Dal Santo - Re-sign or trade him this week.

[Old Mate]

Goddard at 27 compared to Dal Santo at 29 is a far more appealing free agent selection for clubs. Dal Santo certainly wouldn't be persuaded with a 4 year-3m contract put in front of him like Goddard was.

Why wouldn't he? What 29 yr old wouldn't be? The only problem is what club would be stupid enough to offer a 29 yr old a 4yr 3m contract?

The reality is , is that he's far less likely to be offered that sort of contract because of his age.

I meant a team wouldn't persuade Dal Santo by ever offering him the same contract. My bad, I worded it wrong.

[samoht]

Just because we had one recent mercenary doesn't mean that all our players are c0ckheads & will walk out on the club. Players like Dal Santo have signed without issue in the past. It was patently obvious to so many that Goddard looked disinterested for the best part of 2 seasons with us. Chalk & cheese scenario.

+100
Well said, young man!
Dal Santo = of/from the Saints, enough said.

[Dave McNamara]

Please Saintsational people, don't be diverted off the topic. This thread is not actually about St Kilda or BJ or Dal.



Dal is quoted earlier in this thread as saying that he never lets himself be out of contract. So if he doesn't re-sign before the end of next season...hmmmmm(?)

Right now St Kilda is faced with...
putting a fair and respectful offer to Dal to extend his contract and make him a Saints champion for life,
trading him now for a very early pick +/- young gun player in a (supposedly) super draft,
or risk losing him next year through F All for a draft pick in the early 20's.
(That high 20's compo' pick is factoring in other clubs having various forms of compo picks moving our 1st pick at 18 back several slots.)

If it was me, I'd only do the first option in Dal's case. But that is clouded by emotion and is not a viable long term solution.

But it is not just us! Every club will have to grapple with these issues under F All.

So again fellow Saintsationalists, please don't be diverted off topic and think of this issue in terms of St Kilda and BJ, or Dal. This thread is not actually about St Kilda, BJ or Dal - they are merely examples.

I suspect that all AFL clubs will end up following the big European soccer clubs, and never let a player come out of contract. "Sign the contract extension or we trade you out!"

What would you grrrrls and guys do?

[spert]

As far as I'm concerned we need to rebuild quickly for a premiership challenge and holding on to players who almost but not quite get us over the line, is not the answer. NDS falls in the category of the highly skilled player who plays a few great games then coasts along and looks nice, but could have been doing a whole lot more. If I was a coach in Watters position, I would look at NDS, Montagna, Hayes (yes I know he busts his gut for us) and look at their GF efforts, and wonder if these guys are really going to contribute to our next premiership compared to the midfields of the top four teams this season, who are one step faster, stronger, and just as skilled if not more.

[SinCitySainter]

Let's just say you are a recruiting manager for a top 4 club next year and you are thinking what do I need to do to give us an edge.
What are the most important players for a push at a flag.?
Well, that would be either a Key marking forward or a mid with elite disposal.
Unfortunately we don't have any low draft picks to try and get one.
If only you get one for free and just worry about paying them 800K to a million for a couple of years because to win a flag it would be worth it.
Oh well that is just pie in the sky thinking, thoughs sorts of players don't just grow on trees.

Oh wait a minute....


To be a loyal one club player is a great and wonderful thing for a player.
To have an extra couple of hundred thousand in your pocket each year plus another tilt at a flag might just assuage any guilt from not being a one club player.

[plugger66]

Please Saintsational people, don't be diverted off the topic. This thread is not actually about St Kilda or BJ or Dal.



Dal is quoted earlier in this thread as saying that he never lets himself be out of contract. So if he doesn't re-sign before the end of next season...hmmmmm(?)

Right now St Kilda is faced with...
putting a fair and respectful offer to Dal to extend his contract and make him a Saints champion for life,
trading him now for a very early pick +/- young gun player in a (supposedly) super draft,
or risk losing him next year through F All for a draft pick in the early 20's.
(That high 20's compo' pick is factoring in other clubs having various forms of compo picks moving our 1st pick at 18 back several slots.)

If it was me, I'd only do the first option in Dal's case. But that is clouded by emotion and is not a viable long term solution.

But it is not just us! Every club will have to grapple with these issues under F All.

So again fellow Saintsationalists, please don't be diverted off topic and think of this issue in terms of St Kilda and BJ, or Dal. This thread is not actually about St Kilda, BJ or Dal - they are merely examples.

I suspect that all AFL clubs will end up following the big European soccer clubs, and never let a player come out of contract. "Sign the contract extension or we trade you out!"

What would you grrrrls and guys do?

They may never get out of contract but if they sign in the year the contract ends it is to late to trade then the previous year. Surely we cant expect Players to sign 2 years before a contract ends especially as some players only get 2 year contracts.

[8856brother]

Please Saintsational people, don't be diverted off the topic. This thread is not actually about St Kilda or BJ or Dal.

OP - Dal Santo - Re-sign or trade him this week.

[Dave McNamara]

They may never get out of contract but if they sign in the year the contract ends it is to late to trade then the previous year. Surely we cant expect Players to sign 2 years before a contract ends especially as some players only get 2 year contracts.

Hi Pluggs, good point.

I guess what would happen is that when a player is in their second last year of a contact, then they would need to come to an agreement with the club and extend that contract before the start of the trading period of that (second last year of their contract). For Milney types on year to year contracts although this system would be inoperable, in reality it wouldn't arise. If a club feared such a player would be out of contract and walk, then they wouldn't have them on one year contracts in the first place.

EG:
Player X on a 3 year contract that ends close of season 2013 - negotitate a contract extension before the start of 2012 trade period, or put the player up for trade.

It has the potential to be harsh, and I wouldn't want to be the list manager having got enforce it.... but I see this eventuating due to F All... and it was the players (supposedly) who demanded F All. Case of swings n' roundabouts for all concerned maybe?

[Dave McNamara]

Please Saintsational people, don't be diverted off the topic. This thread is not actually about St Kilda or BJ or Dal.

OP - Dal Santo - Re-sign or trade him this week.

True Bro, but I'd still argue that this post is in reality about the consequences that will (most likely) flow from the introduction of F All, and therefore Dal is merely a concrete example of what is likely to happen.

In the coming years, 'St Kilda' and 'Dal' will be interchangeable with any other club and their player/s when their player/s test out F All, just like BJ did this year.

My personal opinion is that F All was probably inevitable due to the AFL wanting to head off probable restraint of trade legal challenges to the previous system. I suspect that the AFL hopes that this current system, which is actually only a partial F All system, will satisfy the players enough to stop them seeking a full-on F All set up via legal action.

I don't really mind this system. My concern is that the whole ethos of player loyalty to club, which is so much a part of the history and tradition of the game, will be excessively and unnecessarily further eroded.

Could be interesting times ahead...

[plugger66]

They may never get out of contract but if they sign in the year the contract ends it is to late to trade then the previous year. Surely we cant expect Players to sign 2 years before a contract ends especially as some players only get 2 year contracts.

Hi Pluggs, good point.

I guess what would happen is that when a player is in their second last year of a contact, then they would need to come to an agreement with the club and extend that contract before the start of the trading period of that (second last year of their contract). For Milney types on year to year contracts although this system would be inoperable, in reality it wouldn't arise. If a club feared such a player would be out of contract and walk, then they wouldn't have them on one year contracts in the first place.

EG:
Player X on a 3 year contract that ends close of season 2013 - negotitate a contract extension before the start of 2012 trade period, or put the player up for trade.

It has the potential to be harsh, and I wouldn't want to be the list manager having got enforce it.... but I see this eventuating due to F All... and it was the players (supposedly) who demanded F All. Case of swings n' roundabouts for all concerned maybe?

If it is a 2 year contact the second last year is actually the first year of a contract. I wouldnt expect Dal or anyone else to sign a contract over a year before the next contract finishes.

[ralphsmith]

Player loyalty to club remains one of the things that sets our great game apart from many others. I certainly hope that this brave new world of free agency does not diminish this too much. Will be interesting to see how this latest game is played out...

Clearly, loyalty is Vanishing very quickly with the introduction of free agency. And to see the enthusiasm with which our supporters are embracing it by wanting to offload Nick Dal Santo....disturbing.

I mean, for crying out loud, Dal Santo means the saint. He is our most skillful player, probably ever...

Never in a million years would i want to see him leave the club.

[gringo]

Player loyalty to club remains one of the things that sets our great game apart from many others. I certainly hope that this brave new world of free agency does not diminish this too much. Will be interesting to see how this latest game is played out...

Clearly, loyalty is Vanishing very quickly with the introduction of free agency. And to see the enthusiasm with which our supporters are embracing it by wanting to offload Nick Dal Santo....disturbing.

I mean, for crying out loud, Dal Santo means the saint. He is our most skillful player, probably ever...

Never in a million years would i want to see him leave the club.

The club is it's core of players that offer inspiration and leadership. melbourne suffers from a lack of it so does Port. Both unloaded their senior core to load up. With the wrong balance it can be crippling. Dal Santo and Hayes show the kids how to achieve their dream by example.

[Dave McNamara]

If it is a 2 year contact the second last year is actually the first year of a contract. I wouldnt expect Dal or anyone else to sign a contract over a year before the next contract finishes.

Another good point Pluggs. You're on a roll!

Yeah, would look like that if a club wants to 'maintain control over' a player who is approaching one of the F All trigger points, then that club will have to offer the player at least a three year deal.

... told ya it's a good thing I'm not a list manager...

[dragit]

Dragit - not sure why you are getting defensive? Perfectly reasonable thread, and good discussion as well.

Thanks Moods, think I am taking it a bit personally, but I feel like most people are slamming me over this thread, accusing me of being disloyal and disrespecting a 'great saints person'… Luke & Brendon were 'great saints people' too but things change and we have now lost both… Losing Nick to FA would be a monumental disaster compared to if we mutually agreed to part ways* this year and organised an equitable trade.



*If he wants a massive final contract that we can't fulfill, no grudges from me… I just wish we'd known BJ did earlier so that we could have probably got a top 5 pick.

[groupie1]

Dal has a few good years in him left, no deal.

Think you are missing the point here…

I want him to stay, we should re-sign him, no doubt in the world…

But if he won't stay at the highest price that we have set, then someone else is going to come along and take him, for free, just like BJ. If he won't stay on our top figure of whatever - $650,000, then lets take control of what we get for him instead of waiting till week 3 of trade week next year.

BJ was pretty awful, but Dal the next year on top, would be just disastrous…

Why wait to re-sign him? He would have a pretty good idea of what he could earn elsewhere, I'm sure most clubs would have sounded his manger out already.

Premise false. Goddard wasn't lost for free. Saints got pick 13 for him.
The whole pre-emptive strike idea is old and obvious.

The AFL free agency situation is different insofar as the AFL grants clubs draft picks for net free agency losses. Saints calculation is simple: risk of re-signing a player a year before they need to, and therefore based on less information about him than they'd have a year from now minus what they could get for him in a trade... vs what they predict they would receive for him - from the AFL - a year from now.

The notion that this forum has thought of all this, along with the 17 other clubs in the AFL, but not St Kilda, is laughable.

[groupie1]

Dragit - not sure why you are getting defensive? Perfectly reasonable thread, and good discussion as well.

Thanks Moods, think I am taking it a bit personally, but I feel like most people are slamming me over this thread, accusing me of being disloyal and disrespecting a 'great saints person'… Luke & Brendon were 'great saints people' too but things change and we have now lost both… Losing Nick to FA would be a monumental disaster compared to if we mutually agreed to part ways* this year and organised an equitable trade.



*If he wants a massive final contract that we can't fulfill, no grudges from me… I just wish we'd known BJ did earlier so that we could have probably got a top 5 pick.

When? When would we have got a top 5 pick for him? If my memory serves correctly, 2012 was the last in a 3-year contract. Meaning he signed in 2009 to play in 2010, 2011 and 2012 for his current contract. Am I correct?

Why would St Kilda have sought to trade BJ after 2010? Had we been that bearish on our 2011 prospects, it would have made sense to lose the likes of Baker, Jones, Kozzie, Roo, Fish etc as well. Was anybody that bearish on the Saints at the end of 2010?
Would St Kilda have gotten a top 5 pick after BJ's less-than-stellar 2011 year? I doubt it.

So your argument suggests either to trade him out before a year in which he may well have contributed to a premiership, or we'd have gotten a fanciful pick for him in a trade after his miserable year in 2011.

Personally, while its a shame he's gone, pick 13 plus the salary cap relief is probably about right, so I have no idea how you find that 'knowing earlier' he wanted to leave would have helped.

Secondly, and correct me again if I'm wrong, it appears to me that at stake was basically the 4th year. In my view, BJ was worth offering the security of a 4th year. In the Saints view, he wasn't. We'll know who was right after 2016, but the point here is that the Saints knew everything they needed to know all along and made a decision as to BJ's worth and refused to budge. (And that will be proven to been either right or wrong a few years from now.) There was nothing knowable earlier that would have changed these calculations. Even if STK had known exactly who would offer BJ what a year ago, their decision as to what it would be worth to keep him was made irrespective of the Dons' offer.

And a third point here is that Essendon and St Kilda were significantly far apart in terms of dollars paid. If someone is prepared to pay so far above what you are, you're not going to win the battle anyway, unless he REALLY wants to stay. (And if he really wanted to stay, negotiations would never have reached such a point with another party in the first place).

[groupie1]

Let's just say you are a recruiting manager for a top 4 club next year and you are thinking what do I need to do to give us an edge.
What are the most important players for a push at a flag.?
Well, that would be either a Key marking forward or a mid with elite disposal.
Unfortunately we don't have any low draft picks to try and get one.
If only you get one for free and just worry about paying them 800K to a million for a couple of years because to win a flag it would be worth it.
Oh well that is just pie in the sky thinking, thoughs sorts of players don't just grow on trees.

Oh wait a minute....


To be a loyal one club player is a great and wonderful thing for a player.
To have an extra couple of hundred thousand in your pocket each year plus another tilt at a flag might just assuage any guilt from not being a one club player.

Point well made

[dragit]

Let's just say you are a recruiting manager for a top 4 club next year and you are thinking what do I need to do to give us an edge.
What are the most important players for a push at a flag.?
Well, that would be either a Key marking forward or a mid with elite disposal.
Unfortunately we don't have any low draft picks to try and get one.
If only you get one for free and just worry about paying them 800K to a million for a couple of years because to win a flag it would be worth it.
Oh well that is just pie in the sky thinking, thoughs sorts of players don't just grow on trees.

Oh wait a minute....


To be a loyal one club player is a great and wonderful thing for a player.
To have an extra couple of hundred thousand in your pocket each year plus another tilt at a flag might just assuage any guilt from not being a one club player.

Point well made

Bravo… you've just spent half an hour dismissing the notion of this thread, then swung around and agreed… Dal could walk just like Goddard now that he is in the last year of his contract… big offers will come in and we will be relying on good will… with more year-long destabilising innuendo…

I don't have a time machine, but it's pretty widely accepted opinion that we would have got more than a pick 13 for Goddard if we'd had the power to trade him… If we had of sought his future plans a year earlier, we would have had that option to test his 'market worth' on the trade market.

The AFL free agency situation is different insofar as the AFL grants clubs draft picks for net free agency losses. Saints calculation is simple: risk of re-signing a player a year before they need to, and therefore based on less information about him than they'd have a year from now minus what they could get for him in a trade... vs what they predict they would receive for him - from the AFL - a year from now.

Call me crazy but, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if Dal Santo is prepared to leave us for a large final contract, then we could get more for him in a trade this year than what the AFL would compensate us with in a years time via FA… Probably a top 10 pick this year… likely a band 2 compo next year pick 20+ The other down side of that would be that again, we would probably refrain from participating in attracting a free agent through fear of diluting this compensation, which really has hindered us this year…

[matrix]

f****** useless
cant kick cant handball and wouldnt know what a hard ball get or clearance is

trade him

in fact
chuck chips off the list too

[dragit]

f****** useless
cant kick cant handball and wouldnt know what a hard ball get or clearance is

trade him

in fact
chuck chips off the list too

Good point…
We can trade in Roo, Dal, Lenny & Fish

for younger versions

Martin, Salopek, Stevens & Pederson

[bergholt]

The other down side of that would be that again, we would probably refrain from participating in attracting a free agent through fear of diluting this compensation, which really has hindered us this year…

Not sure that's true. Were we at all keen on the free agents who were available? I reckon the last thing our list needs at this point is 26-28 year olds, so I'm not sure the list managers would have paid much attention at all to the free agents even in the absence of Goddard compensation.

[dragit]

The other down side of that would be that again, we would probably refrain from participating in attracting a free agent through fear of diluting this compensation, which really has hindered us this year…

Not sure that's true. Were we at all keen on the free agents who were available? I reckon the last thing our list needs at this point is 26-28 year olds, so I'm not sure the list managers would have paid much attention at all to the free agents even in the absence of Goddard compensation.

That's a good point, though I'm sure we would have had a closer look at Chaplin & Rivers a bit closer if it didn't effect our compensation… We need to re-build, but decent 20-25 year old ready-made full backs are pretty much non-existent. So perhaps we could get by with a 27 year old for a few years while we develop one from scratch or wait for Ferguson to build up.
At any rate, it's definitely a hindrance not being able to seriously look at free agents while awaiting a compensation ruling.

[Chubby chequer]

There was a poll on the radio this week that said men from Korea had the smallest c**k size, please discuss

[dragit]

There was a poll on the radio this week that said men from Korea had the smallest c**k size, please discuss

Nice one, please delete this fool… again.

[bergsone]

There was a poll on the radio this week that said men from Korea had the smallest c**k size, please discuss

Nice one, please delete this fool… again.

Chubby should be chequered