List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[crasha301]

The pick 5/6 thing is great on paper but the issues are 1. It relies on us finishing bottom four or five which isn't a guarantee, in fact if we win tomorrow we'll be up to twelfth 2. It's highly unlikely that he'll trigger that kind of compo.

And despite all that and that it's very unlikely, the chances of actually drafting a guy as good as him at that pick aren't exactly high either.

It just seems like a dumb play to me.

If the AFL confirms behind closed doors with a handshake agreement that we will receive a pick after our first for battle we'll start tanking.

Or as I like to call it Danking, development-tanking.

Send players in for surgery early so they can be ready for the start of preseason and playing the kids.

On CPH2145 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[gringo2011]

So because he says differently to your belief you question his manliness?

I'd noticed it before.

 

[stavro#4]

I'd noticed it before.

Okay. Doesnt mean he is wrong though.

 

[gringo2011]

Okay. Doesnt mean he is wrong though.

Depends on what you consider wrong. He's all kinds of wrong.

 

[akaifu]

900k for Josh Battle

26

Josh Battle

Age

26

Ht

193cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

5.0

5star

T

2.4

4star

MG

196.8

3star

D

11.0

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.8

3star

MG

142.8

3star

D

10.8

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

175.6

3star

is insane, I don't understand how some of you are going crazy over the possibility of him leaving especially since it could yield us the perfect player for our needs in the draft

Yes he's a good player, yes he's great for our culture and yes hes a great clubman, but he'll be a top 3 paid player at the club - on the same amount if not more than Sinc, Steele, King, Row. Is he that valuable? Absolutely not

With the players we want to bring in over the next couple of years, signing him up would put our cap room at risk of doing a Collingwood when Treloar and Grundy left for bags of chips. Why risk such a scenario when we have Keeler and Arie looking good as youngsters in the VFL, while we also have solid role players in Cordy and Sharman who can cover for the short term. Cordy full back, Dougs CHB, Wilkie 3rd tall would be an interesting dynamic

If its a band 2 compo pick then 100% keep him, but if its band 1 then letting him go is a good result considering he's also unrestricted and we can't match a bid

 

[Joffaboy]

This is not a loaded question just a curiosity. Are you willing to pay him a million a year to keep him? 900k? What’s your threshold?

No, fair question. Basically I am putting my position that
1. I think he is a valuable player and want to keep him
2. 6 x 800k IMO is an extremely fair, at a pinch maybe an extra 120k over the 6 front or back ended, but not 900k x 6.
3. After the above two points, my discussion is, like everyone elses, a what if scenario.
It would be acceptance and disappointment but then looking for best dp.
Watching him at training yesterday after all the discussion, he runs further and harder than any of our other back men, plays a traditional CHB role pushing up through the middle and dropping back.on the rebound to structure up the defence. To me he is a vital cog and yes we have some tyro's in Arie, and Keeler, they are nowhere near Josh for positioning, running power and structural integrity in the backline.

TL;DR, to me he is worth 800 to 825 a year, but not 900k.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[stavro#4]

Depends on what you consider wrong. He's all kinds of wrong.

Doesn’t mean his information on Battle that has led him to believe if he accepts an offer could lead to band 1

…. Is wrong.

 

[The Boar]

This thread nearly needs a daily repeat update on Battle:

1) Battle is an Unrestricted Free Agent due to being a low earner on our list.
2) As an Unrestricted Free Agent, Battle can leave if he wants and we cannot match.
3) Battle is a very very good player, well loved at the Club.
4) As a very good player, Battle is worth good money.
5) St Kilda have a good money offer on the table for Battle
6) Other Clubs, given Battle is a very good player + an UFA, have a great money offers on the table.
7) If the great money offer is worthy of a Band 1, ala a Top 10 Draft Pick, it would be best that Battle moves on. However all the best for this very good St Kilda player...who we can't stop from leaving.


Repeat this post every 24 hours to save a lot of repetition.

 

[MrFoster]

I actually have a high degree of trust on what you say re players, because many you’ve spoken about targeting in the past etc have really turned out well - you obviously are quite a talent watcher around the various comps and I am definitely not.

Nevertheless, last years draft is gone.
It’s like continuing to mourn Billings/Bont, Paddy/Petracca etc, no help at all.

All we can do is move forward - and hope like hell the drafting team know what they are doing this time round. The last couple of drafts have been good (not telling you anything you don’t know) let’s see what SOS and Dalrymple and the rest can do.

The players may not be exactly as good, although who really knows considering where some players who landed up stars of the game were picked, but the likelihood of the higher picks being the best has to be taken into account. I’m very nervous about the gift package Tassie are going to get. We’ve been there, done that before.

I’d rather risk it, all chips in this year and maybe it’s not necessary next year. Despite everything I’ve said, it’s a moot point I guess, because it’s all in Josh Battle’s hands.

It’s the forever argument!!

Crowd A - We are crap, we’ll always be crap, but let’s not change what we do. We drafted poorly in the last 10 years, so we’ll always draft poorly, even with a completely different and competent team in charge.

Crowd B - Let’s take risks, because what we’ve been doing is not working.. We need to re-generate the list, but we need to be bold and try to use different strategies to our advantage..

Let’s just agree to disagree.. at the end of the day, Battle will make a decision So let’s see.. can we move to the next topic to argue please?

Who thinks Howard is not reliable / competent enough for his pay packet should be let go?

 

[austinnn]

If the AFL confirms behind closed doors with a handshake agreement that we will receive a pick after our first for battle we'll start tanking.

Or as I like to call it Danking, development-tanking.

Send players in for surgery early so they can be ready for the start of preseason and playing the kids.

On CPH2145 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Agreed

 

[austinnn]

No, fair question. Basically I am putting my position that
1. I think he is a valuable player and want to keep him
2. 6 x 800k IMO is an extremely fair, at a pinch maybe an extra 120k over the 6 front or back ended, but not 900k x 6.
3. After the above two points, my discussion is, like everyone elses, a what if scenario.
It would be acceptance and disappointment but then looking for best dp.
Watching him at training yesterday after all the discussion, he runs further and harder than any of our other back men, plays a traditional CHB role pushing up through the middle and dropping back.on the rebound to structure up the defence. To me he is a vital cog and yes we have some tyro's in Arie, and Keeler, they are nowhere near Josh for positioning, running power and structural integrity in the backline.

TL;DR, to me he is worth 800 to 825 a year, but not 900k.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

I probably would go up to 900k for 6 years. In 6 years' time, it'll probably be the average salary. But if we do finish in the bottom 4 and get a guarantee of band 1, I'd say we have to be professional about these things.

As a club we are not in a position to turn down that type of kick-start (top 4 FRDP with pick 5 Battle compo). In fact, one could argue that it diminishes the complaints of our president regarding unfair advantages of other clubs when we refuse to pull one of the only levers we actually have.

 

[austinnn]

It’s the forever argument!!

Crowd A - We are crap, we’ll always be crap, but let’s not change what we do. We drafted poorly in the last 10 years, so we’ll always draft poorly, even with a completely different and competent team in charge.

Crowd B - Let’s take risks, because what we’ve been doing is not working.. We need to re-generate the list, but we need to be bold and try to use different strategies to our advantage..

Let’s just agree to disagree.. at the end of the day, Battle will make a decision So let’s see.. can we move to the next topic to argue please?

Who thinks Howard is not reliable / competent enough for his pay packet should be let go?

Next topic:

Should we let Jack Hayes and Tim Membrey move to rival clubs and switch focus to younger draftees to flesh out the squad, or keep them as experienced depth?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Next topic:

Should we let Jack Hayes and Tim Membrey move to rival clubs and switch focus to younger draftees to flesh out the squad, or keep them as experienced depth?

Experienced? Jack Hayes has played something like 4 AFL games.

 

[StCicatriz]

Depends on what you consider wrong. He's all kinds of wrong.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Next topic:

Should we let Jack Hayes and Tim Membrey move to rival clubs and switch focus to younger draftees to flesh out the squad, or keep them as experienced depth?

Yes move Hayes on for sure. Tim 50/50 as he'll get a solid pay cut and a 1 year deal if he stays.
Seb and Jones' time is up also.

 

[akaifu]

Next topic:

Should we let Jack Hayes and Tim Membrey move to rival clubs and switch focus to younger draftees to flesh out the squad, or keep them as experienced depth?

I'm happy to move both on, they are not stars and have no meaningful say on our next premiership push. Skunk I'd be happy to keep one more year but I feel like he might seek some success elsewhere before his career ends so wouldn't be surprised if he moves to a Collingwood or Melbourne. Opens up even more cap space.

Hayes' most recent injury has cooked him - if he can get back and show something then maybe one more year as depth but not looking good. Also depends on the key forwards in the DFA market, if there aren't any options then we'll probably have to keep him. There are some decent key forwards in the middle tiers of this year's draft too.

Our next contending forward line is King, Caminiti and ? (Sharman??) so we just have to build around that. At this stage, anyone in any position that isn't in this sort of core should be available for offers

 

[austinnn]

So because he says differently to your belief you question his manliness?

Twomey spends all his time following leads and checking sources and crunching numbers, he saves time by cutting his own hair, wearing his granddad's clothes, eating soup directly from tins in front of the laptop, and wastes zero time thinking about women. He is a classic nerd incel but who cares? He's got runs on the board when it comes to AFL trades and draft.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So because he says differently to your belief you question his manliness?

You forget that Gringo is so manly that he canoe's down the rivers in gippsland, and the banjo playing locals see him, but are too scared to make a move.

 

[Kildonan]

The Saints do have a problem with the distribution of ages in our squad (not just age, also experience).

Lets have a look at the squad set to play 08/06/24: Player number Name Age matches played


26 Battle 25y 112m 20 Howard 28y 126m 44 Wilkie 28y 121m

29 Webster 30y 155m 7 Wanganeen-Milera 21y 53m 35 Sinclair 29y 176m


8 Hill 30y 245m 2 Windhager 21y 48m 32 Wood 30y 124

19 Marshall 28y 122m 9 Steele 28y 170m 15 Dow 24y 76m


22 Wilson 18y 12m 23 Henry 22y 49m 10 Owens 20y 42m

1 Higgins 25y 111m 12 King 23y 80m Caminiti 20y 26m


6 Ross 31y 209m 11 Clark 25y 88m 16 Butler 28y 134m 28 Membrey 30y 170m 36 Bonner 27y 105m


The colour coding is to highlight my point; we have very few players on our injured list, so the squad assembled is pretty much our best squad. There are 12 players 27y or older who should be at their prime and some may be showing that they are past their prime. We have 5 players 23y - 26y, all of whom have played more than 50 matches. And we have 6 players 18y - 22y most of whom is approaching the 50 match mark (after which they will generally perform consistently). These players are holding a spot in this team, possibly pushing out more experienced players.

To some extent all clubs need to play recruits and allow them to gain experience. A good club will develop players by reviewing footage of performances to correct errors or suggest alternative actions to improve individual and team performances and then practicing those changes in training drills.

Every team should be a mix of experienced players, mid age players and youth.

St Kilda does not appear to be a "destination club" so we will need to focus on recruitment via the draft and through trades. The ultimate goal being to put together a squad capable of playing finals for a number of years and win a premiership. The number of quality youth being drafted will usually drop while the team is playing finals, so this window is best spent developing the previously recruited youth and spending draft picks on ready made players through trades.

My point is that we have a limited window of opportunity (2-3 seasons) with the players we have that are already experienced (27y and older). I can't see how our squad can be improved enough in that time frame. I am concerned that the next age cohort is too small to provide a comfortable transition as the older players retire.

Take Howard, Wilkie, Webster, Sinclair and Bonner out of that backline and we look very weak. Cordy is of similar age, so that leaves Battle, Nas, and Paton and untried defenders to fill the gaps. Players aged 23y-26y now are absolutely vital to the transition of our team going forward. We have too few of them and are compensating by playing youth in their place.

We also have a deficit of players in that mid age group through our midfield with Dow the only representative.

This leads me to believe that we must retain players in this 23y-26y age group as our highest priority. These players will be the experienced players holding the squad together while we train recruits to fill those spots. Those posters who argue that we should trade out Battle for the compensation pick are arguing to delay our era of playing finals for a further 3 or so years. I don't want further delays. I would rather trade players of that experience into our squad as we approach the "premiership window".

 

[Moral Decay]

The Saints do have a problem with the distribution of ages in our squad (not just age, also experience).

Lets have a look at the squad set to play 08/06/24: Player number Name Age matches played


26 Battle 25y 112m 20 Howard 28y 126m 44 Wilkie 28y 121m

29 Webster 30y 155m 7 Wanganeen-Milera 21y 53m 35 Sinclair 29y 176m


8 Hill 30y 245m 2 Windhager 21y 48m 32 Wood 30y 124

19 Marshall 28y 122m 9 Steele 28y 170m 15 Dow 24y 76m


22 Wilson 18y 12m 23 Henry 22y 49m 10 Owens 20y 42m

1 Higgins 25y 111m 12 King 23y 80m Caminiti 20y 26m


6 Ross 31y 209m 11 Clark 25y 88m 16 Butler 28y 134m 28 Membrey 30y 170m 36 Bonner 27y 105m


The colour coding is to highlight my point; we have very few players on our injured list, so the squad assembled is pretty much our best squad. There are 12 players 27y or older who should be at their prime and some may be showing that they are past their prime. We have 5 players 23y - 26y, all of whom have played more than 50 matches. And we have 6 players 18y - 22y most of whom is approaching the 50 match mark (after which they will generally perform consistently). These players are holding a spot in this team, possibly pushing out more experienced players.

To some extent all clubs need to play recruits and allow them to gain experience. A good club will develop players by reviewing footage of performances to correct errors or suggest alternative actions to improve individual and team performances and then practicing those changes in training drills.

Every team should be a mix of experienced players, mid age players and youth.

St Kilda does not appear to be a "destination club" so we will need to focus on recruitment via the draft and through trades. The ultimate goal being to put together a squad capable of playing finals for a number of years and win a premiership. The number of quality youth being drafted will usually drop while the team is playing finals, so this window is best spent developing the previously recruited youth and spending draft picks on ready made players through trades.

My point is that we have a limited window of opportunity (2-3 seasons) with the players we have that are already experienced (27y and older). I can't see how our squad can be improved enough in that time frame. I am concerned that the next age cohort is too small to provide a comfortable transition as the older players retire.

Take Howard, Wilkie, Webster, Sinclair and Bonner out of that backline and we look very weak. Cordy is of similar age, so that leaves Battle, Nas, and Paton and untried defenders to fill the gaps. Players aged 23y-26y now are absolutely vital to the transition of our team going forward. We have too few of them and are compensating by playing youth in their place.

We also have a deficit of players in that mid age group through our midfield with Dow the only representative.

This leads me to believe that we must retain players in this 23y-26y age group as our highest priority. These players will be the experienced players holding the squad together while we train recruits to fill those spots. Those posters who argue that we should trade out Battle for the compensation pick are arguing to delay our era of playing finals for a further 3 or so years. I don't want further delays. I would rather trade players of that experience into our squad as we approach the "premiership window".

It's an eternal problem.
How to improve the list through trading.

Nobody wants to trade out talented kids.

The 3 best arguments for trading out Battle.
We can't force him to stay.
If the club believe in Keeler and Shoey we have replacements in the wings.
He gets us the best potential return vs potential loss.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

You forget that Gringo is so manly that he canoe's down the rivers in gippsland, and the banjo playing locals see him, but are too scared to make a move.

Fact

 

[gringo2011]

The Saints do have a problem with the distribution of ages in our squad (not just age, also experience).

Lets have a look at the squad set to play 08/06/24: Player number Name Age matches played


26 Battle 25y 112m 20 Howard 28y 126m 44 Wilkie 28y 121m

29 Webster 30y 155m 7 Wanganeen-Milera 21y 53m 35 Sinclair 29y 176m


8 Hill 30y 245m 2 Windhager 21y 48m 32 Wood 30y 124

19 Marshall 28y 122m 9 Steele 28y 170m 15 Dow 24y 76m


22 Wilson 18y 12m 23 Henry 22y 49m 10 Owens 20y 42m

1 Higgins 25y 111m 12 King 23y 80m Caminiti 20y 26m


6 Ross 31y 209m 11 Clark 25y 88m 16 Butler 28y 134m 28 Membrey 30y 170m 36 Bonner 27y 105m


The colour coding is to highlight my point; we have very few players on our injured list, so the squad assembled is pretty much our best squad. There are 12 players 27y or older who should be at their prime and some may be showing that they are past their prime. We have 5 players 23y - 26y, all of whom have played more than 50 matches. And we have 6 players 18y - 22y most of whom is approaching the 50 match mark (after which they will generally perform consistently). These players are holding a spot in this team, possibly pushing out more experienced players.

To some extent all clubs need to play recruits and allow them to gain experience. A good club will develop players by reviewing footage of performances to correct errors or suggest alternative actions to improve individual and team performances and then practicing those changes in training drills.

Every team should be a mix of experienced players, mid age players and youth.

St Kilda does not appear to be a "destination club" so we will need to focus on recruitment via the draft and through trades. The ultimate goal being to put together a squad capable of playing finals for a number of years and win a premiership. The number of quality youth being drafted will usually drop while the team is playing finals, so this window is best spent developing the previously recruited youth and spending draft picks on ready made players through trades.

My point is that we have a limited window of opportunity (2-3 seasons) with the players we have that are already experienced (27y and older). I can't see how our squad can be improved enough in that time frame. I am concerned that the next age cohort is too small to provide a comfortable transition as the older players retire.

Take Howard, Wilkie, Webster, Sinclair and Bonner out of that backline and we look very weak. Cordy is of similar age, so that leaves Battle, Nas, and Paton and untried defenders to fill the gaps. Players aged 23y-26y now are absolutely vital to the transition of our team going forward. We have too few of them and are compensating by playing youth in their place.

We also have a deficit of players in that mid age group through our midfield with Dow the only representative.

This leads me to believe that we must retain players in this 23y-26y age group as our highest priority. These players will be the experienced players holding the squad together while we train recruits to fill those spots. Those posters who argue that we should trade out Battle for the compensation pick are arguing to delay our era of playing finals for a further 3 or so years. I don't want further delays. I would rather trade players of that experience into our squad as we approach the "premiership window".

That's a more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to say.

We spent draft capital replacing this mid career group that is now older. We are going to get to a point where we need to replace the middle rungs with draft capital again at some point if we can't keep them. If we replace them the new players have no connection to anything but a pay cheque. Retaining players keeps cultural connection and buy in too.

Guys like Battle have become very good solid players but their absolute peak is still to come. He's about to hit his best 4 years. Hopefully he decides to stay.

 

[gringo2011]

It's an eternal problem.
How to improve the list through trading.

Nobody wants to trade out talented kids.

The 3 best arguments for trading out Battle.
We can't force him to stay.
If the club believe in Keeler and Shoey we have replacements in the wings.
He gets us the best potential return vs potential loss.

And the cycle continues. Kids are pushed hard too early and lose confidence, they finally get their shit together and want out as soon as FA is possible.

 

[Diehard Saint]

And the cycle continues. Kids are pushed hard too early and lose confidence, they finally get their shit together and want out as soon as FA is possible.

So you’re saying Battle is (possibly) rushing out the door because he was changed around position-wise for a year or so?

Nothing to do with bigger bucks (no judgement here)?

That’s a very long bow to draw.

 

[phantom13]

The Saints do have a problem with the distribution of ages in our squad (not just age, also experience).

Lets have a look at the squad set to play 08/06/24: Player number Name Age matches played


26 Battle 25y 112m 20 Howard 28y 126m 44 Wilkie 28y 121m

29 Webster 30y 155m 7 Wanganeen-Milera 21y 53m 35 Sinclair 29y 176m


8 Hill 30y 245m 2 Windhager 21y 48m 32 Wood 30y 124

19 Marshall 28y 122m 9 Steele 28y 170m 15 Dow 24y 76m


22 Wilson 18y 12m 23 Henry 22y 49m 10 Owens 20y 42m

1 Higgins 25y 111m 12 King 23y 80m Caminiti 20y 26m


6 Ross 31y 209m 11 Clark 25y 88m 16 Butler 28y 134m 28 Membrey 30y 170m 36 Bonner 27y 105m


The colour coding is to highlight my point; we have very few players on our injured list, so the squad assembled is pretty much our best squad. There are 12 players 27y or older who should be at their prime and some may be showing that they are past their prime. We have 5 players 23y - 26y, all of whom have played more than 50 matches. And we have 6 players 18y - 22y most of whom is approaching the 50 match mark (after which they will generally perform consistently). These players are holding a spot in this team, possibly pushing out more experienced players.

To some extent all clubs need to play recruits and allow them to gain experience. A good club will develop players by reviewing footage of performances to correct errors or suggest alternative actions to improve individual and team performances and then practicing those changes in training drills.

Every team should be a mix of experienced players, mid age players and youth.

St Kilda does not appear to be a "destination club" so we will need to focus on recruitment via the draft and through trades. The ultimate goal being to put together a squad capable of playing finals for a number of years and win a premiership. The number of quality youth being drafted will usually drop while the team is playing finals, so this window is best spent developing the previously recruited youth and spending draft picks on ready made players through trades.

My point is that we have a limited window of opportunity (2-3 seasons) with the players we have that are already experienced (27y and older). I can't see how our squad can be improved enough in that time frame. I am concerned that the next age cohort is too small to provide a comfortable transition as the older players retire.

Take Howard, Wilkie, Webster, Sinclair and Bonner out of that backline and we look very weak. Cordy is of similar age, so that leaves Battle, Nas, and Paton and untried defenders to fill the gaps. Players aged 23y-26y now are absolutely vital to the transition of our team going forward. We have too few of them and are compensating by playing youth in their place.

We also have a deficit of players in that mid age group through our midfield with Dow the only representative.

This leads me to believe that we must retain players in this 23y-26y age group as our highest priority. These players will be the experienced players holding the squad together while we train recruits to fill those spots. Those posters who argue that we should trade out Battle for the compensation pick are arguing to delay our era of playing finals for a further 3 or so years. I don't want further delays. I would rather trade players of that experience into our squad as we approach the "premiership window".

Two things.

1- 27-32 is too broad a bracket. Wilkie is 28 there’s really no reason not to think he can’t continue to be a very productive 2nd back/interceptor for 4/5 more years. Some guys are capable of keeping high standards into their 30s and Wilkie looks like one. I’d say Steele would too but it’s dependent on his body, Hill too, cardio generally stays into the 30s. Neither of them relies on explosive power or any other defining physical characteristic.

2- it’s been said Ad naseum but Battle leaving isn’t up to the club. He’s a UFA with a contract expiring. The discussion about Battle is really one of what’s he worth to retain Vs how much do we push to get better return for him.

Overall you’re right, we should be trying to retain players in that band but everyone has a price that they are worth. If someone is gonna give Battle 900+ it may be more detrimental to match that than to let him walk.