Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 3 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[CaptainMurphy]

If we've got a spare 30-something pick at the end of the Bruce/Keath stuff I wouldn't mid at all if we asked about Bonar, apparently that's what they're asking for him. Decent contract is why, but we could have a punt on it, has got great potential and could be a strong medium forward I reckon.

 

[LittleG]

13 for Bruce and 18 is fair and 32 for Keath and 49 is fair.

Bruce for 32 & 53 is fair.
Keath for 41 & 51 is fair.

Both have precedence of players of similar value.

Giving us pick 49 is not needed. We will only draft 2 players, so your trade would make picks 49, 51 & 53 useless.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Good lord, Trade Radio...

McClure and Dal Santo - ‘What about this? How about that? I’ll come at it from a different way...I put this to you’

Back and forward, back and forward.

 

[mambavino]

Good lord, Trade Radio...

McClure and Dal Santo - ‘What about this? How about that? I’ll come at it from a different way...I put this to you’

Back and forward, back and forward.

Honestly though, it's got to be a battle trying to fill so much air time with so little to talk about. They really should only broadcast on the final day.

 

[LittleG]

All these trades that don’t involve us giving up picks 32, 41, 51 & 53 are useless. Other teams would use these picks but not us.


I will explain why in the ideal scenario:
We go to the draft and pick at 13 and pick xxxxxxx. Highly rated but not an inside mid.
Then we are taking a late pick of xxxxxx who almost none of us will have heard of. (Listed as rookie chance by a few draft watchers)
The last pick is a rookie upgrade.

 

[bresker]

The simple solution is for the AFL to ban any players being traded while under contract, but the players won’t allow that because they want it both ways.

The courts would disallow it too, if challenged.

 

[Mofra]

Mofra you mentioned in another thread about sliding from 13 to 18. The article outlining the four club deal mentioned it too. How does that trade look? What else are we sending, what else are we getting?

It's getting complex.

Judging by the talking heads this morning, Freo want pick 10 as part of the Hill deal. Currently, Port hold it so the Saints would send two first rounders to Port for Howard, Ryder and pick 10. Then pick 10 & a future first for Hill.

Some have suggested 13 + 32 for 18 but we probably view that as overs. It may be that a Bulldogs trade is the first domino to fall.

I don't know why we aren't talking to the Swans for a threeway trade.

Swans: Pick 32
Saints Zac Jones, pick 51
Bulldogs: Josh Bruce

Then we have two third rounders to trade for Keath, or trade up to a pick that gets Keath. Still leaves the Saints with both first rounders this year and their picks next year to satisfy Port & Freo.

 

[Mofra]

I rate Bruce but not Keath. Jake Lever all over again, looking good while playing on nobody. I'm willing to bet it'll be a different story once you ask him to be accountable. Can he do it? Maybe. Will he be in "All Australian form" doing so? I doubt it.

He's in the top 10 in the comp for defending one on ones. He's real quality.

 

[footyfan000001]

Stop posting Goddards crap

Who?

 

[Mofra]

St Kilda want/need Bruce out. There is absolutely zero chance of that deal not going through

Yep - and it's not due to salary cap (they have as much space as us). They just don't have a role for him anymore once King starts playing, and that's assuming Paddy McCartin doesn't play.

 

[bobs head soup]

All these trades that don’t involve us giving up picks 32, 41, 51 & 53 are useless. Other teams would use these picks but not us.


I will explain why in the ideal scenario:
We go to the draft and pick at 13 and pick xxxxxxx. Highly rated but not an inside mid.
Then we are taking a late pick of xxxxxx who almost none of us will have heard of. (Listed as rookie chance by a few draft watchers)
The last pick is a rookie upgrade.

Whatever picks we have surplus to drafting needs can be packaged up and traded for an upgrade or future picks, which could be useful next year. Picks aren't just for players these days, they have a market value.

 

[LittleG]

Whatever picks we have surplus to drafting needs can be packaged up and traded for an upgrade or future picks, which could be useful next year. Picks aren't just for players these days, they have a market value.

Our team will be working to be doing just that. I just don’t see the need to add more picks to this group and then have to trade nearly all of them for future picks.

 

[Mofra]

Well if he walks into our best 22, fills an obvious need, helps our age profile and is good enough for a 4 year decent money contract, 32 is by no means an extravagant price. All the better if we get him cheaper, but seriously doubt we'll get better value elsewhere out of 32.

Draft picks after the first round are overrated. We have brought heaps of kids in the past few years and will bring four more in next year. This is the time to brign in mature players.

 

[Mofra]

Not hating the idea of using next years first in the Keath/Bruce deal, but if we were able to keep it, we could use it next trade period to bring in another established best 22.

Package our 3rds for a second, use both seconds in a deal for both players or something where use 13 with 18 coming back.

2019
Take 1st rounder to the draft, bring in Keath and Bruce.

2020
Bring in Jamarra with our 2nd and possibly a 3rd/4th rounder, bring in a best 22 by trading our 1st

If we were keeping next years 1st for Jamarra I can understand holding on to it, but, if the rumours are true and we’re open to using it to get this years deal through, I say hold tough and get it done without it, use it next year for another Bruce/Keath type.

We potentially have three kids to take in the first round next year (Marra, Stevens, McPherson). I like the idea of trading next year's first for some sort of points surplus to meet that requirement. Cody Raak might be a second/third round NGA talent too.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

We potentially have three kids to take in the first round next year (Marra, Stevens, McPherson). I like the idea of trading next year's first for some sort of points surplus to meet that requirement. Cody Raak might be a second/third round NGA talent too.

Yeah, have heard about the NGA boys.

What are the chance they are all 1st and 2nd rounders though ? Marra the clear stand out. Stevens a decent player, the other two aren’t at the top level though.

I have mentioned previously that it’s dangerous to sort so many of your eggs according to 3-4 potential 1st - 2nd round NGA players. If the 2020 draft comes around and Stevens is now a 2nd - 3rd round prospect and the other two have slidden to Pick 50 - rookie selection and we’ve traded and drafted in 2019 to accomodate 3-4 “top end talent” in 2020 it could be quiet costly. We could miss out on an immediate best 22 player with trading our 1st rounder in 2020 because we’ve planned for kids that haven’t come along.

Personally I think planning bulk NGA Recruitment can be a massive risk

 

[Highlander]

Just turned on Trade Radio for the first time, can somebody please tell me what impourden means?

 

[VitalDread]

SOAP FOR TRADIES???

 

[Mofra]

Yeah, have heard about the NGA boys.

What are the chance they are all 1st and 2nd rounders though ? Marra the clear stand out. Stevens a decent player, the other two aren’t at the top level though.

I have mentioned previously that it’s dangerous to sort so many of your eggs according to 3-4 potential 1st - 2nd round NGA players. If the 2020 draft comes around and Stevens is now a 2nd - 3rd round prospect and the other two have slidden to Pick 50 - rookie selection and we’ve traded and drafted in 2019 to accomodate 3-4 “top end talent” in 2020 it could be quiet costly. We could miss out on an immediate best 22 player with trading our 1st rounder in 2020 because we’ve planned for kids that haven’t come along.

Personally I think planning bulk NGA Recruitment can be a massive risk

Marra alone will cost way more than just a second rounder though, so even if the other kids don't kick on we might be wiping out our entire haul of picks plus go into deficit. We are taking a multi year approach to list management and that appears to be manifesting itself in this year being the year to trade mature players in, and next year being a 'hit the draft' year.

We clearly have someone in mind for pick 13 this year, and TBH if we get our targets and pick up a small forward or two at the draft we won't really have holes on the list we desperately need to fill next year. Ruck cover would be nice but with Keath, that is Trengove and Sweet knowing Bevo prefers to play only one genuine ruck with a chop-out option (Schache/Bruce next year). A genuine wingman would be nice too.

 

[TBOW]

Trade five: Josh Bruce
Now for St Kilda’s other wantaway player: Josh Bruce.

Put together Bruce, the 2020 second-round pick obtained for Geelong, and St Kilda’s own 2020 second-round pick, and swap it to the Dogs for their 2020 first-rounder and pick 53 this year.

If we could pull off that trade I'd be looking to get something back from Adelaide with Keath for 35.
Maybe throw in the mid third round pick to get Adelaides 2020 third.

Then we have banked 2 extra seconds and a third for 2020 - Keath and Bruce - and go to the draft with 13, a third rounder and late picks.

 

[mambavino]

I wonder if trades have already been agreed between teams, but the AFL asks them to wait to lodge paperwork so that there is something of interest for the TV broadcast late on the final day?

 

[Dogsman16]

I wonder if trades have already been agreed between teams, but the AFL asks them to wait to lodge paperwork so that there is something of interest for the TV broadcast late on the final day?

Could do, but you would think if that was the case the Tim Kelly deal would have been held back to the last minute.

 

[Braybrook Son]

Here’s a thought, all you guys playing around with, pick x goes here and we take picks x, xx, and xxx for this player and that player, how about we just wait for 7.30pm tomorrow night, and we’ll know exactly who goes where for what?

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

I wonder if trades have already been agreed between teams, but the AFL asks them to wait to lodge paperwork so that there is something of interest for the TV broadcast late on the final day?

I think the AFL would rather the trades were spread across the week. They’ve had knack all to talk about so far.

 

[Northernsoul74]

I’d like to get Long if it’s on the cards. He has talent and apparently he does a lot of outside work at the Saints around their indigenous program. That sounds in line with what we’re wanting to establish.

 

[Doggy]

Here’s a thought, all you guys playing around with, pick x goes here and we take picks x, xx, and xxx for this player and that player, how about we just wait for 7.30pm tomorrow night, and we’ll know exactly who goes where for what?

It's a forum for discussion. You don't have to read their proposals, and you certainly don't have to comment like this