List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part II

[Mikka84]

Co-incidentally my sister has been there.

Ironic

 

[Virgin Dog]

It’ll be Bruce for a Dogs player and maybe a late pick or Bruce for a mid/late first round pick.

Bruce is worth a bit to us but probably more to you. A mature key forward who has kicked 50 goals in a season. With better delivery he’d be a better player. That’s what’s killed him at Saints.

Sounds far more accurate than our first rounder and a highly rated young midfielder. Lipinski has only just turned 21, has had his best season yet, and has found a consistent spot in our 22. From the Dogs perspective, this is like trading Pick 12 + Pick 20 at least for Bruce

As it is, Bruce won't be traded for Pick 12 on its own (if our 1st is involved and it's that low, I can guarantee there's something coming back). In the event that we made prelims (hence a pick 15-18) it would be much closer to straight swapping, but even then I'd think there's still something coming our way (like a later pick swap to our advantage).

 

[Virgin Dog]

If you want Bruce there's no doubt your 1st will be involved.

I think there's plenty of doubt tbh. Could involve our 2nd + 3rd if Saints plan on on-trading anyway (since that's worth more than our 1st alone, your Pick 5 will be gone for Hill, and you may need other picks to trade for the other targets). Could also involve a player (Wallis, McLean, Gowers, Williams all examples of players who may seek more guaranteed time) plus whatever picks necessary. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it actually did involve our 1st, unless we were getting something significant on the way back.

Our 1st + 3rd for Bruce and a future 2nd. Something like that I could see happening, but I think it's more likely to be one of the scenarios above

 

[Yawkey way]

Is this talk actually from the club? I’ve seen articles about it but I seem to have where the club has actually come out and said anything...

It’s been widely reported and we had the VP liking the Post about Carlisle that’s about it.

My guess is that players have been told at their end of season reviews and it’s blown up from there, no announcements that I’ve seen but someone is obviously talking. In a way I guess it’s inevitable with clubs out of the finals and a weeks break in the action.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Yeah it's a pretty good start, and from there the Saints would need to add Billings to even it out a bit.

Just one question - why would you guys be interested in Lipinski if he's worth basically negative value at the trade table? Saints must rate him as a pretty crap player to think he'd be thrown in as such worthless steak knives in a trade, even though he's best 22 in the Dogs midfield

Yeah I've got over excited.

Must have been because you traded your captain Pick 6 and paid $7 m for your last key forward who was nowhere near as good as Bruce

 

[Lenny2020]

Sounds far more accurate than our first rounder and a highly rated young midfielder. Lipinski has only just turned 21, has had his best season yet, and has found a consistent spot in our 22. From the Dogs perspective, this is like trading Pick 12 + Pick 20 at least for Bruce

As it is, Bruce won't be traded for Pick 12 on its own (if our 1st is involved and it's that low, I can guarantee there's something coming back). In the event that we made prelims (hence a pick 15-18) it would be much closer to straight swapping, but even then I'd think there's still something coming our way (like a later pick swap to our advantage).

If you go that deep in finals and your forwards fail to fire then you might just give up your first for Bruce!

But I tend to agree. Later picks will probably even it up.

 

[Yawkey way]

I think there's plenty of doubt tbh. Could involve our 2nd + 3rd if Saints plan on on-trading anyway (since that's worth more than our 1st alone, your Pick 5 will be gone for Hill, and you may need other picks to trade for the other targets). Could also involve a player (Wallis, McLean, Gowers, Williams all examples of players who may seek more guaranteed time) plus whatever picks necessary. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it actually did involve our 1st, unless we were getting something significant on the way back.

Our 1st + 3rd for Bruce and a future 2nd. Something like that I could see happening, but I think it's more likely to be one of the scenarios above

He’s contracted and the WB aren’t the only team in the hunt.

It’s fairly simple you have a first rounder and a very deep midfield, what are you prepared to give for a genuine shot at another flag.

 

[Cadillac]

Yeah I've got over excited.

Must have been because you traded your captain Pick 6 and paid $7 m for your last key forward who was nowhere near as good as Bruce

It’s on good authority that we payed well overs in that trade. (Even though Boyd won us a flag) so why would the club make the same mistake twice?
The dogs would happily walk away from the trade if you were asking for one of our best young players.

 

[Cadillac]

He’s contracted and the WB aren’t the only team in the hunt.

It’s fairly simple you have a first rounder and a very deep midfield, what are you prepared to give for a genuine shot at another flag.

You can have Mitch Wallis if you like. I’d personally drive him to Moorabbin for you. You’re kidding yourself if you’re getting a midfielder who’s playing in this weekends final though.

 

[Mikka84]

It’s on good authority that we payed well overs in that trade. (Even though Boyd won us a flag) so why would the club make the same mistake twice?
The dogs would happily walk away from the trade if you were asking for one of our best young players.

Same mistake twice? Like winning a flag twice?

But Boyd didn't win you a flag. He helped win a flag.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Yeah I've got over excited.

Must have been because you traded your captain Pick 6 and paid $7 m for your last key forward who was nowhere near as good as Bruce

Boyd is definitely not the trade you want to be comparing with. He was considered a generational talent, was the Pick 1 the year prior, and looked to have another 12+ years of footy ahead of him.

A more comparable trade would be when the Dogs got Crameri. He was averaging slightly more goals per game, played as a slightly shorter key forward (190cm), was a couple years younger at time of trade (25 vs 27). The trade ended up being for Pick 22 (which became 26 after compensation picks).

If we arbitrarily assume Bruce is worth even a bit more, then we can assume an early 2nd / late 1st in a straight swap, or even something like our 2nd + 3rd. That could actually end up being a realistic scenario, where Pick 30 + Pick 41 is worth more in terms of draft points than Pick 18. Assuming the Saints planned on splitting a 1st they receive so they can on-trade, this is where they'd end up anyway. That Pick 30 and 41 could net the Saints Zak Jones (30) and Todd Goldstein (41) in trades (based on who you guys have already been linked with). Goldstein is UFA so no trade cost. Leaves Saints with a 3rd depending on who else they've been linked with. Hugh Greenwood is a possibility

 

[The_Snake26]

Yeah I've got over excited.

Must have been because you traded your captain Pick 6 and paid $7 m for your last key forward who was nowhere near as good as Bruce

I don’t really think it’s worth going down that path pebbles. Yes they did that trade and in hindsight they overpaid massively. But they won a flag and for $7m he nearly won a norm smith.
I’d pay Tomlinson $7m if he nearly wins a norm smith and we win the flag

Dogs first rounder based on the “rumoured” massive offer they have put in front of him is a fair trade.
They’ll beat GWS me thinks but i don’t think they’ll win 2nd week final so that puts their pick around 15.
We on trade that for Hill.
Everyone wins

Battle replaces Bruce, Keath replaces Battle.

 

[BrutThough]

If the Dogs have really made our contracted, number one key forward an "offer he can't refuse", then we will either get their first round pick or the trade does not happen.

We hold all the cards. This isn't a trade that needs to favour both clubs, this is the dogs needing to pay us for what they want.

 

[pebblesofsand]

It’s on good authority that we payed well overs in that trade. (Even though Boyd won us a flag) so why would the club make the same mistake twice?
The dogs would happily walk away from the trade if you were asking for one of our best young players.

Yeah - sorry - my comment on Boyd not warranted.

The thing is my trade scenario is really more a comment on how Saints supporters on here always think we give away our players for nothing and pay overs for anyone who comes to us. I thought I'd reverse it just this once.

Realistically though if you want Bruce that badly Pick 12 (in reality Pick 14 or 15) will be in play.

PS - ironic Saints forum in-joke coming up - why would you want Bruce at the Doggies - he'll just restrict the development of Naughton and Schache and why would he transfer clubs just to play in the VFL.

 

[Mowman]

If the Dogs have really made our contracted, number one key forward an "offer he can't refuse", then we will either get their first round pick or the trade does not happen.

We hold all the cards. This isn't a trade that needs to favour both clubs, this is the dogs needing to pay us for what they want.

And Freo are saying the same thing about the Hill trade

 

[BrutThough]

And Freo are saying the same thing about the Hill trade

Which is why we will pay pick 5 for Hill, and the clubs will most likely do an arbitrary late pick swap.

 

[Groater]

This is a pretty weak draft so I don't think 12 is out of the question. If it involves a doggies player then that obviously that changes things. It also depends what our targets are and the currency needed to get them.

Ultimately if the deal isn't good enough, we won't trade him.

 

[Yawkey way]

You can have Mitch Wallis if you like. I’d personally drive him to Moorabbin for you. You’re kidding yourself if you’re getting a midfielder who’s playing in this weekends final though.

I’m getting bored so let’s wrap this up.

Bruce is contracted you’re the team putting a huge offer to him, the WB will absolutely pay what we want in picks/players or a deal with you won’t get done. You can rant and rave post any number of rubbish deals but it won’t change a thing, you can always walk away.

Personally I think he’d be a fool to knock back the magpies, I know who I’d rather win a flag with.

 

[Yawkey way]

And Freo are saying the same thing about the Hill trade

Pretty much except Bruce’s wife hasn’t moved interstate and outside wingman are a dime a dozen.

Other than that yep Fremantle can and will ask the world and can hold hill to his contract.

 

[Max the great]

Pick 6 needs to be watered down/broken up into something that nets us Hill and Keath/Jones.

I have always had high hope for Battle as a forward for us and can see him easily being around a 45 goal a year forward.

Would not be the that upset to lose Bruce if it nets us a pick around 15. In saying that though, I would be trying to use that pick and whatever else is needed (Newnes/Steven/Carlisle) to try and land a Crouch/Wines or something similar.

Out:
6
Newnes
Carlisle
Bruce
Steven
Future 2nd (as we never keep that anyway)

In:
Hill
Keath
Tomlinson
Jones
Ryder
Constable
A grade mid in the form of Crouch/Wines

Wines is the most overrated player in the game.

 

[Ducky Tie]

Pretty much except Bruce’s wife hasn’t moved interstate and outside wingman are a dime a dozen.

Other than that yep Fremantle can and will ask the world and can hold hill to his contract.

That’s unfair on Fremantle in my opinion. Hill elected to sign the contract and now wants to leave three years after he went home. The deal will need to be in their favour.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Firstly, one player being dropped for another doesn't mean that the one being dropped is worse; do you think Dal Santo or Milne were worse players than Eddy and whatever other scrub Lyon brought in that one time to kick them into gear?

Secondly, trading a player doesn't mean they aren't valued, it means they have value to someone else. If McCartin had ANY semblance of trade value left we'd be offloading him in a heartbeat but he doesn't.

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated to get people out of the "trade the bad player " or "trade the player i don't like" mindset.
You can't trade bad players.

Similarly , talk of trading Jake Carlisle, is purely because we had discovered that Battle can play that role, and he's still relevant.

 

[cooperrules]

That we then could send to Freo for Hill keeping pick 5 intact, or use for other asset.

Flanders at 5. Steele sidebottom written all over claasy.

 

[pebblesofsand]

And Freo are saying the same thing about the Hill trade

But Hill is desperate to leave - Bruce is happy to stay at the Saints and we will reward him well if he stays.

Are Freo happy to break up Hills relationship to keep him?

Doubt it so that's a big difference

 

[bird_man]

Sounds far more accurate than our first rounder and a highly rated young midfielder. Lipinski has only just turned 21, has had his best season yet, and has found a consistent spot in our 22. From the Dogs perspective, this is like trading Pick 12 + Pick 20 at least for Bruce

As it is, Bruce won't be traded for Pick 12 on its own (if our 1st is involved and it's that low, I can guarantee there's something coming back). In the event that we made prelims (hence a pick 15-18) it would be much closer to straight swapping, but even then I'd think there's still something coming our way (like a later pick swap to our advantage).

Not sure why you come over to argue. Every club board is full of supporters wanting a trade that is heavily in their favour.

It's no different to the Dogs board with supporters expecting to get a contracted Josh Bruce who is being offered a large 3 or 4 year deal for a late second round pick.