We just needed to get the Lever deal done. He is a key player and knowing that he's now confirmed probably informs a series of other trade discussions. Not a trade to muck around with.

IMO he got it done on terms within the range. Not a bargain obviously, but acceptable.  Main thing is that he executed it. And that he did so early in the trade period, which may very well facilitate some positive secondary trades.

 

It took TMAC a good 3-4 years to become the player he is (even with his questionable disposal).

OMAC will probably take a similar amount of time, so he should start to hit his straps in the next couple of years. He showing similar if not better development than his brother at the same stage.

Looking at the likes of Rance and McGovern, they try and play the intercept role as much as they can, leaving the main shut down KPD's to teammates who aren't as good, but are capable of playing the lockdown role.

The likes of Frost and OMAC (even TMAC at times) should be able to do a similar role, allowing Lever to use his intercept skills and reading of the play to maximise effectiveness for our back-line. The surety of Hibberd, Jetta and Lewis will aid in forming an effective defensive unit.

Throw in the possibility of Gaff next year with his coverage and footskills, and the development of Weids and Hoges having a hopefully injury and problem free year, and our list is setting up nicely.

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:32, McQueen said:

Hang on.. Wut?

He belted his Skipper at half time on GF?

Sounds like the works of BS coming from salty Adelaide fans trying to demonise him (pun only sort of intended).

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:34, Nasher said:

Actually I know a number of very successful people who do just make their best offer up front at times. It depends on what you're trying to achieve - if you're trying to stave off competitors or close the deal off ASAP then sometimes it is essential. Obviously the former is not relevant in this case but I'll bet the latter is - I'll be stunned if we don't have other fish to fry that involve the pick we received back from Adelaide, in which case this deal becomes time critical. You've made assumptions that the motivator was that he wants to be an anti-Dodoro and another assumption that because it's the only reason you could think of, it's the only reason full stop. 

It also may be that their view of the value of draft picks differs from yours. This would be part of an overall strategy to build the list a certain way. And I think arguably there's not a huge amount of difference between some pick hopefully in the mid teens next year and 27 this year - certainly the AFL points system doesn't indicate much difference. 

I don't buy the get more done logic. Clubs have met for weeks, they know who is available. Time will tell but I don't think there's a rush to deal for Balic.

The difference is if our first round pick goes bad. After 11 years of missing finals we are putting a lot of faith in making it next year 

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:44, DeeSpencer said:

I don't buy the get more done logic. Clubs have met for weeks, they know who is available. Time will tell but I don't think there's a rush to deal for Balic.

The difference is if our first round pick goes bad. After 11 years of missing finals we are putting a lot of faith in making it next year 

There's a chance we'll get hurt if we crash and burn next year and that early pick becomes more valuable for sure, bet even then I don't think it's catastrophic. If you plotted it on one of those risk matrices senior managers love, it'd come up as low likelihood, moderate consequence. You wouldn't cost yourself too much mitigating a risk like that.

As for time, even with the weeks leadup, these things apparently take a while. I've never attended one so I don't know how as it seems straightforward from the outside, but the fact that the AFL extended the period from a week to a fortnight at the request of the clubs due to them always being time constrained, indicates that it must. Time will tell as to whether we do have other fish to fry or not though.

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:32, McQueen said:

Hang on.. Wut?

He belted his Skipper at half time on GF?

Rumor only @McQueen

Apparently tex and lever got in to a dust uo at half time. Tex got a black eye.

Tex denied in his radio bit a couple days ago.

Makes me like.lever more regardless of truth 

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:44, DeeSpencer said:

I don't buy the get more done logic. Clubs have met for weeks, they know who is available. Time will tell but I don't think there's a rush to deal for Balic.

The difference is if our first round pick goes bad. After 11 years of missing finals we are putting a lot of faith in making it next year 

It is an interesting and worth ehile debate.

In your opinion DS as a hypothetical. Which position this yesr looks better?

Hawks or Saints.

Hawks 'sold the farm' and Saints banked picks

Lever deal was not over.  Lever is a top 5 pick in all the recent drafts.

If he went into the national draft we had

North melbourne, carlton, st kilda, collingwood all ahead of us at pick 10 and given free agent speculation at least two of those clubs with more salary space than us

Lever was never getting to us via the draft and both Melbourne/Adelaide knew it.

Picks 10 & 6 to 14 next year looks reasonable.   Given exposed form I rate Lever as being worth at least pick 4.  No team would trade pick 4 for two teen picks.

We got a good deal

  On 12/10/2017 at 07:38, demonstone said:

Aaron Francis (The Talking Mule) would satisfy both criteria.

I like your thinking there Stone. It's perfect!

  On 12/10/2017 at 08:03, Unleash Hell said:

Rumor only @McQueen

Apparently tex and lever got in to a dust uo at half time. Tex got a black eye.

Tex denied in his radio bit a couple days ago.

Makes me like.lever more regardless of truth 

His heart was already with the red and the blue.

He clearly doesn't shirk the contest - Viney better watch out, we potentially have a new Head Coach's favourite on our hands here.

 

He comes across as an honest well rounded guy  who along with the footy department have built a good list .

kelly hasn’t  been injured who knows  he may have had salems bad luck if he was at the dees . Crystal balling , we got two for the price of one really Dom can play. 

cant get a superstar with every pick . 

Hibberd lever melksham are good pickups sometimes you gotta give a little up to get these types . Im happy we are a realistic club. 

Good on you for having a different view than most ! 

  On 12/10/2017 at 02:08, GCDee said:

When I first saw the deal I did not see we were getting Adelaides second back.

Pick 10 & 15 (approx) for Lever and 35 plus we upgrade a 4th to a 3rd next year (which is around another say 10 pick upgrade) looks pretty good to me, gone are the days where our first round pick is going to be top 3 and worth the farm. At the end of the day there isn't too much between a early second and a late first. 

We still have a pretty decent draft position with 27, 35 and probably 29 from the Watts trade.

You have to give to get quality.

Based on us finishing 6th and the Crows 4th next year

I often spend months negotiating a single contract. The OP has no clue.

This is not the real world, where I can try to get someone to drop another $50k late in the piece, and end up with $30k - there are set increments. Clubs have (for instance) pick 30 or 47. They can't say you can have 47, then to get it done drop that pick down to 42. It's a set number. When 30 is too much, you have to settle for close enough.

In the end, we either do the deal or we don't, there was no option to do it for less, that much is clear.

Look how Dodoro has fared in recent years with his hardline stance - we still only paid 2nd rounders for Melksham & Hibberd.

Sure, we paid more than I'd have preferred, but we've just been smarter here & saved ourselves the pain of days on end of holding our ground but getting nowhere, then eventually realising we've opened the door for someone else to reap the benefits of our hard work, then biting the bullet & making this deal anyway.

It's just the perception that is getting to the OP.

  On 12/10/2017 at 06:08, hemingway said:

Think I am just getting old and irritable with the lack of courtesy and respect for others. 

Just drop the " old" Ernest courtesy and respect are sadly missing in society in the second decade of the 21st century.

A sad fact of our society.

  On 12/10/2017 at 01:50, DeeSpencer said:

 

Let's look at some recent deals:

1. Picks 2 and 20 for Tyson and 9 (Salem)
Values Tyson at approximately pick 5. He'd barely played, had knee problems and the Giants didn't want him. Yes we got Hunt late but we would've got him anyway, no impact on the deal. Did we need a ready to play midfielder, sure? But why pay so much?
Verdict: Clear OVERS

2. Bernie Vince for pick 23
Vince was 27 and playing as a depth mid for the Crows, really not doing a lot. We needed a mid and got 23 from Sylvia but we still gave up a solid pick for 3 useful years of a player. That Bernie played so well for us was more of an indication of our lack of depth than his value. 
Verdict: Overs

3. Melksham for 25
Again, the player has been ok but he was in the Essendon 2's at some stages and banned for a year. A solid pick for a depth player
Verdict: Overs.

4. Lever for the farm
Time will tell but the Tigers just won the flag avoiding giving 2 first rounders for Treloar and signing Prestia instead. We acquiesced to a trade demand on the 4th day of the 2 week period.
Verdict: Overs

Convincing players to come to your club with money and opportunity is a way to improve your list. You're meant to win trades by giving up market value then having the player do well in your system. Instead we are paying clearly over market value then hoping the players justify the trades. 

These players have improved the team but they haven't improved the list. It's the reason we still have big weaknesses on the list despite some quality drafting and development. We are using trades to return to the middle of the ladder, not to get ahead of other sides.

Josh Mahoney, the last of the Cam Schwab hires, the journeyman player and failed Neeld assistant coach who did a short course at Harvard. It's time to go. 

 

 

Fair post. I would like to see him gone. Great speaker, but that is where it ends IMO.

  On 12/10/2017 at 08:52, Demons11 said:

Based on us finishing 6th and the Crows 4th next year

I'd say that's a perfectly fair trade then..

Crows wont finish 4th....just saying

  On 12/10/2017 at 08:52, Demons11 said:

Based on us finishing 6th and the Crows 4th next year

Those calculators overrate the value of later picks, specifically designed to make sure northern clubs don't give up too much for their academy players 

  On 12/10/2017 at 01:50, DeeSpencer said:

 

Let's look at some recent deals:

1. Picks 2 and 20 for Tyson and 9 (Salem)
Values Tyson at approximately pick 5. He'd barely played, had knee problems and the Giants didn't want him. Yes we got Hunt late but we would've got him anyway, no impact on the deal. Did we need a ready to play midfielder, sure? But why pay so much?
Verdict: Clear OVERS

2. Bernie Vince for pick 23
Vince was 27 and playing as a depth mid for the Crows, really not doing a lot. We needed a mid and got 23 from Sylvia but we still gave up a solid pick for 3 useful years of a player. That Bernie played so well for us was more of an indication of our lack of depth than his value. 
Verdict: Overs

3. Melksham for 25
Again, the player has been ok but he was in the Essendon 2's at some stages and banned for a year. A solid pick for a depth player
Verdict: Overs.

4. Lever for the farm
Time will tell but the Tigers just won the flag avoiding giving 2 first rounders for Treloar and signing Prestia instead. We acquiesced to a trade demand on the 4th day of the 2 week period.
Verdict: Overs

Convincing players to come to your club with money and opportunity is a way to improve your list. You're meant to win trades by giving up market value then having the player do well in your system. Instead we are paying clearly over market value then hoping the players justify the trades. 

These players have improved the team but they haven't improved the list. It's the reason we still have big weaknesses on the list despite some quality drafting and development. We are using trades to return to the middle of the ladder, not to get ahead of other sides.

Josh Mahoney, the last of the Cam Schwab hires, the journeyman player and failed Neeld assistant coach who did a short course at Harvard. It's time to go. 

 

 

 the most selective post of all time, a classic case of only putting facts that support your argument, just forget about all the trades that we paid unders for,  for as many overs we paid just as many unders,  we have improved every year since he took over trades,  team performance is more important then whoever we picked up for whatever trades they came at,  whether it's over or unders that doesn't matter all that matters is has the list improved? have we  improved our ladder position over the last 4 years,  so that means overall he has done a ripping job.  Anyway you don't know whether you've paid unders or overs until at least 10 years after a trade,  it can change from week to week some days it seems we paid overs for certain players and some days it seems we paid unders for them.

Hot wine and a too much hot wind, a bad post maketh!

  On 12/10/2017 at 08:14, green_machine said:

Lever deal was not over.  Lever is a top 5 pick in all the recent drafts.

If he went into the national draft we had

North melbourne, carlton, st kilda, collingwood all ahead of us at pick 10 and given free agent speculation at least two of those clubs with more salary space than us

Lever was never getting to us via the draft and both Melbourne/Adelaide knew it.

Picks 10 & 6 to 14 next year looks reasonable.   Given exposed form I rate Lever as being worth at least pick 4.  No team would trade pick 4 for two teen picks.

We got a good deal

Agree. Terry Wallace did an excellent review on SEN late today describing the whole points process of draft positions values  and methodically worked through the Lever deal.  A good deal both teams in his opinion.  Further he emphasised the view that this rounds out what a finals list now looks like.  The club have the faith from hereon.

Mahoney and recruiters know what they are doing.

 

 

  On 12/10/2017 at 10:03, Demon17 said:

Agree. Terry Wallace did an excellent review on SEN late today describing the whole points process of draft positions values  and methodically worked through the Lever deal.  A good deal both teams in his opinion.  Further he emphasised the view that this rounds out what a finals list now looks like.  The club have the faith from hereon.

Mahoney and recruiters know what they are doing.

 

 

Exactly we basically gave up pick 4 for lever which is a fair trade, people just see the draft picks and can’t get there head around it and assume we got ripped off, win/win trade imo if we finished last next year that would sway it Adelaide’s way but that won’t happen 

Can't agree with any of this apart from the current lever deal. We would have to make a prelim to make this deal look like a success plus hope the crows don't make the 8.

I still reckon the fees have got something up their sleeve on this trade the coming days will tell.

Worst thread ive seen for a loooooong time. 

Typical MFC supporter syndrome - have gotten too accustomed to the highlight of the year being draft day so cant bare to see picks traded. 

 

My opinion on the trades are completely the opposite