How about this?

Moods · Post: # 841545Post **Moods** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:15pm

Don't agree. Medhurst was AA last year and came 2nd or equal 1st in their B&F. He did stuff all pre-season this year and was off from the start. With a proper pre-season Medhurst would be a superb aquisition.

Don't let your hatred of the pies get in the way of logic.

claystreet · Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:17pm

I dont back horses whos form recently is crap just because they were champions 12 months ago

Teflon · Post: # 841550Post **Teflon** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:17pm

Moods wrote:Don't agree. Medhurst was AA last year and came 2nd or equal 1st in their B&F. He did stuff all pre-season this year and was off from the start. With a proper pre-season Medhurst would be a superb aquisition.

Don't let your hatred of the pies get in the way of logic.

Got nothing to with hatred all to do with what our club NEEDS and it aint another hot/cold small fwd.

We need an alternative lead up optin that HAS fwd pressure. I think we already have him - its time to blood Lynch IMO.

bigcarl · Post: # 841558Post **bigcarl** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:22pm

Richter wrote:Crikey, I'd take Dale Thomas for Luke Ball in a heartbeat. Won't happen though.

so would i. very talented player who will only get better and would slot very nicely into our forward line as the missing goal-kicking marking target.

but you are correct that it will not happen.

bergholt · Post: # 841563Post **bergholt** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:26pm

I think a single player swap is most likely, or a swap plus a second or third round pick, but the first round pick is unlikely. Which players would we take?

Wellingham would be pretty good, he'd give us run and carry and skill. Beams and Sidebottom both would be pretty decent but might be a little more similar to what we've got in the midfield. Cox appeals as a versatile player who could play a variety of roles - we'd try to push him to third forward but he has no proven skill there.

Blight and Rounds are completely unproven, and none of McCarthy, Reid, Barham, Macaffer, Stanley, Cook have shown enough. I don't think Brown, Dick and Dawes fit into our side. Toovey, Goldsack, Wood not good enough. Rusling? Is he fit yet? Could be an OK option as third tall forward.

But best for us would be John Anthony. Fair mark, good kick at goal, not great as the man on his own but as a third tall could be really good. We'd have to teach him toughness and work ethic but could definitely make a place for himself.

Armoooo · Post: # 841583Post **Armoooo** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:35pm

Great post Bergholt, I hadn't even considered Anthony, would be a simply marvelous fit for us... but would Collingwood do it? they love this bloke and TBH he would probably be worth a fair bit more than Bally on his own...

battye · Post: # 841618Post **battye** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:53pm

bigcarl wrote:
Richter wrote:Crikey, I'd take Dale Thomas for Luke Ball in a heartbeat. Won't happen though.
so would i. very talented player who will only get better and would slot very nicely into our forward line as the missing goal-kicking marking target.

but you are correct that it will not happen.

I am sad that Luke Ball wants to go, but as everyone has been saying he is not the player he was a few years ago.

I think a trade involving Ball to Collingwood with Dale Thomas in return would be fantastic. I've never understood the hatred for him, he seems like the sort of player who can be very damaging. And with RL at the helm with the Saints playing group, he could become an extremely good player.

claystreet · Mon 05 Oct 2009 10:56pm

If Dale the pillow comes to the saints i am crackin the sads and i want all my toys back and i am going home

Just call me Luke Ball

xander · Post: # 841633Post **xander** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:00pm

Forget it Daisy won't come to the saints collingwood wouldn't do that trade.
Besides they need him as their mascot.

vacuous space · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:08pm

bergholt wrote:Blight and Rounds are completely unproven...

They were bottom-agers in last year's draft. If we're picking them up, we're looking at the future, which is what I think we should be doing. Collingwood's not going to give up proven talent for Ball. It's going to be fringe players or futures.

Rounds played as a pressure forward for VFL Collingwood in finals. I believe he kicked a goal in each game and had a lot of tackles. I think he'd fit in very well here.

I think John Anthony is a little too one-dimensional to be a third tall.

Richter · Post: # 841653Post **Richter** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:09pm

Teflon wrote:
Richter wrote:Crikey, I'd take Dale Thomas for Luke Ball in a heartbeat. Won't happen though.

I think youve been smoking stuff again - last night you told us Josh Fraser was a ruckman....even my Collingwood mates laugh at that FFS...

"dAISY" is just that. Goes missing and is defensively spastic.

NO thanks

Also I cant believe some posters are suggesting a 179cm Medhurst is "just what we need for a third talkl fwd option"....frk me he was DROPPED for finals as his form was so woeful and has played 1 good year....

Collingwood have little for us that they WILL trade Im afraid.

Teffers, take the blinkers off. Fraser would start in ANY AFL team. Luke Ball has been a fringe player for us this year, and his best days are behind him. In a year I'd expect Armo/Steven/X to be ahead of him for his spot in the midfield. He wouldn't get a start in either the Cats or Bulldogs midfields.

Whilst I don't think Medhurst is the right player for us either, he is exactly the calibre of player that would be a reasonable swap,

Draft pick wise Luke is worth around 20-30 IMO. (Evidence: Farren Ray, a younger player with already 100 games to his name was traded last year for pick 31.)

FrankstonSainter · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:14pm

i like the idea of medhurst.. if he was younger

vacuous space · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:14pm

Richter wrote:Draft pick wise Luke is worth around 20-30 IMO. (Evidence: Farren Ray, a younger player with already 100 games to his name was traded last year for pick 31.)

That was last year. If Collingwood want to trade us pick 29 in last year's draft, I'd be just fine with that.

SaintWodonga · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:16pm

sax wrote:How about this???

Luke Ball to Collingwood,
Our Pick 32 to Carlton,
Pies Pick 14 to Carlton,
Fev to Saints!!!!

yes please!

claystreet · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:20pm

I got this feeling about the Fev
we now have room in the cap

I reckon fev would look good in Red White snd Black

claystreet · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:21pm

Gardy could be Fevs mentor

Teflon · Post: # 841684Post **Teflon** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:23pm

Richter wrote:
Teflon wrote:
Richter wrote:Crikey, I'd take Dale Thomas for Luke Ball in a heartbeat. Won't happen though.

I think youve been smoking stuff again - last night you told us Josh Fraser was a ruckman....even my Collingwood mates laugh at that FFS...

"dAISY" is just that. Goes missing and is defensively spastic.

NO thanks

Also I cant believe some posters are suggesting a 179cm Medhurst is "just what we need for a third talkl fwd option"....frk me he was DROPPED for finals as his form was so woeful and has played 1 good year....

Collingwood have little for us that they WILL trade Im afraid.
Teffers, take the blinkers off. Fraser would start in ANY AFL team. Luke Ball has been a fringe player for us this year, and his best days are behind him. In a year I'd expect Armo/Steven/X to be ahead of him for his spot in the midfield. He wouldn't get a start in either the Cats or Bulldogs midfields.

Whilst I don't think Medhurst is the right player for us either, he is exactly the calibre of player that would be a reasonable swap,

Draft pick wise Luke is worth around 20-30 IMO. (Evidence: Farren Ray, a younger player with already 100 games to his name was traded last year for pick 31.)

Fraser is a poor injury prone excuse for a ruckman who plays better as a fwd and we dont need him in that role at all.

Medhurst is old and small and inconsistent - no tks

And Luke Ball wouldnt get a game at the Bulldogs??????.......I think you'd find he might........lets not underestimate Ball may be slow and not a great kick - but as genuine clearance mid hes a gun AND hes top 10 AFL for tackles.....

PJ · Post: # 841685Post PJ » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:23pm

Picks 14 & 16 are sure to bring up good players - the talk has been that this group are testing better than the years that have gone by - top 20 are rated very highly. It's crap to suggest there won't be quality.

I wouldn't be giving up both of these picks for Seany boy. One maybe for Lovett but no more. Anyway St.Kilda don't have to trade with Collingwood that's just Luke's preference. We do what's best for St.Kilda as Luke is now doing what's best for him.

ausfatcat · Post: # 841688Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:26pm

PJ wrote:Picks 14 & 16 are sure to bring up good players - the talk has been that this group are testing better than the years that have gone by - top 20 are rated very highly. It's crap to suggest there won't be quality.

Where?

All the reports are that it is a shallow draft after picks 12 to 15.

Factor in the GC already picking up players earlier in the season, and it's not that great of a draft.

Richter · Post: # 841690Post **Richter** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:27pm

PJ wrote:Picks 14 & 16 are sure to bring up good players - the talk has been that this group are testing better than the years that have gone by - top 20 are rated very highly. It's crap to suggest there won't be quality.

Good point PJ. But the problem is we're unlikely to get pick 14 for Luke.

Perhaps if we offer our pick 32 back to the pies in exchange?

I doubt we'll take any more than 3, maybe not even 2 selections in the draft anyway.

That would leave us with picks 14,16,48,64. And from the sound of it we may trade 48/64 for Peake from Freo.

PJ · Post: # 841691Post PJ » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:29pm

Where?

All the reports are that it is a shallow draft after pick 12 to 15.

Interviews done at the draft (Foxtel) with recruiters and Kevin Sheehan (spelling?)

ausfatcat · Post: # 841697Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:31pm

I would trust his word first if he isn't playing it up, more than the newspapers and tv.

duckduckduckgoose · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:33pm

vacuous space wrote:If Brock McLean is worth pick 11 in this draft, surely Luke Ball's worth at least pick 14, if not more. .

The problem being, Brock McLean isnt worth pick 11

15 other teams realise this.

Milton66 · Post: # 841717Post **Milton66** » Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:41pm

duckduckduckgoose wrote:
vacuous space wrote:If Brock McLean is worth pick 11 in this draft, surely Luke Ball's worth at least pick 14, if not more. .
The problem being, Brock McLean isnt worth pick 11

15 other teams realise this.

Exactly, but he was to Carlton.

Regardless of what we think, a player's true market value depends on how badly another club needs what they have to offer.

vacuous space · Mon 05 Oct 2009 11:48pm

ausfatcat wrote:All the reports are that it is a shallow draft after picks 12 to 15.

My personal feeling, when trying to take a guess at how the draft is going to unfold, is that there's a dropoff around that mark. That doesn't mean picks after that mark are worthless. You're just looking at slightly riskier players. There are still plenty of kids outside the top-10 that I'd be excited to have at St Kilda. Lots of skilled players with big engines - our recruiters love those. Anybody hoping for a kid who will come in and have an immediate impact is likely to be disappointed though.

I think that, barring an opportunity to add Burgoyne, we should be trying to get our picks as early as possible. The real question on this draft is depth. We probably want to be done by pick 50.