List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Only if they pay both salaries for the next three years.

Baker doesn’t have a contract so they won’t be paying that.
Tbf them paying for a player as good as Bolton to play for us for three years is probably worth a first rounder alone. It'd be massive leg up.
 
3.4 shots in 2024 at 48% 36 goals 28 behinds, 14 goal assists
3.0 shots in 2023 at 61% 41 goals 17 behinds, 8 goal assists

This is Jye Amiss. Objectively better in 2024 but lost his radar, even if you just add the extra goal assists to his own total goals.

Next year could be a very big one for Amiss and Fremantle by extension.
 
It Warner is off the table this year, I wonder whether the Saints could be persuaded to fast track their rebuild.

10 and a future third for a future first and 24?

Saints go into this string draft with 7, 10 and Battle compo.

We quarantine our future first, Saints First and second next year for Warner. Or trade out some players for more picks.

We’d go into trade week effectively with 9, 15-18, 24 and 28.

9 and 28 for Bolton, 24 for Baker, take 15-18 to the draft.

**** em 😂
 
If it’s 9, 14 & f1 for brisbanes r1, maybe.
Drunk Tom Parker GIF by MASTERPIECE | PBS
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remember when Brad Hill had multiple years contracted at St Kilda had pick #6 and then wouldn't trade it to Freo for him.

They first traded it to GWS for #12 and #18
Then traded #12 and #18 for Howard, Ryder and pick #10 from Port

Then traded pick #10 to us.

We should consider a similar situation with Richmond. Move #9 out to a club with multiple later picks such as;
Sydney for their #18 and #19
Gold Coast for their #13 and #20

Or #9 and #10 to both for all four of those first round picks.

Then we have five. #13, #17, #18, #19, #20
 
Remember when Brad Hill had multiple years contracted at St Kilda had pick #6 and then wouldn't trade it to Freo for him.

They first traded it to GWS for #12 and #18
Then traded #12 and #18 for Howard, Ryder and pick #10 from Port

Then traded pick #10 to us.

We should consider a similar situation with Richmond. Move #9 out to a club with multiple later picks such as;
Sydney for their #18 and #19
Gold Coast for their #13 and #20

Or #9 and #10 to both for all four of those first round picks.

Then we have five. #13, #17, #18, #19, #20
This like a little kid complaining that they only have 2 mars bar left so their Mum snaps both in half so they have four Mars bars. The kid is happy, Mum has chocolate on her hands.
 
This like a little kid complaining that they only have 2 mars bar left so their Mum snaps both in half so they have four Mars bars. The kid is happy, Mum has chocolate on her hands.

Exactly, but then we get to trade "three/four first round picks" for Bolton and Baker and let a club buy the remaining one or two with a future first.
 

I believe the step in the middle is that our trading of #9, #14 and F1 is that Bolton, Baker and a couple of second round picks come back. Then we trade those second round picks to Brisbane for their future first for points to match their FS bid.

It would amount to #9 and #14 for the two players.
 
I believe the step in the middle is that our trading of #9, #14 and F1 is that Bolton, Baker and a couple of second round picks come back. Then we trade those second round picks to Brisbane for their future first for points to match their FS bid.

It would amount to #9 and #14 for the two players.
Or Richmond do that deal first, and save us the hassle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top