Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Dogs Rule]

Free agency working its magic, leaving a cellar dweller to join the 2026 flag favourites, regardless of who wins it all this year.

Anyone who thought free agency was going to do anything other than make the rich richer was deluding themselves.

The AFL (if they had any balls, which they don't) would take back some power from the players but instead we have this free agency monster and we drift ever closer to the EPL where only a handful of teams are legitimate chances to win it year after year.

The myth of the bigger clubs sucks in the media sycophants as well as they basically barrack and campaign for players at lower clubs to join the bigger clubs. It's vomit inducing.

 

[Dry Rot]

Unpopular opinion but I’d rather butts then Wilke he’s more suited to what we need and wouldn’t cost as much

What is the story with Young?

 

[bobs head soup]

Wilkie is an awesome player but will cost an absolute packet being under contract.

It is strange to me that it was an accepted fact that we should accept unders last year for Jack Macrae because of the contract attached to him.

Jack was 30 heading into the next season, AA level and top notch clubman and person.

Wilkie fits all of the above, but now the attached contract size and length is deemed to add value rather than reduce.

I know talls are more expensive, but the discrepancy seems overly large to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love Wilkie as a player, would love him on our list.

It just seems to me that Macrae had an equal CV (at least) so a pick in the 40s vs a first rounder plus extras seems out of whack.

 

[TiAn_]

It is strange to me that it was an accepted fact that we should accept unders last year for Jack Macrae because of the contract attached to him.

Jack was 30 heading into the next season, AA level and top notch clubman and person.

Wilkie fits all of the above, but now the attached contract size and length is deemed to add value rather than reduce.

I know talls are more expensive, but the discrepancy seems overly large to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love Wilkie as a player, would love him on our list.

It just seems to me that Macrae had an equal CV (at least) so a pick in the 40s vs a first rounder plus extras seems out of whack.

Ver different scenarios. Macrae had been marginalised within our team and spent time at VFL level. And although his numbers looked good this year, the two games against us were a bit of a sad indication of his waning ability to actually impact games.

 

[bobs head soup]

Ver different scenarios. Macrae had been marginalised within our team and spent time at VFL level. And although his numbers looked good this year, the two games against us were a bit of a sad indication of his waning ability to actually impact games.

I don't agree. Although Macrae's position had become difficult in our set up, he still played 19 of 21 AFL games after preseason injuries in 2024 and was clearly still a valuable player at AFL level.

He was Saints #1 clearance and contested possession player by a huge margin this year (over 30% more than #2 player in both categories).

That's what they got him for - would've been way poorer without him, so his cheap purchase was a significant win.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

I don't agree. Although Macrae's position had become difficult in our set up, he still played 19 of 21 AFL games after preseason injuries in 2024 and was clearly still a valuable player at AFL level.

He was Saints #1 clearance and contested possession player by a huge margin this year (over 30% more than #2 player in both categories).

That's what they got him for - would've been way poorer without him, so his cheap purchase was a significant win.

Supply and demand. You can 'value' him however you want, but you can only get what others are willing to pay.

 

[TiAn_]

I don't agree. Although Macrae's position had become difficult in our set up, he still played 19 of 21 AFL games after preseason injuries in 2024 and was clearly still a valuable player at AFL level.

He was Saints #1 clearance and contested possession player by a huge margin this year (over 30% more than #2 player in both categories).

That's what they got him for - would've been way poorer without him, so his cheap purchase was a significant win.

We were playing him at half forward where he wasn’t having any impact. He kicked 5 goals and had 5 goal assists 19 games playing primarily at half forward. He didn’t have a midfield role with us any more and wasn’t good anywhere else. The game is moving away rapidly from Macrae types.

We wanted his contract off the books and they were happy to pay all of it. Even at the Saints, he tailed off. His last 6 games for them his top TOG% was 71%. The second last game he was subbed out and the last game he was demoted to starting sub.

We replaced him with Kennedy, who is now a better player and a significantly better fit for us as a mid/forward. Similar midfield numbers, given thats what you’re focused on, but also kicked 21 goals and had 19 goal assists.

I love Macrae, but for us his contract had become terrible value.

 

[Munnez]

At some point though we need to stop using this logic with KPDs and actually get a good one.

Yes at some point have to not invest too heavily in the future and fix the current issues to put us in the hunt for a flag.
And that might make us more attractive to FA's wanting to come i.e. Brisbane

 

[TiAn_]

Also, just in case anyone doubts how much of an upgrade Kennedy was on Macrae this year, he was the only player in the comp with 20+ goals, 100+ clearances and 100+ tackles.

 

[Unorth]

Normally I would say we’re always best off going hard at the draft, but the vibe of the Dolan-Hynes-Jacques draft is a good one. At least, as good as you can get considering one of them hasn’t debuted and the other two didn’t play much.

But since we got 3 quality prospects last year I’d be comfortable using significant assets this year to go all in. Not to mention how much of a bonus it is having Freijah taken in the 40s entering his third year. Historically we do just fine with later picks too, which we could extract from a couple of our current players (ie Buku) if needed.

Relying on internal development is great and all but other clubs are either just as good or better at it, there does have to be an element of risk taking if we want to remove ourselves from footy purgatory.

We played it safe since Jamarra and Darcy did some damage to back to back draft hands, but in that time we’ve lost significant talent in Dunkley and Smith, it doesn’t help Bont in his prime when you lose guys like that and mostly lean on going back to the draft. It sets you back some years while you wait for those players to maybe be as good as those two. And not dredging up the why or whatever with those two, just talking what the outcomes have been.

For us as a club that struggles to attract A grade talent in trades/free agency (for a number of valid, in some cases unfair reasons outlined many times on this board) the draft is important but at Bonts age, and given how we haven’t won a final since 2021, priorities need to shift a bit now.

I wouldn’t expect the Saints to let Wilkie go, but like with Butters, we should be prepared to make an enticing offer and see what happens. At some point we will just have to pay the price and part with significant assets. I don’t get any hand wringing over this. The last time we did this, after a few years of really strong drafting to build the foundation, it got us Tom Boyd and a flag a couple of years later.

 

[Golden_6]

Normally I would say we’re always best off going hard at the draft, but the vibe of the Dolan-Hynes-Jacques draft is a good one. At least, as good as you can get considering one of them hasn’t debuted and the other two didn’t play much.

But since we got 3 quality prospects last year I’d be comfortable using significant assets this year to go all in. Not to mention how much of a bonus it is having Freijah taken in the 40s entering his third year. Historically we do just fine with later picks too, which we could extract from a couple of our current players (ie Buku) if needed.

Relying on internal development is great and all but other clubs are either just as good or better at it, there does have to be an element of risk taking if we want to remove ourselves from footy purgatory.

We played it safe since Jamarra and Darcy did some damage to back to back draft hands, but in that time we’ve lost significant talent in Dunkley and Smith, it doesn’t help Bont in his prime when you lose guys like that and mostly lean on going back to the draft. It sets you back some years while you wait for those players to maybe be as good as those two. And not dredging up the why or whatever with those two, just talking what the outcomes have been.

For us as a club that struggles to attract A grade talent in trades/free agency (for a number of valid, in some cases unfair reasons outlined many times on this board) the draft is important but at Bonts age, and given how we haven’t won a final since 2021, priorities need to shift a bit now.

I wouldn’t expect the Saints to let Wilkie go, but like with Butters, we should be prepared to make an enticing offer and see what happens. At some point we will just have to pay the price and part with significant assets. I don’t get any hand wringing over this. The last time we did this, after a few years of really strong drafting to build the foundation, it got us Tom Boyd and a flag a couple of years later.

I tend to agree. This is the year to use significant draft capital given the compromised draft.

We have a large amount of young talent under 25 on the list. Missing one draft won’t hurt us after last years haul.

 

[adogsfan5]

They can fit in as many as they like...apparently.

Meanwhile Costco at Moorabbin is out of brown paper bags.

More meant in defence

 

[Testekill]

What is the story with Young?

Sounds like WC are going to make a big play for him.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

It is strange to me that it was an accepted fact that we should accept unders last year for Jack Macrae because of the contract attached to him.

Jack was 30 heading into the next season, AA level and top notch clubman and person.

Wilkie fits all of the above, but now the attached contract size and length is deemed to add value rather than reduce.

I know talls are more expensive, but the discrepancy seems overly large to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love Wilkie as a player, would love him on our list.

It just seems to me that Macrae had an equal CV (at least) so a pick in the 40s vs a first rounder plus extras seems out of whack.

I suspect that the point of difference is that we were happy to salary dump Macrae and move him on.

Wilkie would still be an integral part of their rapid set rebuild.

 

[JTCWBFC]

Sounds like WC are going to make a big play for him.

If we can’t out bid west coast in terms of a desirable destination right now we may as well pack up the recruiting department

 

[Bald]

If we can’t out bid west coast in terms of a desirable destination right now we may as well pack up the recruiting department

We certainly couldn’t outbid them for cash.

 

[CarnTheScray]

If he was from WA I’d say they’d probably beat us in the race. But pretty sure he’s from Vic/NSW.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Josh Gabelich said on Sen Whateley that the club are prepared to even go higher then the 1.1 million over the 4 years for Wilkie

 

[Guido]

Josh Gabelich said on Sen Whateley that the club are prepared to even go higher then the 1.1 million over the 4 years for Wilkie

Interesting, but I wouldn't have thought that, given it's already almost $400k more than his current deal at the Saints, the contract size is the issue ?

When Dunkley wanted out to Essendon, he was apparently on about $500k, and they'd offered $800k? Regardless of whether that offer was upped to $900k, $1mil or $1.1mil, he was a contracted player and we held the cards.

Unless St Kilda is going close to matching the deal, in which case we'd need to blow it out of the water to get him to move.

 

[Golden_6]

Interesting, but I wouldn't have thought that, given it's already almost $400k more than his current deal at the Saints, the contract size is the issue ?

When Dunkley wanted out to Essendon, he was apparently on about $500k, and they'd offered $800k? Regardless of whether that offer was upped to $900k, $1mil or $1.1mil, he was a contracted player and we held the cards.

Unless St Kilda is going close to matching the deal, in which case we'd need to blow it out of the water to get him to move.

Well it needs to be a contract too good to turn down.

Wilkie doesn't actively want to leave the Saints. He's touted as their next captain (possibly for 2026) but his head might be turned by an offer too good to refuse from a team with solid foundations desperately needing a player like him.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Unless St Kilda is going close to matching the deal, in which case we'd need to blow it out of the water to get him to move.

Saints will most likely give Wilkie a pay raise

 

[Mojorisin]

Saints will most likely give Wilkie a pay raise

They've also upped their offer to Windhager aswell so things likely getting tight if he sticks around.

 

[Bulldogs85]

For anyone that is interested the discussion about us and Wilkie starts at the 4.10 minute mark

 

[JTCWBFC]

For anyone that is interested the discussion about us and Wilkie starts at the 4.10 minute mark

Erasmus, Wehr, Silvanghi

We’re getting good at hearing no thx

 

[Foxman98]

Erasmus, Wehr, Silvanghi

We’re getting good at hearing no thx

Not exactly the worst trio to be told no by,

Wehr is shit Silvagni is an injury prone role player Erasmus is improving but was offered a 1 year deal 2 months ago by Freo