Previously posted in wrong thread...

The club judges the whole trade period as opposed to every deal in isolation.  I think the Lever trade was fair, although I acknowledge we could have probably done a little better due to our leverage.  Who knows, perhaps it was done in good faith for Lever as much as anything.  What value do you put on a club getting a good reputation with other clubs and player managers in trade deals ?  And don't cite Watts, as Connors has no issue with the Dees.

Pelchen said this morning we've done really well.  He's heard all the negativity, but didn't agree.  He said we got the player we targeted and have 4 picks inside 47. 

And this was before Balic for 66.

Name the last gun tall (AA squad quality) to be wrenched out of a club after 3 years and 50 games ?

On 16/10/2017 at 3:52 PM, Unleash Hell said:

I understand your point @DeeSpencer

In your opinion is the paying ""overs'" because we were in such a poor position and building from the draft had been so unsuccessful for so long?

Also would this situation be reversed if in the next couple of years we do really well and players actually want to come to us - ie a Hawks for Geelong?

I guess what I am saying, is overpaying now acceptable because if the risk pays off and you build a good team, in the future it makes it easier to get good deals?

 

Could have built that team with less picks is the point. Being hard nosed hasnt harmed carl or esse

On 16/10/2017 at 6:48 PM, Wiseblood said:

Yeah, the Hibberd and Garlett deals were absolute shockers...

Agree. Our recent trading has been first rate. I think we should have given less for the Lever trade but overall they have gone an excellent job in transforming our list 

In the standard post-trade-circus wash, media and footy pundits will be handing out A's and B+'s to the MFC in a very shallow pointy end at the top of the class. Several consecutive years of above-average grades. Assign whatever value to their collective opinions you wish to, but outside-looking-in has some merit in this instance when the emotion of currency and personalities are a step removed.

On 12/10/2017 at 12:50 PM, 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. 

 

 

Wasn’t happy with giving away Watts for pick 31 but this Mahoney sledge is total bullshyte

Agree. Mahoney has had some wins and losses.  At least he gets it done.  Has brought in some very good talent as needed.  

Sure he paid overs for Lever.

Sure we got shafted on Watts trade. 

But given last 4-5 years, think Mahoney deserves to stay on. 

( but then again he has been inconsistent, his performance is sometimes lacking and may not adhere to standards!!)

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Previously posted in wrong thread...

The club judges the whole trade period as opposed to every deal in isolation.  I think the Lever trade was fair, although I acknowledge we could have probably done a little better due to our leverage.  Who knows, perhaps it was done in good faith for Lever as much as anything.  What value do you put on a club getting a good reputation with other clubs and player managers in trade deals ?  And don't cite Watts, as Connors has no issue with the Dees.

Pelchen said this morning we've done really well.  He's heard all the negativity, but didn't agree.  He said we got the player we targeted and have 4 picks inside 47. 

And this was before Balic for 66.

Name the last gun tall (AA squad quality) to be wrenched out of a club after 3 years and 50 games ?

Yeah, you have to look at the whole period to know where we end up. In theory, Mahoney could trade back into the teens with two of those 2nd rounders, and have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks in the draft after a trade period that we came away with Lever and Balic for Watts. The loss of the 1st rounder next year only hurts if we are not as good as I think we will be (or we should be).

Josh gets stuff done - we have a good rep with other clubs, I have some process concerns but you would struggle to critique player retention and recruitment strategies at the MFC these days.

/

Edited October 18, 20177 yr by Roger Mellie
Attempting to delete

17 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

/

I don't want to pour fuel on the fire during these divisive times, but I think \ is a far better option for us.

Edited October 18, 20177 yr by Skuit

How could anyone realistically know whether we paid 'overs' for Lever and accepted 'unders' for Jack.  It's base on supporter expectations and not reality.  Lever got to Melbourne, Jack got to the club he chose and the club got the deals done with a minimum of fuss. As Prodee said it's about reputation, if you want to be a destination club, it helps if you can get deals done.  Compare that to the potential [censored] fight the Bulldogs have if they can't move Stringer on.

8 hours ago, Skuit said:

I don't want to pour fuel on the fire during these divisive times, but I think \ is a far better option for us.

GFY 

\ has never done nothing.

On 10/17/2017 at 1:41 PM, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

And to say "we would have taken Billings" just further proves how wrong the FD got it. 

Hindsight bias.

7 hours ago, grazman said:

Compare that to the potential [censored] fight the Bulldogs have if they can't move Stringer on.

Not to mention Adelaide re Gibbs (second year they've tried now).

10 hours ago, Skuit said:

I don't want to pour fuel on the fire during these divisive times, but I think \ is a far better option for us.

No way Jose, I'd even go -- before I'd touch \. Trust me on /

14 hours ago, jnrmac said:

How's North going with their aggressive trading strategy? Would you rather be in their shoes?

Huh? I assume you're responding to someone else or didn't read the whole post.

7 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

No way Jose, I'd even go -- before I'd touch \. Trust me on /

You are both wrong, ^ is far superior. 

Overs v Unders is all in the eyes of the beholder. The only real test is time and time will tell.

My comment about Josh Mahoney is a simple one. Peter Jackson has replaced just about everyone at the club presumably because he thought the club could do better. Mahoney has remained. I assume from that Peter Jackson likes what Mahoney has been doing. That's good enough for me.