List Mgmt. 2013 Trade / Draft / Free Agency

[SaintLex]

Pelchen said in his open letter that we wont be targeting any free agents until 2016:

Rules are made to be broken

We'd be crazy not to at least look at someone like Dangerfield. He might want to stay in Adelaide or he might want to go to another successful club, but if we don't even enquire we'd be neglecting our duties.

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Why would GWS pick him up if he's specifically said he wants to return to Victoria?
And why would Melbourne pick him up with their plethora of rucks?

GWS also had 6 picks before him in the 2011 draft and overlooked him why would they all of a sudden pick him up knowing he wants to return home? seems odd. Hopefully we just get a fair trade done.

 

[JasRulz63]

GWS also had 6 picks before him in the 2011 draft and overlooked him why would they all of a sudden pick him up knowing he wants to return home? seems odd. Hopefully we just get a fair trade done.

To be fair, there's a big difference between spending a top 8 pick on a player and essentially a pick 60+ (if taken in the PSD). No where near the same amount of risk.

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

To be fair, there's a big difference between spending a top 8 pick on a player and essentially a pick 60+ (if taken in the PSD). No where near the same amount of risk.

Yes but after his contract he'll just return home anyway. If GWS selected him. But i still hope for a fair trade as i would rather you guys get compensated considering how many players you're losing.

 

[JasRulz63]

Yes but after his contract he'll just return home anyway. If GWS selected him. But i still hope for a fair trade as i would rather you guys get compensated considering how many players you're losing.

But what do they lose out of it? I'm not saying GWS would pick him up. Just pointing out that GWS overlooking him in the draft doesn't mean they will have no interest in him now. Especially since there's no risk for them if he leaves, since they would've just spent a pick 60+ on him rather than a top 10 pick. They'd probably get something for him if they were to trade him out too.

I still think/hope that he stays with us. Of the 5 that are leaving, he's probably been the only one that said he's open to staying at the club.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

From what I've heard pick 18 was going to get the original Longer to Hawks deal done... The Saints brought up McEvoy during discussions for a Savage.

The Hawks obviously want a ready to go ruckman his prime so Ben was preferred.

I think it will be pick 19 at best... But StK will hold out for 25 as long as possible.

I have the feeling that there's still something brewing... Another top ten pick is high on the agenda


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[VDS66]

the LONGER this drags on, the more boring it becomes to be honest.

Boom tish!

VDs has left the building... good night.

 

[Periphery]

But what do they lose out of it? I'm not saying GWS would pick him up. Just pointing out that GWS overlooking him in the draft doesn't mean they will have no interest in him now. Especially since there's no risk for them if he leaves, since they would've just spent a pick 60+ on him rather than a top 10 pick. They'd probably get something for him if they were to trade him out too.

I'm not saying that we should pick Longer up in the PSD and I would prefer a fair trade for him if we get him.

But why would GWS pick him up is he made it abundantly clear than he did not want to play there? No club wants to pick a player and force them to play for them against their will. Couldn't Longer just refuse to sign GWS contract? (serious questions as I'm not 100% sure on what can/can't happen with the PSD)

 

[Kildonan]

I hope we can come to a mutually acceptable agreement. We want good relations with other clubs.
Pelchen is a tough negotiator. Recruiting managers from other clubs find him difficult to work with.
I'm not sure what the compensation will be for Longer, but I am sure that we can put together a very attractive salary package that would make St Kilda his preferred destination club. The rest is just negotiating with Brisbane on what we are willing to part with. Brisbane are not in the driving seat, but the Saints don't want to burn all their bridges so they will put together something that they see as fair

 

[Jack Stevens]

But what do they lose out of it? I'm not saying GWS would pick him up. Just pointing out that GWS overlooking him in the draft doesn't mean they will have no interest in him now. Especially since there's no risk for them if he leaves, since they would've just spent a pick 60+ on him rather than a top 10 pick. They'd probably get something for him if they were to trade him out too.

GWS just spent big money on getting Mumford. They've also had a good relationship with us list management-wise, lots of good trades between the two clubs. The only reason why they'd take him in the PSD, when he'd already nominated us as his preferred club, would be to screw us over, and I just don't see that happening.
I hope that if he comes to us (although I do have my reservations there) its through a trade that benefits both sides of the equation.

 

[saintguy]

If and it's a big if this all goes through like the news has suggested today with Delaney for 77, Bruce for 41 and longer for 25 I think it pelchen has done his job. Our 2014 team will not be as good as if we had kept dal santo and mcevoy...but our 2016 team has improved a lot during this trade period. It will be exciting to see them all develop even with the short term pain of losses. Also have the draft to look forward to!

 

[Barrels]

Get some stability, sorted football dept, sorted admin and a board moving in the right direction and will be singing!!!!

Someone I think shaun posted the free agents available next year. Massive cap room and boy oh boy

Ben.

Reid.

 

[holllywood]

We are more of a chance to snare Bruce in the PSD.

Can someone please explain to me why we should go for Longer when we have Hickey? I'm under the impression that we got rid of McEvoy because he wasn't a good mix with Hickey because they are both number 1 ruckman. And then a few weeks later we go for Longer, another number 1 ruckman with a promise of more game time?

Jon Ralph says we rate his ability to play forward so are we thinking of playing him as a resting ruck in the forward line? But of all the positions I think we are well covered in terms of ruck and key position forwards (For the future; Lee, White, Stanley and potentially someone from next years draft).

While no doubt what I have read about Longer is exciting, is he really what we need? I'd rather us secure Bruce and Delany and only deal for Longer if its an absolute steal (pick 41 or PSD).

 

[goodie23]

yeah Paul Conners is also the man that said Billy will be a Lion if a trade cant be done..... Soooooo balls in your court guys.... We know pick 18 couldn't get it done......

It might, all we know is pick 18 didn't get it done. Hawks offered that, Lions refused, rather than talk further the Hawks dangled it in front of us and made a deal while the Lions still had their pants down. Had negotiations actually continued that might've been exactly what the Lions ended up with.

From our perspective I doubt we're not going to trade out the same thing we got for McEvoy. If that costs us Longer then so be it.

 

[Kildonan]

Would you believe we are on page 666



I'm not superstitious, but my North Melbourne following mate doesn't want to look at the page in case it bedevils him somehow

 

[Barrels]

We are more of a chance to snare Bruce in the PSD.

Can someone please explain to me why we should go for Longer when we have Hickey? I'm under the impression that we got rid of McEvoy because he wasn't a good mix with Hickey because they are both number 1 ruckman. And then a few weeks later we go for Longer, another number 1 ruckman with a promise of more game time?

Jon Ralph says we rate his ability to play forward so are we thinking of playing him as a resting ruck in the forward line? But of all the positions I think we are well covered in terms of ruck and key position forwards (For the future; Lee, White, Stanley and potentially someone from next years draft).

While no doubt what I have read about Longer is exciting, is he really what we need? I'd rather us secure Bruce and Delany and only deal for Longer if its an absolute steal (pick 41 or PSD).

Because quality is quality and he's only what, 20? If he can play forward even half decently he's better value than either McEvoy or Hickey was forward, and he'll grow into the role regardless. To be fair, much as I like Stanley, he's not achieved much in the years we've had him so far, so what's wrong with some quality competition?

 

[Periphery]

We are more of a chance to snare Bruce in the PSD.

Can someone please explain to me why we should go for Longer when we have Hickey? I'm under the impression that we got rid of McEvoy because he wasn't a good mix with Hickey because they are both number 1 ruckman. And then a few weeks later we go for Longer, another number 1 ruckman with a promise of more game time?

Jon Ralph says we rate his ability to play forward so are we thinking of playing him as a resting ruck in the forward line? But of all the positions I think we are well covered in terms of ruck and key position forwards (For the future; Lee, White, Stanley and potentially someone from next years draft).

While no doubt what I have read about Longer is exciting, is he really what we need? I'd rather us secure Bruce and Delany and only deal for Longer if its an absolute steal (pick 41 or PSD).

IF we got him at 25 that would be an absolute steal.

As you said, the club apparently thinks Longer is a good chance at developing a forward game. There are also some injury concerns over White and Stanley is still a bit of an unknown (I do think he could be great). While I think we could manage with a Hickey/Stanley ruck combo I think a Hickey/Longer combo could be even better while having a similar amount of unknowns (can Stanley develop into what we want him to be VS can Longer get a forward game).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It might, all we know is pick 18 didn't get it done. Hawks offered that, Lions refused, rather than talk further the Hawks dangled it in front of us and made a deal while the Lions still had their pants down. Had negotiations actually continued that might've been exactly what the Lions ended up with.

From our perspective I doubt we're not going to trade out the same thing we got for McEvoy. If that costs us Longer then so be it.

It looks like the Hawks may have seen McEvoy as more of sure thing than Longer.

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Would you believe we are on page 666



I'm not superstitious, but my North Melbourne following mate doesn't want to look at the page in case it bedevils him somehow

Delete thread, new thread needed.

 

[Barrels]

IF we got him at 25 that would be an absolute steal.

As you said, the club apparently thinks Longer is a good chance at developing a forward game. There are also some injury concerns over White and Stanley is still a bit of an unknown (I do think he could be great). While I think we could manage with a Hickey/Stanley ruck combo I think a Hickey/Longer combo could be even better while having a similar amount of unknowns (can Stanley develop into what we want him to be VS can Longer get a forward game).

Plus Big Nick is not long for this (football) world...

Could Rhys bridge the CHF gap til White is ready?

HF: Curren - Stanley - Savage
FF: [Billings] - Lee - Longer

Would do me...

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Plus Big Nick is not long for this (football) world...

Could Rhys bridge the CHF gap til White is ready?

I'd rather us back in Rhys Stanley who is still young playing a forward position over Maister, i agree with you. I think even if we get Longer should keep Rhys

 

[Kildonan]

It looks like the Hawks may have seen McEvoy as more of sure thing than Longer.

McEvoy can step out and contribute enormously immediately. Longer has a few years to get to Ben's level. We hope that he keeps getting better and better after that and all indications are that he will.

 

[Periphery]

I'd rather us back in Rhys Stanley who is still young playing a forward position over Maister, i agree with you. I think even if we get Longer should keep Rhys

Yeah, I think that if we get Longer it would be good to play Hickey and Longer about half the season each as dedicated number 1 ruck with Stanley playing the 2nd ruck/forward role the whole season. If Roo needs a rest/gets injured bring in White for a game or 2 or play all 3 of Hickey/Longer/Stanley and see what happens.

We don't want to play Hickey or Longer too much and have them break down. Hickey has only played 24 games and Longer 9 so we don't want to rush em.

Edit: At the end of that we should have solid idea of where Stanley stands which will let us make a better decision on whether to keep him or trade him (or delist if he fails totally).

 

[holllywood]

Uncle Barrels and Periphery

I completely understand what both of you are trying to say and if we get Longer and he becomes a gun ruckman and forward I am very happy to eat humble pie. But if we are getting him in the hope we can develop into a forward (I am confident he will become a gun ruckman no matter where he lands) aren't we better off to recruit an actual forward? Playing KPF takes years to develop, as you already know, for kids who have played forward all their lives and I expect it would take even longer for Longer (ha!) to develop this new bow to his game.

If we get Longer this year and shows potential as a KPF would you still want us to recruit one of the potential gun KPF's in next years draft (which I have read is full of KPP's) ?

 

[HayesTheChamp]

Uncle Barrels and Periphery

I completely understand what both of you are trying to say and if we get Longer and he becomes a gun ruckman and forward I am very happy to eat humble pie. But if we are getting him in the hope we can develop into a forward (I am confident he will become a gun ruckman no matter where he lands) aren't we better off to recruit an actual forward? Playing KPF takes years to develop, as you already know, for kids who have played forward all their lives and I expect it would take even longer for Longer (ha!) to develop this new bow to his game.

If we get Longer this year and shows potential as a KPF would you still want us to recruit one of the potential gun KPF's in next years draft (which I have read is full of KPP's) ?

You still always go for Best Available. It shouldn't change how you draft. It's always been my view that with at least the top 5-10 draft picks, you pick best available, as you can still draft on a needs basis in the later rounds, so it shouldn't affect our draft choices in this respect.

GWS have been stockpiling high draft picks to get the best available talent in order to develop them and sell them on for a 'profit', which gives them a healthy balance of high quality players at each age group. This means that they can have a longer and more sustained period of success than other clubs, rather than selling the house for more experienced players.