Traded Brad Hill [traded with future 3rd to St Kilda for Acres, #10, #58, future 2nd and 4th]

[Clems Knee]

Firstly, pick 6 and a future 2nd (if that's what our offer was) was not a "cheap trade"- as pick 6 alone is likely to be worth the equivalent of both the firsts West Coast paid for the much better and more valuable Kelly- and secondly, what else do you expect the likes of Bell and Fyfe to say publicly!?

It's the same sort of stuff Essendon are saying about the contracted Daniher, we're saying about the contracted Steven and Bruce, Geelong were saying about the contracted Kelly last year, Carlton were saying about the contracted Gibbs, etc.

It's just public talk 101.

I'm talking about what they were saying to us behind closed doors, and like I said, if they'd made it clear from the start of discussions (which would have begun weeks, if not months ago), that he was going to cost potentially two top 6 picks and change, we would have pulled out of the race right there and then.

Because that's an absolutely insane trade price to pay for someone who's never made even an AA squad and isn't in the best 50 in the comp.

So Bell and Fyfe have both said “we’d rather keep him, and it’s going to cost you heaps” but the Saints have decided “they don’t really mean it. We’ve got a lot of trades to do, so we will lowball Freo and get on with it.”

Pick 6 would be handy, but a future third is pretty much nothing, and from the noises being made on here over the last week, I wouldn’t be surprised if that offer required something back from Fremantle. It wasn’t that good an offer, and will not compensate for the loss of one of the best outside runners in the league.

It’s clear you don’t value Hill as much as I do, almost certainly because I’ve seen him live more than you have. If you get him, he will magically become an AA player, despite playing exactly the same as he did for us. Look no further than Neale, Medhurst...

 

[CakeEater]

Way to make a player that their club wants feel loved.

1.Yeah he’s good but not that good
2. He’s not that elite but only 16 other blokes are on equivalent money to what we offered him

For the record that would put him in the top 2% of earners in the AFL.

If he’s not that good why would Stk offer him that much $$$$$$$

 

[Clems Knee]

This is what so many of you seem to completely fail to get.

Not all clubs are in the same salary cap or list position and in our case, we'd been front-ending contracts for years, just to meet the minimum salary cap requirements, and didn't have any "superstars" on our list taking up big money, so we literally had money that we pretty much HAD to burn.

Hence making offers like $1.4mil PA for the likes of Shiel.

We're not a "big club" and have 10 other clubs competing for minimal talent who want to come to Victoria, so we pretty much have to offer over-the-top contracts in order to get anyone good or better to nominate us.

To both make us a better team and also help us meet our minimum salary cap requirements.

But just because we have money (ie. cap space) to burn, doesn't mean we've also have picks to burn or throw away like confetti.

Hence us walking away when we told Freo that we had a deadline and we considered their demands manifestly excessive once that deadline arrived.

I get Shiel was a different situation. You had to try and compete with the likes of Carlton and Essendon. The requirement to satisfy GWS wasn’t as important, because GWS needed him gone.

Freo doesn’t need Hill gone. Freo doesn’t want Hill gone. If you are going to get us to break our contract with Brad Hill, you are going to have to pay the appropriate price for that.

Either that, or stop poaching players that are in contract.
No surprise really, for Simon Lethlain to act inappropriately.

 

[guruisatiger]

Just a bit more than a keyboard warrior like yourself

Lol keyboard warrior ,, really original comment there sweetheart

 

[guruisatiger]

Just a bit more than a keyboard warrior like yourself

Depends ,, weather he is giving an opinion on football matters,
Or weather he is trying to state a fact, which is actually not a fact
That's what is annoying

 

[freocuz]

Trade idea, bear with me it's complicated.

Pick 12 for Brad Hill

We're talking a player with a maximum of 4 brownlow votes in any one season, who has never made an All Australian squad of 40, let alone being considered in the best few players in the comp.

A good player worth about a mid first rounder, dockers really should have accepted our generous overs offer when it was on the table.

Nice, I see how that all makes sense. Why would you offer a 5 year contract to such a shyte player?

 

[kernelT]

Gotta lol at the Saints fans in here.

Way to make a player that their club wants feel loved.

1.Yeah he’s good but not that good
2. He’s not that elite but only 16 other blokes are on equivalent money to what we offered him

For the record that would put him in the top 2% of earners in the AFL.

If he’s not that good why would Stk offer him that much $$$$$$$

Poor Brad.

Reckon he's probably more concerned about being held hostage after a very reasonable offer could have sealed the deal days ago.

 

[kernelT]

Nice, I see how that all makes sense. Why would you offer a 5 year contract to such a shyte player?

Does good mean shyte over in WA? Confusing.

Clubs down on the ladder clearly have to offer overs to attract talent, you guys should know that.

5 years has been refuted btw.

 

[The_Steadier]

Gosh I hope this falls over.

Please keep digging peter

 

[theGav56]

I dare say that if Freo had told us in preliminary discussions that that is what he would cost, we would have withdrawn our interest immediately.

Are you suggesting your list managers nodded off for the past couple of seasons and didn't notice the very clear stance Fremantle has regarding opposition clubs who seek to poach some of our best players (who are still in contract) with ma$$ive deals?

It was also a crystal clear and public statement pre-draft when the idea of trading down pick 6 emerged that it was a required part of any trade deal.

I highly doubt that any club would be shocked to know that Fremantle will only agree to a trade that is to its advantage. And realistically, that is the stance of every club. Just take a look at Geelong and Essendon who have been in a similar situation this trade period with players of a similar standing (yes Kelly is better than Hill). None of those clubs consider "reasonable" value trades. All of them require trades that are to their benefit.

 

[freocuz]

Poor Brad.

Reckon he's probably more concerned about being held hostage after a very reasonable offer could have sealed the deal days ago.

So he's being held hostage due to a contract he willingly signed? Circumstances have changed for him obviously, contract law stands. Unless he has a clause in his contract that allows him to demand a move whenever he wants to the club of his choosing, he's not being held hostage.

 

[freocuz]

Does good mean shyte over in WA? Confusing.

Clubs down on the ladder clearly have to offer overs to attract talent, you guys should know that.

5 years has been refuted btw.

5 years came out of the mouth of Lethlean on Monday, btw.

 

[doctornewnes16]

Gotta lol at the Saints fans in here.

Way to make a player that their club wants feel loved.

1.Yeah he’s good but not that good
2. He’s not that elite but only 16 other blokes are on equivalent money to what we offered him

For the record that would put him in the top 2% of earners in the AFL.

If he’s not that good why would Stk offer him that much $$$$$$$

I agree with you He is worth two firsts with maybe a future 3rd coming back. I rate him within the top 20 of the comp. The saints must secure hill even if it means missing out on B.King (who we don't know whether he'll actually request a trade to saints)

 

[kernelT]

5 years came out of the mouth of Lethlean on Monday, btw.

Oh that's right, he mentioned that the salary figures bandied about were incorrect, my bad.

Pick 12 just has a good feel to it now.

 

[CakeEater]

Gosh I hope this falls over.

Please keep digging peter

You do realise we win if Brad doesn’t go right?

Dockers keep an AA caliber winger if he stays......

 

[kernelT]

Just for reference sake, Peter Bell just rejected an offer that was better than what Adelaide got for Patrick Dangerfield… the best player in the comp.

What a legend.

 

[kernelT]

You do realise we win if Brad doesn’t go right?

Dockers keep an AA caliber winger if he stays......

Lol @ calibre, is that code for never made a squad of 40?

 

[iameviljez]

Just for reference sake, Peter Bell just rejected an offer that was better than what Adelaide got for Patrick Dangerfield… the best player in the comp.

What a legend.

Which he has every right to do, regardless of whether Hill is the second coming of Ablett Junior or plays like my Mum on a good day.

FWIW, Collingwood paid more for Treloar than we did for Dangerfield, so it's hardly a high water mark.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Superb rant. Not sure if serious.

So 900k is nothing. I wish I worked for you.

Well you haven't actually countered anything I said, so I'll take that to mean you have nothing.

And nice way of trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn't say $900K PA is "nothing", but when you compare it to the $1.4mil we reportedly offered Shiel last year, it's clearly SIGNIFICANTLY less (the reported Shiel offer was a whopping 50% bigger) and logic would suggest that if we rate someone likes Shiel as being worth that much, that we'd rate the "true elite" of the comp as being worth even more, so yes, in comparison to offers around $1.5mil or more, $900K is far less of a big deal, and as such, we wouldn't consider it worth paying in a trade what you would normally expect to pay for the "true elites", for someone we rate highly, but clearly nowhere near as highly.

 

[CakeEater]

Lol @ calibre, is that code for never made a squad of 40?

Man oh man- anyone would think you guys don’t want him.

 

[pebblesofsand]

If you think Bell backflipped, you weren’t paying attention. From day 1 of the trade period, before the Kelly deal went down:
On Bradley Hill’s trade request to St Kilda
We'll have those discussions with the Saints. We've had numerous discussions – myself and our list management with their list management as well. Brad's an exceptional player, clearly, and they've made a really strong (contract) offer to him and they've made that in the knowledge he has two years to run on his existing contract with us. He's athletically as gifted a player as you're going to find in the AFL and does things not many other players can do, so we'll work through that with the Saints. (Fremantle FC website)
He has basically said: St. Kilda have attempted to poach a player with two years left on his contract. We like him and you’ll have to pay.

Listen to what Nathan Fyfe said about Bradley Hill at the B&F.
“Put him in a headlock, and not let him leave...” 2 mins into presser.
https://www.fremantlefc.com.au/video/2019-10-06/doig-medal-nat-fyfe-media-conference

For St. Kilda to think that we’d roll over and accept a cheap trade for Hill shows that they misread the situation.
It’s pretty clear that Lethlain was the one doing the backflips, by withdrawing the pick 6 on offer.

I, and most other commentators, am confident that Saints will find it difficult to complete the trades they have been publicly linked to, especially if future picks can’t be used because of B.King.

"He has basically said: St. Kilda have attempted to poach a player with two years left on his contract. We like him and you’ll have to pay."

I suggest that if you intend to post on a subject at least have a basic understanding of the facts.

In June 2019 Brad Hill and his Manager informed Fremantle (specifically Peter Bell) that he intends to move back to Melbourne at the end of the season. His Manager, with Bells knowledge, subsequently shopped him around and he accepted St Kilda's offer.

That is not poaching!!!!!!

 

[kernelT]

Which he has every right to do, regardless of whether Hill is the second coming of Ablett Junior or plays like my Mum on a good day.

FWIW, Collingwood paid more for Treloar than we did for Dangerfield, so it's hardly a high water mark.

Peter can do anything he likes, he also rejected a similar level deal to what you guys got for Kelly. Glad we don’t we complete cabbages running the club.

Get on lachie Weller for next years brownlow.

 

[Clems Knee]

"He has basically said: St. Kilda have attempted to poach a player with two years left on his contract. We like him and you’ll have to pay."

I suggest that if you intend to post on a subject at least have a basic understanding of the facts.

In June 2019 Brad Hill and his Manager informed Fremantle (specifically Peter Bell) that he intends to move back to Melbourne at the end of the season. His Manager, with Bells knowledge, subsequently shopped him around and he accepted St Kilda's offer.

That is not poaching!!!!!!

We don’t know if that’s the order. We don’t know when St. Kilda was involved. I think it was likely that the offer came before Hill and Young informed Freo that he would request a trade to Victoria. You apparently don’t.
Hill’s reasons for going back to Victoria aren’t compelling. Money seems to be the overriding factor.

 

[kernelT]

Man oh man- anyone would think you guys don’t want him.

It’s almost like you guys think that you can ambush and *******e every club who’s interested in trading for a player from your club.

Hill at 6 would have been high, but I would have been happy if it made the deal go through smoothly. Over that is pure negligent list management.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Again with the “fair and reasonable” Certainly from where I am, the public don’t see it that way. The more moronic portion of the media, maybe.

Your club has embarrassed itself by promising what it cannot deliver. Promising to trade in 4 players, including players out of contract, with hardly any picks. What was SL thinking?

Please show us the quotes where we "promised" anything?

Everyone knows that there's absolutely no guarantee that if you try to get someone with multiple years left on their contract that the deal will go through (see Kelly last year, Gibbs when he first tried to get to Adelaide, etc), so no-one's going to be making any promises there.

Hill for one would be well aware of that, if it's true he asked to be traded back to Vic last year, but got knocked back.

If this doesn't go through, the only one he ultimately has to blame for it is himself, as he chose to sign the long term deal he's on, no-one else.

And it's also not true that if this doesn't go through that we "couldn't deliver", as we could have pulled the trigger and paid the insane price Bell is quoted as having demanded, but we chose not to.

Because it would have been irresponsible list management to have done so.

We would have been selling the farm from a trade perspective for someone that's just not worthy of it.

If that means we only get 4 of our 5 trade targets this offseason AND we keep our two first rounders (say 12 and next year's), then I can most certainly live with that.

That will be a very good overall outcome.

If we still manage to get all 5 it could be a phenomenal outcome.