A D huh? Leaving aside the hate for Barrett what do people think a realistic assessment might be?

Hard of course but because it is hard to assess it without knowing who we get at 9 and even then we won't know for some time how good a player he is/will be.

Also i suppose you have to take into account the opportunity cost of not having pick 2, which would be hard to define given it would not be clear who we would have taken with number 2. Its not out of the realms of possibility we will get the same player.

Again leaving aside the hate for Barrett it is hard to fathom how he could be so critical of that element of our trading (getting Tyson for our pick 2) given that Tyson was taken number 3 only 2 years ago, and has done ok since and has the benefit of 2 pre season (albeit one being hit by injury). Also we still have a top 10 pick (even though we had to give up pick 20 to get it). We are desperate needs of mids and we need them now so again i don't get the criticism of the deal.

Any whooo. Tyson, Pick 9, Vince and the minch - i give us a cautious B.

We got two experienced, proven AFL quality midfielders, two young midfielders of an age where they are ready to hit their straps, and we remained in the top 10 of the draft, in a draft where there should definitely be A grade mids available at our pick. I literally cannot think of anything else we needed to get out of this trade period.

So much star gazing.

Take St Kilda for instance - by all reports they have traded really well - what will people say in 12 months time if McEvoy tears it up at Hawthorn and Del Santo at the Roos and the boys they have traded in deliver bagels ?

I will give a report card in a minimum of 12 months time. Anything before that is pure guesswork.

That's partly true, I don't really think it matters whether Hawthorn or North win the flag on the back of a McEvoy or Dal Santo NSM.

The Saints list was going off a cliff, I think Pelchen has at least reduced the gradient.

Bolstered the backline with Bruce and Delaney (as Machsy points out)

Didn't necessarily lose anything in the ruck long-term with McEvoy for Longer and good picks.

Their midfield is still better than ours with Montagna, Stevens, Hayes, Armitage, Ray and they've added some garnish with Savage

They really need Stanley to come on behind Riewoldt.

They've got picks 3, 18, 19 in a midfielders draft and that's where they need to make hay.

There's obviously a harmony question with the coach but that's a separate issue from list management unless everyone decides they want out like they did at Brisbane.

Some people (like me) think it looks a bit tacky and would probably say "oh, just wait until they get back from holidays to take real photos. They look better and what sort of person would really care anyway..?"

Plus it could be construed as diluting the strength of the image of the players when they first get the jumper on, which should be soon when they come back from holidays.

At this time of year the club will want to stretch things out to get as much material as possible, since there are no games being played to provide it.

It's just such a petty irrelevant complaint.

Good points.

Obviously next time i'll put a little more effort into my posts...

The pertinence of my comment today was highlighted by the many moves happening on the last day of trade period.

I simply meant to say that I'm looking forward to see our new Demons in their new colours, and can't wait to see them on the website.

I didn't envisage the amount of backlash at my obviously misworded comment.

Peter Ryan is a good honest bloke.

He'll say it how he sees it, unlike Barrett who plays the game of tapping into the psyche of the supporter base (inferiority complex in our case) and exploiting it (when it suits him, not when it's North).

But beyond all that, does anyone really think Barrett actually knows anything about football?

He's essentially the New Idea of footy media - only interested in spouting gossip about all manner of backroom dealings.

He knows not a thing about the game itself.

I think the pick 20 was overs. Should have held our ground and offered up 3rd rounder and pick 2 instead.

Barret gave us a "D+" for our trade period.

[censored]!

Kept saying we gave away pick 2 for Tyson - I don't think he knows it was a bit more complicated then that.

The other guy gives Sydney a "D" and Barret says "I think that's a little harsh..... they landed Buddy"

Wearing glasses doesn't make you smart Barret!

I love how full of himself this guy is, thinks he knows more than bloody Paul Roos a guy who has won a premiership, coached in two, and won All Australian coach, Barrett should just quit, absolute moron!

Good points.

Obviously next time i'll put a little more effort into my posts...

I don't think it's about effort.

I just don't see it as making enough of a difference to complain about.

But it is only the opinion of one man, in the end, no more valid than your own.

We all know what they say about opinions.

A D huh? Leaving aside the hate for Barrett what do people think a realistic assessment might be?

Any whooo. Tyson, Pick 9, Vince and the minch - i give us a cautious B.

Barrett thinks it's a D and I think it's an A+.

Who give a flying F. All that matters is what happens on field next year.

I don't think it's about effort.

I just don't see it as making enough of a difference to complain about.

But it is only the opinion of one man, in the end, no more valid than your own.

We all know what they say about opinions.

See edited post 4710

I think the pick 20 was overs. Should have held our ground and offered up 3rd rounder and pick 2 instead.

And we probably did.

With GWS replying "NO."

We may have tried to stick to our guns, but that would probably end in the deal getting delayed, with GWS moving pick 9 to someone else, killing any chance of the deal happening.

Then what would we have ended up with?

Pick 2 for Tyson, straight up?

No deal at all for Tyson, keeping pick 2?

I'd be a lot less happy with those outcomes.

I think it's better to accept that a lot of negotiation and planning went into this deal, we got a pretty good result, and GWS weren't so desperate for pick 2 that we could take advantage of them.

See edited post 4710

Careful, the villagers will be back soon with their pitchforks.

I don't think this sort of response is personal.

I think it's a cumulative response to lots of petty criticisms of the club in the past.

Just like the lack of photoshopped jumper images, it's not worth any of us getting stressed over.

We got two experienced, proven AFL quality midfielders, two young midfielders of an age where they are ready to hit their straps, and we remained in the top 10 of the draft, in a draft where there should definitely be A grade mids available at our pick. I literally cannot think of anything else we needed to get out of this trade period.

Within the realm of the possible it looks like a good outcome IMO. Who cares what Barrett thinks ; )

Barrett thinks it's a D and I think it's an A+.

yep

That's partly true, I don't really think it matters whether Hawthorn or North win the flag on the back of a McEvoy or Dal Santo NSM.

The Saints list was going off a cliff, I think Pelchen has at least reduced the gradient.

Bolstered the backline with Bruce and Delaney (as Machsy points out)

Didn't necessarily lose anything in the ruck long-term with McEvoy for Longer and good picks.

Their midfield is still better than ours with Montagna, Stevens, Hayes, Armitage, Ray and they've added some garnish with Savage

They really need Stanley to come on behind Riewoldt.

They've got picks 3, 18, 19 in a midfielders draft and that's where they need to make hay.

There's obviously a harmony question with the coach but that's a separate issue from list management unless everyone decides they want out like they did at Brisbane.

I'm not so sure how the Saints have done in this trade period. They've picked up a couple of borderline players in Savage and Delaney and a ruck with potential in Longer. The draft is said to be strong to pick 12 and a raffle thereafter so pick 3 is all they have there. Then they've lost McEvoy and DelSanto.

It doesn't scream win to me and I know you're not saying that, but maybe Pelchen is getting points from his previous positions. I guess all will become obvious over the next 12 or so months.

Barrett could point at us picking up 2 young mids with hardly any game time, big punt on potential with injury issues. Trading out the compo pick 20+ for a 28yo and then bringing in a pensioner in Cross.

We could answer that Tyson will be a gun, Black, Hodge and Pendles all rolled into one plus we get another hit at it with pick 9 to get the next Dangerfield or Stevie J. Vince is a much better player than Silvia and pick 20+ is a raffle in this draft anyway. Michie is the hidden gem of this trade period and Cross will bring a level of professionalism the club needs.

It's all opinion at this stage.

What I think is interesting is that we didn't trade anyone out and not only that but there was little if any talk in the media about any of our players being traded out.

It could have been because they just were not rated or it could have been a philosophy. I think it's the second. I think Roos recognizes the need to restore confidence and if he had traded players out this could send an unwanted message to the playing group but more importantly he recognizes that the previous FD were so inept that he can't really make a fair judgement on the marginal players like Tapscott, Blease or Strauss.

This contrasts so much with last year. I wonder which will produce better results?

yep

I think the reason it's an A+ is that in assessing the performance it's important to take into account the desirability of the destination.

Depends on whether we get one of the players we had earmarked at 2 when we use 9. If we do, then Tyson cost us what, pick 20?

Apparently Peter Ryan was defending us quite vigorously, according to afl.com.

video here

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-10-25/gillette-trade-wrap-we-rate-every-club

What I think is interesting is that we didn't trade anyone out and not only that but there was little if any talk in the media about any of our players being traded out.

It could have been because they just were not rated or it could have been a philosophy. I think it's the second. I think Roos recognizes the need to restore confidence and if he had traded players out this could send an unwanted message to the playing group but more importantly he recognizes that the previous FD were so inept that he can't really make a fair judgement on the marginal players like Tapscott, Blease or Strauss.

This contrasts so much with last year. I wonder which will produce better results?

Also BB no one demanded to be traded out. Sylvia as a FA is in a different situation and after 10 yrs he probably saw that Roos et al would demand far more of him and give him less latitude as a senior player than a 21 or 22 yr old. Perhaps the list on the whole have more optimism for the future under Roos and Jackson. A good sign if that is the case.

What I think is interesting is that we didn't trade anyone out and not only that but there was little if any talk in the media about any of our players being traded out.

It could have been because they just were not rated or it could have been a philosophy. I think it's the second. I think Roos recognizes the need to restore confidence and if he had traded players out this could send an unwanted message to the playing group but more importantly he recognizes that the previous FD were so inept that he can't really make a fair judgement on the marginal players like Tapscott, Blease or Strauss.

This contrasts so much with last year. I wonder which will produce better results?

I think there is a bit of all of that but I have heard that Roos had told some players they would be moved on if a suitable trade came along.

Perhaps nothing suitable came along?

To not trade is better than to just lose someone for nothing just for the space on the list, like Morton last year.

That's asset destruction and a terrific way to destroy a list.

What I think is interesting is that we didn't trade anyone out and not only that but there was little if any talk in the media about any of our players being traded out.

It could have been because they just were not rated or it could have been a philosophy. I think it's the second. I think Roos recognizes the need to restore confidence and if he had traded players out this could send an unwanted message to the playing group but more importantly he recognizes that the previous FD were so inept that he can't really make a fair judgement on the marginal players like Tapscott, Blease or Strauss.

This contrasts so much with last year. I wonder which will produce better results?

I think Roos would like a chance with the younger ones, to try to sort them into players. but the others may be on a thin timeline. bail nicho jamar

The difference between Barrett and Jay Clarke is that Barrett actually seems to believe his opinions matter.

The only caution I had with our trades was that I thought (perhaps) that Dylan Shiel might have had that agro factor that our midfield desperately needs. Not saying I don't rate Dom Tyson in any way and a pick 3 midfielder with fantastic pedigree and a stand out according to Oakleigh Chargers people.

Michie was a steal and Vince an upgrade.

Longer is not and wipl never be McEvoy. Nice bloke by all reports but didn't always get the pill at the Northern.

I think there is a bit of all of that but I have heard that Roos had told some players they would be moved on if a suitable trade came along.

Perhaps nothing suitable came along?

To not trade is better than to just lose someone for nothing just for the space on the list, like Morton last year.

That's asset destruction and a terrific way to destroy a list.

Morton wasn't an asset. He was taking up a spot on the list for someone like Terlich.

I think the pick 20 was overs. Should have held our ground and offered up 3rd rounder and pick 2 instead.

Think of it as pick 2 for Tyson (the 2011 number 3 pick) plus we upgraded pick 20 to pick 9 and pick 72 to pick 58.

Morton wasn't an asset. He was taking up a spot on the list for someone like Terlich.

Or someone like Gillies...

He was worth more than his spot on the list, which is what he was sold for. I didn't like it then and I still don't like it.