58 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Wrong forum... think you’re looking for the Collingwood site

Well said. At times I get the impression many posters on this site are Collingwood trolls because as sure as night follows day they dont know how to support us. 

For mine, it was just a trade period. Nothing spectacular or to get too worked up about.

I'm happy we got Lever but we don't know where the Watts trade will leave us.

I for one agreed with him being traded but there is a bullseye on Goody now with that trade. We go backwards in any way shape or form, and the heat will be on.

 

 

The wrist slashing by certain posters is just rediculous, go off and support norf if you don’t want trades done

lever was a FAIR trade he is a gun make no mistake about it, we will be a way better side with him in it.

Watts it was time for him to go 9 years and the only good game I can remember him playing was against the pies this year, he is just not competitive enough, pick 31 might be slight unders but not by much.

balic if he makes it will be a bargain if he doesn’t well didn’t cost much so who cares. 

I think the club has done a great job and players who might want to be traded to us in the future will know WE WILL GET A DEAL DONE WITH MINIMUM FUSS, don’t underestimate that point, I would rather that than stuff around for 2 weeks 

AFL review of Trade Period. We're equal 4th (or equal second, depending on how you look at things ...)

Port Adelaide - 9/10
Essendon - 9/10
Fremantle - 9/10
Adelaide - 7.5/10
Brisbane - 7.5/10
Melbourne - 7.5/10
Geelong - 7/10
Richmond - 7/10
Sydney - 7/10
West Coast - 7/10
Gold Coast - 6.5/10
GWS - 6.5/10
Western Bulldogs - 6.5/10
Carlton - 6/10
Hawthorn - 6/10
St. Kilda - 5.5/10
Collingwood - 5/10
North Melbourne - 5/10

7 hours ago, hells bells said:

Ask me in 3 years time.  

I won't ask  in 3years I will ask at the end of next season!

I will match Port Adelaide and dDemons which the Watts trade has made compulsory.

if Hinkley gets an increased output from Watts Motlop and Dixon to add to his team which was so narrowly defeated in the finals nd gets an improvement which our side which could not beat North nd Collingwood to play in those same final does not achieve I will be again disappointed, a condition which I have become inured to.

I thought that we were entering a period that would finally benefit from utilising the skills of Watts in a team of increasingly improving diverse features, with a united and overpowering desire to win a premiership. They  can do it without Watts so now need to show that.

If Port deny us I will be beyond furious and demand a more comprehensive explanation from Goodwin and fellow coaches than We have received so far.

Inteesting season 

8 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Agree I thought it was a hugely successful trade period for us.

 

To the whingers, a coupla things:

 

1 - Jake Lever. You clearly have NFI how good this kid is and how big a coup it is for our club to land him at 21 years of age. Some of the lack of opposition player knowledge is genuinely embarrassing.

 

2 - The reason next year's draft is predicted to be a 'super' draft is purely because of how many potential quality top 10 picks there'll be vs this year. There will be many more potential number 1 picks next year. This year there are still plenty of players who are hard to separate from picks 15 -35. The club obviously believe there will be some quality remaining at 29, 31 and 36 and that it'd be smarter to take three second-round picks to the draft vs one late first round and later picks. Our chances of landing some good players at those three are very good.

Our development program, the coaches and leaders we have mean that any new talent coming through will be given every chance to shine. I think we're in a very strong position.

Our 'core' now comprises of:

Hogan (51 games)

Weideman (10)

Salem (46)

Petracca (39)

Viney (88)

Brayshaw (36)

Oliver (35)

Hunt (41)

Lever (56)

That's a beautiful spread of talent across all lines and that group coming through together have the potential to really take this club to the top. There are plenty of great support players underneath this group who I haven't named. But I think people forget how young and inexperienced these guys are.

Look at what Viney is doing at game 88 and now imagine what Petracca, Lever, Hogan, Oliver etc will be like when they reach that point.. Or 100 games.. We just need to keep adding smartly in and around this group. 

Looking forward to the draft.

Lol. Get your hand off it, Steven. Where's OMac??? ? Definitely in that young core you allude to.

I think whether you see this years trade period in a positive or negative light largely depends on how you rate picks vs players.

For me a feel we have paid too high a price for Lever but he's going to be around our club for a very long time, and hopefully will become a champion elite defender. He was a big fish available and he chose us. We got him well done to us on that.

The Watts trade wasn't well handled by the club in my opinion. Regardless on whether we wanted him out we came at the trade with a disadvantage by making his position at the club very difficult to work with should a trade not happen. Pick 31 and paying part of his salary feels wrong. Port won this trade massively IMO.

Balic for 66 is a definite win. I know very little about Harley but I have heard there were good wraps on his as a youngster. Moving across the country proved difficult for him, with us he can have a much better chance to thrive. Pick 66 might as well be a shot in the dark.

I think we did ok without doing amazing. I think we've got to become better poker players at this, Fremantle did incredibly well at this with Weller. I still can't believe that trade.

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

AFL review of Trade Period. We're equal 4th (or equal second, depending on how you look at things ...)

Port Adelaide - 9/10
Essendon - 9/10
Fremantle - 9/10
Adelaide - 7.5/10
Brisbane - 7.5/10
Melbourne - 7.5/10
Geelong - 7/10
Richmond - 7/10
Sydney - 7/10
West Coast - 7/10
Gold Coast - 6.5/10
GWS - 6.5/10
Western Bulldogs - 6.5/10
Carlton - 6/10
Hawthorn - 6/10
St. Kilda - 5.5/10
Collingwood - 5/10
North Melbourne - 5/10

Amazing that they even rate the Roos. They didn't do anything! So much for their "war chest".

13 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Agree I thought it was a hugely successful trade period for us.

 

To the whingers, a coupla things:

 

1 - Jake Lever. You clearly have NFI how good this kid is and how big a coup it is for our club to land him at 21 years of age. Some of the lack of opposition player knowledge is genuinely embarrassing.

 

2 - The reason next year's draft is predicted to be a 'super' draft is purely because of how many potential quality top 10 picks there'll be vs this year. There will be many more potential number 1 picks next year. This year there are still plenty of players who are hard to separate from picks 15 -35. The club obviously believe there will be some quality remaining at 29, 31 and 36 and that it'd be smarter to take three second-round picks to the draft vs one late first round and later picks. Our chances of landing some good players at those three are very good.

Our development program, the coaches and leaders we have mean that any new talent coming through will be given every chance to shine. I think we're in a very strong position.

Our 'core' now comprises of:

Hogan (51 games)

Weideman (10)

Salem (46)

Petracca (39)

Viney (88)

Brayshaw (36)

Oliver (35)

Hunt (41)

Lever (56)

That's a beautiful spread of talent across all lines and that group coming through together have the potential to really take this club to the top. There are plenty of great support players underneath this group who I haven't named. But I think people forget how young and inexperienced these guys are.

Look at what Viney is doing at game 88 and now imagine what Petracca, Lever, Hogan, Oliver etc will be like when they reach that point.. Or 100 games.. We just need to keep adding smartly in and around this group. 

Looking forward to the draft.

Wiedeman has been next to useless and there’s still a big question mark over Brayshaw with respect to concussion issues. 

To the people still crying about Watts, saying your not sure if you'll go to the footy next year etc - we are honestly better off without you and I hope you take up a membership at PAFC. Footy isn't a f$%*ing popularity contest, real fans are hungry for success.

Great trade period, achieved all our objectives, top 4 in 2018 if we want it bad enough.

 

 

I don't think judging the trade period a 'success' is as simple as assessing the trades that happened. What didn't happen is equally important.  Big picture:  

1. Pick trading.

Bulldogs got pick 16 and 40 and Blues got 25, 30 and a 2018 2nd round pick.  Also Brisbane got pick 15 and 52 from Richmond for 20 and 25.  Maybe we didn't want to participate but at face value we missed that party. 

2. 2018 Trade Position

In evaluating trade period success not only are the 2017 trades important; a clubs positioning for next year is also important.  A number of clubs have stockpiled 2018 picks.  They will have the strongest trading positions next year. I would love to have seen us use our 2017 middle picks to trade back into 2018 1st or an extra 2nd round to give us a bit more trading currency next year.

3.  It was clear we shopped Kent around but no takers so no tick there. 

4. To what extent have we improved our list and our ability to improve it further over the next 2/3 years?  Huge gain in Lever.  Some loss of skill in Watts.  So improvement this year.

But looking forward my big concern is a) our poor kicking skills and delivery to i50.  Our existing players may improve their skills and decision making but if they don't have the inherent IQ and skill, the improvement will be limited.  b) speed in the middle.

So we still have important gaps in our list and because of our limited trade currency next year have limited opportunity to cover them.  Yes there are two FA's we might get otherwise we will need to trade out talent to fill those gaps.

 

 

Undoubtedly, Lever is a huge get.   And Watts going will make a lot of people happy.  But based on the big picture above, I rate the trade period a good pass. 

14 hours ago, picket fence said:

You must be kidding??

We were the big duds of trade week, in fact spectacularly so!

1 Sold the farm for Jake Lever

2 Got  1 square metre of Quick sand for Jack Watts

3 As for Harley Balic, a same mans Ben Kennedy who we just delisted.

A poor a Drafting result as ever! IMV

Well at least at next seasons draft the opposition clubs know how to negotiate  and i use that term very loosely with us. 

All they have to do is ask for a better deal and they get it, regardless if the player is in contract or OOC.  MFC negotiation skills 101. 

13 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Well at least at next seasons draft the opposition clubs know how to negotiate  and i use that term very loosely with us. 

All they have to do is ask for a better deal and they get it, regardless if the player is in contract or OOC.  MFC negotiation skills 101. 

This 

 

i am am really pleased we have picked up Lever. That he is a gun is not in dispute. The Watts eviction was probably necessary too. The problem is that we are now known as the patsys of the league, no poker face whatsoever 

We got market value for Watts and paid market value for a bloke who was almost an All Australian at 21.  I don't understand why people can't see this.

FMD!   Some of you would complain if you won the lotto!  I am fed up with the same people, making the same assertions, on every fricken thread.  Don’t you think we have heard you already?

It is you humble (well, not so humble) opinion that we were ‘bent over’ or ‘terrible negotiators’ or whatever.  How specifically do you determine this?  If we look at results:

MFC landed the player that they were after, moved on a player they were happy to move on.

The rest is assumption based upon posters ‘perceived knowledge of potential future value’ of draft picks’ worth, or else a belief that we could have managed to achieve more (which is possible, but from outside, how can we actually tell?).

Unless you are present, and have all information, it is not possible to tell how the trades were discussed.  Unless you have inner knowledge of our list management priorities and strategies, it is not possible to determine if the club was successful or not.

My personal belief (based upon evidence over the last few years) is that:

The club has a clear idea of what they need for the list, and are not afraid to make the calls to see this through (evidence, Trenners, Watts, Lever)

The club is innovative in its approach and open to try new things (evidence: one of the first teams to trade up for lower picks / more points that suited both parties)

The club will take opportunities that suit its needs (evidence: Lewis)

The fact that we did not act on the last day does not mean that we were not active.  However, I would rather the club operate strategically and opportunistically in line with their vision, than simply acting to keep a few uninformed fans happy.

I look forward to us progressing in 2018 based on the development of assets we already have, as well as Lever adding to the mix.  I look forward to a strong culture, a leadership group at the club (not in the team) that drives its strategy and executes to get the results.

I am yet to see evidence that I will be disappointed, based upon this trade period. (And with DFA options still available, who knows what else may happen?)

It's easy to under-estimate the influence of player managers and their view of your club's reputation as a trader.

When there's competition for a player like Lever, which there was, the fact that the player managers can say with confidence that MFC will get the job done goes a long way when the player is nominating a destination and getting that nomination is 90% of the task.

Next year there's some attractive FAs.  Players and managers know MFC can get the job done, even if there are matching offers.

Collingwood should have got -5 for giving up a second round pick for a rookie listed player, and Norf 0 as all they did was a pick swap. Pick 91 for Gibson does not count as all it did was save Adelaide from having to wait for DFA to open and it won't be used. 

Sometimes I think there are people on Demonland who would argue over whether it would be better to trade for a bag of chips or a set of steak knives.

1 hour ago, Bring Back Barassi said:

This 

 

i am am really pleased we have picked up Lever. That he is a gun is not in dispute. The Watts eviction was probably necessary too. The problem is that we are now known as the patsys of the league, no poker face whatsoever 

Just go and look at what Adelaide gave up for Gibbs, then you'll feel better.

I think we did ok in this trade period. Not brilliant but we were certainly active in trying to improve the list. Slight overs for Lever but I see it as one of those calculated risks teams in our position need to make in order to make the jump. We could have stood firm and not budged on the two 2017 picks but it might have given another club like St Kilda a chance to gazump us with a better offer which the crows would have gladly taken.

 

Slightly unhappy about the Watts trade mainly because we're paying part of the salary but the market dictated the pick we got. Geelong weren't willing to part with 21 so we took what we could get. I am sad to see him go of course but I will no doubt be going to games next year, no player is bigger than the club, period.

 

I am now starting to worry about our trade period when we start getting compliments from old Purple...

If

there was an award for the club which approached Trade Period with a minimum of fuss, and which didn't deviate from a hardline Plan A ...

then

it's this one. Loved the decisive work, both with the Lever acquisition and Watts exit.

 

 

So what's Lever worth ? 

If Adelaide had chosen Lever with pick 1 in the 2014 draft they would have been lauded for getting it right.  At 21 and 195cm he's no.1 in the league for intercept possessions with Alex Rance second and he's number 2 in the league for intercept marks just behind McGovern (3.8 to 3.6).  Every draft pick is somewhat speculative, even pick 1, so you don't trade a proven young gun with over 50 games for a speculative draft pick.     

And bear in mind there are first rounders and there are first rounders.  Pick 1 is a first rounder and so is pick 18.  We didn't give up a single digit pick this year and hopefully next year's first rounder is in the teens.

 In reality, the Lever trade is defined by two separate issues, i.e. was the price fair and secondly, did we negotiate as well as we could ? 

The second question doesn't overly interest me a) because we landed the best young talent in recent trade history and b) I'm not privy to all of the facts, so I'll let others have a coronary over that one.  As far as the first question goes I have zero doubt we didn't pay "overs" for the reasons mentioned above and below. 

Conclusion, he's worth at least pick 1 in this draft and I'd argue he's worth more than pick 1, because he's no longer speculative.  Would anyone here trade Petracca for pick 1 ?  How about pick 1 for picks 10 and 13 ? 

So if he's worth more than pick 1 I can't quite understand why some are so concerned by pick 10 and a pick next year (hopefully) in the teens, especially when 35 is coming back. 

PS: I know we supposedly got him for about pick 5 under the points system, but I don't reckon that's a great way of measuring the worth of players and it's mainly used for F/S and academy players.

 

I read yesterday that Port traded Lobbe to Carlton for pick 95 in a bid to free up some salary cap space. If that's the case why are we paying any part of Watts salary. If he was on 500k as some suggest  it looks as though Port played us nicely.

Still think we should of chased Rockliff and if we landed him we could of retired Vince. 

And can I now assume that no player has any excuses going into next season. People constantly brought up Watts incomplete game, well he wasn't alone. 

12 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I read yesterday that Port traded Lobbe to Carlton for pick 95 in a bid to free up some salary cap space. If that's the case why are we paying any part of Watts salary. If he was on 500k as some suggest  it looks as though Port played us nicely.

Still think we should of chased Rockliff and if we landed him we could of retired Vince. 

And can I now assume that no player has any excuses going into next season. People constantly brought up Watts incomplete game, well he wasn't alone. 

I'd say we'd be paying somewhere in the order of $25-$50k of Watts salary, so not much in the grand scheme. Plus that $450k or so that we've freed up (along with the Lumumba cash) goes a long way to paying Lever. Which should hopefully mean we've got more than enough to pay Gawn, Tracc, Gus and the Macs who are all coming out of contract next year and then have a dip at free agency when Sloane and Gaff are available (they are my 2 biggest targets - I doubt Sloane will move though). 

So instead of seeing trade period as a win/loss based on the 3 weeks it goes for - it really needs to be judged over a few years, factoring not only draft picks and players coming in and out, but also player retention and ability to participate in free agency.