Hill Bros: Stephen Signed/Bradley wants out

Remove this Banner Ad

PurpleEyes said:
He had one year left on his contract and made the trade request on the basis of wanting to go home to play along side his brother.
He likely went to a new contract worth far more than the Hawks would have offered.
Now Freo fans who were happy at the end of 2016 are now crying to Mama because he has 2 years left and wants a trade again due to personal reasons and again likely to a better paying position.

The Hawks got pick 23 for a 3 time premiership player who was 3 years younger than what we are talking about.
Even I am saying we should expect something like pick 6 in return for his trade. I'm pretty sure we will get better than pick 23 which makes Hawks the charity case, not us.
Click to expand...

Club fans view everything in terms of how it impacts their club. So what? Every club board is the same.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I want Brad to stay, but it's the right thing to do to let him go. There's no reason to keep him if he wants to play elsewhere (unless St Kilda really lowball us). But we should really be doing what we can to accommodate has request, it's good for the culture of the club to not have people who don't want to be here, so trading Langdon and Hill for good picks is the right move to do. If Kelly nominates West Coast we take those picks to the draft and draft ready made replacements.
 
MadMundy said:
I want Brad to stay, but it's the right thing to do to let him go. There's no reason to keep him if he wants to play elsewhere (unless St Kilda really lowball us). But we should really be doing what we can to accommodate has request, it's good for the culture of the club to not have people who don't want to be here, so trading Langdon and Hill for good picks is the right move to do. If Kelly nominates West Coast we take those picks to the draft and draft ready made replacements.
Click to expand...
No. It's not black and white. Hills trade request reasons as reported are not sufficient grounds for release as per say Josh Schache. Obtaining full value then requires preparedness to accept, on both sides, that a deal might not happen. Otherwise we, or any club, are leaving themselves open to have compassionate grounds exploited by players and agents.
 
Nter1 said:
People like you would get bent over the table easily. We'll see what Bell can do.
Click to expand...

You comment smacks of being a bit of a keyboard warrior.

Like anyone "playing hardball" in an internet forum means anything.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Brad Hill 2018.

This will be heavily influenced by player managers releasing the story to the media as a means of pushing the process along, without which we wouldn't be aware of it at all.

Bryce Gibbs is another.
Click to expand...

Has there been any evidence that BHill officially requested a trade in 2018?
I know there were rumours, but I wasn't aware of any news stating that he had requested a trade?
And even if BHill did in 2018, I would argue we would have been better off getting a deal done in 2018 and looking forward instead of just delaying the problem another 12months.

Bryce Gibbs requested a trade back to Adelaide in 2016, two years in to a 5 year contract.
A deal didn't manage to get done in 2016, but did in 2017 (still with 2 years left on his contract).
So Bryce Gibbs is an example of why you might as well just do your best to get the deal done as soon as possible.
 
PurpleEyes said:
Has there been any evidence that BHill officially requested a trade in 2018?
I know there were rumours, but I wasn't aware of any news stating that he had requested a trade?
And even if BHill did in 2018, I would argue we would have been better off getting a deal done in 2018 and looking forward instead of just delaying the problem another 12months.

Bryce Gibbs requested a trade back to Adelaide in 2016, two years in to a 5 year contract.
A deal didn't manage to get done in 2016, but did in 2017 (still with 2 years left on his contract).
So Bryce Gibbs is an example of why you might as well just do your best to get the deal done as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Silvani at the time said that a player with two years on their contract shows they are highly valued by their club, they wanted two first round picks for him.

If we end up with #5, their 2020 first in exchange for Brad Hill and our 2020 2nd it would be comparable to the Gibbs trade. Reasonable?

Jon Ralph, for all he is worth, has been talking about Brad Hill requesting a trade last year since about July this year.
 
Taylor said:
Silvani at the time said that a player with two years on their contract shows they are highly valued by their club, they wanted two first round picks for him.

If we end up with #5, their 2020 first in exchange for Brad Hill and our 2020 2nd it would be comparable to the Gibbs trade. Reasonable?

Jon Ralph, for all he is worth, has been talking about Brad Hill requesting a trade last year since about July this year.
Click to expand...

The point here is, you say Silvagni argued the importance of a player with years remaining on their contract ... but in practice, all that happened was the trade was delayed 12 months and they traded a player that was another 12 months older, still with 2 years left on their contract, and worth less to another club. Gibbs didn't help Carlton win a premiership in 2017. He may have been one of their best players in 2017, but I just don't see how delaying that trade by 12 months helped Carlton. By my calculations, Adelaide offered the equivalent of #6 pick in 2016 + Jake Kelly who has since been a solid contributor for Adelaide. In 2017, Adelaide did the deal, again by my calculations for the equivalent of #6 pick.
So, Carlton, in hindsight, should have done the deal in 2016.
 
PurpleEyes said:
The point here is, you say Silvagni argued the importance of a player with years remaining on their contract ... but in practice, all that happened was the trade was delayed 12 months and they traded a player that was another 12 months older, still with 2 years left on their contract, and worth less to another club. Gibbs didn't help Carlton win a premiership in 2017. He may have been one of their best players in 2017, but I just don't see how delaying that trade by 12 months helped Carlton. By my calculations, Adelaide offered the equivalent of #6 pick in 2016 + Jake Kelly who has since been a solid contributor for Adelaide. In 2017, Adelaide did the deal, again by my calculations for the equivalent of #6 pick.
So, Carlton, in hindsight, should have done the deal in 2016.
Click to expand...

I think it's more complicated including how losing that player will impact the performance of the side during a period of added scrutiny on the coach and football department, as well as supporter retention.

But, it didn't seem to reduce the value of the player either - as long as the pick was indeed actually pick #6 and not a grouping of the points of picks after pick #15 that Tim Kelly's trade was knocked back on because nobody would be trading a pick in the top three or top five for a group of picks that average about pick 20.

I'll reiterate that we find out about the request to move when the player agent want to leverage the public over it and we don't hear about the ones that get knocked on the head as "never going to happen" so there is a distortion of results.
 
Taylor said:
I think it's more complicated including how losing that player will impact the performance of the side during a period of added scrutiny on the coach and football department, as well as supporter retention.

But, it didn't seem to reduce the value of the player either - as long as the pick was indeed actually pick #6 and not a grouping of the points of picks after pick #15 that Tim Kelly's trade was knocked back on because nobody would be trading a pick in the top three or top five for a group of picks that average about pick 20.

I'll reiterate that we find out about the request to move when the player agent want to leverage the public over it and we don't hear about the ones that get knocked on the head as "never going to happen" so there is a distortion of results.
Click to expand...
When I say equivalent of pick#6, I am using the AFL trade points value system to simplify the trades on offer. My calculations may not be 100% accurate, but to have a discussion and to compare trade values, it's the best and fairest method I can figure.

Now the Tim Kelly trade I view differently because of where the two teams that were trading were in terms of premiership contention.
Geelong did the right thing by trying to facilitate a trade, but West Coast couldn't/wouldn't deliver the goods. Apparently, WC wouldn't cough up the extra 2019 2nd round pick (Geelong to give back 2019 3rd round pick) on top of their Picks 20 & 22 that was on the table. So the sticking point ended up being about 360 points or the equivalent of an additional pick#44. Or simplified, Geelong were offered equivalent to pick#6, but wanted pick#4.

Now consider if WC had have got the deal done ... Geelong who ended up top of the ladder and WC who ended up 5th would have likely seen a different result in 2019. That is, Geelong were right, WC were wrong in this deal.

It also appears that Geelong have done plenty in 2019 to try to make the Kelly family more comfortable in 2019.
But, once again, reality is that 12months later, Kelly will likely be gone. The big difference here being Geelong benefited plenty keeping Kelly for 12 more months. I just don't see how Freo benefits from keeping BHill for just 12 months more.
 
PurpleEyes said:
When I say equivalent of pick#6, I am using the AFL trade points value system to simplify the trades on offer. My calculations may not be 100% accurate, but to have a discussion and to compare trade values, it's the best and fairest method I can figure.

Now the Tim Kelly trade I view differently because of where the two teams that were trading were in terms of premiership contention.
Geelong did the right thing by trying to facilitate a trade, but West Coast couldn't/wouldn't deliver the goods. Apparently, WC wouldn't cough up the extra 2019 2nd round pick (Geelong to give back 2019 3rd round pick) on top of their Picks 20 & 22 that was on the table. So the sticking point ended up being about 360 points or the equivalent of an additional pick#44. Or simplified, Geelong were offered equivalent to pick#6, but wanted pick#4.

Now consider if WC had have got the deal done ... Geelong who ended up top of the ladder and WC who ended up 5th would have likely seen a different result in 2019. That is, Geelong were right, WC were wrong in this deal.

It also appears that Geelong have done plenty in 2019 to try to make the Kelly family more comfortable in 2019.
But, once again, reality is that 12months later, Kelly will likely be gone. The big difference here being Geelong benefited plenty keeping Kelly for 12 more months. I just don't see how Freo benefits from keeping BHill for just 12 months more.
Click to expand...
I think Brad Hill helps us make the finals which will be an important goal for the new regime, everyone is still under pressure there.

My understanding of the Kelly trade last year was Geelong wanted both of West coast's picks then and their first this year but West Coast didn't want to budge from their second this year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wonder whether some perceive that Brad is basically the same player in terms of performance as when he was at Hawthorn (particularly his last year). The three Grand Final achievements probably elevates the perception of his time at Hawthorn being basically the same player in terms of player performance and standing.

I suggest his three years at Fremantle are about 15 % up on an his previous three at Hawthorn. He is a better player by that margin, and if fit and playing has a likely continued ascending projection for the next three. Added also he is a far more versatile player than his time at Hawthorn...and a very attractive option for a coach to have in the team.

In my thinking, it is not a question of what he would cost us to trade him into our club now (which might be say pick 7-8 if we were to get him for that from another club) but what he is worth now to us and as contracted player. Added too is how many clubs are interested in him and how they rate him and what they are prepared to pay.

The final piece to this puzzle of his pick value, to us, is for example that if we had been in the finals the last three years and he performed as well or better than in his finals with Hawthorn. How would we see his value as a player then.

Realistically one could make a case for him being worth more to us than say a pick 5 even, say pick 3, (and to some clubs could easily be that too) but with the value it of course starts to be compromised according to his likely number of quality footy years left, 7 years left better than 5 say.

I think his range is between 4 and 7, or arrangement of picks and player trade that equates somehow to about that value. Definitely doable, if he has to be traded at all.

But to be honest, if we were to be in a pre-lim next year (okay agree unlikely), no pick 5 would compensate for Brad not being in our team. He could be the difference between winning and losing it, on his day. (apology for the length everyone)
 
Taylor said:
I think Brad Hill helps us make the finals which will be an important goal for the new regime, everyone is still under pressure there.

My understanding of the Kelly trade last year was Geelong wanted both of West coast's picks then and their first this year but West Coast didn't want to budge from their second this year.
Click to expand...

According to John Ralph;

All West Coast needed was to pull the trigger and hand over picks 20, 22 and their 2019 second-rounder in exchange for Kelly and the Cats’ 2019 third-rounder.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gee...-kelly-to-stay-jon-ralph-herald-s-t21479.html
 
We made it clear that pick 5 must be part of the trade.

m.afl.com.au

Dockers demand Saints' pick No.5 as part of any Hill deal

Fremantle has made it clear to St Kilda that its pick five will need to be involved in a deal for star midfielder Bradley Hill
m.afl.com.au m.afl.com.au

I think we got blindsided by Brisbane last year when they downtraded with Adelaide during negotiation, so making things clear now.

I’ll believe that the 2 years contract will make all the difference for Hill’s case. Negotiation wise, the personal reason for the request is his partner wants to move back to Melbourne. If Freo hold him to his contract, he and his partner will have to make alternative arrangements, and who knows, it may sort out.
And St Kilda may not make the same huge offer in 2 years time, so the desire for Brad to move may even be less then. It’s like Neale’s case last year, if St Kilda don’t try it get it done with offers Freo will accept, the trade may not happen in 1-2 years time.
 
PurpleEyes said:
When I say equivalent of pick#6, I am using the AFL trade points value system to simplify the trades on offer. My calculations may not be 100% accurate, but to have a discussion and to compare trade values, it's the best and fairest method I can figure.

Now the Tim Kelly trade I view differently because of where the two teams that were trading were in terms of premiership contention.
Geelong did the right thing by trying to facilitate a trade, but West Coast couldn't/wouldn't deliver the goods. Apparently, WC wouldn't cough up the extra 2019 2nd round pick (Geelong to give back 2019 3rd round pick) on top of their Picks 20 & 22 that was on the table. So the sticking point ended up being about 360 points or the equivalent of an additional pick#44. Or simplified, Geelong were offered equivalent to pick#6, but wanted pick#4.

Now consider if WC had have got the deal done ... Geelong who ended up top of the ladder and WC who ended up 5th would have likely seen a different result in 2019. That is, Geelong were right, WC were wrong in this deal.

It also appears that Geelong have done plenty in 2019 to try to make the Kelly family more comfortable in 2019.
But, once again, reality is that 12months later, Kelly will likely be gone. The big difference here being Geelong benefited plenty keeping Kelly for 12 more months. I
Click to expand...
PurpleEyes said:
Struth, do I really need to explain this?

If BHill is not likely to be playing for Fremantle in our future seasons when we are more likely to win a premiership, then it is logical to replace him sooner rather than later.
Denying his trade request and forcing him to play in 2020 is not going to give us extra on field leadership.
It will not improve player morale having a player who doesn't want to be there and is counting the weeks to the next trade period.
We are not likely to win a premiership in the next year or two by making him stay at Freo for the duration of his contract.
Then when he leaves, we still need to find that replacement winger who will hopefully be with us when we do win a premiership sometime in the future.

Do posters really believe that making him play out his contract in 2020 (and 2021) will result in him staying at Freo forever?
It amazes me how often I see posts where emotion takes over logic.
Emotion tells me I want him to stay at Freo and help us win a premiership ... but what I want and what is reality are worlds apart and back in the real world, our best future given BHill's trade request is to get a good trade and move on.
Click to expand...

It's simple if the Saints want Hill to break his contract and collect 900k then they have to cough up big time
 
$900,000 is in the top 2.3% of players in the entire league. With two years contracted?

There aren't enough players to put eighteen on the field who earn in that territory.

That's what we are talking about here. That's the value they have put on him. That's two top ten picks.

What would it cost to pry Dustin Martin, Nathan Fyfe, Jeremy McGovern etc from their clubs with two years of contract remaining?
 
Taylor said:
$900,000 is in the top 2.3% of players in the entire league. With two years contracted?

There aren't enough players to put eighteen on the field who earn in that territory.

That's what we are talking about here. That's the value they have put on him. That's two top ten picks.

What would it cost to pry Dustin Martin, Nathan Fyfe, Jeremy McGovern etc from their clubs with two years of contract remaining?
Click to expand...

Exactly

Or you could do a purple eyes will say how Freo got a nice deal from the Hawks and he's an ok player so we should just make this trade happen for Hill out of our own good will.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hill Bros: Stephen Signed/Bradley wants out

Similar threads

DragoDelph
Welcome Welcome Pat Voss - 2024 Season SSP Signing
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
10K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
mattis117
Welcome Welcome Oscar McDonald [DFA Signing 2023]
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
10K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
apuchar
List Mgmt. WE MUST RE-SIGN HAMLING
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
muzzington
muzzington
JunglistPosse
Who do you want to ..
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Tbonefreo
Tbonefreo
Tonga Bob
Certified Legendary Thread Bob's Adventures In Fremantle - You Really Want To Read This!!!!
Replies
24
Views
1K
DragoDelph
DragoDelph
Tonga Bob
Toast Check Out The Big Brain On Belly!!
Replies
5
Views
1K
Quazar
Quazar
Van_Dyke
Autopsy Freo outclassed by Brisbane
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
9K
Fyfster
Fyfster

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top