Dal Santo wants to remain a Saint

SaintWodonga · Mon 06 Oct 2008 11:54am

http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/ ... wsId=68681

ST KILDA midfielder Nick Dal Santo wants to stay a Saint amid speculation his name may be used as trade bait this week.

Speaking exclusively to afl.com.au at the clubâ€™s best and fairest on Saturday night, Dal Santo said he had no intention of moving elsewhere and hoped the club would show faith him after an inconsistent season.

â€œI definitely want to stay here. Iâ€™ve been overseas for the last week and a bit so I havenâ€™t been reading the papers,â€

Ralphy · Post: # 659240Post **Ralphy** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 11:57am

he will stay a saint.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 11:58am

ralphysaints35 wrote:he will stay a saint.

do you believe literally everything the media says?

Ralphy · Post: # 659244Post **Ralphy** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 11:59am

Saints Premiers 2008 wrote:
ralphysaints35 wrote:he will stay a saint.
do you believe literally everything the media says?

what a shock you replied to my post.
yeah i believe he will stay a saint.

howlinwolf · Mon 06 Oct 2008 11:59am

This is great news.
I'm sure now he will stay with us and we can't afford to give away a player with skills as he has.
Also reassuring is a answer to a question about trades in "Ask Archie" where he says not to expect anything radical.

SainterK · Post: # 659248Post **SainterK** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 12:01pm

If he stays with the saints or not, at least RL has a proven approach to "motivating" players to peform...

If players that have a history of being a bit lazy, stay with the club next year....well I am in support of dropping them to the seconds, and that no-one is above this kind of action.

B W and R all over · Mon 06 Oct 2008 12:30pm

[quote]â€œIâ€™ve spoken to him briefly. We havenâ€™t had a sit down or anything like that. Weâ€™ve had a chat and I want to be a Saints player.â€

matrix · Post: # 659272Post **matrix** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:05pm

as if we would get rid of him...
if we do....then someone has no idea

Eastern · Post: # 659273Post **Eastern** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:06pm

4 Days & 1 hour to go. Then we will all know !!

WayneJudson42 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:07pm

matrixcutter wrote:as if we would get rid of him...
if we do....then someone has no idea

Why is that?

Only the inner sanctum has any idea if he's worthwhile keeping.. or if a trade will be better than keeping him.

matrix · Post: # 659276Post **matrix** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:10pm

why is that?
because he is a good player and we know he is a good player and he has said he wants to stay and he has a year left on his contract (?)

anything else?

Ralphy · Post: # 659278Post **Ralphy** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:12pm

matrixcutter wrote:why is that?
because he is a good player and we know he is a good player and he has said he wants to stay and he has a year left on his contract (?)

anything else?

2010 his contract ends, so 2 years

Eastern · Post: # 659279Post **Eastern** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:13pm

WayneJudson42 wrote:
matrixcutter wrote:as if we would get rid of him...
if we do....then someone has no idea
Why is that?

Only the inner sanctum has any idea if he's worthwhile keeping.. or if a trade will be better than keeping him.

And.........they're not going to broadcast anything prior to any trade being finalized, if indeed there is going to be a trade........But some get a kick out of speculating !!

WayneJudson42 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:14pm

matrixcutter wrote:why is that?
because he is a good player and we know he is a good player and he has said he wants to stay and he has a year left on his contract (?)

anything else?

Yes...

Serious question marks hang over his ability to be the best he can be.

On the face of it... he isn't, and from what we've seen, he should be one of the top 10 mids in AFL... and he isn't.

Conclusion: He's either over rated, so if a trade comes along, you take it.

Or, he's in his comfort zone and does not have the desire to take his game to an elite level.

Either way, it will need to be addressed.

Nothing against the guy... just a rational, emotionless analysis.

matrix · Post: # 659281Post **matrix** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:14pm

ta ralphy.

yeah trade him....he's a waste of space i reckon
friggin useless

WayneJudson42 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:17pm

matrixcutter wrote:ta ralphy.

yeah trade him....he's a waste of space i reckon
friggin useless

Dude, you're letting your heart rule your head here.

So what you're saying is that if a trade came up that would improve our team, we shouldn't look at it???

bigcarl · Post: # 659287Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:23pm

WayneJudson42 wrote:he should be one of the top 10 mids in AFL... and he isn't.

says who?

the guy is an extremely gifted footballer, but who is to say he has the attributes to be a top midfielder.

perhaps he just doesn't have the tank to run all day like robert harvey.

though you can work on it to a degree, it's largely genetic and you can only go with what you're born with.

as i've said it in various posts over some months, try him as a half forward where his every possession can really hurt the opposition.

we need some creative flair in our forward line apart from riewoldt and milne and the addition of dal santo would be a start.

matrix · Post: # 659288Post **matrix** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:23pm

do i didnt say that at all.

i said we'd be mad to get rid of him.

lets say the said player is on the table for a trade/swap/whatever..
what do u think u would get for him, something better??
be real....
say if hodge came up, then well what do ya reckon, answers pretty obvious.......but players of that calibre are not going to be offered are they.

remboy · Post: # 659291Post **remboy** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 1:28pm

WayneJudson42 wrote:
matrixcutter wrote:why is that?
because he is a good player and we know he is a good player and he has said he wants to stay and he has a year left on his contract (?)

anything else?
Yes...

Serious question marks hang over his ability to be the best he can be.

On the face of it... he isn't, and from what we've seen, he should be one of the top 10 mids in AFL... and he isn't.

Conclusion: He's either over rated, so if a trade comes along, you take it.

Or, he's in his comfort zone and does not have the desire to take his game to an elite level.

Either way, it will need to be addressed.

Nothing against the guy... just a rational, emotionless analysis.

Agree fully. Nobody doubts that he has talent. The problem is that for a player who would be one of the highest 5 or 6 paid at the club he needs to do more. I didn't see his name mentioned in the top ten in the B&F. Come to think of it I can't remember him placing in the B&F.
Guys like Dal Santo should be embarrassed that Robert Harvey is still finishing in the top 5 at the end of the year. He won't be there next year so Dal has a HUGE opportunity to go to the next level.
Unless, of course, he's happy where he is.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 2:13pm

i jsut hope he doesnt become the next travis johnstone

WayneJudson42 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 3:09pm

matrixcutter wrote:do i didnt say that at all.

i said we'd be mad to get rid of him.

lets say the said player is on the table for a trade/swap/whatever..
what do u think u would get for him, something better??
be real....
say if hodge came up, then well what do ya reckon, answers pretty obvious.......but players of that calibre are not going to be offered are they.

I prefer to look at it in the context of the team structure.

If as BigCarl suggests he does not have the attributes... then you still have to decide if he is of value to the team, or if a trade will help elsewhere.

I don't see why all the hoo-haa about this.

As far as what we'd get for him... again, who are we to judge "what's better" than Dal.

What if it is deemed we have too many of his type (not saying we do) and you can trade him for a defender which we need?

For example, the full back traded for might not be as good a player as Dal... but may be of geater importance to the overall team, as a full back would enable us to release BJ or Fish full time to the midfield, and Max can take the 3rd fwd.

That, in a nutshell, is my point.

Post: # 659346Post **n1ck** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 3:12pm

It would have to be a quality player, whatever position.

You'd only really look at a Rutten or Glass, or a Brian Lake, to get equal or more better value for trading Dal.

markp · Post: # 659350Post **markp** » Mon 06 Oct 2008 3:15pm

I'd be inclined to exit him in, but he needs a massive rocket up his ar$e (maybe at least being put on the trade table will provide that).

But if a fantastic trade offer came along.....

WayneJudson42 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 3:27pm

n1ck wrote:It would have to be a quality player, whatever position.

You'd only really look at a Rutten or Glass, or a Brian Lake, to get equal or more better value for trading Dal.

Yes and no...

Let's say u rate Dal as a 7/10 player...

the full back might be a 5/10 player, but overall, better value for the team. And it allows you to play BJ, a 9/10 player in the midfield.. where can can dominate and become an elite mid.

Or you might get the full back who's a 5/10 plus a draft pick for Dal.

It's not as clear cut as some would suggest. Trade are not just about trading like for like.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Mon 06 Oct 2008 3:37pm

WayneJudson42 wrote:
n1ck wrote:It would have to be a quality player, whatever position.

You'd only really look at a Rutten or Glass, or a Brian Lake, to get equal or more better value for trading Dal.
Yes and no...

Let's say u rate Dal as a 7/10 player...

the full back might be a 5/10 player, but overall, better value for the team. And it allows you to play BJ, a 9/10 player in the midfield.. where can can dominate and become an elite mid.

Or you might get the full back who's a 5/10 plus a draft pick for Dal.

It's not as clear cut as some would suggest. Trade are not just about trading like for like.

hence why the people that trade and draft are in the jobs they are and the fact that 98% of saintsational have no clue