List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part V

[NeXus Nick]

Why?

Because we are obviously recruiting for the now.

 

[Premium]

I'll admit , the Saints walking out of the negotiations and splitting the pick within 15 minutes, was one of the coolest things that i've heard of in ANY trade period. BLAM

With only having pick 6 and pick 55 it was the best method to get all of our trades done with out giving away next years first.

 

[plugger66]

Because we are obviously recruiting for the now.

Really? Why? Apart from Ryder everyone has at least 5 years left baring injury.

 

[plugger66]

With only having pick 6 and pick 55 it was the best method to get all of our trades done with out giving away next years first.

But we were obviously prepared to use 6 on him. And next years second. In the end both sides would say they did well.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Because we are obviously recruiting for the now.

Not sure that’s actually the case.

Discounting Paddy R ( picked for needs) and Hill at the “ancient” age of 26, the other three we picked up are all 23 ish.
On top of babes like King, Bytel, Clavarino, Coffield, Langlands and Clark, I think we have got plenty players for later too.
Even our “mature agers” last season in Wilkie, Hind and Parker are also early twenties.

I think we are recruiting for a sustained run of success but we can’t do it with 18 year olds alone. The age balance of our team was stuffed for such a long time, it’s finally looking a bit better now.

 

[NeXus Nick]

Really? Why? Apart from Ryder everyone has at least 5 years left baring injury.

We are topping up with mature aged players. We have trashed this years draft completely and we only have one decent pick for next year.

 

[Diehard Saint]

We are topping up with mature aged players. We have trashed this years draft completely and we only have one decent pick for next year.

I’m not too worried about our draft hand for next year, it can always change with movement of players etc. Look what we did this year with 6, 55 and a second rounder basically.

Besides, we can always live in credit and use the 2021 picks

 

[mightymalaka]

I think the funniest thing out of the trade period was Essendon getting a high rating when they did nothing. How hard is it to sit there on your hands, shaking your head in denial while saying, no,no,no to any trade deals ? My grandma could've done that. But somehow the Dildoro legends grows.

Yesss! As BJ once famously quoted, they will make a movie out of all this one day!
Only the movie won't be one of overcoming the odds and winning a premiership!

It will be one specifically tailored for a dubious audience titled.......
D Day Deception!

Devastated Drug Dealing Dumb Ass Dons Deceived and Doctored by Dirty Dildo!
Coming to your theatre soon in new 9D technology!

 

[StCicatriz]

there is salary dump and therse SALARY DUMP ...
one is where you need to get rid of someone because you cant fit everyone in ... the other is you are paying far to much for someone that doesnt match their importance to the team... rightly or wrongly we saw Bruce as an excess to our needs but due to the previous years he was structured as one of our higest paid players dumping his salary as a top end player when he is though of being a mid range player makes sence (provided your assesment of the player is spot on) . so it was a dump of salary but not the type you might see Collingwood need to do next year or what Sydney have had to do previously

I think you missed my point. We can't front end Bruce's contract then dump his salary. Likewise stuv. They're mutually exclusive...

So my question to everyone is what is it? Did we front load Bruce and stuv contract or not?

 

[BrutThough]

I think you missed my point. We can't front end Bruce's contract then dump his salary. Likewise stuv. They're mutually exclusive...

So my question to everyone is what is it? Did we front load Bruce and stuv contract or not?

Bruce wasn't traded because of his current salary though, so its not really known or relevant.

We didnt want to pay the 700k plus for 4 years the Dogs were willing too, so he asked to be traded. Nothing to do with his current money.

 

[Impatient Saint]

I think the funniest thing out of the trade period was Essendon getting a high rating when they did nothing. How hard is it to sit there on your hands, shaking your head in denial while saying, no,no,no to any trade deals ? My grandma could've done that. But somehow the Dildoro legends grows.

Absolutely.

Essendon continue to have this 'holier than thou' attitude and become outraged when a quality player wants to leave - how dare they. I hope Daniher does them over and leaves for absolutley nil and walks through to the preseason draft after next season.

 

[StCicatriz]

Bruce wasn't traded because of his current salary though, so its not really known or relevant.

We didnt want to pay the 700k plus for 4 years the Dogs were willing too, so he asked to be traded. Nothing to do with his current money.

For the love of god read what I wrote. Can anyone honestly answer the question or are they going to continually side step it?

We either front loaded Bruce's and stuvs contract as per the discussion on here over the last 4 years or we just salary dumped their final year... So what one is it?

 

[Snailspace13]

Will Stuv only be playing Home Games at the Cattery

 

[StCicatriz]

I remember Lethlean suggesting (after Trade period) that our cap was tightening. but still ok. Said we want it to be tight, all the big clubs are stretched to the limit.

I'd suggest with Steven and McCartin payouts plus the forward loading of Haneberry, Gresham et al there'd be some relief next year and the year after.

I reckon you are closer to the truth than anything talked about on here over the last 4 years.

The salary floor dictates that we are at best 10% better off when we bank the cap saving. 5% in every other year. Which on 13m is 650k to 1.3m.

The fact people are saying we are salary dumping Bruce's and stuvs last year tells you we were not front loading their contracts to the extent everyone thought. And I think the reason for that is we have to hit 95% when we are performing as a bottom 6 side. You front load the hell out of it and then how do we hit the 95%? By paying them double?

So all this talk about front loading contracts has been wrong. It just wasn't true. If it was true then the salary dump never happened and bruce/stuv were able to double dip in a similar manner to Hill, essentially meaning we didn't offload shit.

 

[BangersAndMash]

Will Stuv only be playing Home Games at the Cattery

Yeah he might get home sick playing at Marvel or the G...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

I reckon you are closer to the truth than anything talked about on here over the last 4 years.

The salary floor dictates that we are at best 10% better off when we bank the cap saving. 5% in every other year. Which on 13m is 650k to 1.3m.

The fact people are saying we are salary dumping Bruce's and stuvs last year tells you we were not front loading their contracts to the extent everyone thought. And I think the reason for that is we have to hit 95% when we are performing as a bottom 6 side. You front load the hell out of it and then how do we hit the 95%? By paying them double?

So all this talk about front loading contracts has been wrong. It just wasn't true. If it was true then the salary dump never happened and bruce/stuv were able to double dip in a similar manner to Hill, essentially meaning we didn't offload shit.

I think you’ll find that most years we have had plenty of $$$ to spend thanks to front loading deals. When the big name FA didn’t arrive, the contracts were re-done so that the salary floor was met.

Hence we may have front loaded a few deals but by not as much as they had originally planned.

Does that make sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Just to add, there’s plenty of time between trade & FA period and when the TPP details need to be submitted.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrutThough]

For the love of god read what I wrote. Can anyone honestly answer the question or are they going to continually side step it?

We either front loaded Bruce's and stuvs contract as per the discussion on here over the last 4 years or we just salary dumped their final year... So what one is it?

And as I said, no one knows since it isn't relevant to why they were traded.

 

[Diehard Saint]

For the love of god read what I wrote. Can anyone honestly answer the question or are they going to continually side step it?

We either front loaded Bruce's and stuvs contract as per the discussion on here over the last 4 years or we just salary dumped their final year... So what one is it?

Who actually brought up the salary dumping idea though? Think it was the media....in which case I’d discount it completely.
I believe we’ve been front loading to meet the cap, but honestly I’ve got even less idea than the media- it just makes sense to me.

No ones sidestepping it...Someone did actually answer you - we weren’t dumping Bruce’s salary for the last year of his contract, we would like to have kept him on, but weren’t prepared to pay what he was asking for his next one both in terms of years and money. I don’t believe that’s a salary dump, it’s a cap / list management issue.

Again, we would have kept Stuv, but we’re probably not too upset about having his money off the books, especially as it was doubtful how much he’ll play. I don’t believe it was a deliberate ploy to dump his salary.

Hope that answers your questions and I don’t get shouted at for trying.

 

[ScrappyDo]

I reckon you are closer to the truth than anything talked about on here over the last 4 years.

The salary floor dictates that we are at best 10% better off when we bank the cap saving. 5% in every other year. Which on 13m is 650k to 1.3m.

The fact people are saying we are salary dumping Bruce's and stuvs last year tells you we were not front loading their contracts to the extent everyone thought. And I think the reason for that is we have to hit 95% when we are performing as a bottom 6 side. You front load the hell out of it and then how do we hit the 95%? By paying them double?

So all this talk about front loading contracts has been wrong. It just wasn't true. If it was true then the salary dump never happened and bruce/stuv were able to double dip in a similar manner to Hill, essentially meaning we didn't offload shit.

Why are you putting any stock in what anyone here says?
It's like when the membership girl told you about the results or the review, that the club fully backed Richo and then you gave her a big bunch of your money, then spent 6 months losing your mind!
Why do you keep believing what you hear from disreputable sources?

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

I think you missed my point. We can't front end Bruce's contract then dump his salary. Likewise stuv. They're mutually exclusive...

So my question to everyone is what is it? Did we front load Bruce and stuv contract or not?

i dont think the salary was actually a problem ... it was a line that Solarium Terry got hold of and ran with it all trade week ...
i think the issue was Bruce wanting an extension with the value he was expecting was going to be an issue for us moving forward.. rightfully so Bruce was one of our highest paid players and that was fine while he was considered one of our top three players but when we are talking about the perception from the club that Bruce is going to slip down that pecking order in the next 6 to 12 months that contract extension value that he wanted potentially gives us an issue .. holding both Bruce and Stuvs salary in 202 doesnt hurt us and realistically outside of needing the draft picks we could have got all 5 players in and kept both guys in 2020 but post 2020 when we would need to negotiate others on the list who will be wanting more (rightfully so we hope) and potentially bringing in more quality through either trades or free agency then the cap would become quiet tight ...

Solarium Terry got it somewhat right but a little off the track Bruce was in part a salary dump yes but not cause we need it in 2020 more so we have that free'd up for beyond 2020 .. the trade high was an attempt to help both Bruce get what he wanted from the dogs and get us the maximum return for Bruce before the value dropped ... it worked for Bruce getting what he wanted but not so much in us getting an overs trade for him but in the end it facilitated us landing all 5 of our targets so we walk away happy , Bruce walks away happy and the dogs walk away happy .... as i said mature and respectful trading by the saints crew

 

[Half Back Pocket]

Paddy is completely cooked....don't be fooled by the "take a year off to regroup and potentially get redrafted" talk. No chance of ever playing again. Straight from the horses mouth. Multi million dollar settlement through the AFL Concussion Fund too i'd expect, and all done behind closed doors.

 

[NeXus Nick]

I’m not too worried about our draft hand for next year, it can always change with movement of players etc. Look what we did this year with 6, 55 and a second rounder basically.

Besides, we can always live in credit and use the 2021 picks

You have conveniently omitted that we also gave away Bruce, Steven, Blacres and future 3rd and 4th round picks. But that's ok, it makes your point stronger.

 

[Sir Skid]

Heard Lethers on SEN this morning.
Likely a backup ruck drafted to fill Paddy spot on list. Who's likely?

 

[Murraj1966]

Heard Lethers on SEN this morning.
Likely a backup ruck drafted to fill Paddy spot on list. Who's likely?

Zac Clarke maybe?