Trades

[SaintPav]

If we want B King, we don't need Bruce and Carlisle.

Especially if we want a second ruckman also.

Membrey, King, King, Marshall, Goldstein/Ryder, Carlisle, Bruce, Brown. Also Joyce, Logan and McCartin.

Clearly we don't need at least 3-4 of them.


So IF we are looking at B King and the second ruckman, we'll have to move 3-4 of the above on.

Bruce and Carlisle are the only ones with currency.


I'd happily move them on plus Membrey if we could get Hill, B King and Papley in.

If Membrey was to go also, we'd need a genuine forward pocket to come in along with the Kings.


There's also Tomlinson.

Get rid of Membrey too. Brilliant.

The Kings will second-year players.

[saintsRrising]

So what's your plan sRr? To continue with the same list, the same set up & expect a different result? That thinking is what I refer to when I use the term doomed.

Well one cannot be exact as one does not know who is really gettable or not.

However generalising :
- We need to keep churning through players till we find good ones (ie Marshall). We hold onto too many players too long hoping that they will make it. This may mean missing someone who later blooms, but they probably will not bloom with us anyway.

- However I do not believe that this only needs to be by gaining kids just kids. I think recruiting now should be a mix of kids, late bloomers and selected trades from other clubs and players from 18-26.


ie
1/The two players who emerge for us this year were Marshall (North Ballarat) and Wilkie ( North Adelaide). Both taken as rookie after having been originally passed over in the draft and player elsewhere before we picked them up..
2/ Prior to that two of our best recruits were the DFA's of Membrey and Robbo.

On age:
1/ Good players often play later these days.
2/ As players can move easier players are less like to be players for life. So gaining kids thinking you have them locked in for a decade is no longer valid.

So I would chase players from 18 to 26 or so. Ryder at 31.5 is too old.

- I think young players improve when they have good players around them, and we lack really good players at present. So I would target some really good players in areas we lack. Midfield is the main area, but I would not gain any old players. Hill I think is good as he is gettable and has characteristics that our other mids do not

- I would trade out what we can get reasonable value for. I would also trade out Steven and accept that he will be unders.

- Carlisle if there is a good deal. Main reason is we have few players that can gain us something good. But id the deal is poor keep.

- Bruce I would prefer to keep as I think Max will have a much easier time finding his feet if playing in the same forward line as Bruce. (Though one rumour is that one club has made us an "overs " offer - Mind you what the club may think is overs for Bruce I might not)

- If Hill and Bytel are both into our midfield in 2020 (along with rotations from Gresham, Clark and Billings) and Hannas is fit then say two of Acres, Dunstan and Acres is tradeable. Probably which ever two gain the best return. Steele is a keeper.

- Quality. We actually have many depth players now. To really improve I think we now need some more quality players to displace some of them. Just gaining more average players is just shuffling the deck-chairs.

- Ruck. Forget Ryder. We just need a component back up ruck in case Marshall goes down and Ryder will not join us to play mainly at Sandy.

[Ghost Like]

Generalising is good sRr, so is dreaming and I like your plan and believe we are not too far apart in our ideals. We really only differ on our thoughts about Ryder.

I don't believe he'll stunt Marshall's growth but enhance it. Let's face it, who has Marshall had to learn from? Marshall will still be #1 but against some teams he wouldn't have to do it all himself. Ryder offers two, maybe three years of tuition and quality back up whilst a kid or two develop at Sandy.

We were lucky this year with how durable Marshall was because we were bereft of ruck stocks. Bruce, Carlisle and Acres are not the answer to give Marshall a break.

[SaintPav]

Has there been a change in the trading process this year?

I can't remember so many announcements in previous years.

[Ghost Like]

Has there been a change in the trading process this year?

I can't remember so many announcements in previous years.

It is quite odd SaintPav, certainly more than just whispers. Making the designated trade period a bit of a mockery.

[stkfc1]

Listening to Hill's manager this morning and reading between the lines, sounds like Hill is definitely a Saint next year. Fantastic news.

[Beno88]

Has there been a change in the trading process this year?

I can't remember so many announcements in previous years.

Journos need headlines to fill the week off before finals.

[saintsRrising]

I don't believe he'll stunt Marshall's growth but enhance it. Let's face it, who has Marshall had to learn from?

You would hope that our ruck coach (Skrobalak) and Lade (ex-ruckman and assistant Coach) since they are both paid to actually coach would be working on Marshall.

Plus rumour has it that Roughie will be joining the Saints next year. He may know a thing or two about ruck/forward play?

I just do not get why Marshall watching from afar (as when Rydder is rucking Marshall will be on the pine or up forward) is going to advance him as a player.

If Marshall needs more specialised ruck coaching that the 3 above then hire in another part-time ruck coach. Ryder will be busy training etc himself and so will not that free to coach.

Ryder may impart some such value, but it is no ta prime reason.

What matters does it stack up in the 22.

We are going to have to agree to disagree but I would take Bruce over Ryder by a large margin.

[damienc]

Has there been a change in the trading process this year?

I can't remember so many announcements in previous years.

For the first time in a long time we are active in the trade period.

Quite frankly we need to be.

Our current list is not taking us where we want and need to go.

[Ghost Like]

We are going to have to agree to disagree but I would take Bruce over Ryder by a large margin.

That was never the question, I think you'll find I had Bruce in my 22 along with Ryder.

Will be interesting to see what assistants will be at the club next year.

[Viscount Jeremiah]

Listening to Hill's manager this morning and reading between the lines, sounds like Hill is definitely a Saint next year. Fantastic news.

I want Hill but don't want to give up pick 5 for him.

What do we think it will take to get him?

[saintsRrising]

Listening to Hill's manager this morning and reading between the lines, sounds like Hill is definitely a Saint next year. Fantastic news.

I want Hill but don't want to give up pick 5 for him.

What do we think it will take to get him?

Not our next picks which are 4th rounders.

If you want quality you have to give up quality.


Pick 5 for Hill and Tucker
Pick 5 for Hill and seconder round back

etc.
I know some are saying pick swap for GWS's two first rounders, BUT Swans pick is before us and they probably would nominate Green. GWS would want a pick early enough to select a first rounder before someone calls out Green's name which they then match as as an Academy Selection.

[BarryGrogan]

We are going to have to agree to disagree but I would take Bruce over Ryder by a large margin.

But what about Bruce over Ryder and a midfielder?

I'd be shocked if it's a straight swap for Bruce and Ryder.

[CQ SAINT]

Listening to Hill's manager this morning and reading between the lines, sounds like Hill is definitely a Saint next year. Fantastic news.

I want Hill but don't want to give up pick 5 for him.

What do we think it will take to get him?

Not our next picks which are 4th rounders.

If you want quality you have to give up quality.


Pick 5 for Hill and Tucker
Pick 5 for Hill and seconder round back

etc.
I know some are saying pick swap for GWS's two first rounders, BUT Swans pick is before us and they probably would nominate Green. GWS would want a pick early enough to select a first rounder before someone calls out Green's name which they then match as as an Academy Selection.

So you think.they may trade with Melbourne instead.

[saintsRrising]

Not our next picks which are 4th rounders.

If you want quality you have to give up quality.


Pick 5 for Hill and Tucker
Pick 5 for Hill and seconder round back

etc.
I know some are saying pick swap for GWS's two first rounders, BUT Swans pick is before us and they probably would nominate Green. GWS would want a pick early enough to select a first rounder before someone calls out Green's name which they then match as as an Academy Selection.

So you think.they may trade with Melbourne instead.

Well if Dees keep pick 2 then you would imagine that the use it for Anderson. So unless there is a priority pick to the Dees then no.

Crows have the Blues pick = Pick 3. Crows swapping their pick means that they could take two SA boys which would be attractive to them.

Pick 3 means that GWS can use pick 3, and then if Swans call out Green as they have gotten rid of their two original first rounders that Green only costs them lateer picks and they gan two early first round selections in effect.

It is also why GWS trading saying Caldwell for our Pick 5 would not take sense to GWS.



GWS could also possibly trade with Swans. But Crows makes it more certain as 1/2 will go on Rowell/Green

[saintsRrising]

We are going to have to agree to disagree but I would take Bruce over Ryder by a large margin.

But what about Bruce over Ryder and a midfielder?

I'd be shocked if it's a straight swap for Bruce and Ryder.

I would be shocked too, but that is not what I was talking about.

What I am talking about is the 22 and having Bruce in the 22 rather than Ryder. I am not in anyway saying it is a trade of one for the other as that would obviously be stupid with the trade values way out of whack. Bruce is worth a lot more than Ryder.

What I am saying is if we trade Bruce to the Doggies and trade Ryder in from PA for a late pick (yes he will be cheap) that electors will then pick a 22 where Ryder is a key forward.

That to me is a huge disadvantage for 80/90% of the game and only an advantage for the 20/10% that Ryder is rucking.

[PADDLEPOP1001]

Ryder is shot,lucky to play 10 games!

[Rubyjo]

Big footy is saying Craig Kelly's son Jake has nominated the Saints...

[saintsRrising]

Big footy is saying Craig Kelly's son Jake has nominated the Saints...

Please correct me if I am wrong in that I have not read what you are stating, but when you say BigFooty from what I have read only ONE person posted that with no source or substantiation? The others are only discussing it.