Jump to content



  • Melbourne Recruitment Manager
    Jason Taylor Interview
    & Draft Wrap Up


    Melbourne Recruitment Manager Jason Taylor Interview & Draft Wrap Up
     
Demonland

Poll: Rate our Trade Period

Poll  

288 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you rate our Trade Period?



Recommended Posts

On 20/10/2017 at 9:23 PM, KingDingAling said:

A big lesson for many clubs will be - keep your cards close to your chest. MFC mishandled the Watts and Lever trades. It would be more embarrassing if we were the only club to do it - but we weren't. Bulldogs mishandled the Stringer trade, and GC clearly should have kept Weller out of the media leading into their trade with Fremantle. The moment Weller suggested to the media that GC would do all they could to get him to their club - he had given away enough insight into how much GC valued him. From there on in Fremantle knew they could get pick 2. It is the little things that players disclose that gives insight into how a club may be leaning. We did the same with Watts. We should have been more discreet about Jack Watts. If we had of been upfront, open, and honest with Jack Watts from the very start, then we may have been able to run a completely different narrative - and a more positive one. Even after Watts left he club (in the circumstances that he did) he was positive to all involved. We need to learn the lesson on this one. Irrespective of whether we overpaid on other trades, and give Watts away, we need to treat our players better. I was really disappointed in Goodwin. I would be surprised if someone like Paul Roos wasn't shaking his head the way Goodwin handled Jack Watts.

Rubbish summary ding

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/10/2017 at 10:12 AM, Jibroni said:

I understand that but I still would not have traded 2 first rounders. 1 first, 2 seconds with Lever and a third coming back to us should have been enough hence my comment "slightly overs".

That would actually be more than we paid.

You are advocating paying more for Lever so that we don't pay overs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Rubbish summary ding

Fifty-5 - I think you should channel Jack Watts and be a bit more precise in your kickings. @ding is just an an innocent bystander - not to be confused with @KingDingAling, (and then also bing who chipped in for a like).  A-ringa-ding-ding.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how many early draft picks being delisted, Hartung, Lennon etc. It confirms in my mind that the draft is a lottery and we have done OK getting known quality (Lever)for our picks to Adelaide, I think we won with that deal. I think Balic will be a win at little/no cost. So I think we did well in the trade period -  7/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we'll play finals in 2018 in which case we haven't given up a pick inside the top 10 for a player worth at least the equal of pick one. 

Can anyone name a better 3 year, 50 game, 21 year old player to be traded to another club in the last decade ?  Anyone ?

For these reasons alone this period can't be ranked any less than "great".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 9:23 PM, KingDingAling said:

A big lesson for many clubs will be - keep your cards close to your chest. MFC mishandled the Watts and Lever trades. It would be more embarrassing if we were the only club to do it - but we weren't. Bulldogs mishandled the Stringer trade, and GC clearly should have kept Weller out of the media leading into their trade with Fremantle. The moment Weller suggested to the media that GC would do all they could to get him to their club - he had given away enough insight into how much GC valued him. From there on in Fremantle knew they could get pick 2. It is the little things that players disclose that gives insight into how a club may be leaning. We did the same with Watts. We should have been more discreet about Jack Watts. If we had of been upfront, open, and honest with Jack Watts from the very start, then we may have been able to run a completely different narrative - and a more positive one. Even after Watts left he club (in the circumstances that he did) he was positive to all involved. We need to learn the lesson on this one. Irrespective of whether we overpaid on other trades, and give Watts away, we need to treat our players better. I was really disappointed in Goodwin. I would be surprised if someone like Paul Roos wasn't shaking his head the way Goodwin handled Jack Watts.

I reject that analysis because it is based on a flawed premise that you can pretend that you might not trade a player you are determined to trade.

MFC decided to trade Watts.  He wanted to stay.  MFC had to make it crystal clear to him that he we wanted to trade him - we were "upfront, open, and honest with Jack Watts from the very start."  It's not practical or ethical to then pretend that we might not do a deal.  There's many ways it can go wrong if you do:

  • Reject Port's offer - Watts and his supporters think he's now a good chance to stay when in reality he's not
  • Alternatively Watt's and his manager know he's going to be traded - it's not in Watts best interest to play along and disadvantage the club he's being traded to
  • Port don't blink and a worse deal is all that's available in the end
  • Watt's many supporters are misled about what is really happening and are rightfully even more upset

All for some possible small trade increment.  It's more practical and ethical to be transparent as MFC were.

Edited by Fifty-5
  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

I reject that analysis because it is based on a flawed premise that you can pretend that you might not trade a player you are determined to trade.

A contracted player. A player who may not wish to be traded. Players do have rights too you know? Are you aware of this Josh? I wish Jack Watts had of told the club to GAGF and held the club to the contract it presented him with when he signed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would he have chosen that course of action? Makes no sense when the club has effectively told him to move on. That's the last thing any club wants. Hang around, you have your rights? We got what he's worth. Jake Lever is a great get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm totally confused. All these demonlanders whinging about losing Watts and paying overs for Lever only for the results to show that they are happy with the trade period. wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dr.D said:

Now I'm totally confused. All these demonlanders whinging about losing Watts and paying overs for Lever only for the results to show that they are happy with the trade period. wtf

Because only the bitter whingers bother to comment as they are hurt about losing the match winning favourite bloke jack watts.

I'm wrapt with Lever, top 4 here we come. About time we got a bit ruthless too, Jack was taking us nowhere.

Edited by thevil1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:
  • Watt's many supporters are misled about what is really happening and are rightfully even more upset

What ? Many supporters?  Misled ? By whom? What is really happening? Rightfully even more upset? 

C'mon lets get real - the club could have not been more transparent if it tried.

The big problem with many supporters is they draw 100% of their information from social media which includes forums or AFL media - then they form a opinion.

So bulldust information in - bulldust opinions out.

 

 

Edited by DaveyDee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got Lever for what is about the = of a top 5 pick. very good deal for both parties, i think we come out on top of the deal simply because draft picks carry an element of risk, and we didn't give up an established player. 

Got Balic for a pick we wouldn't have used, has upside, so definitely won that deal. 

4 picks under 47 gives us the change to bring in 4 good prospects through the national draft, i suspect we'll target some speed and skills with these picks and really try and round off our list. 

I wouldn't rule out making a play for an established back up ruckman incase Max goes down again. 

I'd say we get a B plus. we did what we set out to do, but nothing more. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×