List Mgmt. 2022 Trade Thread - Part II

[Diehard Saint]

If North want Clark, I’d be saying pick 1 for our pick 10 and Clark. Rates Clark at pick 7, exactly where we picked him up.

Not a chance.
Pick 1 is actually pick 2 - so we downgrade 8 picks to get one pick and give away a Top 10 contracted player AND a Top 10 pick.

 

[Armoooo]

Which is pick 2 in an even draft and probably take the same player with that pick 10 anyway. Turning 2 into 1 and with our terrible drafting history we'd probably blow it anyway.

With pick 2 we can pick the best key forward in the draft pool to help out Max or we can draft the second best midfielder.

Neither of those options are available with pick 10.

I would like to hold on to Clark, but let's not pretend that if that deal was on the table that we'd be the first ones to walk away. North wouldn't consider it for a second.

 

[bird_man]

With pick 2 we can pick the best key forward in the draft pool to help out Max or we can draft the second best midfielder.

Neither of those options are available with pick 10.

I would like to hold on to Clark, but let's not pretend that if that deal was on the table that we'd be the first ones to walk away. North wouldn't consider it for a second.

We won't get pick one, But if we did it hope we wouldn't pass on Wardlow.

Could be like passing on Petracca all over again

 

[Joffaboy]

We've been through this a dozen times Joff, why do you feel the need to keep going round and round?

As I said, the best I expect to be offered is a pick around 12.

If we keep him I'll be more happy than anyone here. I've never said we can't keep him, I hope we do.

But I expect our club will know his value and clearly the reason he's seen as gettable is because out club says he is

What do we go around?

It has been stated that a contracted Clark wont be sold short.
If the best offer we get is 12, we will keep him as it is not anywhere near worth it for us.
If that is the case we keep him which I am happy about. I want to keep Clark.
Reeks of McEvoy, Goddard, Dal Santo and even Stanley.

 

[stavro#4]

With pick 2 we can pick the best key forward in the draft pool to help out Max or we can draft the second best midfielder.

Neither of those options are available with pick 10.

I would like to hold on to Clark, but let's not pretend that if that deal was on the table that we'd be the first ones to walk away. North wouldn't consider it for a second.

That deal only makes sense if you could guarantee that whoever we take, turns out to be an absolute star of the game.

Otherwise it’s a huge risk.

 

[jimmytigs]

If North want Clark, I’d be saying pick 1 for our pick 10 and Clark. Rates Clark at pick 7, exactly where we picked him up.

expanding
clark hill pick 9(10)for pick 1(2)future 2nd future 3rd
pick 1 long to suns for fiorini picks 5(crows)7(6 and 8)
logue to north for other future 2nd

saints picks 6 and 8 future 2nd and 3rd fiorini(lose 10 clark hill long)
north pick 10 clark hill logue(lose 1,2 future 2nds,1 future 3rd)
suns pick 1 long(lose fiorini picks 6 and 8)
freo future 2nd(lose logue)

in this deal,happy to pay a 200k of hill salary for the remaining 2 years & for north and freo to swap a couple later picks in freos favor

 

[Barrels]

F#%k me some absolute tripe is peddled on here…

 

[Dard Ball Get]

F#%k me

When and where.

 

[Barrels]

When and where.

Too much to list.

Anyone genuinely in the know isn’t rolling up here to spill their guts…

 

[bird_man]

What do we go around?

It has been stated that a contracted Clark wont be sold short.
If the best offer we get is 12, we will keep him as it is not anywhere near worth it for us.
If that is the case we keep him which I am happy about. I want to keep Clark.
Reeks of McEvoy, Goddard, Dal Santo and even Stanley.

We both agree that we shouldn't be selling him for any less than a very high draft pick

But my point all along has been that we must no we won't get that surely, yet there is noise coming from somewhere he is gettable.

I'd love to keep him but I think around pick 12 is the best we will get and if he's gettable than I see it likely we will trade him for that.

Totally agree it reeks of the McEvoy trade. If it happens we will regret it for years to come.

I doubt there'd be anyone that thinks after his last two years where he's struggled to get on the park that he will get us a top 6 pick

 

[Joffaboy]

We both agree that we shouldn't be selling him for any less than a very high draft pick

But my point all along has been that we must no we won't get that surely, yet there is noise coming from somewhere he is gettable.

I'd love to keep him but I think around pick 12 is the best we will get and if he's gettable than I see it likely we will trade him for that.

Totally agree it reeks of the McEvoy trade. If it happens we will regret it for years to come.

I doubt there'd be anyone that thinks after his last two years where he's struggled to get on the park that he will get us a top 6 pick

If they trade him for that

1) they are lying when saying they won't sell him short. That is a shocking outcome.

2) they all should be sacked if they accept that hideous ridiculous deal.

I am hanging my hat on their stating he won't be sold short.
To me that means nothing less than a Cerra deal or we keep him.

They will look like absolute idiots if the do the deal you think they will be offered.

 

[bg24]

Why would we let clarke and hill walk out??
Long is gone we lose Ryder hanners we should be throwing everything at de gooey I don’t care what it takes we need a clearance bull who can also go forward and kick goals pay him 1 million a year who cares we’ve payed overs for hanners Carlisle etc in the past just get it done

 

[stavro#4]

 

[BrutThough]

If they trade him for that

1) they are lying when saying they won't sell him short. That is a shocking outcome.

2) they all should be sacked if they accept that hideous ridiculous deal.

I am hanging my hat on their stating he won't be sold short.
To me that means nothing less than a Cerra deal or we keep him.

They will look like absolute idiots if the do the deal you think they will be offered.

We would be lucky to get pick 12. Thinking we would get anymore then that is a very one eyed expectation.

 

[Barrels]

North aren’t the only club in for Clark.

I’m taking no credit for this if it turns out to be correct.

But someone else confirmed and they can attach their name to it if they want.

But GWS is a club keen.

Not sure I understand Clark’s desire to be traded if it’s legit.

We’ve looked after him during his (many) convalescences, we’ve played him in the Seniors when his form hasn’t deserved the run…

 

[Mowman]

Why would we let clarke and hill walk out??
Long is gone we lose Ryder hanners we should be throwing everything at de gooey I don’t care what it takes we need a clearance bull who can also go forward and kick goals pay him 1 million a year who cares we’ve payed overs for hanners Carlisle etc in the past just get it done

Neither of those 2 helped us up the ladder

 

[Mowman]

Not sure I understand Clark’s desire to be traded if it’s legit.

We’ve looked after him during his (many) convalescences, we’ve played him in the Seniors when his form hasn’t deserved the run…

This isn't Clark's doing. This is a list management decision

 

[lewdogs]

There has to be more to the Clark story. For us to even entertain trading him must mean one of these:

1. We don't rate him and think he is at his peak potential now.
2. He has attitude issues.

It's obviously not a salary dump because he wouldn't be on much and only has a year left on his contract.
If he is wanting to go to North I think it says a lot about him and I'm not having a go at North here but there are a two win side from last year and miles away from it. Must be getting a really good offer, in which case we need to make them pay up trade wise.

The whole situation is really strange, we haven't been involved in anything like it in my memory. I guess Bruce was one who was contracted who we walked out of the club and probably got unders for. But Clark was a no.7 pick and has been injured.

So basically it has to be either we don't rate him or he has attitude stuff.

 

[bird_man]

If they trade him for that

1) they are lying when saying they won't sell him short. That is a shocking outcome.

2) they all should be sacked if they accept that hideous ridiculous deal.

I am hanging my hat on their stating he won't be sold short.
To me that means nothing less than a Cerra deal or we keep him.

They will look like absolute idiots if the do the deal you think they will be offered.

Agree, but try asking your non St Kilda mates what you think he would get in a trade and see what they say. Or send a tweet to someone in the media or industry.

If anyone replies that they think he will get us a pick inside the top 7 or so I'd be shocked.

I think that's the best way to gauge his value rather than just looking at it through our red white and black goggles.

I'm Clark's biggest fan but other than the fact that he's contracted, we have him available while his probably at his lowest value since joining the club.

 

[bird_man]

Not sure I understand Clark’s desire to be traded if it’s legit.

We’ve looked after him during his (many) convalescences, we’ve played him in the Seniors when his form hasn’t deserved the run…

Pretty sure the noise has come from the club.

If we wanted to keep him we'd have said that by now. There's a reason why clubs think he's gettable.

 

[gringo2011]

There has to be more to the Clark story. For us to even entertain trading him must mean one of these:

1. We don't rate him and think he is at his peak potential now.
2. He has attitude issues.

It's obviously not a salary dump because he wouldn't be on much and only has a year left on his contract.
If he is wanting to go to North I think it says a lot about him and I'm not having a go at North here but there are a two win side from last year and miles away from it. Must be getting a really good offer, in which case we need to make them pay up trade wise.

The whole situation is really strange, we haven't been involved in anything like it in my memory. I guess Bruce was one who was contracted who we walked out of the club and probably got unders for. But Clark was a no.7 pick and has been injured.

So basically it has to be either we don't rate him or he has attitude stuff.

We have less under 23s than just about any side and have FA to trade out that isn't required or would bring in a decent pick. If we don't make finals next year they have an out that we played the kids. They think we won't be any worse off without him because he hardly played?

 

[lewdogs]

We have less under 23s than just about any side and have FA to trade out that isn't required or would bring in a decent pick. If we don't make finals next year they have an out that we played the kids. They think we won't be any worse off without him because he hardly played?

Look the last part is probably true, we don't lose much from the current team by losing him because he hasn't been able to contribute but then it comes back to my original point which is they simply must not rate him or think he's going to get better, or they must not like his attitude.

 

[gringo2011]

Agree, but try asking your non St Kilda mates what you think he would get in a trade and see what they say. Or send a tweet to someone in the media or industry.

If anyone replies that they think he will get us a pick inside the top 7 or so I'd be shocked.

I think that's the best way to gauge his value rather than just looking at it through our red white and black goggles.

I'm Clark's biggest fan but other than the fact that he's contracted, we have him available while his probably at his lowest value since joining the club.

The Cerra trade was unique in that Carlton needed to make some good headlines, they would have paid anything to get it done like us with Hill. Those Weller type trades are novel for their rarity.

 

[bird_man]

We have less under 23s than just about any side and have FA to trade out that isn't required or would bring in a decent pick. If we don't make finals next year they have an out that we played the kids. They think we won't be any worse off without him because he hardly played?

Surely it makes more sense to try and get the 23 year olds that weren't fit last year fit and try to improve rather than just thinking well they weren't there so we don't lose anything

 

[gringo2011]

Look the last part is probably true, we don't lose much from the current team by losing him because he hasn't been able to contribute but then it comes back to my original point which is they simply must not rate him or think he's going to get better, or they must not like his attitude.

Or that he won't be a mid perhaps and are planning putting the time into Owens and Windy.