List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[True Believer]

TV rights is even chump change these days...it's those good ole gambling rivers of gold that intoxicate the AFL executive these days.

And guess which games each round are amongst the most lucrative games for gambling revenue, that's right, Sunday afternoon games.

Why?

Because for the addicted gamblers who have lost big all weekend, a Sunday afternoon game is the last chance for gambling addicts to claw back lost money from that weekend, it's a gambling addicts last hit before they go clean...then the following weekend of sport arrives.

St Kilda will join Tasmania as being the AFLs premier Gambling product so no need to stress about us ever getting kicked out of the comp, we make the AFL zillions in our treasured Sunday afternoon time slot.

I wonder who paid for lunch, would have been Tarryn for sure aye?

I didn't realise we were playing in the get-out stakes every Sunday arvo!!

Nice.......

 

[gringo2011]

SOS built up Carlton by allowing players to leave for first round picks and bundling picks into higher picks.

The GWS strategy was purely money ball on players they didn’t want.

His strategy has paid off with Curnow Walsh Weitering McKay.

Has it. How many flags have they won? You argued with me that trading in players like Hill was sensible when we hadn't done any of the foundation building at the draft. Now we are in a different phase you want to go back the other way again.

 

[The Punter]

We (and not just us punters, even the President of the club...) want to cry about father-son picks (because how great would footy have been if Gary Ablett jnr played for St Kilda instead ) and at the same time go and get Tarryn Thomas for free - it's a disgrace and a complete shortcut from a desperate club.

And yes I was there on the weekend and I saw Brisbane smash us and I am aware of the fact that we are shit. You put in genuine tactics to improve and a list management strategy that you stick to over many years, not bullshit 'let's wine and dine a guy that isn't even allowed to play footy, on the off chance he might be allowed to, because it's just too hard to get talent '

And now I see talk here about trading the captain too...

Somehow managed to subdue my choking on my rage to make an account here so I'm sure I'll be flamed but the club does not look hardly enough on itself, it never has, and if it wants to succeed it needs to.

I don't think anyone has come on here to defend the idea of St Kilda signing Tarryn Thomas.

But it is irrelevant to the issues surrounding the perversion of the objectives of the draft.

We should not sign Thomas. In fact, no one should.

The father-son rule should not exist.

 

[SteeleSaints]

We ain’t winning a flag next year - there is nothing left to elevate us that is available.

So irrespective of what Steele has done. It isn’t about 2025. It’s about getting us to that point of contention.
He is a shadow of his 2020/21 self.
People don’t want to make up the numbers. Retaining what we have and hoping our solitary pick changes everything is effectively just climbing back into a hamster wheel.
Meanwhile we do the typical stkilda thing and allow our assets who probably won’t be the onfield drivers of our next period of contention lose their value by retaining for too long.

He is a shadow of his former self because he has had to carry a poor midfield through injury and form. Put Steele in a top midfield eg Brisbane when he doesnt have to do all the lifting and he would be AA again.

I have come around to the idea losing Josh Battle, however trading out Steele would be disastrous. Surely we need experienced leadership and older bodies around these kids while they find their feet in the AFL. We will end up like North Melbourne with a number of talented kids treading water going no where.

 

[luca77]

Somehow managed to subdue my choking on my rage to make an account here so I'm sure I'll be flamed but the club does not look hardly enough on itself, it never has, and if it wants to succeed it needs to.

Hold off on the rage if you can.
There's not a player on our list that won't be put up on Bigfooty as a trade option at some point. Don't let one person's hairbrained idea give you the impression that it's supported by the many on here, even if it gets the inevitable 2 or 3 likes. In fact a lot of the sensible people on here don't actually post all that often, so you can get the false impression that the board is full of crazies.

Stick around for a few weeks and you'll work out whose ideas to take somewhat seriously and whose to skim quickly. And the sooner you block the trolls and people whose ideas consistently rankle you, the better.

Bigfooty survival 101.

 

[Captain Paddy]

Realistically, what do you think we'll actually be able to trade Steele for? He's still a good player but by your own admission he's a shadow of the player he was and isn't getting any younger.

Clubs that are at the top end will always overpay for someone that they think is the missing piece or can push them over the edge. Any top end team that feels they're missing a bigger bodied mid or even a defensively minded mid would pay a fortune for Steele

 

[gubby88]

In my view the father-son rule is part of the fabric of the AFL. Is it an unfair advantage? I guess so, but our game would be much poorer if that thread wasn't preserved.

That we don't have a Daicos or an Ashcroft or an Ablett is unfortunate. A watering down I can understand but I personally am not of the view that the rule should be removed to remedy some perceived unfairness.

It being removed would result in many more JHF scenarios, leaving any club that drafts a son in virtually the same position anyway, not to mention further erosion of core aspects of the game.

It is, I concede, arguably not directly relevant. Perhaps I put the two together in somehow trying to rationalise why we'd be unwise enough to so publicly link ourselves to Thomas. I'd hate to think the club's perceived misfortune to that end is guiding its activities elsewhere.

I am glad we agree on TT.

so we have an amateur competition is wjat you're saying?

I don't see premium sports like NBA or premier league soccer having Father son rules.

it's certainly nothing to do with the fabric of the game, that's for sure

On SM-A156E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[crasha301]

Let's say we did trade out steele for a top 10 pick.

If we were to bring in a player like Jared Lyons to fill Steele's role, how much are we actually losing performance wise on game day?

10%? 20%? And will that then be softened by an increase in performance by windy and pou?

Food for thought.

On CPH2145 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Punter]

In my view the father-son rule is part of the fabric of the AFL. Is it an unfair advantage? I guess so, but our game would be much poorer if that thread wasn't preserved.

That we don't have a Daicos or an Ashcroft or an Ablett is unfortunate. A watering down I can understand but I personally am not of the view that the rule should be removed to remedy some perceived unfairness.

It being removed would result in many more JHF scenarios, leaving any club that drafts a son in virtually the same position anyway, not to mention further erosion of core aspects of the game.

It is, I concede, arguably not directly relevant. Perhaps I put the two together in somehow trying to rationalise why we'd be unwise enough to so publicly link ourselves to Thomas. I'd hate to think the club's perceived misfortune to that end is guiding its activities elsewhere.

I am glad we agree on TT.

My retort:

- the game wouldn't be poorer in any way. Teams would ascend and descend the ladder more quickly, meaning more clubs would be closer to success

- it IS an unfair advantage, based on dumb luck (the untrainable ability of past players to sire sons)

- it is not just unfortunate we don't have that father-son. The Daicos' and Ashcrofts are sons of premiership players. Ablett Snr played in four grand finals (and was one of four brothers who played AFL). Successful teams are more likely to have players who meet the games criteria, embedding disadvantage and perverting the sole objective of the draft

- More JHF scenarios? Fantastic. Why? Port Adelaide paid fair price for him and North Melbourne were compensated. I don't have any issue with Nick Daicos playing at Collingwood, I do have a problem with Collingwood having unfettered access to him and the team that has that pick not getting any compensation. That is fair.

When St Kilda win a flag, my joy will be same whether there are three Riewoldt boys in the team or none. It's a myth that the rule adds to people's enjoyment. It only entrenches the advantages clubs had before the draft. It cannot be made fair, (although making it fairer is better than not making it fairer), and therefore should be abolished. Professional players, professional administrators, professional coaching staff - time for a professional system.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I remember the good old days when we were arguing about trading Lenny Hayes

Lenny Hayes

Age

44

Ht

186cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.5

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

11.0

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

No current season stats available

D

9.2

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

0.4

3star

.

 

[luca77]

so we have an amateur competition is wjat you're saying?

I don't see premium sports like NBA or premier league soccer having Father son rules.

it's certainly nothing to do with the fabric of the game, that's for sure

On SM-A156E using BigFooty.com mobile app

I, for one, f'ing hate both of your so-called "premium sports". AFL is king in Australia, second to none.
Although I think Andrew Dillon will have a fair crack at destroying it.

I heard Dwayne Russell the other day using BBL as a example of a successful league that the AFL should look to. Nearly choked on my lunch. I love cricket, but wouldn't watch BBL if it was played outside my window. The meaninglessness of BBL is an example of why we should be very careful about stripping the meaning from our game and homogenizing it.

Clubs all playing out of the same stadiums was a big hit. Removing F-S outright would be another. Just make them pay a fair price, even overs for the privilege. If it's the "fabric of the game", surely it's the "fabric of a club" - so let the clubs prove it by paying up. What do you reckon the Pies would have given up for Nick Daicos if they'd been forced to? A lot, I'd reckon. And he'd still have been worth it to them - but other clubs would have benefited too.

I'm a fan of players choosing where they want to play, like any other job. Equalisation can be manufactured around that. Punter is the strongest against it on here, and I can respect that. I just don't see the point of jumping up and down about players who happen to be wearing different colours chasing a ball around. I want more meaning from my sport, not less.

 

[The Punter]

I, for one, f'ing hate both of your so-called "premium sports". AFL is king in Australia, second to none.
Although I think Andrew Dillon will have a fair crack at destroying it.

I heard Dwayne Russell the other day using BBL as a example of a successful league that the AFL should look to. Nearly choked on my lunch. I love cricket, but wouldn't watch BBL if it was played outside my window. The meaninglessness of BBL is an example of why we should be very careful about stripping the meaning from our game and homogenizing it.

Clubs all playing out of the same stadiums was a big hit. Removing F-S outright would be another. Just make them pay a fair price, even overs for the privilege. If it's the "fabric of the game", surely it's the "fabric of a club" - so let the clubs prove it by paying up. What do you reckon the Pies would have given up for Nick Daicos if they'd been forced to? A lot, I'd reckon. And he'd still have been worth it to them - but other clubs would have benefited too.

I'm a fan of players choosing where they want to play, like any other job. Equalisation can be manufactured around that. Punter is the strongest against it on here, and I can respect that. I just don't see the point of jumping up and down about players who happen to be wearing different colours chasing a ball around. I want more meaning from my sport, not less.

Out of curiosity on the fair price: who does the fair price get paid to?

Because currently, any price doesn't get paid to anyone. Everyone shifts down a seat like they're on an overcrowded tram.

If Collingwood wanted Daicos, they should have arrived at a fair price with the team that owned the pick that was going to be used to select him. Like North and Port Adelaide did with Horne-Francis, and Collingwood and Brisbane did with Nathan Buckley.

 

[Mat Mann]

In my view the father-son rule is part of the fabric of the AFL. Is it an unfair advantage? I guess so, but our game would be much poorer if that thread wasn't preserved.

That we don't have a Daicos or an Ashcroft or an Ablett is unfortunate. A watering down I can understand but I personally am not of the view that the rule should be removed to remedy some perceived unfairness.

It being removed would result in many more JHF scenarios, leaving any club that drafts a son in virtually the same position anyway, not to mention further erosion of core aspects of the game.

It is, I concede, arguably not directly relevant. Perhaps I put the two together in somehow trying to rationalise why we'd be unwise enough to so publicly link ourselves to Thomas. I'd hate to think the club's perceived misfortune to that end is guiding its activities elsewhere.

I am glad we agree on TT.

There is more than 1 issue at play and it's not just our club whinging
I also like F/S, but access and cost are issues, like Academy and NGA.

Daicoss and Darcy are top 5 picks paid for by far less than a top 5 pick, the trading out of and into drafts based on these.
What was CG able to do last year to land 4 top-25 picks and actually increase their 2025 draft hand?

JHF is a rarity, Boyd is the only other that I can think of who left early
last year WC had pick 1 and not pick 19, but 30, but a club above them had 4 picks inside 25, helped by unfettered access and a discount on top.

the points will change next year, but not before another possible 3 F/S go top 4 teams and another top 5? pick to GCS academy.

The draft has serious issues

 

[Mat Mann]

In my opinion, yes we do - this is clearly not the NBA or the Premier League.

When we do have a half-decent father son, I'm sure sentiment amongst fans re the rule's preservation of the spirit of the game would swap on that quite quickly.

Until then, I'm happy to sit in minority.

only Freo, GWS and GCS have has less F/S than our club, not sure well be any better off in the future

 

[luca77]

Out of curiosity on the fair price: who does the fair price get paid to?

Because currently, any price doesn't get paid to anyone. Everyone shifts down a seat like they're on an overcrowded tram.

If Collingwood wanted Daicos, they should have arrived at a fair price with the team that owned the pick that was going to be used to select him. Like North and Port Adelaide did with Horne-Francis, and Collingwood and Brisbane did with Nathan Buckley.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, and what I mean by equality being manufactured around these things.

I haven't bothered thinking through the mechanisms, but it would probably have to be based on getting enough picks to match on points (with or without a premium), and then the team that nominated him gets some amount of compensation (could come from some amount of the picks that were used from the points) - while still getting to choose the next best player. The club with the F-S has a final chance to say no and pass on the player at the draft. Other clubs benefit, because that team is forced to get hold of the points by making various trades, and their picks come in due to picks getting eaten up for points.

Maybe the compensation would be the highest pick used to gain the points. The next pick or two could even go to the next club or two in line as compensation for getting bumped down. There would have to be the adjustments that are all ready in the works to make sure teams don't use junk picks to get the points.

I'm just spitballing, so these ideas probably leak like a sieve, but just trying to explain that I think a price should be paid and that I'm happy for the other clubs to be compensated. Where there's a will there's a way, and I think there should be a will, which you and I differ on opinion about and that's fine.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

What do father sons, Footscray plebs and burning memberships have to do with the 2024 Trade Period aside from three parts of f*ck all?

 

[Cairnsman]

I didn't realise we were playing in the get-out stakes every Sunday arvo!!

Nice.......

Place 10k on the Saints to beat the flag favorites, it's why I don't have to work. I'm thinking about writing a book on the secret to my success story, I owe the St Kilda Football club so much for the luxury in my life.

 

[Broski]

I am firmly in the boat that the Father/Son rule shouldn't exist. Essentially, I couldn't care less if a prospective son of a gun doesn't get to the club. This is a "professional sporting organisation", not an episode of Home and Away.

What does my perfect system look like you ask? If North Melbourne decide to take Nick Daicos at pick one in his draft year, I believe he should be a Roos player. Although the media, fans etc would be crying over the lost story.

However, if Daicos wants to be traded to his father's club after his initial contract, then Collingwood will need to pay a similar ransom that Port Adelaide paid for JHF.

In summary, clubs will still get their wanky family story angle, while the other club will get overs for the player. This means they can use additional draft picks to bring in more talent. No clubs are left at a major disadvantage.

I typed this up quickly, so excuse the holes in my thinking, but there is no planet where the Pies should be able to give up 38, 40, 42, 44 and get Nick Daicos.

 

[luca77]

What do father sons, Footscray plebs and burning memberships have to do with the 2024 Trade Period aside from three parts of f*ck all?
View attachment 2072128

I think the FS chat came from talk of us getting Thomas which is fairly relevant.
I read both the Draft Thread and Trade thread simultaneously so I don't particularly get my knickers in a knot if a chat is in one instead of the other.

Apologies for the knot I contributed to in yours!

 

[luca77]

I am firmly in the boat that the Father/Son rule shouldn't exist. Essentially, I couldn't care less if a prospective son of a gun doesn't get to the club. This is a "professional sporting organisation", not an episode of Home and Away.

What does my perfect system look like you ask? If North Melbourne decide to take Nick Daicos at pick one in his draft year, I believe he should be a Roos player. Although the media, fans etc would be crying over the lost story.

However, if Daicos wants to be traded to his father's club after his initial contract, then Collingwood will need to pay a similar ransom that Port Adelaide paid for JHF.

In summary, clubs will still get their wanky family story angle, while the other club will get overs for the player. This means they can use additional draft picks to bring in more talent. No clubs are left at a major disadvantage.

I typed this up quickly, so excuse the holes in my thinking, but there is no planet where the Pies should be able to give up 38, 40, 42, 44 and get Nick Daicos.

Why shouldn't "professionals" be able to choose their workplace?
To me it's unprofessional for them not to be able to.

As for the last point, that's what's being worked on already at the AFL, and what needs fixing. But that's system rather than Y/N to F/S.

Dillon and his clowns will f*** it up anyway, so the love and hate for FS will continue.

 

[True Believer]

Father/son could be made very fair. A team must have a first and second round draft pick for them. If another team higher in the draft selects the F/S player, the team wanting to pick that F/S player must live trade their first-round pick for the player along with swapping second round picks. This means they've paid something closer to a fair price, and no-one else gets their picks shuffled back in the draft.

 

[Mat Mann]

Father/son could be made very fair. A team must have a first and second round draft pick for them. If another team higher in the draft selects the F/S player, the team wanting to pick that F/S player must live trade their first-round pick for the player along with swapping second round picks. This means they've paid something closer to a fair price, and no-one else gets their picks shuffled back in the draft.

they do, so in the Daicos situation

he went at pick 4
pies nominally had pick 18 and 36

the 4th worst club just lost their high end pick()4 or under the current rules (5 after being shuffled back 1 pick)) and yeah the pies pay more, but that club that lost pick 4 is far worse off.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Out of curiosity on the fair price: who does the fair price get paid to?

Because currently, any price doesn't get paid to anyone. Everyone shifts down a seat like they're on an overcrowded tram.

If Collingwood wanted Daicos, they should have arrived at a fair price with the team that owned the pick that was going to be used to select him. Like North and Port Adelaide did with Horne-Francis, and Collingwood and Brisbane did with Nathan Buckley.

Gold Coast got Andrew Mac instead of Daicos. Boo bloody hoo. Their net loss is very little the way that Mac is shaping up.

The thing that is wrong about it is that Collingwood paid for him with picks ,38, 40, 42 and 44. They had purposely spent their first rounder in 2020 ( even though it was a crap draft and they only got Pouter ).
Actually its hard to work out where all Collingwood's earlier picks went, seem to have ended up as 3rd rounders in 2022 and frittered away in a series of meaningless trades.
It almost looks like they might as well have just taken Daicos with their first rounder instead of trying to be clever.

 

[chris_h_11]

As an update to how well we're travelling with our drafting and development - we've got 1 player in the 22 Under 22 squad - Nas.

There are some spuds on that list, and we still couldnt get another look in, despite Pou, Mitchito, Windy, Hammer and Wilson all being eligible.

We need more talent - doesnt matter how.

I'd love the club to come out and respond to the TT story properly, not a smart-arse 'spokesperson' reply. Either knock it on the head (Gubby and TT have a previously link, but we're not actively looking at signing him up), or own it (we're looking at every avenue to improve our team to win a flag, we can't rule anything out etc)

 

[luca77]

As an update to how well we're travelling with our drafting and development - we've got 1 player in the 22 Under 22 squad - Nas.

There are some spuds on that list, and we still couldnt get another look in, despite Pou, Mitchito, Windy, Hammer and Wilson all being eligible.

Without having looked at it...
Each club should only have 1.22 players in there on average anyway.
And you'd expect the expansion clubs to have 2 or 3 given all the picks they've had.

Would be nice, but no biggie. I'm fairly happy with the players you've mentioned at the picks we took them.