Trade Week: RFC Style

[mightytiges]

Unless I’ve got this figured all wrong then it seems to me that the clubs that have gone on to have success are the ones that have nurtured team spirit amongst a strong core group of players, who have remained together for a number of seasons.

But the way some clubs approach trade week seems totally the opposite to that.  Come trade week, what generally seems to happen is that clubs float names to see what response they get from other clubs and to also gauge public reaction.

True TS that the top clubs bring a tightknit group through together. West Coast had 18 of its 2006 premiership side and the Swans had 21 of theirs back in 2003. We're trying to do it with our large crop of youngsters.

I think the notion exists in a number of clubs is that if player A has another ordinary year then his trade value will be practically zilch. See if a trade can be done while player A still decent currency. Tarrant for example.

There's also the situation where you might have an excess of one type of player and although he's in your best 22 you try to trade him for a player you are deficient in. In our case it was alleged in the press that we believed we had an excess of inside midfielders and were will to swap one for a key defender in Polak.

Anyway, if they thought that any of the players mentioned didn’t fit in with the Club’s future plans then why are all of them still on our list

The system doesn't allow for offloading every player a club thinks won't be part of a future successful side at once. These players may be contracted, no other club may be interested in them or just moving them all on at once would create a experience and bigger-body vacuum in the team. You also only have so many decent picks. There's no point having 10 selections in the 6th round of the draft.

[one-eyed]

Anger over trade period
Jon Ralph and Jon Pierik
October 15, 2006 12:00am
Sunday Herald-Sun

A NEW AFL group investigating player movement will scrutinise the record low number of players changing clubs in this year's trade period.

Only eight players were traded this year, compared to the 33 who moved clubs in 2000.

The AFL Players Association is concerned middle-tier players are not being given a chance to re-ignite flagging careers.

The trade period was labelled a "farce" by Sydney coach Paul Roos after Hawthorn stonewalled the Swans offer for Peter Everitt for three days before caving in a 1.58pm on Friday.

While Everitt was allowed to move to Sydney, Carlton held on to Bret Thornton and Jordan Russell.

With the number of trades dropping to single figures for the first time, the group will look at effective ways of promoting trades.

All accredited AFL agents will be given a chance to provide feedback on this year's trade week, with some fuming at the unwillingness of clubs to release battling players.

Smaller list sizes and the value of draft picks may indicate trading picks for players may not be the best way of promoting player exchange.

AFLPA operations manager Matt Finnis said the various stakeholders were determined to encourage ways of prolonging careers, with the average AFL career now only 2.9 years.

"If fewer players are moving, that is something which is a concern for us, which we need to address," he said.

"People say players who want to go somewhere generally get there. That is well and good in terms of the ones who get publicised, but we need to consider that middle rung of players. Are they getting traded?"

Player agent Ricky Olarenshaw has called for a two-tiered system for trade week to ensure high-profile stars do not dominate the trade.

Olarenshaw, who looks after Russell, said: "It seems to be with trade week that everyone is so focused on the high-profile players, no-one seems to look at the next tier of players," he said.

"I had a chat with Adrian Anderson about it to say it would be good to have, say, a certain level of player, a $200,000 player done today, and next week we look at sub-$200,000 players."

AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson said yesterday: "We shouldn't be trying to force players into trades, but by the same token there needs to be freedom of movement, and we will be looking at that in detail with the working party over the next year."

Dwindling trades

2000: - 33 completed trades.
2001: - 29 completed trades.
2002: - 25 completed trades.
2003: - 25 completed trades.
2004: - 17 completed trades.
2005: - 13 completed trades.
2006: - 8 completed trades.

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,20581845-11088,00.html

[Tiger Spirit]

He still contradicted Miller who had said we needed to trade a player on similar dollars to get Polak. I guess March can't now complain when Miller says to him he needs X amount of dollars more for the footy department lol. Miller did say afterwards that March had full confidence in his decisions and they would worry about finding the extra dough on Monday.

That had me a bit bemused too, MT.  Just makes you realise how much trade week is really all just a game.  The AFL is supposedly a professional body but there’s absolutely nothing professional about trade week.

[Tiger Spirit]

I think the notion exists in a number of clubs is that if player A has another ordinary year then his trade value will be practically zilch. See if a trade can be done while player A still decent currency. Tarrant for example.

There's also the situation where you might have an excess of one type of player and although he's in your best 22 you try to trade him for a player you are deficient in. In our case it was alleged in the press that we believed we had an excess of inside midfielders and were will to swap one for a key defender in Polak.

Don’t get me wrong MT, as much as I don’t like the workings of trade week, I understand and can even appreciate where clubs are coming from.  What I don’t understand is the childish games clubs play to try and get a ‘better’ deal.

If Clubs systematically use the draft properly, isn’t that the best avenue to improve your list, without de-stabilising players/clubs unnecessarily?  Trade week can then be professionally used to move players on who are either disgruntled or have limited opportunity at their current club, which is pretty much what happened last week.

The whole thing is even more bizarre when you consider that everyone in the football ‘know’, knew months ago that the next draft was going to be one of the best ever.  Why then would clubs go to the table with players other clubs would have a question mark over and expect them to give up valuable trade picks?  The majority of players traded were all ones that were rumoured to be moving on leading up to draft week.  Doesn’t that tell us what a joke the whole thing is?  Because it seems to me that clubs had generally already decided who they wanted well before trade week even happened and weren’t prepared to negotiate on other deals.

Do you need to be a genius to work any of that out?  But no, we’ll just play the stupid game, so now, not only have some clubs still got those players on their books, quite possibly, they now have some smoothing over to do, when, in reality, those deals were never gonna eventuate.  If I wasn’t so angry about the whole thing, I’d have a good laugh about it all.

The system doesn't allow for offloading every player a club thinks won't be part of a future successful side at once. These players may be contracted, no other club may be interested in them or just moving them all on at once would create a experience and bigger-body vacuum in the team. You also only have so many decent picks. There's no point having 10 selections in the 6th round of the draft.

Things change at clubs from one year to the next.  But if two of the players supposedly bandied around have been on our list for about 6 years, and they were never going to be part of the future, then that’s a list management issue.  And if they were good enough before then they can still be good enough.  Why expect trade week to solve all your immediate problems for you (because that’s exactly what this sounds like, an immediate issue, rather than something that can’t be resolved) when the chances of that happening are slim, at best, unless clubs already know, leading up to trade week, that there is interest in their players? 

Anyway, I thought the club was supposedly still building a list.  It’s not like we’re going to win the GF in the next 2 seasons, unless all the other clubs fall over or something.  So what’s with the big hurry in trade week?  Fair dinkum, they lose me sometimes.

Previously, we had players on our list who couldn’t be bothered getting out of bed, or didn’t have the necessary commitment to play at the level, yet they still got a gig for longer than was necessary.  Let’s not make the same mistake now, but why treat players, who mostly seem to have done the right thing, in this way?  Even though I understand what you’re saying, the way trade week happens still doesn’t make sense, from a professional/business/ethical point of view.

To me it just seems like a silly game for those with exceedingly high levels of testosterone.

[Moi]

Most are probably prepared to accept that’s how things are, Moi.  But I guess that’s partly why my enthusiasm doesn’t seem the same.  It’s all just a bit too clinical and matter of fact for me.

If it helps, I don't think you are alone.  Every year lately, I get very unenthused come the end of the season - that wasnt' the case years ago. I think there are lots of us who hate the sterility of footy as it is these days.  Sterile, as in supporters don't count, players are just taws in a game and it's all about the almighty dollar. 
Players get paid very well, so there's got to be a return - if there isn't, the inevitable chop happens.

But it's mainly because the game we grew up loving was taken away from us when it turned a national comp.  The old rivalries are still there, but it just doesn't seem the same to me any more.

On the up side, I still do get lots out of footy too - mainly the great people you meet through going to games, gasbagging about it at work, on forums like this.  I think if those things were taken away, you'd sure miss it.

As I say, take a step back - I do it every year now - and my enthusiasm is in check generally after the cricket season finishes 

[mightytiges]

Don’t get me wrong MT, as much as I don’t like the workings of trade week, I understand and can even appreciate where clubs are coming from.  What I don’t understand is the childish games clubs play to try and get a ‘better’ deal.

If Clubs systematically use the draft properly, isn’t that the best avenue to improve your list, without de-stabilising players/clubs unnecessarily?  Trade week can then be professionally used to move players on who are either disgruntled or have limited opportunity at their current club, which is pretty much what happened last week.

The whole thing is even more bizarre when you consider that everyone in the football ‘know’, knew months ago that the next draft was going to be one of the best ever.  Why then would clubs go to the table with players other clubs would have a question mark over and expect them to give up valuable trade picks?  The majority of players traded were all ones that were rumoured to be moving on leading up to draft week.  Doesn’t that tell us what a joke the whole thing is?  Because it seems to me that clubs had generally already decided who they wanted well before trade week even happened and weren’t prepared to negotiate on other deals.

Do you need to be a genius to work any of that out?  But no, we’ll just play the stupid game, so now, not only have some clubs still got those players on their books, quite possibly, they now have some smoothing over to do, when, in reality, those deals were never gonna eventuate.  If I wasn’t so angry about the whole thing, I’d have a good laugh about it all.

To stop the silly games, the AFL would need to introduce a independent body to judge the value of a player who wanted to leave his club and go to another and set his price in terms pick(s) and/or player(s). How do they do that as they would need to assume the quality of the upcoming draft just as the clubs do now. We may have ended up with no trades done this year if each player's value was set above what another club would pay. Sadly I can't see much improvement on the free market wheeling and dealing we have now during trade week apart from making it dramatically shorter to put a end to this 5 days of fooling around and the AFL craking down on pure deceitful behaviour as we saw this week when a Vic club made up that they had received a better offer to try and con another club into coughing up more for a ruckman.

Things change at clubs from one year to the next.  But if two of the players supposedly bandied around have been on our list for about 6 years, and they were never going to be part of the future, then that’s a list management issue.  And if they were good enough before then they can still be good enough.  Why expect trade week to solve all your immediate problems for you (because that’s exactly what this sounds like, an immediate issue, rather than something that can’t be resolved) when the chances of that happening are slim, at best, unless clubs already know, leading up to trade week, that there is interest in their players? 

Anyway, I thought the club was supposedly still building a list.  It’s not like we’re going to win the GF in the next 2 seasons, unless all the other clubs fall over or something.  So what’s with the big hurry in trade week?  Fair dinkum, they lose me sometimes.

Previously, we had players on our list who couldn’t be bothered getting out of bed, or didn’t have the necessary commitment to play at the level, yet they still got a gig for longer than was necessary.  Let’s not make the same mistake now, but why treat players, who mostly seem to have done the right thing, in this way?  Even though I understand what you’re saying, the way trade week happens still doesn’t make sense, from a professional/business/ethical point of view.

To me it just seems like a silly game for those with exceedingly high levels of testosterone.

As LC said in another thread our list was totally put out of balance but Spud. The middle age bracket was threadbare. So we have perhaps two "windows" of opportunity coming up. There's an initial window where our current senior blokes may still be part of a finals push and then a later perhaps more long-term (5-10 years from now) window built around the youngsters as our new core.

I think the club is trying to build up our middle-age bracket with potentially highly talented players via trades (Simmo, Paddy and now Polak) so we aren't waiting 5 or more years for all our young guys to reach 24 years of age or more. Now trading away a player from that middle age bracket may sound counter-intuitive to that process but if the coaching staff believe a player won't get any better than he is now yet he still has good trade value then it's their call to try and do a player swap or get a decent draft pick in exchange for him. West Coast have traded 8 Eagles since 2003 compared to only our 4 for instance.

As far as Richmond went, no opposition club valued those players of ours we were preparing to part with. That in iteself is probably a realistic assessment of where we and those players are at at the moment. They may be committed but that doesn't mean they are good enough. For example, Tim Fleming would bust his guts out each and every week but he was delisted because his skills were shocking.

[one-eyed]

Player market stagnant as trades slow to trickle
Chip Le Grand
The Australian
October 17, 2006

GIVEN the events of last week, Chris Pelchen and Ricky Nixon make for strange bed-fellows. Yet, as fall-out continues over the least productive trade period on record, the Hawthorn personnel manager and leading player agent are in agreement that market reforms are needed to help footballers get from one club to another.

The push for a limited form of free agency - one supported by both Nixon and Pelchen and being championed by the Players Association in award negotiations with the league - has gained momentum following a turgid trade period in which only nine players found new clubs.

This year's trickle of trades continued a steady decline in player movement since 2000, when 34 separate trades were completed.

Nixon, the manager for former Hawk-turned-Swan Peter Everitt, is a vocal critic of the trade rules and warned of legal action by players unless the post-season trading and draft process provided more freedom of movement for players already in the system.

"If the system is not changed there will be a challenge," he said yesterday.

Pelchen, who unapologetically stretched out the Everitt trade to within minutes of last Friday's 2pm deadline to maximise Hawthorn's return - frustrating Nixon and Sydney in the process - agrees something must be done to realign the player market with the system on which it was orginally based: the American National Football League.

"It is becoming a problem," Pelchen said. "Over the last two years it has reduced significantly. I think there are ways we can deregulate the draft and the trading period further to encourage trading."

The campaign for reform is being led by the AFLPA, which has formed a working party with the AFL to consider reforms to trade week and other aspects of the player market as an adjunct to award negotiations.

AFLPA general manager of operations Matthew Finnis, formerly a sports lawyer, said every year that fewer trades are done, the chances increase of a frustrated player challenging the entire system as a restraint of trade.

There is broad agreement among the clubs and player agents on why post-season trading has ground to a halt.

The first is that clubs now place a higher premium on the national draft - where the best teenage talent is on offer - as the best means to rebuild their playing lists.

The second is the politics of trading, which ensure that coaches and club officials who trade for mature-age players face public condemnation - and in some instances the sack - if those players don't perform.

The politics of player trading reached a new level last month when the Carlton board prohibited its senior coach Denis Pagan from recruiting any player over the age of 24.

The combination of politics and changed recruiting priorities has created a dead-end for players who find themselves struggling for a game at their own club and with little or no option to ply their trade elsewhere. Instead of taking a chance on these players, clubs invariably take another teenager in the draft.

As Melbourne recruiting manager Craig Cameron put it: "If they are not good enough on another club's list, why are we going to bring them in to fill up our list?"

The question of how to improve player trading is more difficult. Nixon advocates free agency to allow players who have given only a few years of service to move easily between clubs and the introduction of a supplementary list to give opportunities to players who find themselves on the scrap heap in their mid-20s.

Pelchen agrees that a regulated form of free agency would grease the trade wheels, along with the introduction of a second, post-draft trade period to enable clubs to re-enter the player market once they know the full make-up of their lists.

Pelchen also concedes there is a cultural problem within clubs, where some recruiters and coaches - himself included - are only prepared to trade for a clear win instead of settling for a fair deal which benefits both clubs. Pelchen was part of the sub-committee which designed the draft in 1985 and believes it has become more restrictive than originally intended.

"We do need to change that culture and that way of thinking throughout the competition," Pelchen said. "If you look at the American system, they trade very aggressively and they have no problems with one of their players doing well at another club. They are concerned what their own club is getting. I think we have a greater concern trading someone that someone might come back to haunt us."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20592809-36035,00.html

[Captain__Blood]

Everyone has their interpretation of trade week and this is mine.

Maybe it’s just me, but as each season goes by, more and more it seems like trade week has become an out clause that excuses Clubs from everything they told supporters leading up to that point.  Otherwise, why do I suddenly feel like someone who’s just been cheated on and lied to?

Over the years I’ve copped rattling tins, humiliating defeats, having my Club be the laughing stock of the AFL and even people laughing in my face when I said I was a Richmond supporter.  I didn’t like it, but I wore it.  What I won’t cop is the negligent way the Club now seemingly treats its players and supporters, with absolutely no regard for any relationships developed by the Club, leading up to trade week.

On the one hand, Clubs do all they can to build camaraderie, team harmony and spirit amongst players and have them develop an affinity for the place, and then spend time telling supporters how wonderful the future will be with these players, yet when it comes to trade week it’s like we’re played for fools or something.

Are people just expected to take everything the Club tells them as gospel, even though they say one thing on one day and then do another when it’s convenient?  I’m usually willing to go along with what’s best for the Club and have never had an issue with that, but there’s a limit for everyone and I don’t support messing with people’s emotions and generally treating them like they don’t really matter, in comparison to what’s good for the Club.

This might just be a game to them, or a job, but there are supporters who have invested and devoted themselves to the RFC cause.  Does that give the Club right of way to prey on people because they know that, no matter what happens or what they do, people will get over it, in time?  And anyway, the Club is always bigger than the individual, and that’s professional sport.

Which apparently makes it seem ok for Clubs to treat people with contempt.  An example of that, for me, is Cogs.  Whether he was genuinely put up for trade I don’t know, but where there’s smoke there’s fire.  The thing that gets me is that, when he started out he was seen as this shining light and blah blah blah and trundled out whenever the Club needed to dodge some bullets from the angry hordes, or put a positive spin on things, through some ordinary times.  He no doubt did it because it was in the best interests of the Club.  And anyway, down the track the Club would surely repay his faith.

That was then and this is now, and what is good for the club one day doesn’t necessarily correspond with what is good for the club on another, because circumstances change.  That may be so, and to be expected even, but where’s the consistency in the way people are treated from one day to the next, especially during trade week?

Regardless of all the attempts made to convince players that this is the place to be and that their best interests will be taken care of by the Club, come trade week, that all seems to count for nothing.

Instead, players and supporters alike are supposed to conveniently forget everything that happened before and go along with whatever the Club is telling us is in its best interests now.  Never mind the carcases that lay strewn, and the endless list of tortured souls, all of whom nobly suffered in the best interests of the Club.  After all, they’re not what matters in all of this, are they?

And when the week is over and deals fall through, or whatever, they’ll just expect everyone to just resume normal transmission, won’t they?  No big deal really.

Well, they can expect that, but not when they promote the current flavour of the month player(s) as the future of the Club, have supporters develop attachments to them and then when it comes to trade week just pretend none of that ever happened and that it’s ok to use them as trade bait, because it’s in the best interests of the Club.

In the real world, where I choose to make infrequent appearances, players get traded for various reasons, each year.  Sometimes it’s best for a player and Club to part company.  Fine.  Some even get to play in premierships because of it, ironically, just none that have been traded to RFC in recent memory.  Good luck to the lucky ones.

Maybe players are so well drilled and resilient enough to deal with these things and recover quickly from such things.  But it doesn’t alter how it reflects on any Club.  Not to me it doesn’t.

Where is the credence when they can feed us sweet nothings for 51 weeks of the year and then when trade week comes around they adopt the ‘anything (and anyone) goes’ approach?  How is my battered mind supposed to deal with that?  Are they stark raving mad?  That could explain it, otherwise I don’t get it.

And what exactly has G. Polak done throughout his career thus far, to justify such attention, apart from being tall enough to be a KPP?  And no, I haven’t read the ‘Could Polak play Full Back’ thread.  Like I care right now.

Apart from the mixed messages this time of year sends, this ‘use and abuse’ mentality doesn’t fill me with the confidence to think that the Club is building the foundations for success.  Rather, if this is an example of things to come, it seems to expect to find the answers to its shortcomings by replacing what seemed like foundations already set in concrete with those built on flimsier stuff.

The whole thing just makes me feel like I’ve been taken for a ride.  Ha, sucked in again.
First they sell their spin to those players and supporters who will listen, spend years building up their emotional attachment to all things RFC, and then inexplicably proceed to put them through the wringer, without even blinking.

If that’s what they think of the people that have given the most, and how they treat them, then what hope is there of this Club ever achieving anything of any significance?  I ask myself.  And where is the pride in any of that?

 

Overview

Graham Polak: 22 years of age. 195/6cms. 94kg.

 - #4 2001 draft (Judd/Hodge/Ball).
 - 2nd in the 2003 Rising Star, beating the like of Ball and Wells (who were playing a lot better than they are this season).

To me, it is clear he is a footballer with much potential. Drafted highly and thought upon very highly (many pre-draft had him rated as the outstanding player of the crop) as a very talented player.

Although you expect him to say it he seems to have a good attitude to coming to the club and wanting to do well. Has signed a long deal , seems to have a great attitude, wants to train hard and continue to hit the gym and becoming more imposing.


The Deal

A couple year back Polak would have commanded much more than Tarrent did today. To get him for and only (more or less) downgrading from #8 to #13, in a draft where outside the top 3/4 there is alot of good, even talent, is good buisness IMO.

From what I can work out, this is what went down. Swapping first rounders with Freo, and out 3rd for their 4th, whilst slightly upgrading our 4th via Collingwood.

In: Polak, #13, #60
Out: #8, #42

Wallace has stated: "I now regard us as having gained two first-round picks, as well as a second-rounder, in our recruiting endeavors." - more so who would have cost alot more a season or so ago. I am viewing the situation much the same.

Plough has had to choose his words very carfully after promising to never again give away a high draft pick.

Pick #13 in a strong draft, and we have managed to keep out 2nd rounder - which i think is very important and an underated top move by Miller his possie. A risk, no doubt but one well worth taking.

Miller has impressed yet again. Knew what he wanted and needed to do and did it well.

Future

All of the sudden our future spine (post Richo and co.), along with that dreaded black spot on our list – KPP, mid 20’s is looking a lot better.

In fact, a little something like:

Code: [Select]

FB: Thursfeild
HB: Polak
HF: Hughes
FF: Schultz

Ruck: Pattison
Bar Thusty the spine that looks like taking us into the next decade were all highly rated: Hughes (#24 - 2005), Pattison (#20 - 2004) Schultz (#12 - 2003) & Polak (#3 - 2002).

With Wallaces 'types'; Deledio, Meyer, JON, Raines, Polo, Tambling, etc. tall, skilled, running fleet (that he has invisioned and been modling since day dot) working the other positions – and life isn’t looking too bad.

The future, is all of a sudden alot more rosie, for some of the slightly more pessimistic amounst us, like my self.


Polak the footballer.

Does Polak have the potential to be our young, gun KPP? Our Rivers, Glass, Rutten type?

All Australia CHB material?

At 196ish he is a great hight. Polak has hit the gym hard in recent times knowing he needs to get strong and is now a good 94kg and looking to get bigger with a Paddy Bowden or Raines being able to do the job on the faster forwards.  

For a big feller he reads the game very well (abit like Whitnall), has a vice like grab, and about as brave as they come.

Of course, on the other hand he might just be an out and out dud, and if so we have not had to wage too much to get the lad at the club. However, I think all the facts point to he having potential. Getting to that potential is another kettle of fish - yet Wallace has shown he could draft in the like of Paddy Bowden, Simmonds and Raines, Tuck, Pettifer and co.

Even as a forward (pinch hitting or otherwise) there is worst options. Richo (CHF), Schultz (FF) with Polak as the 3rd man might stretch a defensive.


Post-Trade week, I feel the club is in a better postion both in the long and short term than we were 7 days ago.

Forza Graham Polak.

Welcome to Tigerland.

[Tiger Spirit]

Don’t mean to drag up the past, but only saw this recently.

Post-Trade week, I feel the club is in a better postion both in the long and short term than we were 7 days ago.

Forza Graham Polak.

Welcome to Tigerland.

Wish I could feel the same way about things CB.  Even after a few weeks to cool off about the whole thing, I don’t feel any better about it than I did back then.

Couldn’t really argue with your post, except to say that I never said anywhere that Polak wasn’t welcome at Richmond.   I haven’t even mentioned his name until now, and mainly because I didn’t know enough about him to know whether he can be a good player or not.  As long as he wears the Richmond jumper with pride and doesn’t drag the Richmond name through the mud then I have no problems with any player on our list.  Good luck to him and I hope he does well.  Even though I can get a bit emotional about thing at times, to ever be able to see straight, I still try to keep things on the balanced side.

What I did was question the perceived events that took place, in order to get him to the Club.  Perceived, because who knows what really goes on and because we only get ‘spin’ coming out of RFC.

The way some clubs carry on during trade week, you’d think that it’s supposed to have magical healing properties or something.  Used wisely, sure it may help, but the games that get played out, day after day, year after year of this trade week, it seems that some clubs believe it can make all their problems go away and all their dreams come true.  But for that to happen, there would need to be a cost involved, you would think.  Only we never get to hear about that side of the story, just the good and wholesome part.

As much as we’d all like to think everything that happens is always good and positive, I don’t think anyone believes that’s the reality of things, and maybe it’s best if we don’t know some things.  So, based on the bits and pieces we heard about, I was questioning what really happened, in order to get Polak to Richmond.  Nothing to do with the player himself, it’s just how we got him that concerns me.

[mightytiges]

It's going to take 3-5 years to see if we made the correct decision or not. Will Polak succeed at Punt Rd or continue to flounder like he did at Freo? Will he prove to be better than a third round pick from this draft as that was what we effectively paid for him? Will Pick 13 prove to be just a good or better as those b/w 8-12? Will we score a good kid with one of our late picks?

There's lots of variables that will make the Polak trade either a brilliant, mediocre or a dud deal.

As for getting Polak, we could only get him by offloading picks as no other club was interested in any of our players we were prepared to let go that we thought had decent trade value. Probably a healthy reality check for us and our perspective of where our list is currently at. Apart from the talented youngsters we've picked up in the last 2-3 years, the rest of our list isn't rated.

[Tiger Spirit]

It's going to take 3-5 years to see if we made the correct decision or not. Will Polak succeed at Punt Rd or continue to flounder like he did at Freo? Will he prove to be better than a third round pick from this draft as that was what we effectively paid for him? Will Pick 13 prove to be just a good or better as those b/w 8-12? Will we score a good kid with one of our late picks?

There's lots of variables that will make the Polak trade either a brilliant, mediocre or a dud deal.

That’s part of the stupidity of the whole thing.  Because there are so many variables, Clubs might as well take their chances with the draft, rather than sell their soul during trade week, for something that’s so uncertain.  The trade may be a shortcut to adding to our KP stocks, but there has to be a better way for players to be traded, than the long winded and unnecessary way it happened with Polak.

As for getting Polak, we could only get him by offloading picks as no other club was interested in any of our players we were prepared to let go that we thought had decent trade value. Probably a healthy reality check for us and our perspective of where our list is currently at. Apart from the talented youngsters we've picked up in the last 2-3 years, the rest of our list isn't rated.

I wouldn't be making any excuses for them MT.  From my point of view, RFC deserves a good whack for the way the whole thing was handled.

Given the boom draft that’s expected this year, which Club was going to want to trade away their picks, unless it was for top liners?  In previous seasons, when the Club may have had the opportunity to trade certain players they didn’t want to deal back then because those players were highly regarded and therefore off limits, but in a year where it was unlikely any Club was going to want to trade, unless they already had a deal in mind, they’re suddenly happy to sell their soul and want to talk turkey for a player who is inconsistent, a mature age late bloomer and one with a dodgy knee.  Are they serious and exactly how naïve would other Clubs need to be?  Who did they think they were dealing with, the Kangaroos, circa 2005?

[mightytiges]

That’s part of the stupidity of the whole thing.  Because there are so many variables, Clubs might as well take their chances with the draft, rather than sell their soul during trade week, for something that’s so uncertain. 

Freo are going for a flag next year whether they are good enough or not. They've given up their best picks the last couple of years to get Josh Carr, Tarrant, etc.. 18 year old draftees that will take 3-4 years to come on are no good for the topper upper Dockers.

The trade may be a shortcut to adding to our KP stocks, but there has to be a better way for players to be traded, than the long winded and unnecessary way it happened with Polak.

Make trade week only last a day or two at the most. The Polak deal was basically done early in the week but Sheedy and the bombers came along and as usual deliberately interferred just to drag things out until Friday to try and score a deal that was ridiculously in their favour. That's why most clubs no longer trade with the bombers. 

I wouldn't be making any excuses for them MT.  From my point of view, RFC deserves a good whack for the way the whole thing was handled.

Given the boom draft that’s expected this year, which Club was going to want to trade away their picks, unless it was for top liners?  In previous seasons, when the Club may have had the opportunity to trade certain players they didn’t want to deal back then because those players were highly regarded and therefore off limits, but in a year where it was unlikely any Club was going to want to trade, unless they already had a deal in mind, they’re suddenly happy to sell their soul and want to talk turkey for a player who is inconsistent, a mature age late bloomer and one with a dodgy knee.  Are they serious and exactly how naïve would other Clubs need to be?  Who did they think they were dealing with, the Kangaroos, circa 2005?

Who did they think they were dealing with? ...  Freo who are the only club without a first round pick in this superdraft  .

Seriously though, under Spud yep we didn't offload players we could/should have and instead did the opposite like Freo and stupidly gave up first round picks for recycled duds. Under Wallace we've traded Ottens and Fiora for Simmo and two first rounders (Patto and Meyer) plus a late pick for Paddy.

I'm not making excuses for the Club TS. As you know I believe giving up our 3rd round pick was paying over the odds but it's done now so hopefully Polak repays the faith of Miller and Wallace. He needs to otherwise we'll pay down the track .

[Tiger Spirit]

Freo are going for a flag next year whether they are good enough or not. They've given up their best picks the last couple of years to get Josh Carr, Tarrant, etc.. 18 year old draftees that will take 3-4 years to come on are no good for the topper upper Dockers.

That’s Freo, let their supporters worry about that.  What’s our excuse, when we won’t be at that stage for another few seasons yet?

Make trade week only last a day or two at the most. The Polak deal was basically done early in the week but Sheedy and the bombers came along and as usual deliberately interferred just to drag things out until Friday to try and score a deal that was ridiculously in their favour. That's why most clubs no longer trade with the bombers.

Either that or they could just get grown ups to do the deals.

Who did they think they were dealing with? ...  Freo who are the only club without a first round pick in this superdraft  .

As you say MT, they are after a premiership.  They got what they wanted.  However, it doesn’t seem, from what we know, that we got what we wanted, in the way we would’ve wanted.

Seriously though, under Spud yep we didn't offload players we could/should have and instead did the opposite like Freo and stupidly gave up first round picks for recycled duds. Under Wallace we've traded Ottens and Fiora for Simmo and two first rounders (Patto and Meyer) plus a late pick for Paddy.

Ottens and Fiora are understandable, not sure, whichever way it’s explained to me, if I understand the thinking behind the names offered up this time round.

I'm not making excuses for the Club TS. As you know I believe giving up our 3rd round pick was paying over the odds but it's done now so hopefully Polak repays the faith of Miller and Wallace. He needs to otherwise we'll pay down the track .

I needn’t have said that MT, but why would the Club even put up names if they know it’s going to be hard work getting any sort of deal, especially in such a year?  They’re either naïve themselves or expected others to be.  We may not have to wait to pay down the track, if this serves to undermine any player/club relationship that was there before.  Hopefully, players get over these things much faster than me, and maybe I’m just over dramatising the whole thing.

[mightytiges]

That’s Freo, let their supporters worry about that.  What’s our excuse, when we won’t be at that stage for another few seasons yet?

Only recruiting one KPP in the previous 5 years under Spud might have alot to do with it .

I needn’t have said that MT, but why would the Club even put up names if they know it’s going to be hard work getting any sort of deal, especially in such a year?  They’re either naïve themselves or expected others to be.  We may not have to wait to pay down the track, if this serves to undermine any player/club relationship that was there before.  Hopefully, players get over these things much faster than me, and maybe I’m just over dramatising the whole thing.

With so many youngsters coming through, every Tiger would know they need to perform or in Wallace-speak "keep their graph moving upwards"  or they are at risk of getting cut or traded.