Club Focus St Kilda 2020 - Crouch, Frawley, McKernan, Higgins, Allison, Highmore

AFL Club Focus

What does St Kilda need to focus on most this off-season?

  • Recruiting via trade

    Votes: 13 92.9%
  • Recruiting via the draft

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Managing the salary cap

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Managing the age profile

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
That's a good analysis, but keen to see what other Saints fans think of this year's trade period for them. As an outsider (who admittedly doesn't have a good understanding of the Saints overall list), the short and long term strategy employed by the Saints doesn't seem very clear. Looking at the trades:

Howard was a good get. Perhaps paid a little to much for a player Port told to look elsewhere, but did what needed to be done to get the deal done. But this is offset by the loss of Bruce, who I think was let go too cheaply. Overall, seems a gain for the backline offset by a loss in the forward line, for not much change overall.

Jones was a good get and didn't pay much for him. Somewhat offset by the loss of Stevens and Acres, who both were let go too cheaply, but overall a gain to the Saints there.

Ryder is cooked IMO, but still probably good depth.

Butler is probably a good pick up for a fairly low price, but not automatic best 22.

Hill is a great get and clearly the difference in the trades that will see improvement for the Saints, but the cost was very high.

Overall, it seems that the Saints paid a lot for the ins and didn't get enough for the outs. So, whilst they have definitely improved their list, it has come at a high cost. Their first two picks this year now come at 51 & 82 and next year they have no 2nd or 3rd rounder.

To me this seems more of a strategy that would be employed by a team that finished well in the 8 and were looking to take that next step to challenging for the flag.

But the Saints finished 14th, so the likely improvements are probably only going to have them pushing for the 8. Not clear where that next step will come from when they have no picks to speak of this year to come through in 2-3 years. And have little left next year for either more trades or draft picks.

Anyway, genuinely interested to hear from Saints fans (and others) on whether they think this year's strategy will ultimately lead to them challenging for a flag in the next ~5 years.
I've gotta disagree with a lot of this. For the first time in a few years it feels like there is a clear strategy put in place with our list and where we are heading.

We've been hitting the draft for quite a few years but until the last 24 months our list has looked extremely unbalanced.

Nathan Brown came onto our list 3 year ago to support Carlisle as a stop gap. Unfortunately we haven't been able to find anyone to take his place until now. Last year we had a few injuries and Josh Battle was forced to play back. He had a break out year and was terrific, but he's very similar to Carlisle, not an amazing defender but can take a good mark and use the footy well. Howard is a much better fit down there for us. In terms of the price I'm not sure how you can think we over paid there. The chances of getting a better player at 18 are slim and we had the added bonus of upgrading 12 to 10 which played a huge part in the Hill deal.

In the 2017 we were by far the slowest side in the comp. We had a one paced midfield full of solid citizens with little hurt factor so it's been a clear plan to add pace around the ground and give us a better mix which explains why we went for Hill, Jones and Butler.

Hill I can admit we paid a big price for, but I think most agree he is going to make a big difference. The overall price looks high when looking at that trade alone, but when you think that we only started off with 6 and were able to split that pick to also get Howard, that's a good deal. I was surprised to see the 4th rounder and Acres added to the deal but at the end of the day its a late pick
and Acres would have been plating VFL unless we had injuries. Jones for 32 is cheap as is Butler for 56.

Ryder was basically free and he will hopefully help Marshall with a chop out and also allow him to go forward more than he has been. He was drafted as a forward and if he can start kicking more goals on top of what he does around the ground he'll become one of the most dangerous players in the comp. Ryder is only a stop gap if we want to continue playing 2 rucks obviously.

In terms of the ages, Jones, Butler and Howard are all 24 and under which suits our age profile nicely. Hill at 26 gives us some much needed quality where we mostly have solid citizens and takes the pressure off our younger guys. We see most of our top end talent in the 23 and under bracket so we should see improvement over the next couple of seasons.

In terms of the outs, well we all know about Steven. I was gutted we couldn't get more for him there but our hamds were tied.

Bruce makes sense when see that we have Max King coming through and the option to swing Battle forward (drafted as a forward) again now that we have another decent back. There was no way we were fitting all of Membrey, King, Battle and Bruce forward and that's before we have two rucks. We would have liked to have got more for him but in the end we got a pick that got us Jones as well as a much needed draft pick on top.

As Lethlean said this morning, sometimes you have to lose a trade or two to have a win overall. I think they played it terrifically in the end.

In terms of whether we will be challenging for a flag in a few years, I think we are building a list now where we are least giving ourselves a chance to do something, but it will come down coaching and how we perform off field as much as anything. I think it's fair to say that we had some major issues developing players for a few years. I'm much more confident with the team we are building off the ground. If we can get some quality development into guys like King, Clark, Gresham, Battle, Coffield, Marshall etc I think we'll be on the right track.

I'm really happy with our key position stocks and our outside mids, but we still need to add to the engine room I think.
 
Jan 25, 2016
2,019
6,093
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I've gotta disagree with a lot of this. For the first time in a few years it feels like there is a clear strategy put in place with our list and where we are heading.

We've been hitting the draft for quite a few years but until the last 24 months our list has looked extremely unbalanced.

Nathan Brown came onto our list 3 year ago to support Carlisle as a stop gap. Unfortunately we haven't been able to find anyone to take his place until now. Last year we had a few injuries and Josh Battle was forced to play back. He had a break out year and was terrific, but he's very similar to Carlisle, not an amazing defender but can take a good mark and use the footy well. Howard is a much better fit down there for us. In terms of the price I'm not sure how you can think we over paid there. The chances of getting a better player at 18 are slim and we had the added bonus of upgrading 12 to 10 which played a huge part in the Hill deal.

In the 2017 we were by far the slowest side in the comp. We had a one paced midfield full of solid citizens with little hurt factor so it's been a clear plan to add pace around the ground and give us a better mix which explains why we went for Hill, Jones and Butler.

Hill I can admit we paid a big price for, but I think most agree he is going to make a big difference. The overall price looks high when looking at that trade alone, but when you think that we only started off with 6 and were able to split that pick to also get Howard, that's a good deal. I was surprised to see the 4th rounder and Acres added to the deal but at the end of the day its a late pick
and Acres would have been plating VFL unless we had injuries. Jones for 32 is cheap as is Butler for 56.

Ryder was basically free and he will hopefully help Marshall with a chop out and also allow him to go forward more than he has been. He was drafted as a forward and if he can start kicking more goals on top of what he does around the ground he'll become one of the most dangerous players in the comp. Ryder is only a stop gap if we want to continue playing 2 rucks obviously.

In terms of the ages, Jones, Butler and Howard are all 24 and under which suits our age profile nicely. Hill at 26 gives us some much needed quality where we mostly have solid citizens and takes the pressure off our younger guys. We see most of our top end talent in the 23 and under bracket so we should see improvement over the next couple of seasons.

In terms of the outs, well we all know about Steven. I was gutted we couldn't get more for him there but our hamds were tied.

Bruce makes sense when see that we have Max King coming through and the option to swing Battle forward (drafted as a forward) again now that we have another decent back. There was no way we were fitting all of Membrey, King, Battle and Bruce forward and that's before we have two rucks. We would have liked to have got more for him but in the end we got a pick that got us Jones as well as a much needed draft pick on top.

As Lethlean said this morning, sometimes you have to lose a trade or two to have a win overall. I think they played it terrifically in the end.

In terms of whether we will be challenging for a flag in a few years, I think we are building a list now where we are least giving ourselves a chance to do something, but it will come down coaching and how we perform off field as much as anything. I think it's fair to say that we had some major issues developing players for a few years. I'm much more confident with the team we are building off the ground. If we can get some quality development into guys like King, Clark, Gresham, Battle, Coffield, Marshall etc I think we'll be on the right track.

I'm really happy with our key position stocks and our outside mids, but we still need to add to the engine room I think.
Thanks for that. Good points, in particular re getting Howard and losing Bruce allowing Battle to go forward. Hadn’t thought of that. Add in King and Marshall (who looks very promising) and you do seem to have your talls sorted, which can often be an area that’s difficult to get right.

In a way, reading that made me think of North a bit, where you’ve been hitting the draft for a while now and many outsiders probably don’t have a good understanding of the quality of that youth yet. And, like North, it’s going to be how much that youth can improve over the next few years that’s really going to dictate how far the team will go.

Best of luck for 2020. Cheers.
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
It seems counter-intuitive to me that they wouldn’t plan to have a full suite of draft picks the year they make a concerted push to trade players in. It really threw their leverage on outgoing players out the window.

Steven, Bruce and Acres netted them just 32, 51 and 58. Any Saint supporter that says they wouldn’t have haemorrhaged out of their anoos at the thought of that even a month ago is probably lying.

Lethlean said on SEN yesterday that they essentially had no choice but to move blokes on to make all of their trades happen. He also said the deals apart from Hill and maybe Jones weren’t planned.

The thing that jumped out the most to me though was that he said that their cap is getting tight, and that contributed to accepting peanuts for Steven and paying some of his salary, which I find staggering. This is not yet a list that should be stretching the cap to the point they need to dump salary. Plainly there was no way they could have kept Bruce and Steven under any circumstances and, possibly, it’s why they gifted Acres to Freo. It seems the other clubs knew this and took advantage.

Adding Hill and Ryder (after adding Hannebery) at the same time as discarding Steven (other issues at play), Bruce and Acres gives off a bit of a mixed message about whether they are trying to contend now or not.

They’ve otherwise done a good job of selling this trade period to members. It does seem to me there’s as much a possibility it was a slightly cynical attempt to keep the grumbling members at bay after 8 years in the wilderness as it was any well thought out list management plan.

Trading their way out of any picks inside 50, except their first next year, for two consecutive drafts, is a risk for a team coming off single digit wins and seemingly in the midst of an unfinished rebuild. They will have to nail a few of those later picks to keep the list looking healthy, as Hill and Hannebery approach 30. Find a couple of gems late and they won’t think twice about it though. It’s just not an easy task.

Hill is clearly a very good get. He should improve their ball movement significantly. Having him on $900k and as the highest paid player at your club is an interesting move with where their list is at. What does a team look like where Bradley Hill is their best player? We’re about to find out.

Howard is a very solid get. Would have really liked him at the Dogs if we didn’t get Keath. Should be the centrepiece of their backline for years to come. Given his attributes and exposed form, a late first seemed about spot on for him. Big fan of that move.

Jones has a bit of pace and hardness which they lack, but he’s not significantly better than what they have, thanks to his kicking. But he’s the right age and I like the move, as long as he’s not pushing out a good kid like Clark or Coffield.

Ryder is practically a corpse. If they ruck him over Marshall (emerging star) more than 10% of the time then they’re Ken Bruce. Marshall was awesome this year. He’s a first ruck that should allow them to avoid having to play a second ruck. Hopefully Ryder still has something in the tank as a forward, but I suspect he won’t be much of a distraction for defenders who will focus on King and Membrey.

Butler could be a good cheap get, but he plays a position they already have a real glut of samey types occupying. But Lloyd was a great pickup for us last year, and who’s to say Butler won’t follow suit, so I’ll reserve my judgment on this one.
 
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
It seems counter-intuitive to me that they wouldn’t plan to have a full suite of draft picks the year they make a concerted push to trade players in. It really threw their leverage on outgoing players out the window.

Steven, Bruce and Acres netted them just 32, 51 and 58. Any Saint supporter that says they wouldn’t have haemorrhaged out of their anoos at the thought of that even a month ago is probably lying.

Lethlean said on SEN yesterday that they essentially had no choice but to move blokes on to make all of their trades happen. He also said the deals apart from Hill and maybe Jones weren’t planned.

The thing that jumped out the most to me though was that he said that their cap is getting tight, and that contributed to accepting peanuts for Steven and paying some of his salary, which I find staggering. This is not yet a list that should be stretching the cap to the point they need to dump salary. Plainly there was no way they could have kept Bruce and Steven under any circumstances and, possibly, it’s why they gifted Acres to Freo. It seems the other clubs knew this and took advantage.

Adding Hill and Ryder (after adding Hannebery) at the same time as discarding Steven (other issues at play), Bruce and Acres gives off a bit of a mixed message about whether they are trying to contend now or not.

They’ve otherwise done a good job of selling this trade period to members. It does seem to me there’s as much a possibility it was a slightly cynical attempt to keep the grumbling members at bay after 8 years in the wilderness as it was any well thought out list management plan.

Trading their way out of any picks inside 50, except their first next year, for two consecutive drafts, is a risk for a team coming off single digit wins and seemingly in the midst of an unfinished rebuild. They will have to nail a few of those later picks to keep the list looking healthy, as Hill and Hannebery approach 30. Find a couple of gems late and they won’t think twice about it though. It’s just not an easy task.

Hill is clearly a very good get. He should improve their ball movement significantly. Having him on $900k and as the highest paid player at your club is an interesting move with where their list is at. What does a team look like where Bradley Hill is their best player? We’re about to find out.

Howard is a very solid get. Would have really liked him at the Dogs if we didn’t get Keath. Should be the centrepiece of their backline for years to come. Given his attributes and exposed form, a late first seemed about spot on for him. Big fan of that move.

Jones has a bit of pace and hardness which they lack, but he’s not significantly better than what they have, thanks to his kicking. But he’s the right age and I like the move, as long as he’s not pushing out a good kid like Clark or Coffield.

Ryder is practically a corpse. If they ruck him over Marshall (emerging star) more than 10% of the time then they’re Ken Bruce. Marshall was awesome this year. He’s a first ruck that should allow them to avoid having to play a second ruck. Hopefully Ryder still has something in the tank as a forward, but I suspect he won’t be much of a distraction for defenders who will focus on King and Membrey.

Butler could be a good cheap get, but he plays a position they already have a real glut of samey types occupying. But Lloyd was a great pickup for us last year, and who’s to say Butler won’t follow suit, so I’ll reserve my judgment on this one.
A few you claims here are just false, which to he honest doesn't surprise me after you also claimed to have a "source" that told you Gallager, Lethlean and Gubby had all done these deals separately and weren't going to be able to get them all done.

Lethlean didn't say all the deals apart from Jones and Hill weren't planned at all.

Lethlean stated that Gallagher had brought Howard up as someone he would like back in July. He had 3 years to run on his contract so we had to wait until we knew he was available before we could go hard. We were also into Keath at the back end of the year so it was obvious we were targeting a key defender. In the end we did get a bit lucky that Keath chose the Dogs.

We may have not have got Ryder to commit until after the season, but we were committed to getting another ruckman all year. We had a decent contract in front of Goldstein early in the year but we pulled that contract as the year went on due to Marshall's terrific form. Getting Ryder in means both can play forward and he was cheap. We all know he is past his best but he'll be able to help Marshall out until we get a younger ruck/forward through the door.

So we clearly had a plan to get a key defender and a ruck, we were talking to Jones all year and had Hill committed in July.

So that leaves Butler thar wasn't planned.

Also, we started the trade period with picks 6 and 59. If you are honestly suggesting that by trading 5 players in and 3 players out we were going to end up with a full suite of draft picks you are kidding yourself.

There's no mixed messaging about trading players out and others in at all.

Acres would not have been in our best 22 and we would have been silly matching any contract for Bruce when we have Membrey, Battle and King coming through.

Acres has very little value and was part of the Hill deal in the end. We didn't get what we would have liked for Bruce but as Lethlean said, sometimes you have a loss and sometimes you had a win. We are able to get Jones with one of this picks and keep the other so it ended up working out.

Hill we gave up a lot for but all of Howard/Ryder, Jones and Butler came cheap.

Not much we can do about Steven unfortunately.
 
Apr 13, 2015
4,637
12,301
AFL Club
Melbourne
I’m not a fan of terms such as ‘winning the trade period’. However, I really like what the Saints did. Hill and Jones instantly improve their speed and midfield, Howard is an excellent addition and Ryder and Butler provide depth and cover in very important positions.

8 years out of finals is a long time for any supporter base to sit through. A shakeup was long overdue.
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
A few you claims here are just false, which to he honest doesn't surprise me after you also claimed to have a "source" that told you Gallager, Lethlean and Gubby had all done these deals separately and weren't going to be able to get them all done.

Lethlean didn't say all the deals apart from Jones and Hill weren't planned at all.

Lethlean stated that Gallagher had brought Howard up as someone he would like back in July. He had 3 years to run on his contract so we had to wait until we knew he was available before we could go hard. We were also into Keath at the back end of the year so it was obvious we were targeting a key defender. In the end we did get a bit lucky that Keath chose the Dogs.

We may have not have got Ryder to commit until after the season, but we were committed to getting another ruckman all year. We had a decent contract in front of Goldstein early in the year but we pulled that contract as the year went on due to Marshall's terrific form. Getting Ryder in means both can play forward and he was cheap. We all know he is past his best but he'll be able to help Marshall out until we get a younger ruck/forward through the door.

So we clearly had a plan to get a key defender and a ruck, we were talking to Jones all year and had Hill committed in July.

So that leaves Butler thar wasn't planned.

Also, we started the trade period with picks 6 and 59. If you are honestly suggesting that by trading 5 players in and 3 players out we were going to end up with a full suite of draft picks you are kidding yourself.

There's no mixed messaging about trading players out and others in at all.

Acres would not have been in our best 22 and we would have been silly matching any contract for Bruce when we have Membrey, Battle and King coming through.

Acres has very little value and was part of the Hill deal in the end. We didn't get what we would have liked for Bruce but as Lethlean said, sometimes you have a loss and sometimes you had a win. We are able to get Jones with one of this picks and keep the other so it ended up working out.

Hill we gave up a lot for but all of Howard/Ryder, Jones and Butler came cheap.

Not much we can do about Steven unfortunately.

Cool, man.
 

lewdogs

Cancelled
Saints Pledge Contributor
Jun 4, 2008
9,566
31,068
Vic
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Arsenal, Portland Trailblazers
It seems counter-intuitive to me that they wouldn’t plan to have a full suite of draft picks the year they make a concerted push to trade players in. It really threw their leverage on outgoing players out the window.

Steven, Bruce and Acres netted them just 32, 51 and 58. Any Saint supporter that says they wouldn’t have haemorrhaged out of their anoos at the thought of that even a month ago is probably lying.

Lethlean said on SEN yesterday that they essentially had no choice but to move blokes on to make all of their trades happen. He also said the deals apart from Hill and maybe Jones weren’t planned.

The thing that jumped out the most to me though was that he said that their cap is getting tight, and that contributed to accepting peanuts for Steven and paying some of his salary, which I find staggering. This is not yet a list that should be stretching the cap to the point they need to dump salary. Plainly there was no way they could have kept Bruce and Steven under any circumstances and, possibly, it’s why they gifted Acres to Freo. It seems the other clubs knew this and took advantage.

Adding Hill and Ryder (after adding Hannebery) at the same time as discarding Steven (other issues at play), Bruce and Acres gives off a bit of a mixed message about whether they are trying to contend now or not.

They’ve otherwise done a good job of selling this trade period to members. It does seem to me there’s as much a possibility it was a slightly cynical attempt to keep the grumbling members at bay after 8 years in the wilderness as it was any well thought out list management plan.

Trading their way out of any picks inside 50, except their first next year, for two consecutive drafts, is a risk for a team coming off single digit wins and seemingly in the midst of an unfinished rebuild. They will have to nail a few of those later picks to keep the list looking healthy, as Hill and Hannebery approach 30. Find a couple of gems late and they won’t think twice about it though. It’s just not an easy task.

Hill is clearly a very good get. He should improve their ball movement significantly. Having him on $900k and as the highest paid player at your club is an interesting move with where their list is at. What does a team look like where Bradley Hill is their best player? We’re about to find out.

Howard is a very solid get. Would have really liked him at the Dogs if we didn’t get Keath. Should be the centrepiece of their backline for years to come. Given his attributes and exposed form, a late first seemed about spot on for him. Big fan of that move.

Jones has a bit of pace and hardness which they lack, but he’s not significantly better than what they have, thanks to his kicking. But he’s the right age and I like the move, as long as he’s not pushing out a good kid like Clark or Coffield.

Ryder is practically a corpse. If they ruck him over Marshall (emerging star) more than 10% of the time then they’re Ken Bruce. Marshall was awesome this year. He’s a first ruck that should allow them to avoid having to play a second ruck. Hopefully Ryder still has something in the tank as a forward, but I suspect he won’t be much of a distraction for defenders who will focus on King and Membrey.

Butler could be a good cheap get, but he plays a position they already have a real glut of samey types occupying. But Lloyd was a great pickup for us last year, and who’s to say Butler won’t follow suit, so I’ll reserve my judgment on this one.
Cool, man.

Your claim that we had to accept unders for Steven because of our cap is ridiculous. We had to accept unders because we were looking out for his mental health, it had nothing to do with our cap. You seem to view us very negatively which is fine, but we brought in 5 best 22 players and lost a bloke that hasn't played for the best part of a year and was no guarantee to do so, a fringe player in Acres and another in Bruce which hurts a bit short term but that we see as replaceable.

We got the deals done that we wanted to do, we will be stronger in 2020 and we still have a young list with lots of emerging talent.

Oh and your assertion that Ryder is "practically a corpse" is completely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Your claim that we had to accept unders for Steven because of our cap is ridiculous. We had to accept unders because we were looking out for his mental health, it had nothing to do with our cap. You seem to view us very negatively which is fine, but we brought in 5 best 22 players and lost a bloke that hasn't played for the best part of a year and was no guarantee to do so, a fringe player in Acres and another in Bruce which hurts a bit short term but that we see as replaceable.

We got the deals done that we wanted to do, we will be stronger in 2020 and we still have a young list with lots of emerging talent.

Oh and your assertion that Ryder is "practically a corpse" is completely ridiculous.

I knew my post would attract a few real defensive nuff responses, notwithstanding that it was positive about each of the players bar Ryder.

There’s no legitimate reason for the Saints to be paying Steven to play for Geelong, other than their desperation to clear cap space. In any other situation they would have told him ‘sorry, but the Cats aren’t serious’.

Trade him for peanuts, sure, that part is sort of understandable. But to actually pay him to play for them? That’s a desperate salary dump, no matter how you try and dress it up. And it was only necessary because, to quote Lethlean, your cap is tight now. And that’s after giving him away.
 
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
Cool, man.
giphy (1).gif
 

HTPunter

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 27, 2014
10,795
14,995
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Your claim that we had to accept unders for Steven because of our cap is ridiculous. We had to accept unders because we were looking out for his mental health, it had nothing to do with our cap. You seem to view us very negatively which is fine, but we brought in 5 best 22 players and lost a bloke that hasn't played for the best part of a year and was no guarantee to do so, a fringe player in Acres and another in Bruce which hurts a bit short term but that we see as replaceable.

We got the deals done that we wanted to do, we will be stronger in 2020 and we still have a young list with lots of emerging talent.

Oh and your assertion that Ryder is "practically a corpse" is completely ridiculous.

Ryder isn't far off it. Huge decline since his AA year.
 

lewdogs

Cancelled
Saints Pledge Contributor
Jun 4, 2008
9,566
31,068
Vic
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Arsenal, Portland Trailblazers
I knew my post would attract a few real defensive nuff responses, notwithstanding that it was positive about each of the players bar Ryder.

There’s no legitimate reason for the Saints to be paying Steven to play for Geelong, other than their desperation to clear cap space. In any other situation they would have told him ‘sorry, but the Cats aren’t serious’.

Trade him for peanuts, sure, that part is sort of understandable. But to actually pay him to play for them? That’s a desperate salary dump, no matter how you try and dress it up. And it was only necessary because, to quote Lethlean, your cap is tight now. And that’s after giving him away.
So you've taken one thing that Lethlean said, "our cap is getting tighter", and made it into this whole story about how we had to take unders for Steven because it's a salary dump.

Also how does paying his salary on OUR cap make it a salary dump? Isn't it Geelong that can't afford it?
 
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
I knew my post would attract a few real defensive nuff responses, notwithstanding that it was positive about each of the players bar Ryder.
Not sure you can call someone calling out you false claims with facts a defensive nuff.

Come on man, you clearly made up you have a "source that told you St Kildas list management team had all done separated deals and weren't going to be able to get the deals done and it was also false that there was no planning behind getting all those players besides Hill and "maybe" Jones.
 

TiAn_

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2006
7,415
18,931
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
So you've taken one thing that Lethlean said, "our cap is getting tighter", and made it into this whole story about how we had to take unders for Steven because it's a salary dump.

Also how does paying his salary on OUR cap make it a salary dump? Isn't it Geelong that can't afford it?

Not sure if serious? The purpose is to get the chunk of his contract that Geelong is actually paying off of your books.
 

Mangus

Senior List
Aug 31, 2009
298
1,190
Happy Place
AFL Club
St Kilda
Most positive thing is that the recruiting team was able to get 5 players to nominate us in the first place after the last few years talking big about free agents and trading big names led to nothing so big tick to the new recruiting team for getting the job done did not look possible given the limited draft hand we had.

Last year we hit the State Leagues pretty hard so I would say there has been a concerted effort to turn over the mid age players on the list and acknowledgement that the drafting and development has been pretty poor over the past 10 years. List needed shaking up and in particular needed pace so Hind Parker Young last year Hill Jones Butler this year. We should be quick next year.

Howard and Ryder were specific needs - Brown needed replacing and we only had one ruck, initially they were chasing Goldstien which didn't make much sense as I couldn't see how Marshall and he could both play but Ryder makes more sense particularly with Bruce gone. Maybe the dual ruck works maybe it doesn't but we absolutely needed another competent senior ruck on the list, if Marshall had been injured last year we would have been rucking Jack Lonie.

Losing Steven hurts but he has effectively been gone for 12 months already. Bruce was going to get squeezed out at some point in the next couple of years as King comes on, but will probably be missed next year at least. I was a big fan of Acres but mostly on his potential rather than output, he could put it all together at Freo and make the Hill trade look pretty bad. In the end though all were being overpaid given the lack of stars on our list and the need to pay 95% of the cap so from a list management perspective makes sense that they are the ones to go and same for Newnes who has been paid way more than he is worth and looks like he will be a DFA now.

So not so much a Salary Cap squeeze as a re-adjustment so we don't run into trouble down the track.

Probably as important as the 5 new guys will be whether we get Roberton, Hannebery and King on the park and maybe even Jack Bytel. All are effectively new recruits so that is a big change to the 22 for next year.

However we still have a problem in our midfield. Dunstan Ross and Steele spent most of the year in the engine room and probably will again. There are more options now with Gresham, Clark Hannebery Jones to rotate but the starting three can't really play anywhere else and they don't measure up to the other midfields in the comp. Until we solve that problem we are not going to challenge the really good sides. Sounds like we chased one or both Crouch brothers during the year so we recognised the problem but as yet we don't have an answer. There is a lot riding on the development of Gresham Clark Bytel and maybe Coffield.
 

Crusty Demon

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 20, 2009
7,863
8,310
Brighton
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
Ryder is hugely on the decline. Jones msy have speed, but his disposal is terrible. Grossly over rated footballer. Butler isn't best 22 so won't make much difference to the list. Howard is an x factor but yet to be proven. And they sold the farm for Hill who arguably becomes their best player and highest paid player at $900K. Hill is a good player, but in no way should he be the best plater on your list. The club should be applauded for selling this as a great trade period.

They lost Bruce who is a fair decent FF and didn't get much in return. Gave away another good talent in Acres as part of the Hill trade which they got bent over on. And Steven who is arguably their best mid wanted out and went to Geelong for virtually nothing. Saints fans are up and about, and congrats to the club for selling this trade period as a positive. But that's a horrible trade peeiod IMO..
 
Ryder is hugely on the decline. Jones msy have speed, but his disposal is terrible. Grossly over rated footballer. Butler isn't best 22 so won't make much difference to the list. Howard is an x factor but yet to be proven. And they sold the farm for Hill who arguably becomes their best player and highest paid player at $900K. Hill is a good player, but in no way should he be the best plater on your list. The club should be applauded for selling this as a great trade period.

They lost Bruce who is a fair decent FF and didn't get much in return. Gave away another good talent in Acres as part of the Hill trade which they got bent over on. And Steven who is arguably their best mid wanted out and went to Geelong for virtually nothing. Saints fans are up and about, and congrats to the club for selling this trade period as a positive. But that's a horrible trade peeiod IMO..

Fair read there.

We probably should have tanked harder for a top 2... sorry top 3 pick, then signed a couple of B grade wingers, traded out our #1 defender (after he played every game for the season), not worried about changing up our forward line (despite availability of cheap options in the market) and then dumped a year's worth of picks to get another top 10 option in a draft that most people have as even from pick 5 to pick 20.

That would get us back into top 4 next year.

Definitely.
 

blitzer

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 27, 2006
7,483
8,749
House
AFL Club
Essendon
I don't mind the Saints ins. Ryder will be handy as the second ruck. Howard's a nice pickup. Hill will be good and I rate Butler. The outs do hurt.
Where I think it might come a bit undone for the Saints is whether they have trouble winning games early next year as it can take some time to get new teammates to gel. Some recent examples include Essendon and Hawthorn when they picked up multiple new recruits and really struggled in the early parts of the season. I guess Richmond were able to buck the trend in their 2017 year as a positive example.

I like the look of Saints spine now but their midfield is still going to need a few players to step up. Right now you wouldn't back anyone to be in the final AA team so they'll be looking for improvers. Do I think they'll play finals in 2020? Nope, too many unanswered questions for me to confidently place them that high.
 

ScrappyDo

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 29, 2018
8,403
25,399
Omnipotent
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ryder is hugely on the decline. Jones msy have speed, but his disposal is terrible. Grossly over rated footballer. Butler isn't best 22 so won't make much difference to the list. Howard is an x factor but yet to be proven. And they sold the farm for Hill who arguably becomes their best player and highest paid player at $900K. Hill is a good player, but in no way should he be the best plater on your list. The club should be applauded for selling this as a great trade period.

They lost Bruce who is a fair decent FF and didn't get much in return. Gave away another good talent in Acres as part of the Hill trade which they got bent over on. And Steven who is arguably their best mid wanted out and went to Geelong for virtually nothing. Saints fans are up and about, and congrats to the club for selling this trade period as a positive. But that's a horrible trade peeiod IMO..
Thanks Richo.
You're analysis is as good as your coaching ever was.
We're glad you found a new home at Mfc, and we can't wait till you replace Goodie in the near future!
We know exactly what you'll bring to your new club. :thumbsu:
 
Thanks Richo.
You're analysis is as good as your coaching ever was.
We're glad you found a new home at Mfc, and we can't wait till you replace Goodie in the near future!
We know exactly what you'll bring to your new club. :thumbsu:

 
Saints fans are up and about, and congrats to the club for selling this trade period as a positive. But that's a horrible trade peeiod IMO..

We traded out Richo to you though, which is a significant win for us.
Nice guy, but....
 
Dec 4, 2000
51,665
125,136
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints LUFC
I knew my post would attract a few real defensive nuff responses, notwithstanding that it was positive about each of the players bar Ryder.

There’s no legitimate reason for the Saints to be paying Steven to play for Geelong, other than their desperation to clear cap space. In any other situation they would have told him ‘sorry, but the Cats aren’t serious’.

Trade him for peanuts, sure, that part is sort of understandable. But to actually pay him to play for them? That’s a desperate salary dump, no matter how you try and dress it up. And it was only necessary because, to quote Lethlean, your cap is tight now. And that’s after giving him away.
We have at least a million in the cap to go after FA next year.

Our SC gets tight in 2 to 3 when our young stars like Clark,Gres, King et al need resigning.
What Lethlean means by tight is that we dont struggle to get to 95 % and pay the likes of Acres 500k a season.
 

Boonahnah

Rookie
Nov 22, 2017
25
37
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Don’t understand the Ryder pick up at all - no good forward & rucks best as the first banana... Marshall is a gun ruckman, haven’t seen him forward enough to pass judgment yet but very promising. What do you reckon the ruck/forward split will be?
 
Jan 14, 2012
36,885
90,449
The River Murray
AFL Club
St Kilda
Don’t understand the Ryder pick up at all - no good forward & rucks best as the first banana... Marshall is a gun ruckman, haven’t seen him forward enough to pass judgment yet but very promising. What do you reckon the ruck/forward split will be?
You are acting as though it's a new concept for sides to play 2 rucks. The last 2 premierships sides had 2 rucks, Hawks had 2 rucks in their 3 peat.

Both those guys are able to go forward. Not sure how you can say Ryder is no good at it, averaged a goal a year and 22 hit outs this year playing the forward ruck role. Marshall was a forward until we had to throw him into the ruck this year.

Neither of those guys will be our main target. We have Membrey, King and possibly Battle.

If we can get a goal a game out of those two that's a huge tick. Id expect it to be a fairly even split between them.

Ryder was basically free. If we find out it doesn't work he can play in the twos and be a backup for Marshall, considering he was literally the only ruckman on our list a week ago.

Marshall is a gun no doubt, but we will burn him out if he doesn't get help in there.
 

ScrappyDo

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 29, 2018
8,403
25,399
Omnipotent
AFL Club
St Kilda
Don’t understand the Ryder pick up at all - no good forward & rucks best as the first banana... Marshall is a gun ruckman, haven’t seen him forward enough to pass judgment yet but very promising. What do you reckon the ruck/forward split will be?
Saints needed a 2nd ruckman since we delisted the 2 other plodders we had.
This will be a development year for Marshall to get some time up forward, and still do some ruck development since his tap work is pretty average still.
Paddy fits the bill as a serviceable big body and will help protect Marshall and King from too much bash and crash.
He's exactly what we needed for a couple of years.
 
Don’t understand the Ryder pick up at all - no good forward & rucks best as the first banana... Marshall is a gun ruckman, haven’t seen him forward enough to pass judgment yet but very promising. What do you reckon the ruck/forward split will be?
Similar idea to us taking King a few years ago, mature ruckman to support a young fella (King/McEvoy, Ryder/Marshall), combination of mentoring, onfield support and injury coverage. We just lost two ruckmen to concussion issues, might as well try to bring in quality back-up rather than dredging up a current 3rd/4th ruck or state leaguer. As it is we'll still probably draft another ruck option.

Marshall will probably swing forward more than Ryder, Paddy will probably alternate between rucking and bench with time in other positions as needed.
 
Back