Has this occurred to anyone?

[meher baba]

I imagine that the management of trade week for a club in a very tight salary cap situation would be pretty complex.

Consider the following:

1. The club might have been a bit ambivalent about Dawson, Ray and Peake: that is, prefer to keep them, but only if they were prepared to accept the same $$$ that they have been on, or less.

2. Walsh must have wanted more $$$ to stay. This would have required us to make room within the salary cap to keep him (presumably by trading Dawson or Ray or Peake or Gram or whoever).

The situation re 1. would only have become clear when we fielded offers from other clubs re those players. If the other clubs were also only prepared to pay the same or less for them, then the players would be more likely to accept our reasonably parsimonious offers (especially if the clubs making offers are in another state where the player doesn't particularly want to move).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the case that the club and the players whose names were on the trade table had worked out at some point today that they would do a deal on financial terms acceptable to the club. At this point, the club probably worked out that it didn't have any $$$ left with which to increase Walsh's remuneration and - given that, when all is said and done, the guy is almost 24 years old and hasn't yet played a game of AFL - decided to look for a trade for him.

If so, I reckon that the various "devils we know" - Ray, Dawson, Peake, Gram, etc. - are definitely worth keeping ahead of Walsh.

[Con Gorozidis]

walsh wanting more still would not have been much.
he was only on rookie coin.

[meher baba]

walsh wanting more still would not have been much.
he was only on rookie coin.

If we are operating on the margins of our salary cap, even another $100k might have seen us having to trade away Dawson.

[loris]

Don't try and bring reason, logic and analysis into play MB.......... don't you know we only respond to emotion, hype and un-named sources/sauces/sorcerers

[FortiusQuoFidelius]

walsh wanting more still would not have been much.
he was only on rookie coin.

I imagine there would have been additional ongoing costs in relation to Walsh which would have been inside our cap... relocation and rehousing expenses immediately come to mind.

[longtimesaint]

Sydney offered a lot more than rookie money.
Also whilst a rookie only 50% went in the cap.-so it probably went from $25,000 to $100,00+ per year against the cap.
The club had apparently been trying to sign him since mid-year, and I would guess Sydney has been in his ear for quite a while.

[meher baba]

Sydney offered a lot more than rookie money.
Also whilst a rookie only 50% went in the cap.-so it probably went from $25,000 to $100,00+ per year against the cap.
The club had apparently been trying to sign him since mid-year, and I would guess Sydney has been in his ear for quite a while.

The (unreliable) rumour I have heard was that we had offered Walsh something like $150k and that the Swans offered him almost double this.

[mr six o'clock]

Yes , I'm sure these players will be offered a certain amount and if they don't accept they can nominate for the draft .

[SaintPav]

Sydney offered a lot more than rookie money.
Also whilst a rookie only 50% went in the cap.-so it probably went from $25,000 to $100,00+ per year against the cap.
The club had apparently been trying to sign him since mid-year, and I would guess Sydney has been in his ear for quite a while.

The (unreliable) rumour I have heard was that we had offered Walsh something like $150k and that the Swans offered him almost double this.

If that is true, they are fools.

[savatage]

Sydney offered a lot more than rookie money.
Also whilst a rookie only 50% went in the cap.-so it probably went from $25,000 to $100,00+ per year against the cap.
The club had apparently been trying to sign him since mid-year, and I would guess Sydney has been in his ear for quite a while.

The (unreliable) rumour I have heard was that we had offered Walsh something like $150k and that the Swans offered him almost double this.

If that is true, they are fools.

I don't know the figures but the Swans offered well over double what we offered...

[White Winmar]

A well reasoned and articulate post MB. You really must stop doing this. It spoils the fun. Ah trade week. With apologies to , "The Bard", "Much ado about nothing!"

[Dr Spaceman]

Sydney offered a lot more than rookie money.
Also whilst a rookie only 50% went in the cap.-so it probably went from $25,000 to $100,00+ per year against the cap.
The club had apparently been trying to sign him since mid-year, and I would guess Sydney has been in his ear for quite a while.

The (unreliable) rumour I have heard was that we had offered Walsh something like $150k and that the Swans offered him almost double this.

If that is true, they are fools.

I don't know the figures but the Swans offered well over double what we offered...

Maybe the Swans know a bloke who makes cardboard boxes?

[meher baba]

A well reasoned and articulate post MB. You really must stop doing this. It spoils the fun. Ah trade week. With apologies to , "The Bard", "Much ado about nothing!"

Yes, but it now appears that the club did make some sort of attempt to match the Swans' offer. Perhaps Walsh decided that he wanted to live in Sydney and, if he couldn't achieve this, he'd probably just go back to Ireland.

[gringo]

A well reasoned and articulate post MB. You really must stop doing this. It spoils the fun. Ah trade week. With apologies to , "The Bard", "Much ado about nothing!"

Yes, but it now appears that the club did make some sort of attempt to match the Swans' offer. Perhaps Walsh decided that he wanted to live in Sydney and, if he couldn't achieve this, he'd probably just go back to Ireland.

Why back to Ireland? so he could play for nothing and make card board boxes?

[Bernard Shakey]

Tommy hates Seaford.

[plugger66]

Tommy hates Seaford.

You are right. Its to far from Ireland.

[Sainternist]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

[gringo]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

A rookie for a pick in the 30s looks alright, it may not always seem that way if he does become a gun but as it stands it looks a win.

[Sainternist]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

A rookie for a pick in the 30s looks alright, it may not always seem that way if he does become a gun but as it stands it looks a win.

Exactly. Only time will tell if we got the better out of that deal.

But, if a player who has yet to play even a senior game is asking for top dollar and we have cap issues, it really boiled down to not being able to afford to keep him. C'est la vie!

[asiu]

Roos is 'still' working for the swanettes , i think u'll find ... developing corporate opportunity.
Knowledge is king 'they say'.
Wonder how his good mate was holding his tounge about OUR business.
... which could explain why the club played 'softly softly' , when he defected.

[saintbrat]

Roos is 'still' working for the swanettes , i think u'll find ... developing corporate opportunity.
Knowledge is king 'they say'.
Wonder how his good mate was holding his tounge about OUR business.
... which could explain why the club played 'softly softly' , when he defected.

Roos also has fingers in Swans academy - development
his mate suggested he had spoken to another mate about Bakes so you wonder who else he spoke to aboutb saints players prior to 'his' decision.
unfortunately his legacy will now be subject to a lot of did he or didn't he... every time something comes back to bite the saints./

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

Accepting "not doing too badly" as good enough is probably the exact sort of loser attitude/mentality that has resulted in this club winning just one premiership in 100+ years. The best in the business would not consider "not doing too badly" as good enough in a fit. Until we get that sort of s*** out of our system/culture we will continue to fail to win premierships and be a mediocre club.
The fact is, we wanted to keep Tommy, just like we apparently wanted to keep Ball and the fact we offered Ross the 4 year unrestricted deal he was after is pretty good indication that we wanted him to stay as well. We FAILED to do so in all instances. FAILED. They were our objectives and we didn't make them happen. None of them seemed to be incredibly hard things to do, either. I mean who loses someone on their rookie list that hasn't played a game, that they really want to keep? We are failing to get the job done. Period. It's amateur hour at the St Kilda FC, only it's lasting years.
In this latest case we just gave away someone that we considered an "important part of our team for next year" or words to that effect (from Watters) and a hard to get "power forward", who is ready to go right now, for picks 37 and 68 in a reportedly very weak draft. That would be like trading him for say picks 50 odd and 80 in a "normal" draft. I don't care what we got him for two years ago, that looks like a s*** deal for us as things stand right now and Sydney would be laughing their heads off at us again. I know those who support them are. They think we're their "bitches" and they're probably right.
At the moment we may as well be in this comp to not win flags and develop "power forwards" for Sydney.

[Sainternist]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

Accepting "not doing too badly" as good enough is probably the exact sort of loser attitude that has resulted in this club winning just one premiership in 100+ years. The best in the business would not consider "not doing too badly" as good enough in a fit. Until we get that sort of s*** out of our system/culture we will continue to fail to win premierships and be a mediocre club.
The fact is, we wanted to keep Tommy, just like we apparently wanted to keep Ball and the fact we offered Ross the 4 year unrestricted deal he was after is pretty good indication that we wanted him to stay as well. We FAILED to do so in all instances. None of them seemed to be incredibly hard things to do. We are failing to get the job done. Period.
In this latest case we just gave away someone that we considered an "important part of our team for next year" or words to that effect (from Watters) and a hard to get "power forward", who is ready to go right now, for picks 37 and 68 in a reportedly very weak draft. That would be like trading him for say picks 50 odd and 80 in a "normal" draft. I don't care what we got him for two years ago, that looks like a s*** deal for us as things stand right now and Sydney would be laughing their heads off at us again.
At the moment we may as well be in this comp to not win flags and develop "power forwards" for Sydney.

FFS, deal is done now.

HE DIDN'T WANT TO STAY AT ST.KILDA.

You tell us how on earth the club could have hung onto him? HOW? Pay him the amount he was asking?

WAKE UP AND GET OVER IT

[loris]

Sounds like we didn't too badly in trade week overall.

Compare this time around to losing Ball, getting diddly squat in return because of Lyon's pedantic BS and getting the basketcase Lovett.

Sheesh, we just got ourselves a new coach, kept all our guns, gained a couple of small forwards, lost Lynch for some draft picks, an Irishman who has never played and AFL game for more draft picks.

That amounts to a pretty, pretty, pretty good week.

Suddenly, the future looks bright

Accepting "not doing too badly" as good enough is probably the exact sort of loser attitude/mentality that has resulted in this club winning just one premiership in 100+ years. The best in the business would not consider "not doing too badly" as good enough in a fit. Until we get that sort of s*** out of our system/culture we will continue to fail to win premierships and be a mediocre club.
The fact is, we wanted to keep Tommy, just like we apparently wanted to keep Ball and the fact we offered Ross the 4 year unrestricted deal he was after is pretty good indication that we wanted him to stay as well. We FAILED to do so in all instances. FAILED. They were our objectives and we didn't make them happen. None of them seemed to be incredibly hard things to do, either. I mean who loses someone on their rookie list that hasn't played a game, that they really want to keep? We are failing to get the job done. Period. It's amateur hour at the St Kilda FC, only it's lasting years.
In this latest case we just gave away someone that we considered an "important part of our team for next year" or words to that effect (from Watters) and a hard to get "power forward", who is ready to go right now, for picks 37 and 68 in a reportedly very weak draft. That would be like trading him for say picks 50 odd and 80 in a "normal" draft. I don't care what we got him for two years ago, that looks like a s*** deal for us as things stand right now and Sydney would be laughing their heads off at us again. I know those who support them are. They think we're their "bitches" and they're probably right.
At the moment we may as well be in this comp to not win flags and develop "power forwards" for Sydney.

An example of 'the glass half empty' replying to 'the glass half full' in these posts.

I like my 'glass half full' by the way