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

[theGav56]

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

So we knock you back and you have a problem with your salary cap? No problem for us because we are happy to keep him, and if it is a problem for Hill he can broaden his options and look at another club. And no, Hawthorn (or anyone else) would have to pay a trade premium to get him, because he is a contracted player. We would be happy to keep him.

Quite amusing reading your comments on how difficult it is to get a player to consider you unless you pay a premium salary. Imagine how much more difficult with the reputation you would build if you fail to get them despite that because you don't value them at the trade table in the same way.

 

[theGav56]

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.

Interesting theory. Do you have any examples of high salary offers to a contracted player that lead to a reduced trade value? I'm not talking about "damaged" players here. The ones at the top of their game thanks.

 

[Falchoon]

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.

stop talking sense

 

[Falchoon]

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.

you need to model in Hill's playing value next year at freo, should freo hold him against his wishes. Kelly is obviously scenario A, someone like Jack Steven is scenario B.

Hill will be a 5 and change trade.

His market value is roughly $700k & pick 5-10

 

[theGav56]

you need to model in Hill's playing value next year at freo, should freo hold him against his wishes. Kelly is obviously scenario A, someone like Jack Steven is scenario B.




His market value is roughly $700k & pick 5-10

He informed the club earlier in the year he wanted a trade and went on to have a career best season, so looks like scenario A is the winner.

 

[The Joker]

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

Not many are on +$450k though. All that money makes it tough to be away from family!

 

[The Joker]

He informed the club earlier in the year he wanted a trade and went on to have a career best season, so looks like scenario A is the winner.

He wanted a trade last year!

 

[apuchar]

Not many are on +$450k though. All that money makes it tough to be away from family!

So if we paid him more, it would ease the pain?

 

[theGav56]

He wanted a trade last year!

Almost as if he enjoys playing at Fremantle.

 

[apuchar]

He wanted a trade last year!

If we get a good deal, we will let it happen. The ball is in the court of his suitors.

 

[Falchoon]

Interesting theory. Do you have any examples of high salary offers to a contracted player that lead to a reduced trade value? I'm not talking about "damaged" players here. The ones at the top of their game thanks.

Depending on your definition of damaged (Roscoe!), but certainly at the top of his game

WE would have given you more than 6 & 19 & 55 -30 for Lachie Neale

 

[theGav56]

If we get a good deal, we will let it happen. The ball is in the court of his suitors.

Mind you I am looking forward to Falchoon or Strahany providing the list of contracted players whose trade value plummeted because they were offered higher contracts to back up that fallacy they have identified.

 

[Demons09]

Once again talk of a fair trade is crap , the trade will heavily favour Freo .

 

[eastfreo75]

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

I live in Melbourne, Saints are the worst fans.

They hate on their own players, worst in the league.

 

[eastfreo75]

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.

Two year contract on low money.

We don’t have to trade.

If you don’t get Hill, it sends a message to players they can’t get a big trade done.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

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.

you do know we have been paying under 95% of the SC for the past 3 years now ... we are allowed to bank that but only for a short period of time if we dont spend that this year we lose it so $900k isnt much in terms to where we sit with our SC

 

[Sully90]

you do know we have been paying under 95% of the SC for the past 3 years now ... we are allowed to bank that but only for a short period of time if we dont spend that this year we lose it so $900k isnt much in terms to where we sit with our SC

That's all fine. Still doesn't mean that you get to value Brad Hill as a $600k player at the trade table though.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

So we knock you back and you have a problem with your salary cap? No problem for us because we are happy to keep him, and if it is a problem for Hill he can broaden his options and look at another club. And no, Hawthorn (or anyone else) would have to pay a trade premium to get him, because he is a contracted player. We would be happy to keep him.

Quite amusing reading your comments on how difficult it is to get a player to consider you unless you pay a premium salary. Imagine how much more difficult with the reputation you would build if you fail to get them despite that because you don't value them at the trade table in the same way.

so how much are you wanting to pay Kelly ???
the trade will get done because for all Freo's chest beating they dont need another player on their list who doesnt want to be there ... if you want to talk about reputation how would Freo's look having another player wanting out of the place ...

 

[The Joker]

So if we paid him more, it would ease the pain?

I think less would be better. I mean the guys doing FIFO for +$100k love working away from their families for that pay!

Almost as if he enjoys playing at Fremantle.

Im not sure what team he plays for matters, as long as the next team is willing to give up more cash. A mercenary if you will!

I'm all for it if it doesn't blow up on us in the end!

If we get a good deal, we will let it happen. The ball is in the court of his suitors.

Absolutely. * him and them if it's not good for us!

 

[Sully90]

so how much are you wanting to pay Kelly ???
the trade will get done because for all Freo's chest beating they dont need another player on their list who doesnt want to be there ... if you want to talk about reputation how would Freo's look having another player wanting out of the place ...

BHill's relationship with the Club is no worse than Kelly's with Geelong last year or Gibbs' with Carlton in his last year there. I think Bell will be fine to keep him for one more.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

I live in Melbourne, Saints are the worst fans.

They hate on their own players, worst in the league.

yeah saints fans tend to eat their own ... frustration does that ... but Freo fans dont understand the basics of football.. the last freo game i was at the clown behind me was saying the umpire were cheating because they allowed Silvagni to keep on tacklling them and wanted Kruzer red carded cause Fyfe ran into him and went down ... dont even get me started on the nuffies who call up WA radio complaining about the unfair treatment Freo get ...
over the years ive been to pretty much been to most teams home games ... Port Adelaide and Collingwood are the most feral ... Fremantle easily the lowest footy iq

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Two year contract on low money.

We don’t have to trade.

If you don’t get Hill, it sends a message to players they can’t get a big trade done.

i think the industry will see it as small man Bell being a twat derailing a fairly simple trade transaction if it falls over... Freo already have a so-so rep with player managers and in genreral as an ordinary club to work for or with

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

That's all fine. Still doesn't mean that you get to value Brad Hill as a $600k player at the trade table though.

as explaind the value means nothing ... if the value came into it it would be as simple as low balling a one year contract with a one game trigger clause to activate a higher long term contract ... salary comes into free agency compo calculations not trades

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

I think less would be better. I mean the guys doing FIFO for +$100k love working away from their families for that pay!



Im not sure what team he plays for matters, as long as the next team is willing to give up more cash. A mercenary if you will!

I'm all for it if it doesn't blow up on us in the end!



Absolutely. fu** him and them if it's not good for us!

salty much

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

BHill's relationship with the Club is no worse than Kelly's with Geelong last year or Gibbs' with Carlton in his last year there. I think Bell will be fine to keep him for one more.

you reckon ... going to cost him a bucket load of cash and keeps him away from his partner ... the contract next year for hill might not be as big from the saints cause its one year less ... i reckon if there was a reasonable trade offered and Freo rejected it then BHill would be pretty pissedoff with Freo