Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bulldogtragic
Unless we pull a rabbit out of the hat, I dare say this trade period is a C or D (in school grading terms). Cloke cheap is good, but the rest is not great at all.
We were never going to get anything significant from Hrovat and Stevens. We essentially don't own them any more, and with player power as it is, when players can just kill any potential bidding wars by nominating clubs, we're reduced to getting crumbs.
Would like to see JMac involve himself in some more complex deals. There are desperate clubs out there looking to do deals - Hawks and Geelong are two. Saints took advantage of the Hawks. I'd like us to manufacture similar deals but not sure if it's JMac's strength.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Talk O'Meara deal won't get done tomorrow. GCS hoping better offers from other clubs come along, standing firm Hawthorn's offer is crap.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
We were never going to get anything significant from Hrovat and Stevens. We essentially don't own them any more, and with player power as it is, when players can just kill any potential bidding wars by nominating clubs, we're reduced to getting crumbs.
Would like to see JMac involve himself in some more complex deals. There are desperate clubs out there looking to do deals - Hawks and Geelong are two. Saints took advantage of the Hawks. I'd like us to manufacture similar deals but not sure if it's JMac's strength.
Well, he can ring GCS in the morning and see exactly what they want for O'Meara. Or do a Veale Deal and force him into the national draft and trade with us right up the order to pick 4 which we agree to use on him. What would they want for 4? That's a complex deal.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I was a strong critic of the Lake trade back in 2012 as I believed we caved in far too early for the first offer on the table from the Hawks - now everything we got for Lake (essentially Hrovat and Stevens) will no longer be at the club in 2017.
They are both 22-30 players on the list so our depth has taken a hit, but truth be told we haven't lost a world of talent. Glad we're holding onto Honeychurch now as that would be too big a hit on our fringe midfield depth.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
I was a strong critic of the Lake trade back in 2012 as I believed we caved in far too early for the first offer on the table from the Hawks - now everything we got for Lake (essentially Hrovat and Stevens) will no longer be at the club in 2017.
They are both 22-30 players on the list so our depth has taken a hit, but truth be told we haven't lost a world of talent. Glad we're holding onto Honeychurch now as that would be too big a hit on our fringe midfield depth.
Hrovat > Honeychurch.
IMO, Honey is exactly the type that you look to trade THIS year. Behind plenty and will struggle for opportunities, but he's contracted, meaning we can extract value.
Next year, when he barely plays, he'll leave just like Rat and Stevens, and we'll get peanuts once again.
PS. The Lake deal needs to be lit on fire and thrown down a mine shaft, never to be heard of again. Shocker.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Hrovat > Honeychurch.
IMO, Honey is exactly the type that you look to trade THIS year. Behind plenty and will struggle for opportunities, but he's contracted, meaning we can extract value.
Next year, when he barely plays, he'll leave just like Rat and Stevens, and we'll get peanuts once again.
Agree that the Rat is the better player but he wants out as does Stevens. Given the outgoings, I'm happy that Honeychurch is there as insurance next year in case we have a spate of midfield injuries. I'm just assuming that there has been no interest in Honey at all this trade period.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Hrovat > Honeychurch.
IMO, Honey is exactly the type that you look to trade THIS year. Behind plenty and will struggle for opportunities, but he's contracted, meaning we can extract value.
Next year, when he barely plays, he'll leave just like Rat and Stevens, and we'll get peanuts once again.
PS. The Lake deal needs to be lit on fire and thrown down a mine shaft, never to be heard of again. Shocker.
Yep. Traded lake for two highly drafted players and we got one years more service than Lake gave Hawthorn. We got 93 games, they got 54 games and 3 premierships with him.
Add trading Jarrad Grant the year before too. We hold players until they're uncontracted and in the current environment it means you get bugger all.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I guess we weren't that interested despite a couple of reports. It's a huge step by the player to head up there. I'd say he believes they are clearly the flag favourites for next season.
Lose Mumford and they are still in trouble while their defence is still gettable also. I'd suggest Lids will be a Whitfield replacement once he is suspended.
I'm very bullish on our group next year I just think their is huge upside wherever you look.
-The Bont didn't start running until late Jan
-Libba off the back of another preseason will be back to his elite ball winning best.
- A forward line of Crameri,Stringer, Dickson, Mclean, Picken and Boyd is elite.
-JJ aka norm will add All Australian to his list of accolades. He is an absolute jet that kid and he now believes. I was lucky enough to have a good chat to him during the year and he told me that this group absolutely believed they would win a premiership under Beverage.
- Marcus Adams after the first month of footy looked for mine to be one of the best young backs in the comp. Obviously there is chance he will go home at years end but not signing Deledio will enable us to target, sign and strengthen an area of need rather than just a last minute reach. Deledio was gettable from mid year how keen were we really?
Oh then there is Williams and Lynch, two I have really high hopes for.
The list of positives just go on and on for mine. I'd much prefer continue to grow organically like we have which will enable us to retain an exceptional group together while target absolute needs when they arise.
It would have been nice to get a little more for Hamling and Hrovat but in an even draft, having the best recruiter in the country will be handy indeed.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
Agree that the Rat is the better player but he wants out as does Stevens. Given the outgoings, I'm happy that Honeychurch is there as insurance next year in case we have a spate of midfield injuries. I'm jut assuming that there has been no interest in Honey at all this trade period.
There's apparently been a bit of interest in Honey.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bulldogtragic
There's apparently been a bit of interest in Honey.
He is under contract and said he is staying if that's true he isn't going anywhere no matter who shows interest or what offers come about.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ledge
He is under contract and said he is staying if that's true he isn't going anywhere no matter who shows interest or what offers come about.
Cloke has a contract. Gibbs has a contract. Deledio has a contract. Honey has a contract. Caddy has a contract. If players get a better offer, they go under contracts nowadays. So if there's interest which makes him ask for a trade, then he'd go. If we got a crazy offer, we'd ask him to consider a trade. But that's inconsequential to what I said, I said there's been other clubs interested in acquiring him. If he wants to stay and fight for a spot then good on him for backing himself in when others haven't. But as others have said, if he plays a handful of games next year he will have zero value. But for everyone's sake, let's hope he has a huge 2017.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I really don't understand the interest some of us have in not backing the organic growth our list building process has fostered these past three or four years.
We expect other clubs to pay overs for players who can't get a game with us through either injury, form, or a mixture of both (Stevens and Hrovat), just so we can feel we've bettered them at the trade table, whilst also expecting us to be active in securing players that are barely going to have a material impact on our output.
There's a genuine disconnect between what we, as supporters, expect to gain for players versus what anyone's willing to pay for them. I mean, after the seasons and playing history Stevens and Hrovat have had, would any of us want to have given something more than a third or fourth rounder of ours to secure either of them?
Even with the Hamling deal we all agree it would have been nice to secure something better than a mid 30's pick for his services, but when you're negotiating with one club only, that type of result is just the market being the market.
Aside from the Cloke deal, I challenge anyone to present me with a trade scenario that should have occurred these past ten days whilst considering what wouldn't compromise our current salary cap position with line of sight to players we need to retain post 2017, and the development of our playing group.
Just because everyone else is flapping their arms to keep their heads above water, it doesn't mean we can't just float to do the same.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
One piece I didn't put in my post is that we need to immediately make overtures to players who are out of contract in 2018-2019 and front load their contracts alongside some renegotiated incentives to keep their cash flow up.
Macrae, Bont, Stringer and JJ are front of mind for me.
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
I really don't understand the interest some of us have in not backing the organic growth our list building process has fostered these past three or four years.
We expect other clubs to pay overs for players who can't get a game with us through either injury, form, or a mixture of both (Stevens and Hrovat), just so we can feel we've bettered them at the trade table, whilst also expecting us to be active in securing players that are barely going to have a material impact on our output.
There's a genuine disconnect between what we, as supporters, expect to gain for players versus what anyone's willing to pay for them. I mean, after the seasons and playing history Stevens and Hrovat have had, would any of us want to have given something more than a third or fourth rounder of ours to secure either of them?
Even with the Hamling deal we all agree it would have been nice to secure something better than a mid 30's pick for his services, but when you're negotiating with one club only, that type of result is just the market being the market.
Aside from the Cloke deal, I challenge anyone to present me with a trade scenario that should have occurred these past ten days whilst considering what wouldn't compromise our current salary cap position with line of sight to players we need to retain post 2017, and the development of our playing group.
Just because everyone else is flapping their arms to keep their heads above water, it doesn't mean we can't just float to do the same.
Quite amazing isn't it , we win a flag with a very young group and people are going on about why aren't we trading and we should get better trades or pics. Personally I think we have a great list and I back them to get better.
Funny thing the other day I saw a post saying what we needed to fill the missing pieces of the puzzle .. Umm we just won the flag what pieces are we missing .,doesn't that mean we have no missing pieces we just won with the pieces we have !