

[GVGjr]

We are assuming we had anything more than a casual interest anyway. Sure he was a good spoiler but he was no David Dench.

Dalrymple mentioned that we didn't have the currency to get him and yet we should have been well within the ball park. If we weren't that interested we could have just answered that along the lines of that we already had a number of tall defenders.

[Sedat]

In Simon's own words, "he was one of a couple of other mature age players that we targeted". That sounds to me like our interest was a fair bit more than passing, and that Freo was the early bird that caught the worm. Pretty sloppy work to simply assume that he'd be available in the ND I'd have thought.

[Dazza]

How did we screw last years draft?

[Greystache]

How did we screw last years draft?

Thorne delisted after one season, Markovic clearly not up to AFL standard, and questions over Tutt's potential to step up to the next level. I wouldn't call that a success.

[mighty_west]

Thorne delisted after one season, Markovic clearly not up to AFL standard, and questions over Tutt's potential to step up to the next level. I wouldn't call that a success.

In fairness to Tutt, the kid looks 14, might be a late bloomer, isn't he supposed to be a decent kick as well as Howard?

[chef]

At bit early to call on Howard and Tutt, but Moles and Hooper already being elevated is pretty successful and Prato has potential. Markovic was insurance that we didn't need to use for this season.

His 2009 draft was good not great IMO.

[Greystache]

In fairness to Tutt, the kid looks 14, might be a late bloomer, isn't he supposed to be a decent kick as well as Howard?

From the limited bits of him I've seen I think he looks ok, and he has a surprisingly powerful kick on him, he just doesn't look a certainty to make the grade.

[Scraggers]

Sounds like trading for Djerrkura probably cost us a chance of landing Faulks

Having secured two father/son selections (Wallis and Big Libba), Vespremi, and Sherman, you have to weigh up whether Djerkura is worth more than Faulks ... Djerkurra is tested at AFL level Faulks isn't. Our passing interest in him is attributed to him playing with the Seagulls and not much more.

I think this trade week was very successful !!

[Greystache]

Having secured two father/son selections (Wallis and Big Libba), Vespremi, and Sherman, you have to weigh up whether Djerkura is worth more than Faulks ... Djerkurra is tested at AFL level Faulks isn't. Our passing interest in him is attributed to him playing with the Seagulls and not much more.

I think this trade week was very successful !!

4 games in 4 years at Geelong vs 0 games in 2 years at Sydney. Not a big difference.

[Desipura]

4 games in 4 years at Geelong vs 0 games in 2 years at Sydney. Not a big difference.
One is potentially a half back flanker who can play on smalls and talls vs a wingman/back pocket with pace and an appetite for tackling.

[GVGjr]

Having secured two father/son selections (Wallis and Big Libba), Vespremi, and Sherman, you have to weigh up whether Djerkura is worth more than Faulks ... Djerkurra is tested at AFL level Faulks isn't. Our passing interest in him is attributed to him playing with the Seagulls and not much more.

I think this trade week was very successful !!

Like Fremantle we could have swapped picks with GC and landed Faulks and then used the GC one for Djerkurra.
We might very well have been able to land both of them.

I don't dispute we got most of our targets at the trade table but we haven't finalized out list yet and there might be some glaring gaps or worse still we might have to stick with a couple of marginal players to at least have the right balance.

[Scraggers]

4 games in 4 years at Geelong vs 0 games in 2 years at Sydney. Not a big difference.

The four years you speak of were pretty powerful years for Geelong though ... to earn four games in that line-up speaks volumes for me

[Scraggers]

Like Fremantle we could have swapped picks with GC and landed Faulks and then used the GC one for Djerkurra.
We might very well have been able to land both of them.

I don't dispute we got most of our targets at the trade table but we haven't finalized out list yet and there might be some glaring gaps or worse still we might have to stick with a couple of marginal players to at least have the right balance.

I could not see Faulks playing a role at the Western Bulldogs ... at best he would be a bit part player (even with the new sub rule). Whereas Djerkurra (IMO) will be straight into the 21. And that's the difference. Yes we could have chased harder for him, but with the amount of work we did over the trade week (and his current value to us) I don't see the point.

[Greystache]

The four years you speak of were pretty powerful years for Geelong though ... to earn four games in that line-up speaks volumes for me

To only get 4 games speaks volumes for me. Tim Callan managed to get occasional games in his 4 years too, in fact he got 9.

[Scraggers]

To only get 4 games speaks volumes for me. Tim Callan managed to get occasional games in his 4 years too, in fact he got 9.

Not exactly the same era though ... Look I'm not saying he is God's Gift, but I rate him higher than Faulks

[Greystache]

Not exactly the same era though ... Look I'm not saying he is God's Gift, but I rate him higher than Faulks

That's fair enough, I don't know enough about him to judge. I just thought 4 games vs 0 games was a strange justification. Plus I think the "it's a hard side to break into" is massively overated, Ryan Gamble managed to get more games in the same period and I don't rate him either.

[GVGjr]

I could not see Faulks playing a role at the Western Bulldogs ... at best he would be a bit part player (even with the new sub rule). Whereas Djerkurra (IMO) will be straight into the 21. And that's the difference. Yes we could have chased harder for him, but with the amount of work we did over the trade week (and his current value to us) I don't see the point.

Faulks might have been very much a back-up but it might have given us the option of covering say a Boumann or a Mulligan or perhaps even both of them.

Dalrymple mentioned that we didn't have the currency but I'm not convinced that we didn't.

No problems with Djerkurra. He's tough and quick and puts pressure on his opponents which is what we needed.

[Scraggers]

Faulks might have been very much a back-up but it might have given us the option of covering say a Boumann or a Mulligan or perhaps even both of them.

Dalrymple mentioned that we didn't have the currency but I'm not convinced that we didn't.

No problems with Djerkurra. He's tough and quick and puts pressure on his opponents which is what we needed.

I agree with you here GVGjr, I think we did have the currency, but I also think we had more on our plate than Freo ... trading heavy in a compromised draft (particularly with two father/son's secured) is a smart move, but we had to prioritise our pick-ups.

[GVGjr]

I agree with you here GVGjr, I think we did have the currency, but I also think we had more on our plate than Freo ... trading heavy in a compromised draft (particularly with two father/son's secured) is a smart move, but we had to prioritise our pick-ups.

Not sure I can agree. I don't believe trading is an inhibiting factor at all and it remains to be seen how smart we have been. I will acknowledge that we should by all accounts have picked up our intensity level which I'm sure will be welcomed by the coach.

I really question if we have been as thorough in our assessment of Djerkurra as has been indicated in the interview and I don't think we have been given the right response about Faulks.

[LostDoggy]

Having secured two father/son selections (Wallis and Big Libba), Vespremi, and Sherman, you have to weigh up whether Djerkura is worth more than Faulks ... Djerkurra is tested at AFL level Faulks isn't. Our passing interest in him is attributed to him playing with the Seagulls and not much more.

I think this trade week was very successful !!

I'm not suggesting that the players we got aren't going to be any good, but:

a. We paid Everitt for Premi -- no one else would have made a play, we swapped a couple of underachievers, nothing to shout about there.
b. DJ had no suitors, we could have paid anything, probably played our hand too early and overpaid.
c. Sherman was always going to leave Brisbane, wanted to come to Melbourne, no other Melbourne suitors, Sydney always a long-shot, pretty straightforward. Other than telling Justin to keep telling the media that he wanted to come here, nothing magical about this trade.
d. Father/Sons are no credit to anyone except their moms and dads who played for the club and had the opportunity to have children.

We didn't do anything special to get the players we did, missed out on all the mature age rookies we had our eyes on, missed on another of our targets (Walker), and couldn't get deals done for Minnow and Hill that would have allowed for the Walker deal and freed up some cap space.

I'm not the one who sets the goals, but it would seem to me that we didn't achieve most of ours in trade week, while the ones that we did were easy ones that could have been done by anyone. With some imagination I'm sure most of us would be able to come up with a way we could have landed all four of our main targets PLUS a mature age rookie. I'm not saying it would have been easy, but that's why these guys are paid to do the job -- if it was just about doing the easy deals we may as well just have an administrator go through the paces.

[LostDoggy]

Gotta say I'm with Scraggers on this one...I just don't get the interest in Faulks, yeah he gets his fist on a few but he don't exactly hurt going the other way. Not sure he is suited to the Dogs run and carry game....

[LostDoggy]

Gotta say I'm with Scraggers on this one...I just don't get the interest in Faulks, yeah he gets his fist on a few but he don't exactly hurt going the other way. Not sure he is suited to the Dogs run and carry game....

I'm not on the Faulks bandwagon -- I don't really know much about him other than what little I've seen of Willy -- but I'm going on Darymple's word of what our goals were in trade week, which suggests that we screwed the pooch if we couldn't come up with a creative way of getting a deal done.

If we were expecting to take him in the ND, it also means that the player we DO end up taking is not our first choice, which is okay, but just also means another peg down the stopgap ladder, which, if compounded over several seasons, means a potentially inferior list. I just think this recruiting and trading business is crucial to our success as a fringe club, in an artificially equalised competition and in the GC/GWS era, and we can't really afford to have too many misses and only get 50-60% of our intended deals done and be happy with it.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Thorne delisted after one season, Markovic clearly not up to AFL standard, and questions over Tutt's potential to step up to the next level. I wouldn't call that a success.

I agree. We have seen very little value emerging from our 2009 draft picks. We might well be saved this year by the drafting of the two father/son picks in young Wallis and Liberatore who both look the goods. There would have to be question marks about both Djerrkura and Veszpremi who have been in the system for some time but still largely unproven. The recruiting of Sherman hardly compensates for the loss of Harbrow.

[LostDoggy]

At bit early to call on Howard and Tutt, but Moles and Hooper already being elevated is pretty successful and Prato has potential. Markovic was insurance that we didn't need to use for this season.

His 2009 draft was good not great IMO.

If Moles, Hooper and Prato (Moles, a good honest mature ager who is a stopgap at best, Hoops being called up being more an indictment on our veterans than anything else, and we don't really know much more about Eddie's long-term AFL prospects than when he was drafted) are Darymple's arguments for a successful draft then I rest my case.

Markovic should always have been a rookie-lister, but that's neither here nor there, and I agree about him being insurance, and the best insurance is that which you never need, so that's that, I guess.

[Sedat]

I'm not on the Faulks bandwagon -- I don't really know much about him other than what little I've seen of Willy -- but I'm going on Darymple's word of what our goals were in trade week, which suggests that we screwed the pooch if we couldn't come up with a creative way of getting a deal done.
This.

I personally wouldn't know Peter Faulks from Peter Falk, but Simon Dalrymple openly stated that he was a player we had in our sights. To not make a play for a player we openly targeted and to see that player end up at another club for peanuts is a sloppy effort IMO.

[chef]

If Moles, Hooper and Prato (Moles, a good honest mature ager who is a stopgap at best, Hoops being called up being more an indictment on our veterans than anything else, and we don't really know much more about Eddie's long-term AFL prospects than when he was drafted) are Darymple's arguments for a successful draft then I rest my case.

Markovic should always have been a rookie-lister, but that's neither here nor there, and I agree about him being insurance, and the best insurance is that which you never need, so that's that, I guess.

Fair enough, just a bit early to call IMO.

[Desipura]

d. Father/Sons are no credit to anyone except their moms and dads who played for the club and had the opportunity to have children.


Are you related to Chicago?:confused:
Ya ol come back now you hear? :D

[Greystache]

This.

I personally wouldn't know Peter Faulks from Peter Falk, but Simon Dalrymple openly stated that he was a player we had in our sights. To not make a play for a player we openly targeted and to see that player end up at another club for peanuts is a sloppy effort IMO.

Agreed, it may not turn out to be a big loss, but lose enough times and one will eventually bite you.

[GVGjr]

Gotta say I'm with Scraggers on this one...I just don't get the interest in Faulks, yeah he gets his fist on a few but he don't exactly hurt going the other way. Not sure he is suited to the Dogs run and carry game....

You might be missing the point. It's not so much if Faulks would have been a good fit or not it's the comment that we didn't have the currency that some are challenging.

[LostDoggy]

I can understand the thinking that focussed on getting the key players we targetted to the club. If that meant we missed on Fauks, so be it. I know little about him but I would have thought others were more to the forefront of our minds re being placed where we want to be for 2011. Put it simply, they've made judgement calls AND they can't do everything. Some fish just get away.

[Greystache]

I can understand the thinking that focussed on getting the key players we targetted to the club. If that meant we missed on Fauks, so be it. I know little about him but I would have thought others were more to the forefront of our minds re being placed where we want to be for 2011. Put it simply, they've made judgement calls AND they can't do everything. Some fish just get away.

The point is we could've got him too, and we have stated we wanted to. The trade period is one week a year, you can't afford to say we achieved some of the goals we wanted, but we didn't get around to a couple of others, that's just not good enough. It's like a recruiter saying, we're going to make 5 picks this draft but to be honest I only got around to looking at 4 players so we'll have to take a random player with our last selection.

[LostDoggy]

I can understand the thinking that focussed on getting the key players we targetted to the club. If that meant we missed on Fauks, so be it. I know little about him but I would have thought others were more to the forefront of our minds re being placed where we want to be for 2011. Put it simply, they've made judgement calls AND they can't do everything. Some fish just get away.

I would hardly call making 3 trades 'doing everything'. This is surely where pre-planning and good workload allocation comes into play. I don't get a free pass on lower-priority aspects of my projects because other big-ticket items are 'front of mind' and I doubt most of us here would get away with it at work either --

As a comparison, the GC17 got through a WHOLE LOT more deals, and far more complicated ones at that, and made quite a few savvy moves along the way, some of which must have involved a lot of last-minute tinkering. I'm not passing judgment on the relative merits of the players involved, just the management of trade week itself, which, if Simon's word is to be taken at face value, leaves something to be desired.

ps. none of our deals were 'complicated' -- I don't know what we could have been spending all that time on in any case; did Pelchan's antics re: Hill take up too much of our focus and cause us to take our eyes off the ball?

[Scraggers]

The point is we could've got him too, and we have stated we wanted to. The trade period is one week a year, you can't afford to say we achieved some of the goals we wanted, but we didn't get around to a couple of others, that's just not good enough. It's like a recruiter saying, we're going to make 5 picks this draft but to be honest I only got around to looking at 4 players so we'll have to take a random player with our last selection.

Whilst I value you opinion (greatly), I think you are being a bit too harsh ...

Dalrymple stated :-


It was a really positive week, we targeted 3 players and we were very happy to secure them. We think they will add leg speed to our team for Season 2011 and they are all under 24 years of age.

So we got what we wanted ... even though we spoke of Walker, he was obviously only on our radar if we lost Hill (or someone of his ilk)

When speaking about Faulks, he also said :-


He was one of a couple of other mature age players that we targeted.

To me this means yes, we missed out on Faulks, but we could have gone after two(ish) other mature aged players if we had wanted too. The fact that we didn't tells me that we weren't that fussed.

[LostDoggy]

To me this means yes, we missed out on Faulks, but we could have gone after two(ish) other mature aged players if we had wanted too. The fact that we didn't tells me that we weren't that fussed.

Yes, because back-up mature-age key position backmen with some pace that came come in and do a job at bargain basement prices (this is the key here -- sure he's no David Dench but he's cheap as chips) are so plentiful that we can just ignore one right under our noses, even though our list is pretty bare in that department.

Ben Hudson, anyone?

[Scraggers]

Yes, because back-up mature-age key position backmen with some pace that came come in and do a job at bargain basement prices (this is the key here -- sure he's no David Dench but he's cheap as chips) are so plentiful that we can just ignore one right under our noses, even though our list is pretty bare in that department.

Ben Hudson, anyone?

We didn't just ignore one though ... we ignored three !!
Obviously our list management team decided we didn't need one, because even after one of the three(ish) we were watching was taken, we did not act on the other two.

[Mantis]

We didn't just ignore one though ... we ignored three !!
Obviously our list management team decided we didn't need one, because even after one of the three(ish) we were watching was taken, we did not act on the other two.

Was this only because we couldn't off-load as many players as we would have liked to?

[boydogs]

Whereas Djerkurra (IMO) will be straight into the 21.

Haha, I guess it is the 21 now, not 22.


So we got what we wanted ... even though we spoke of Walker, he was obviously only on our radar if we lost Hill (or someone of his ilk)

I thought Dalrymple said that if a deal was done for Hill then the pick(s) would have been used for trading with the GC, not for Walker. Walker may have been an alternative target if we weren't able to get the 3 we did.

[jeemak]

I would hardly call making 3 trades 'doing everything'. This is surely where pre-planning and good workload allocation comes into play. I don't get a free pass on lower-priority aspects of my projects because other big-ticket items are 'front of mind' and I doubt most of us here would get away with it at work either --

As a comparison, the GC17 got through a WHOLE LOT more deals, and far more complicated ones at that, and made quite a few savvy moves along the way, some of which must have involved a lot of last-minute tinkering. I'm not passing judgment on the relative merits of the players involved, just the management of trade week itself, which, if Simon's word is to be taken at face value, leaves something to be desired.

ps. none of our deals were 'complicated' -- I don't know what we could have been spending all that time on in any case; did Pelchan's antics re: Hill take up too much of our focus and cause us to take our eyes off the ball?


You can pre-plan all you like but you depend heavily on the availability of the recruiting teams from opposition clubs, you have to take into consideration their priorities not fitting in with yours and you have to deal with their expectations and player ratings fitting somewhere in with that of your own team's. You're also dealing with ego's all week, and people that I assume aren't the most professional negotiators considering they only get annual opportunities to ply their trade. All of this convolutes the process and makes it drag out for much longer than it should.

GC's performance reflected the flexibility pre-listing players allowed, and with a clear goal of attaining as many draft picks as they possibly could while being able to pick up uncontracted players and not having to give up players or picks of their own for them, their situation is hardly comparable to ours.

[boydogs]

You can pre-plan all you like but you depend heavily on the availability of the recruiting teams from opposition clubs, you have to take into consideration their priorities not fitting in with yours and you have to deal with their expectations and player ratings fitting somewhere in with that of your own team's. You're also dealing with ego's all week, and people that I assume aren't the most professional negotiators considering they only get annual opportunities to ply their trade. All of this convolutes the process and makes it drag out for much longer than it should.

GC's performance reflected the flexibility pre-listing players allowed, and with a clear goal of attaining as many draft picks as they possibly could while being able to pick up uncontracted players and not having to give up players or picks of their own for them, their situation is hardly comparable to ours.

Good post. The negotiation points are especially true when dealing with Hawthorn.
Aside from the pre-listing, the GC had an incentive to trade with the compensatory pick rules that managed to create picks out of thin air in win-win deals involving Brennan and Fraser.

[LostDoggy]

Good post. The negotiation points are especially true when dealing with Hawthorn.
Aside from the pre-listing, the GC had an incentive to trade with the compensatory pick rules that managed to create picks out of thin air in win-win deals involving Brennan and Fraser.

And we don't? There are only three real ways to improve the quality of your list on-paper -- drafting, development, and trading. If that's not enough incentive to trade and we don't see trade week as a crucial pillar of our direct on-field success then we may as well go home. It's also the one area that you can really get a leg up on the opposition -- where would our team be without Ben Hudson or Barry Hall? Would Geelong have won their premierships without Ottens? Would the Saints be as good without Gardiner, Dawson, etc (despite their limitations)?

We've been really good in this area when we've participated, so we should really be a bit bolder -- back on the Faulks issue, does anyone really think that he will offer less value than Boumann, Mulligan, Markovic or Hahn next year? If the answer is no, and the salary cap is not an issue at bargain basement prices, then we have missed an opportunity to strengthen our list. Plain and simple -- anything that strengthens your list is a good move, and not making it is a bad move.

And if Hawthorn were a pain in the neck and a waste of time (which we knew going into trade week), we should have made that call quicker and moved on to other deals -- letting ourselves get strung along until ten minutes before the deadline just makes US look like mugs.

[stefoid]

You cant seriously compare GC trading position to ours? they had about a zillion pre-listed players to play with, a zillion draft picks, and a bag of cash you couldnt jump over.

We were pretty pushed for the salary cap, and had our first two draft picks wisely invested in libba and wallis. The players with currency that were tradable were Everitt, who we did trade, and Hill, who we did not, because we didnt have time to organize something useful to do the resultant draft picks and we chose not to just trade for tradings sake. If we could have somehow manged Hill out and Walker in, we would have.

With the Faulks situation, Freo offered a lower draft pick to the Suns than we had available. Our 3rd round was gone on Djekurra and our 4th round was less value than the 4th round Freo offered the Suns, so it was a case of Djekurra or Faulks coming to the club. Which would you prefer?

You make it sound easy, but in reality, we did pretty well with what we had available and the players that were on the table.

[Mofra]

^ Top post. Clayton had a stacked deck and played his cards to best advantage, given what we had I thought we'd done pretty well.
Held firm on the Sherman offer despite Brissy holding out & Swans offering more.
Swapped Everitt for a player who will at least have a defined role in the side.
Grabbed a player who can contribute to the side for a 3rd rounder in a compromised draft.

[LostDoggy]

We were pretty pushed for the salary cap, and had our first two draft picks wisely invested in libba and wallis. The players with currency that were tradable were Everitt, who we did trade, and Hill, who we did not, because we didnt have time to organize something useful to do the resultant draft picks and we chose not to just trade for tradings sake. If we could have somehow manged Hill out and Walker in, we would have.

With the Faulks situation, Freo offered a lower draft pick to the Suns than we had available. Our 3rd round was gone on Djekurra and our 4th round was less value than the 4th round Freo offered the Suns, so it was a case of Djekurra or Faulks coming to the club. Which would you prefer?
.

Wisely "invested"??? They were gifted, nothing to do with our recruiting team.

Re: the Faulks situation, have you intentionally ignored all of GVG's previous posts about how we could have negotiated into the situation?

And I wasn't comparing trading positions -- simply saying that if GC had an incentive to trade, so did we. So did everyone.

[LostDoggy]

^ Top post. Clayton had a stacked deck and played his cards to best advantage, given what we had I thought we'd done pretty well.
Held firm on the Sherman offer despite Brissy holding out & Swans offering more.
Swapped Everitt for a player who will at least have a defined role in the side.
Grabbed a player who can contribute to the side for a 3rd rounder in a compromised draft.

None of these are magical or difficult. Once these players were identified, an administrator could have finalised these deals as well, no need for a specialised position. And it wasn't like anyone else was after Premi or DJ.

By our own admission we missed out on quite a few of our intended outcomes (including some that will not be mentioned here), leaving us with a tight salary cap, list cloggers, and overpaid/underplayed players. That's not a great outcome.

[chef]

None of these are magical or difficult. Once these players were identified, an administrator could have finalised these deals as well, no need for a specialised position. And it wasn't like anyone else was after Premi or DJ.

By our own admission we missed out on quite a few of our intended outcomes (including some that will not be mentioned here), leaving us with a tight salary cap, list cloggers, and overpaid/underplayed players. That's not a great outcome.

North had interest in Premi and Hawthorn had interest in DJ and this is the only ones reported in the media. I am sure there were other suitors behind the closed doors of trade week.

[Greystache]

You cant seriously compare GC trading position to ours? they had about a zillion pre-listed players to play with, a zillion draft picks, and a bag of cash you couldnt jump over.

We were pretty pushed for the salary cap, and had our first two draft picks wisely invested in libba and wallis. The players with currency that were tradable were Everitt, who we did trade, and Hill, who we did not, because we didnt have time to organize something useful to do the resultant draft picks and we chose not to just trade for tradings sake. If we could have somehow manged Hill out and Walker in, we would have.

With the Faulks situation, Freo offered a lower draft pick to the Suns than we had available. Our 3rd round was gone on Djekurra and our 4th round was less value than the 4th round Freo offered the Suns, so it was a case of Djekurra or Faulks coming to the club. Which would you prefer?

You make it sound easy, but in reality, we did pretty well with what we had available and the players that were on the table.

I think we did pretty well in the trade period, we traded out a fringe player with no real role for a fringe player who could potentially fill a need we have. We did a really good job of getting Sherman's buy into our club, and then used his position of power to assist us getting what we wanted.- Both ticks

We were interested in Walker only if we could get him on the right terms, that wasn't really available because Hawthorn are dickheads.- No problem there.

We say we were interested in Faulks and yet we allowed ourselves to be positioned where we couldn't make an offer to compete.- Poor. We could've traded our third round pick for GC's start of 4th round pick, they would've gone for it, and moving a couple of places further back in the draft wouldn't have affected the trade with Geelong for DJ.

My concern is we seemed to have got a bee in our bonnet about getting DJ, Dalrymple said we had scouts watching him for months. That concerns me, it seems like Dalrymple gets a player in the gun and is blinded to other opportunities in pursuit of that player. It reminds me of last years draft where he was so focussed on getting Howard and Tutt that we didn't seem to consider we could get those two PLUS potentially another good player. You can't afford to get overcommitted to a particular player or idea when in negotiations, and I feel like we've done that twice now.

[LostDoggy]

North had interest in Premi and Hawthorn had interest in DJ and this is the only ones reported in the media. I am sure there were other suitors behind the closed doors of trade week.

Hi chef! -- as you would know, clubs (including ours) often use the media to their own advantage, either to pump up the bid for a player, or to get a player on other clubs' radars etc. Doesn't really mean anything that the media reported interest, but if Geelong was the one who released news about Hawthorn being interested in DJ to make us jump high and early, then it worked, didn't it.

[LostDoggy]

I think we did pretty well in the trade period, we traded out a fringe player with no real role for a fringe player who could potentially fill a need we have. We did a really good job of getting Sherman's buy into our club, and then used his position of power to assist us getting what we wanted.- Both ticks

We were interested in Walker only if we could get him on the right terms, that wasn't really available because Hawthorn are dickheads.- No problem there.

We say we were interested in Faulks and yet we allowed ourselves to be positioned where we couldn't make an offer to compete.- Poor. We could've traded our third round pick for GC's start of 4th round pick, they would've gone for it, and moving a couple of places further back in the draft wouldn't have affected the trade with Geelong for DJ.

My concern is we seemed to have got a bee in our bonnet about getting DJ, Dalrymple said we had scouts watching him for months. That concerns me, it seems like Dalrymple gets a player in the gun and is blinded to other opportunities in pursuit of that player. It reminds me of last years draft where he was so focussed on getting Howard and Tutt that we didn't seem to consider we could get those two PLUS potentially another good player. You can't afford to get overcommitted to a particular player or idea when in negotiations, and I feel like we've done that twice now.


This.

Pretty balanced post about what we did well and we didn't. Nothing more to add.

[Scraggers]

Was this only because we couldn't off-load as many players as we would have liked to?

I don't think so ... I think if we did have interest we could have done similar deals to Collingwood and Krakouer and Freo and Faulks with trading with the GC for later picks. I think the reason we didn't act was that we were satisfied with our position leading up to the draft. I will be very interested as to who we delist before 31st October.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Wisely "invested"??? They were gifted, nothing to do with our recruiting team.

Re: the Faulks situation, have you intentionally ignored all of GVG's previous posts about how we could have negotiated into the situation?

And I wasn't comparing trading positions -- simply saying that if GC had an incentive to trade, so did we. So did everyone.

They still HAD to use those picks though.

[chef]

Hi chef! -- as you would know, clubs (including ours) often use the media to their own advantage, either to pump up the bid for a player, or to get a player on other clubs' radars etc. Doesn't really mean anything that the media reported interest, but if Geelong was the one who released news about Hawthorn being interested in DJ to make us jump high and early, then it worked, didn't it.

Fair enough and point taken:).

[Mofra]

None of these are magical or difficult. Once these players were identified, an administrator could have finalised these deals as well, no need for a specialised position. And it wasn't like anyone else was after Premi or DJ.

By our own admission we missed out on quite a few of our intended outcomes (including some that will not be mentioned here), leaving us with a tight salary cap, list cloggers, and overpaid/underplayed players. That's not a great outcome.
Not magical or difficult perhaps, but we still had to get the deals done and they all stregthen the list.
Yes we missed Faulks, but could we have accomodated Walker anyway with our cap? How many other realistic targets did we miss out on, and would they have been any better than the three players we picked up?

I think we did much better than a host of other clubs.

[LostDoggy]

I think we did much better than a host of other clubs.

No argument there. Yet, I don't think we can be satisfied with just doing better than most clubs -- we really have to get into the 'doing better than ALL the clubs' business. We're already better than most of the clubs, three prelims in three years will tell you that, but none of us are really satisfied with that anymore, are we. I know Collingwood can take a 'big boy' approach because they are just a bigger club all round, but I do think we can learn from how they throw their weight around, and I wouldn't want to think we were settling into a Wigan Athletic or Everton (to use a soccer example) type mindset of being a 'punch above our weight but stable' type club rather than going into everything with a winner take all mindset.

ps. The Walker issue was conflated with Hill and a couple of players on our list that were burdening the cap that we couldn't move on. Not completely in our hands there, but perhaps could have gone a bit harder.

[stefoid]

Wisely "invested"??? They were gifted, nothing to do with our recruiting team.

Re: the Faulks situation, have you intentionally ignored all of GVG's previous posts about how we could have negotiated into the situation?

And I wasn't comparing trading positions -- simply saying that if GC had an incentive to trade, so did we. So did everyone.

The point is our first two picks were off the table - we didnt have to use them for Libba and Wallis, but we chose to. I would call that a wise decision, wouldnt you?

GVG's posts are speculation, we fans have no way of knowing if Geelong would have accepted anything less than the pick we gave them for Djekurra, just as you have nothing on which to base your speculation that howard and tutt would have been available at latter picks.

Djekurra, Howard, Tutt, etc... thay are all obviously 'needs' picks which is a somewhat refreshing alternative to Claytons methodology. Dalrymple was ensuring he got the best available players that fulfilled certain needs in our future side. With that in mind, taking the risk that the players he wanted would be gone at latter picks would have been a bit foolish.

This is off the topic somewhat, but I think the wallibatore situation has been great for us in that it has allowed the recruiting team the certainty to take a 2-4 year period as a whole, rather than taking each year on its own merits in a 'best available' way. in 08, by accident or design, we addressed future key position requirements. In 09, we already knew at that stage we would be addressing midfielder requirements in '10, which allowed us to look for flankers in the draft and address legspeed issues with trading this year. Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick.

At the end of the day you want the best TEAM out there on the field, and if the recruiter minimises his own risk in drafting, by taking the best player regardless of type, he isnt eliminating that risk, he is merely transferring it to the trading arena where you then have to risk that the required playing types you need to make a balanced team may not be available at a reasonable price. Having gone tall in 08 and knowing we were going for quality midfielders in 10 allowed us to spread the risk nicely in 09 by targeting best available flankers, perhaps at the expense of higher rated players of other types that we didnt really need. As a long term strategy, I have no problem with that.

The point of all that rambling above, is that if you are going to have a strategic view of targeting players based on needs, then you pull the trigger on those players to ensure you get the ones you want. There is no point risking not getting the right ones because you might be theoretically 'overpaying''. the proof will be in the pudding in 4 years time.

[Greystache]

GVG's posts are speculation, we fans have no way of knowing if Geelong would have accepted anything less than the pick we gave them for Djekurra, just as you have nothing on which to base your speculation that howard and tutt would have been available at latter picks.

Maybe they do know and you just don't realise.

[stefoid]

Maybe they do know and you just don't realise.

Cant argue with that!

[Dancin' Douggy]

Maybe they do know and you just don't realise.

There are known knowns, Unknown knowns and Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

[The Pie Man]

There are known knowns, Unknown knowns and Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence, unconscious competence

[Greystache]

There are known knowns, Unknown knowns and Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

How do you know?

[azabob]

How do you know?

Because Donald "dumb ass" Rumsfeld told us so! ;)

[EasternWest]

It's too soon to tell how well we did at trade week, but at least the club took a look at our biggest deficiencies and tried to address that. If nothing else, they've tried to acknowledge the problem areas in our club.

FWIW I think if we can manage to get Sherman to perform consistently, he could be a massive plus. A midfield with him, Cooney and Grifftember in it could be pretty damn good.

[Mofra]

No argument there. Yet, I don't think we can be satisfied with just doing better than most clubs -- we really have to get into the 'doing better than ALL the clubs' business. We're already better than most of the clubs, three prelims in three years will tell you that, but none of us are really satisfied with that anymore, are we. I know Collingwood can take a 'big boy' approach because they are just a bigger club all round, but I do think we can learn from how they throw their weight around, and I wouldn't want to think we were settling into a Wigan Athletic or Everton (to use a soccer example) type mindset of being a 'punch above our weight but stable' type club rather than going into everything with a winner take all mindset.
That is unrealistic when GC Suns have a plethora of first round picks, room to make up on the salary cap and an immature list meanign they have less holes to fill.

As a club you can only play the hand you're dealt and I think we played ours about as well as could be expected, save for not being able to get Faulks (and the club hasn't indicated he was a major target anyway).

[LostDoggy]

Faulksy better turn out to be a superstar!

Watched him 5 or 6 times last season and while he's athletic, he's underweight to be a KP backman. Really seemed to me to be little more than a dime-dozen prospect.

Overpaid/duds/poor list management - Geez, 'we're' talking about two drafts that were little more than 12 months ago in total and they're being shit-canned with little proof (Marko is the only one i think we shouldn't have picked up at the ND).

How many of our current core group of players (mid-late 20's) did some of you consider worthy of selction back in the late 90's/early 00's? before even playing a senior game? How many did you think were just list cloggers during the Rhode era, that have now become the fabric of the side?

I know some of you have intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the club, but how many have been involved in list management/draft selection? Fine to have a plan, but what happens when other clubs have the same during draft week?

Talk about judging books by their covers FFS.

[Raw Toast]

Freo did super well to get the two state players they targetted - I imagine Chris Bond played a role and he probably learnt a bit from Eade who pioneered tricky deals like this. In effect Freo made the rest of the league (bar bloody GC of course) look stupid, just like we did with the Aker trade and similar deals in the last few years.

Now we don't know yet if we tried to do something similar, but presuming we didn't we're in the same boat as lots of other clubs. I think it's a bit harsh to expect that we'll always be the one getting away with tricky deals like that personally.

We clearly targetted 4 other players on AFL lists and got the 3 we wanted most. I think that's a pretty good trade week, we now just have to see if we targetted the correct players.

[Drunken Bum]

I know it is all very easy with hindsight but how many of us would take picks 37 and 66 for Josh Hill now?
I wanted to keep him but gee if we had our time over again i could't sign the papers quick enough.

Pouopolo who we apparently had interest in at the time and looks to me like he will be at the very least handy went at 66 and 37 was a lot higher than our first live pick at 74.

Unfortunately i can't see harwthorn or anyone else offering a similar deal this year when we are trying to offload him :/

[Drunken Bum]

Just to clarify i am not having potting the club here, as i stated i myself thought Josh was worth keeping(even now still have a minuscule bit of hope he can turn it around) just musing what might have been.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I know it is all very easy with hindsight but how many of us would take picks 37 and 66 for Josh Hill now?
I wanted to keep him but gee if we had our time over again i could't sign the papers quick enough.

Pouopolo who we apparently had interest in at the time and looks to me like he will be at the very least handy went at 66 and 37 was a lot higher than our first live pick at 74.

Unfortunately i can't see harwthorn or anyone else offering a similar deal this year when we are trying to offload him :/

While we were interested in Puopolo the news articles were a bit of a smokescreen. Schofield was our no. 1 target all along.

The other kid we wanted was Jeremy Howe who went to Melbourne and had a pretty good debut Friday night. Melbourne went early with Howe, though, pick 28 or something like taht.

[Drunken Bum]

Schofield was our no. 1 target all along.

The other kid we wanted was Jeremy Howe who went to Melbourne and had a pretty good debut Friday night. Melbourne went early with Howe, though, pick 28 or something like taht.

I appreciate what you are saying but that was with the picks that we had available to us right? I mean if we added two picks 37 and 8 places higher than our first pick, our strategy would have changed dramatically, or at least i hope it would have, i would have serious concerns about our recruiting team otherwise.

I know it is all hypotheticals and very easy in hindsight, we could very well have wasted both picks, i just hope we didn't cut off our nose to spite our face because pelican was dicking us around, it would have been much better punishment(in hindsight) having Josh stinking it up for them and us having their 2nd and 3rd round picks.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I appreciate what you are saying but that was with the picks that we had available to us right? I mean if we added two picks 37 and 8 places higher than our first pick, our strategy would have changed dramatically, or at least i hope it would have, i would have serious concerns about our recruiting team otherwise.

I know it is all hypotheticals and very easy in hindsight, we could very well have wasted both picks, i just hope we didn't cut off our nose to spite our face because pelican was dicking us around, it would have been much better punishment(in hindsight) having Josh stinking it up for them and us having their 2nd and 3rd round picks.

I know we had a list of about 40 blokes we knew we had no chance at.

We had a secondary list of 30 blokes with 15 of them identified as targets. Schofield was our no 1 target on the 'possibles' list and rated him well ahead of some of those on the 'un-gettable' list.

I don't know if any of the 40 'un-gettables' that we rated higher than Schofield would have been available at 37. There probably were.

[Happy Days]

I don't know if any of the 40 'un-gettables' that we rated higher than Schofield would have been available at 37. There probably were.

There would have had to have been, wouldn't there?

[chef]

There would have had to have been, wouldn't there?

There would have been atleast 3;)

[azabob]

Does anyone know if we tried to keep Dom Ambrogio (also now with GCS) at the club to head the recruiting once Clayton left?

From my understanding he was just as "creative" when it came to trades etc as Clayton was if not more so.

Clayton was a huge loss but equally I think Dom was also a very big loss.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There would have had to have been, wouldn't there?

Not necessarily. We rated Schofield higher than some of those we knew we couldn't get - even if we wanted them, which we didn't.


Does that make sense?