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

[Freomaniac]

How laughable is it?

well it was laughable that your team gave a couple of 2nd rounders to the swans for Hannebery who is injury prone.

yet some saints fans think Brad hill is only worth a 2020 2nd rounder.

 

[joop]

well it was laughable that your team gave a couple of 2nd rounders to the swans for Hannebery who is injury prone.

yet some saints fans think Brad hill is only worth a 2020 2nd rounder.

You really wanna talk about laughable trades St.Kilda has made?
I’m more than happy to take you to town on Fremantles history if that’s the pathetic road you want to take.

 

[Freomaniac]

You really wanna talk about laughable trades St.Kilda has made?
I’m more than happy to take you to town on Fremantles history if that’s the pathetic road you want to take.

you can if you want. Nothing new to me.

Yeah the Andrew McCleod trade for chris groom, trading pick 1 in 2001 etc, trading picks 3 and 19 for des headland in 2002 and trading picks 11,27 and 43 to port for Josh Carr in 2004 etc.

Again, nothing new here. If it makes your ego happy......


If Freo had the current people we have running our club right now back in 1994-5, freo would of been semi decent.

Freos trading and drafting from 1994-2006 is horrible and that me being generous. Looking at freos trading from 2007 onwards isnt too bad.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Uncontracted, I would value Hill around what you guys paid for him considering he is better now but also older, contracted though so he'll cost more. Remember is just my personal opinion though, anything said on here literally couldnt mean any less. We are all just spitballing.

See I think that Hill is worth pick 5 with around 20-25 coming back. Do you think Tucker is worth more or less than Langdon? I see Langdon valued around the Dees pick 20 and would expect Tucker around that mark too, perhaps marginally less. I dont see it as a crazy trade, at least no less crazy than Hill for 5 & Acres for example which many Freo supporters think is 'fair'.

Do you value him at 20ish because of what we paid for him or because that's how you see him.

What we paid for him off Hawthorn means close to nothing.

5 and Acres is bonkers overs. I'm confident it wouldnt be 5 with a 2nd coming back though. I think you actively trying to break up that 5 so you can do 10ish and Acres

 

[theGav56]

Gotta be honest, Tom Morris is the first person I've seen come up with a starting price that high. I think the highest we're probably going to get is Pick 6 by itself.

Very high price. I'm not sure what the trade will be, but what I think he is indicating is that to get the trade done a premium price will be required. No point talking about Hill's "trade value", or what a "fair price" is.

 

[eastfreo75]

Genuine question, if St Kilda scraped into the finals and had pick 12, would Freo supporters be genuinely expecting more than simply 'St Kildas first rounder' in the trade?

I just don't know where pick 5 comes in, is it just because that's what we have?

I think Hill is worth pick 20, being contracted means that it's a better pick we'd be giving up, I think pick 12 or so is more like it.

If we are giving up pick 5, then realistically pick 20-25 would be expected back. Alternatively, I'd probably trade 5 alone for Hill and Tucker (putting Tuckers value generously around 20-25).

Each draft is very different.

The quality in this draft isn’t there.

Pick 12 last year is the same value as pick 5 this year.

In fact, pick 5 last year is better than pick 1 this year.

Picks 5 and 12 this year isn’t much different in quality.

The issues for Fremantle is depth and the young age of the list.

That’s where Acres comes into.

I would happy if Hill and pick 24 is traded for pick 5 and Acres.

If the Saints traded pick 5 for picks 12 and change, Pick 12 and Acres for Hill would be fine with me.

If pick 5 could be used as a three way Trade for a player ie Hill - pick 5 and Stevens - Kelly with some exchange of other picks.

Again, Fremantle age profile is too young and need more 22-26 year olds coming into the club.

 

[bird_man]

It's still a deal thats not worth us missing out on an extra year from Hill.

No matter how you look to justify it.

Not trying to justify anything, just stating the points system is close to worthless unless you looking at academy or father son picks.

No one outside of that is trading pick 5 for 19 and 20

 

[theGav56]

Inverse correlation, if we can get him for $100k he's worth giving up pick 1, if we have to pay $3m he worth giving up a 4th rounder.

If a club can get him for $100K while he is still under contract with us I wouldn't stand in their way, because it likely means his form/injuries/off-field issues has made him delist material. In the real world, players are a small business with a constricted period to earn money, in a highly competitive industry. Contract offers generally reflect their value, and there is a cost to buying that asset.

 

[Vindicater]

Not trying to justify anything, just stating the points system is close to worthless unless you looking at academy or father son picks.

No one outside of that is trading pick 5 for 19 and 20

Are you telling me that I can't just bundle my s**t picks for a good one?

Well I never.

 

[daniel23]

St Kilda supporters are quite funny I've never really noticed them on here . Your club is going to pay him 900k a year to come with 2 years left on a contract , he isn't coming for a late first it will be pick 5 as a starting point .

 

[bird_man]

St Kilda supporters are quite funny I've never really noticed them on here . Your club is going to pay him 900k a year to come with 2 years left on a contract , he isn't coming for a late first it will be pick 5 as a starting point .

I don't think I've seen too many Saints fans on here of late suggesting we'd get him for a late first?

But if you really want to see something funny, go and check out the Coniglio thread.

 

[Mikka84]

St Kilda supporters are quite funny I've never really noticed them on here . Your club is going to pay him 900k a year to come with 2 years left on a contract , he isn't coming for a late first it will be pick 5 as a starting point .

I think it'll be closer to pick 6 personally.

 

[g_TRAIN]

Big contrast between this thread and the Josh Bruce thread where both lots of supporters seem to agree on what a fair price would be.

 

[Falchoon]

If a club can get him for $100K while he is still under contract with us I wouldn't stand in their way, because it likely means his form/injuries/off-field issues has made him delist material. In the real world, players are a small business with a constricted period to earn money, in a highly competitive industry. Contract offers generally reflect their value, and there is a cost to buying that asset.

The AFL is still a competition , increasing the offer to a player reduces the suitors and therefore the competition. Yes yoo still have to please the original club, but in this new age of millennial's & mental health the player becomes very quickly a depreciating asset.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Pick five is for Hill, Achres is for the two years Brad has left on his contract!

we had a bloke named Archer on the list a while back thats closer in spelling to Acres so sure we will send you Archer as a sweetner

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Pick 5 straight swap and be done with it.

Maybe steak knives also going freos way.

pick 5 is overs so no need for steak knives ... especially if they think Acres is a fair value of steak knives

 

[rgauci]

We need a pick post Henry. In fact we may need 2 picks to cover his cost. He could be bid as early as 8-10 which would be dreadful.

I’d prefer having picks 5,6 (assuming we don’t get Kelly) and a bunch of later picks. Add 3 first rounders (assuming Henry is bid on 1st round). Right now we have pick 6 and 24 and nothing beyond that.

It’s a tricky predicament. There are a bunch of W.A. Draftee’s that Would be great on our list, but they are rated 10-30. But the: 5,6 Henry then late picks doesn’t get you any of them.

If we can somehow swing a bunch of picks in a row. For instance 9,10,11 that might work too.

Not sure how that might happen involving this trade.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

I suppose you can view a 26 yo elite wingman as worth pick 20 but I don’t think your club does given they are giving him 900k a year.

I think any club would happily give 10ish for him, even uncontracted. There is no chance you get Tucker and Hill for 5, that’s crazy

the money is irrellivant ... we have to pay overs in the sallary to stop the players nominating Hawthorn... thats a sad fact of life the lack of shiny cups in our lobby means we gotta pay more ... that doesnt change the trade value of the player ... say the deal falls through with the saints and Hill desperate to get to Victoria accepts a $300K contract from hawthorn are you going to be happy with a third round pick for him cause thats what his salary says its worth ? of course not the value of hill to trade stays the same regardless of if he chooses $900k from St Kilda or $300K from hawthorn

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

well it was laughable that your team gave a couple of 2nd rounders to the swans for Hannebery who is injury prone.

yet some saints fans think Brad hill is only worth a 2020 2nd rounder.

now you are just dealing in fiction ... who has said 2020 second rounder ?

 

[g_TRAIN]

well it was laughable that your team gave a couple of 2nd rounders to the swans for Hannebery who is injury prone.

yet some saints fans think Brad hill is only worth a 2020 2nd rounder.

Yes except we got one back.

Hannebery and pick 28 went to the Saints, and the Swans received pick 39 and St Kilda's 2019 second-round pick in return.

So we did trade 2 second round picks but got one back.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

you can if you want. Nothing new to me.

Yeah the Andrew McCleod trade for chris groom, trading pick 1 in 2001 etc, trading picks 3 and 19 for des headland in 2002 and trading picks 11,27 and 43 to port for Josh Carr in 2004 etc.

Again, nothing new here. If it makes your ego happy......


If Freo had the current people we have running our club right now back in 1994-5, freo would of been semi decent.

Freos trading and drafting from 1994-2006 is horrible and that me being generous. Looking at freos trading from 2007 onwards isnt too bad.

hoenstly looking at the 2007 onwards trading of freo as an outsider it looks lazy .... its basically "he's from WA lets get him" scatter gun approach.. this norrow minded view on WA players only to "bring back home" is lazy trading and honestly isnt addressing the needs of your team.. but hey you do you

 

[eastfreo75]

hoenstly looking at the 2007 onwards trading of freo as an outsider it looks lazy .... its basically "he's from WA lets get him" scatter gun approach.. this norrow minded view on WA players only to "bring back home" is lazy trading and honestly isnt addressing the needs of your team.. but hey you do you

Are you Tim Gossage?

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Big contrast between this thread and the Josh Bruce thread where both lots of supporters seem to agree on what a fair price would be.

to be fair Freo supporters are not known for their football knowhow .... go to a game in perth and you will quickly learn most of them dont actually understand the rules of the game

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Are you Tim Gossage?

yes ..

 

[Sully90]

the money is irrellivant ... we have to pay overs in the sallary to stop the players nominating Hawthorn... thats a sad fact of life the lack of shiny cups in our lobby means we gotta pay more ... that doesnt change the trade value of the player ... say the deal falls through with the saints and Hill desperate to get to Victoria accepts a $300K contract from hawthorn are you going to be happy with a third round pick for him cause thats what his salary says its worth ? of course not the value of hill to trade stays the same regardless of if he chooses $900k from St Kilda or $300K from hawthorn

That's some mental gymnastics there. The 900k is absolutely relevant as it goes a long way to determining Hills value to you. Comparing that to a fictional 300k offer is ridiculous because Hill isn't playing anywhere at that price.

Inverse correlation, if we can get him for $100k he's worth giving up pick 1, if we have to pay $3m he worth giving up a 4th rounder.

That only makes sense if draft picks werr assigned a monetary value and could actually be purchased amd sold for money.