List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part III

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was my impression too.
A player like Bruce doesn't get offered a 4 year deal on 700k plus if he is the one going to the dogs asking for a contract. Thats a big deal used to lure a player across.

In which case they also need to pay us fair value, as we are expected to for Hill.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bell said nothing had been specifically proposed at this stage. But he said Freo expected a very good deal.
If a team came looking at Hill and he was playing for us - I would expect pick 6
Hill is a great pickup but I would of loved the midfield play maker we have been wanting , however you can't complain about bringing in a A grader wingman.
Having Billings and Hill on the wings should help delivery into our forward 50.

Interesting to me is Bruce's price , Brut mentioned band 2 - is band 2 end of first round ?
 
I was under the impression Dogs had offered Bruce that deal and when Bruce went to the club with that deal to try and extend his own deal, the club said they weren't willing to extend him this year and would need to wait until next year before we are willing to start discussions rather than us saying he won't be offered a new contract at all.
I could have sworn when this whole thing started that we were the ones shopping him around and then the bulldogs came knocking. It would make more sense that the dogs came first but honestly its all just speculation really. The only people who know for sure were in the room.
 
Lol gonna be hard to argue for pick 12 now.

Hoping we hold firm but everything is pointing to us selling him at a bargain basement price with no replacement
Eh i don't know. You have to remember that Richo was the three key forward architect. If Ratten only wants to play two which you would have to assume he does considering all of this then so be it.

I'm certainly not yet sold on this idea though.
 
Barrett says Saints are open to a future without Jack Steven(s) and will need to 'get their head around' paying some of his contract because Geelong can't afford it.
Oh PLEASE can we sell our best player to Geelong and pay his wage for a 3rd round pick??

Having said that, I'd happily pay a pile of surplus salary cap monopoly money to jack in 2020 if it made the cats pay a better draft pick.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Who do we want to win the Grand Final next year?
We can just give them any player they want , and we can pay their salary for them so their new club doesn't have to worry about those nasty salary cap issues.

What's a good soccer team to watch?
Trick question. I'm onto you..

Because there is no good soccer team to follow.
 
I could have sworn when this whole thing started that we were the ones shopping him around and then the bulldogs came knocking. It would make more sense that the dogs came first but honestly its all just speculation really. The only people who know for sure were in the room.
It was Carlisle who we were shopping around with no takers. That resolved itself pretty quickly.

We may have quietly done the same with Bruce, but everything public regarding him has come from the Dogs with Stevo on ch7 being the first to report Dogs had offered him a big deal in ch7 news which was the Monday after rd23 and then had footage of him going into his exit interview from the carpark the next day.
 
Shawshank Redemption....hope can kill a man in here.
GCS with Anderson and Rowell Lukosious and a fit Rankine plus a couple of GOF may make them more competitive and have some momentum may make Ben King consider staying.
Act now Saints.
I would pay an early first and an early second or GOPlayer.



Pick 6 for Hill and 26
Bruce for 13
Next year first, Sinclair and 13 for King and pick 20.

26 for Jones....as Jones in effect replaces Sinclair in top 22.

Pay some of Stuvs salary get Cats pick 24 otherwise no deal.

Take 20 to draft
Ben wants to play with his best mate and closest person in his life, his twin brother, everything else means Jack shit. He could be offered a million a year from Fold Coast and he's still coming to the Saints.
 
It should be based on how long you've been out of finals. Not the number of wins in a season. The wins are irrelevant really given the fixture its self is compromised.

All that should matter is if the club has played finals.

I reckon 9 years rules out tanking. No club will tank for 9 years.

Tbh I don't get why picks were handed out to begin with:
1) the draft is compromised to all hell and is only going to get worse,
2) it does nothing for GC in the short term which means they bleed more talent. There's no garuntee any of these players will be around by the time the compo ends,
3) it just provides more opportunity for big strong club's to steal more talent from them,
4) it hurts the other clubs rebuilding like us.

The better suggestion would have been to provide them with considerable cap concessions. Give them an extra 2 million a season and 1 marque player outside the cap for the next 5 years. That'd do more than these picks and it means you're not hurting the club's going to the draft.

I just don't get how you can cherry pick compo here for one club when the outcome for us i.e. no finals is the same.

Also on the playing finals this year. Plenty of us saw it coming. The form line was strong. It was never gonna happen. And it didn't.

On the admin isn't it irrelevant. I mean how do you even judge for consideration for priority picks?

I mean what would be your criteria here? If it's just win loss over a series of seasons then you would have 1 win each season for 5 seasons but then win a flag and still get one?

Agree with this. Saints have been out of the finals as long as Gold Coast have as well so it sets a huge double standard. I'm not saying the Saints should be entitled to extreme draft compensation but there are other teams outside of Gold Coast who haven't had success in a while. Of course this decision is going to cause angst from other clubs.

I think it would be more palatable for the rest of the league if the AFL looked into Gold Coast's recruitment processes, governance, development and other aspects of the football club to ensure they're trending in the right direction. Instead of doing that the AFL have basically handed out an arbitary number of picks, shrugged their shoulders and said 'this may work, I guess?'. As I said, it may be a bit easier to swallow as an opposing club if gold coast were held accountable to certain performance indicators on and off the field. But they aren't. Like you said in your post I'd be okay if they got extra salary cap concessions instead of sucking young talent out of the drafts for bigger clubs to cherry pick in a few years time once they've got some experience at AFL level.
 
This is not directed at you mate but why do a fair few on here think that when we get players from other clubs they are leaders , Ryder isn't a leader with his assault history , Hanners isnt either as he always seems to have a sniffle , just because they have played at other clubs it doesnt make them a leader

Sounds like you don’t know the first thing about leadership in a football environment. Can’t speak for Ryder but to suggest Hannebery lacks leadership because he might enjoy drug taking (at least be man enough to be direct with your accusations) is just totally stupid.
When those involved at the Saints continually talk up what Hanners brings to the club with his style of leadership, it completely trumps your suggestion that he’s lacking in that department.
 
No doubt when the Cats speak to Jack and his management it’s all “we’d just love to have you at the club Elvis you hunka hunka King Of Lorne”.

Whilst when they talk to us it’s just “we’ll take that old Keith Richards off your hands if you pay for his drugs and rehab and you also chuck in all his royalties”

View attachment 756454
If Constable isn’t available I would take Guthrie, has been starved of opportunity and would surly like more chances in midfield role. Cats are done anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top