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

[Gosaints12]

why are you adding Cerra in with the deal ...

Yeah I’d do that. Cerra and Hill for 2 firsts. I’d rather Brayshaw though.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TheJackal]

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

I value him at 15-20, whilst I agree that it should be more as he is in contract I don't think the premium you pay for a player in contract is as high these days.

I am a bit old school where I think you should only trade a top 10 pick for the absolute elite, there's the potential that I still rate first round draft picks too highly. Whilst Brad is very good, he isn't Josh Kelly.

There's every chance I'm wrong, it's OK to have differing opinions or predictions. I don't mind this year's draft, it doesn't have the talls but I think it's well stocked for mids and flankers.

 

[Gosaints12]

If we spilt our picks with Brisbane
5 for 17, 19 and 36. Could we send Acres, 17 and 36 for Hill and 26.

This gives Brisbane a hand of 5 inside the first 30.

This gives Freo Acres and a hand of 6 and 17 inside the first 30.

This gives STK Hill and a hand of 19 and 26 inside the first 30.


I think that’s far all round.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

If we spilt our picks with Brisbane
5 for 17, 19 and 36. Could we send Acres, 17 and 36 for Hill and 26.

This gives Brisbane a hand of 5 inside the first 30.

This gives Freo Acres and a hand of 6 and 17 inside the first 30.

This gives STK Hill and a hand of 19 and 26 inside the first 30.


I think that’s far all round.

I keep rejecting your trade offers but I’m confident that won’t happen. Freo will not do a deal in case there is a top 12 pick involved or it likely gets eaten up by Henry bid.

Now, we can argue about the ‘overs’ we’ll want but one thing that will be required is the deal makes sense and two picks outside the top 15 doesn’t make sense for what Freo will be trying to do

 

[Gosaints12]

I keep rejecting your trade offers but I’m confident that won’t happen. Freo will not do a deal in case there is a top 12 pick involved or it likely gets eaten up by Henry bid.

Now, we can argue about the ‘overs’ we’ll want but one thing that will be required is the deal makes sense and two picks outside the top 15 doesn’t make sense for what Freo will be trying to do

That makes it, complicated.

 

[Gosaints12]

New trade spilt picks with the Eagles this time. Picks 14,22 and 32 for 5.

St Kilda give 14, 22 and Acres for Hill and a future 3rd round.


That rates Hill about pick 6.

It gives Freo Acres and a hand of 6, 14 and 22 inside the first 30.

It gives the WCE pick 5 inside the first 30.

It gives the Saints Hill and no picks inside the first 30.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

That makes it, complicated.

Yes, media keep trying to peddle you lot breaking up your first with GWS but I don’t see that happening with GWS needing a top 3 pick to get ahead of a Green bid. So if you want to break up your first you’ll likely need to get North/Hawks/Port involved which I’m not sure they’ll want to.

Think this trade drags on to closing day

 

[raffrox]

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

So playing the ,"lets just repost what we said in the thread before" game, I'm just saying it's an average offer and not worth us losing Hill this year when we could get something similar or only slightly less next year.

It's not worth it. Our rebuild would suit having a mature mid running around for us for an extra year supporting a developing midfield.

Brad has a good relationship with our club and his brother just re-signed. Id feel comfortable making him stay if the deal wasn't worth it. The Sants have more of a reason to get this to work this year than Freo does.

 

[apuchar]

Yeah. Brad wouldn't be the first person to have a long-distance relationship for a while. FIFO workers do it all the time.

 

[schmuttt]

When you are looking to sign a contracted player for reportedly 900k a year you aren’t leaving trade week without giving up a top 10 pick and change.

 

[Strahany]

I love the BigFooty fallacy of high salary offer = high trade price. The reality is that offering overs on salary is a ploy to *reduce* trade value.

If St Kilda were offering, say, $600K per year, with (near) identical offers from the likes of Hawthorn, Melbourne, etc, then Hill would not only fail to nominate St Kilda, but may even actively nominate another club. Conversely, by offering $900K, an offer he “can’t refuse”, this will likely ensure he exclusively nominates St Kilda, meaning the saints aren’t competing against other clubs; artificially reducing the market demand, therefore lowering the trade cost.

 

[mighty_sainters]

I think it may be time to lock this thread until a week out before the trade period.

Neither supporter base will fold here.

 

[TheLastCall]

I love the BigFooty fallacy of high salary offer = high trade price. The reality is that offering overs on salary is a ploy to *reduce* trade value.

If St Kilda were offering, say, $600K per year, with (near) identical offers from the likes of Hawthorn, Melbourne, etc, then Hill would not only fail to nominate St Kilda, but may even actively nominate another club. Conversely, by offering $900K, an offer he “can’t refuse”, this will likely ensure he exclusively nominates St Kilda, meaning the saints aren’t competing against other clubs; artificially reducing the market demand, therefore lowering the trade cost.

Your argument falls apart as they are competing with Freo who have him for Two years on low money, thanks to a front loaded contract.

If Freo don’t feel they are compensated for Hill they will just say no and keep him.
This is what Geelong did with TK, keeping him on 200k, when he could have been on 600k.

So StKilda are bidding against Freo keeping on the books an A grade player for C grade money.

Hill will be a 5 and change trade.

 

[Strahany]

Your argument falls apart as they are competing with Freo who have him for Two years on low money, thanks to a front loaded contract.

If Freo don’t feel they are compensated for Hill they will just say no and keep him.
This is what Geelong did with TK, keeping him on 200k, when he could have been on 600k.

So StKilda are bidding against Freo keeping on the books an A grade player for C grade money.

Hill will be a 5 and change trade.

Hill’s contract status has nothing to do with his trade value, with respect to his salary.

Him being contracted ups his price.
Him being offered a lot of money does not; it does the opposite.

 

[eastfreo75]

New trade spilt picks with the Eagles this time. Picks 14,22 and 32 for 5.

St Kilda give 14, 22 and Acres for Hill and a future 3rd round.


That rates Hill about pick 6.

It gives Freo Acres and a hand of 6, 14 and 22 inside the first 30.

It gives the WCE pick 5 inside the first 30.

It gives the Saints Hill and no picks inside the first 30.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Sully90]

I love the BigFooty fallacy of high salary offer = high trade price. The reality is that offering overs on salary is a ploy to *reduce* trade value.

If St Kilda were offering, say, $600K per year, with (near) identical offers from the likes of Hawthorn, Melbourne, etc, then Hill would not only fail to nominate St Kilda, but may even actively nominate another club. Conversely, by offering $900K, an offer he “can’t refuse”, this will likely ensure he exclusively nominates St Kilda, meaning the saints aren’t competing against other clubs; artificially reducing the market demand, therefore lowering the trade cost.

That's absurd reasoning. No list manager in the league is out there paying $900k for a $600k player unless they think the player is actually worth $900k. Otherwise they find their own head on the chopping block soon enough.

At the end of the day you're looking at a premium player in career best form with 2 years on his contract. Even the likes of Hawthorn and Collingwood have to cough up big prices (both salary cap and trade value) for that type of action.

 

[TheLastCall]

Hill’s contract status has nothing to do with his trade value, with respect to his salary.

Him being contracted ups his price.
Him being offered a lot of money does not; it does the opposite.

Money adds expectations, the more money on offer the greater a player is valued. Thus higher trade value.

I expect StKilda’s offer is front loaded, they have the money now.

 

[Strahany]

That's absurd reasoning. No list manager in the league is out there paying $900k for a $600k player unless they think the player is actually worth $900k. Otherwise they find their own head on the chopping block soon enough.

I feel like this is so obviously wrong to everyone that there’s no absolute need to respond.

Clubs have different selling points. You have the likes of Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon which offer the benefits of a “big club”. Then you have clubs currently in contention, notably Hawthorn and Geelong’s ability to recruit players in recent years.

Then you have clubs with neither the big club appeal, nor the lure of imminent success. These clubs know where they’re at, and know they must offer a point of difference; salary. If you think a list manager would be fired for doing this, then I honestly don’t know what to say.

 

[The Joker]

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

Thats so cute!

 

[theGav56]

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).

No. If we were forced into a trade, so be it. But why should we agree to trade that benefits you but weakens us?

 

[Wizard]

Yeah I’d do that. Cerra and Hill for 2 firsts. I’d rather Brayshaw though.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It'd have to be 2 x Top 5 picks, not 2 x 1st rounders.

 

[The Joker]

New trade spilt picks with the Eagles this time. Picks 14,22 and 32 for 5.

St Kilda give 14, 22 and Acres for Hill and a future 3rd round.


That rates Hill about pick 6.

It gives Freo Acres and a hand of 6, 14 and 22 inside the first 30.

It gives the WCE pick 5 inside the first 30.

It gives the Saints Hill and no picks inside the first 30.

Sound good, other than helping those other campaigners out!

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I think it may be time to lock this thread until a week out before the trade period.

Neither supporter base will fold here.

Why? peeps are free to go round in circles as long as no one is getting personnel, which, given the very big difference in supporter values in this thread is a good effort by both sets of posters tbh.

 

[Sully90]

I feel like this is so obviously wrong to everyone that there’s no absolute need to respond.

Clubs have different selling points. You have the likes of Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon which offer the benefits of a “big club”. Then you have clubs currently in contention, notably Hawthorn and Geelong’s ability to recruit players in recent years.

Then you have clubs with neither the big club appeal, nor the lure of imminent success. These clubs know where they’re at, and know they must offer a point of difference; salary. If you think a list manager would be fired for doing this, then I honestly don’t know what to say.

Cute, but again, even big clubs have still had to pay big dollar and trade price for premium players at the height of their powers. Unless you can think of a time otherwise?

 

[Purple Suit]

Hill’s contract status has nothing to do with his trade value, with respect to his salary.

Him being contracted ups his price.
Him being offered a lot of money does not; it does the opposite.

The money he is offered means the contracted player becomes more desperate to leave. Eg. Weller. It's a 500K pa deal now for Hill (1m difference). Saints have him right now but need to trade overs for Freo to budge as Hill pay packet does not concern them.

His contract ups his trade price massively. The money being offered by the Saints has zero effect on the trade. It only has the opposite effect if he is out of contract.