Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
St Ick wrote:Let's be honest, unless you are Jaxons, Tony74 or are similarly in the know - we are all just speculating.
To discuss picking up Dangerfield where we otherwise could've gotten pick 2 isn't madness. I'm not entirely on the Danger wagon, but in an open market - he is probably worth pick 2... Whilst next years mids are said to be quality - I'd be comfortable giving up pick 2 for a known gun, like Danger, Treloar or Shiel.
Now onto this years draft, rumour has it that Dogs were going for Patton - he did his knee and they turned their attention to Boyd. We were quietly confident of landing Boyd next year with an offer around 300-400 less than what he eventually went for (or so I hear).
The money the Dogs paid Boyd, and Swans paid Buddy blew us out of the water. I believe the club when they say there were three contenders for pick one. So if it was a close three horse race, obviously you would pick the one who plays in a position that would cost the most to trade in.
ITs smart list management to not pay those crazy amounts and therefore went cold on the idea of trading in a big name forward like Cameron. The club has said we are keen on a free agent in 2015, I am not sure who.
The stories of how hard Paddy worked since the end of the season, and the question marks on Petraccas attitude only helps sway the argument in Paddys favour. The Boyd contract may have spooked us, but if Petracca really was a once in a generation player then I doubt someone who has known him personally like Richo does would allow him to slip through his fingers.
Im pretty sure Jaxons and Tony74 know pretty much the same as you or me. There is no way an employee would take the risk on this site of spreading stuff. My guess is both are very good friends with a saints employee. Anyway I think people have got this FA thing wrong. Of course Dangerfield is worth pick 2. He worth probably pick one as well but unlike Trelour or Shiel you can get him for nothing however if we lost Jack we may very well get pick 2 so yep get Trelour or Shiel for that pick but don't lose it for Dangerfield when we don't have too. He is free if he wants to leave and also wants to come to our club. Again however if we did lose Jack and get Dangerfield we are just doing a swap. A better swap of course but only a swap. If we wait a year after losing jack though we could with huge luck get Pick one plus a Trelour or Shiel and the year after get a FA in dangerfields class.
Understand the thinking but who are the uncontracted free agents after the 2016 season that are in Dangerfields class?
No idea but we cant get Dangerfield anyway. We wont even make a play for him. lets get realistic on who we can and cant get.
Darth Vader wrote:Whether we lose Jack or not, there's no rush to get an expensive FA in yet. We'll be crap for a few more years so use the early draft picks over the next few years on the best mids (especially if we get pick 2 for Jack) then chase an FA when we're closer to contending.
I completely agree DV. Keep drafting the best mids this year and next (and probably the year after) and then go after FA's. If Jack leaves and we get pick 2 grab another elite mid from the draft. There is no use grabbing a FA this year because we will not be in a position to challenge(for a flag) for at least another 4 years.
Darth Vader wrote:Whether we lose Jack or not, there's no rush to get an expensive FA in yet. We'll be crap for a few more years so use the early draft picks over the next few years on the best mids (especially if we get pick 2 for Jack) then chase an FA when we're closer to contending.
I completely agree DV. Keep drafting the best mids this year and next (and probably the year after) and then go after FA's. If Jack leaves and we get pick 2 grab another elite mid from the draft. There is no use grabbing a FA this year because we will not be in a position to challenge(for a flag) for at least another 4 years.
Agreed, and when we do, we should be targetting the Jaeger O'Meara and Josh Kelly type of players.
Dangerfield and Sloane are just that 3 or 4 years further down the track than would be appropriate for our target age bracket IMO.
I think that the club stated once that end 2016 (for 2017) was when they would be looking at bringing in free agents but don't quote me on that. They may even look at a second round of free agents in 2017 for 2018 given the finals by 2018 plan.
From memory - the restricted free agents are after 7 years and the unrestricted free agents are after 9 years.
As most players are 18 in their first year of AFL, then that means that most restricted free agents are minimum 25ish with 5 to 7 good years left and most unrestricted free agents are minimum 27 with 3 to 5 good years left. Note this assumes that they are uncontracted at the time of becoming a free agent and more and more clubs are locking their stars away beyond those dates.
Looking at 2016 (for 2017) and 2017 (for 2018) the draft years by my calculations that will create our pool of options would be at best:
2016 (for 2017): restricted 2009 draft (first played 2010) and 2008 draft (first played 2009) and unrestricted 2007 draft (first played 2008) and 2006 draft (first played 2007)
Looking at these years and ages to compliment our young guns that will be 50 games + it is more likely we would target the type of players we need to build towards the 2018-2020 era so they will need 5 good seasons left and thus an restricted free agent would be more appealing and more likely to last through to 2020 and even a few years after that.
The downside is restricted free agents cost more.
One strategy may be to go for 2 quality restricted free agents at $500,000 each rather than 1 superstar at $1m.
Then 2017 (for 2018) the pool of players obviously will come from the draft years a year on but as a team we will be moving upwards and knocking on the door more and could look at both restricted and unrestricted free agents.
Our playing stocks should be filled with players with 50-100 gamers and hopefully one of Armo or Jack S or both plus the free agents - who hopefully have after a year have started to be in total sync with the team.
I guess the club will chase the players that can fill a role for 2018- 2022 and beyond and again I would rather 2 quality players rather than 1 superstar.
Then each year after we will need to take in free agency a player to suit our needs like Hawthorn and North are doing.
While we are in this part of the build - we should always reserve our first draft pick for best available, consider our second draft pick for possible trade and use our third draft pick for talented bottom age players (like Jack Steven was) whilst subsequent draft picks should be used to upgrade worthy rookies.
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
bergholt wrote:Please set me right. Why is that completely wrong?
Well if we chase him we need to pay for him by either losing the compensation pick...
We don't pay when we chase him. We pay when we get him.
plugger66 wrote:These are the end results.
1 Lose jack and get Dangerfield next season and finish last ( a lot guess work there by the way)
Pick one and Dangerfield and no jack
2 Lose jack and forget Dangerfield and any FA next season
Picks one and two and no jack
3 Lose Jack next season and chase a FW the following season
Picks one and two and no jack and the FA the following season when close to actually going up the ladder.
Or 4: Lose Jack, chase Dangerfield and don't get him
Picks one and two and no Jack
So that's exactly the same as your option 2. I still can't see the downside from chasing him especially if, as you suggest, we're not likely to get him.
bergholt wrote:Please set me right. Why is that completely wrong?
Well if we chase him we need to pay for him by either losing the compensation pick...
We don't pay when we chase him. We pay when we get him.
plugger66 wrote:These are the end results.
1 Lose jack and get Dangerfield next season and finish last ( a lot guess work there by the way)
Pick one and Dangerfield and no jack
2 Lose jack and forget Dangerfield and any FA next season
Picks one and two and no jack
3 Lose Jack next season and chase a FW the following season
Picks one and two and no jack and the FA the following season when close to actually going up the ladder.
Or 4: Lose Jack, chase Dangerfield and don't get him
Picks one and two and no Jack
So that's exactly the same as your option 2. I still can't see the downside from chasing him especially if, as you suggest, we're not likely to get him.
No it isn't because we are wasting energy on a player we wont get. We should be using pick on a player like Trelour and wasting energy on hopefully getting him and then the following year we get a FA which will be closer to our finals window. Eeven forgetting Jack going I think next year is a year to early for FA. I still think we may finish bottom next year and bottom 2 the year after. Even that could be to early but we cant wait forever.
I have stated this before but Armo and Jack are just about the only two players we have managed to get anything out from from the Lyon era.
Jack was fantastic in 2013, I think hampered by injury last year, and we have developed him for years and years.
We just cant keep getting rid of experienced midfielders. We have lost quality mids in Dal, bj, and had Lenny retire. if we lose Jack sure we MAY get pick #2 (depending on what he is paid) and MAY get a quality mid (or an injury bust like Trengrove).
We went right down the bottom of the barrel to rebuild. Are we going to be in a constant state of rebuild while we just let our developed players leave. We need to keep Jack.
As for Dangerfield, why would he want to come to a team a minimum 3 seasons (2017) away from finals let alone a flag?
As for our drafting. I have been told we were keen on Petracca until the Bulldogs paid a million a year for a nine game potential forward. Our thoughts swung to McCartin who is no slouch.
I was on the Petracca bandwagon and was disappointed with the McCartin choice, however we lucked out with Goddard as the slider.
Potentially we have a 10 year spine. If we do lose Jack (hope not) and get a compo pick like No.2, we may go for Parish and Mathesion, apparently two exceptional midfielders.
While I dont like the constant rebuild, I wouldn't be upset to have picks 1 and 2 if the reports about these two are correct.
So we have got some real pain in the next two to three years regardless of what happens with Steven and any potential FA's
We must hang onto Jack. As BM pointed out, we've lost too much midfield class over the past couple of years, with Joey not far from the end as well. I think some have forgotten how good Jack was in 2013. His 2014 was hampered by preseason injuries and he rarely showed his absolute best. A fully fit, in form Jack, will be a massive asset to the team. As a RFA, we are in the box seat to retain him. Let's just hope no one offers him a ridiculous amount.
I don't blame Jack for testing the market, but if he chooses to stay next year, we will be able to stitch him up for the medium to long term. We desperately need him to stay.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
Bunk_Moreland wrote:I have stated this before but Armo and Jack are just about the only two players we have managed to get anything out from from the Lyon era.
Jack was fantastic in 2013, I think hampered by injury last year, and we have developed him for years and years.
We just cant keep getting rid of experienced midfielders. We have lost quality mids in Dal, bj, and had Lenny retire. if we lose Jack sure we MAY get pick #2 (depending on what he is paid) and MAY get a quality mid (or an injury bust like Trengrove).
We went right down the bottom of the barrel to rebuild. Are we going to be in a constant state of rebuild while we just let our developed players leave. We need to keep Jack.
As for Dangerfield, why would he want to come to a team a minimum 3 seasons (2017) away from finals let alone a flag?
As for our drafting. I have been told we were keen on Petracca until the Bulldogs paid a million a year for a nine game potential forward. Our thoughts swung to McCartin who is no slouch.
I was on the Petracca bandwagon and was disappointed with the McCartin choice, however we lucked out with Goddard as the slider.
Potentially we have a 10 year spine. If we do lose Jack (hope not) and get a compo pick like No.2, we may go for Parish and Mathesion, apparently two exceptional midfielders.
While I dont like the constant rebuild, I wouldn't be upset to have picks 1 and 2 if the reports about these two are correct.
So we have got some real pain in the next two to three years regardless of what happens with Steven and any potential FA's
Enjoying your posts much to much lately which could be a bad sign for you.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Apologies P66. We get off my meds for a while, but will wait until next week. Cant have you getting on a holiday
Its more than a holiday if something happens. Banned for life under the rules. Seems a little harsh considering the way some others peak to each other but I suppose its up to me to show some brains for change.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Apologies P66. We get off my meds for a while, but will wait until next week. Cant have you getting on a holiday
Its more than a holiday if something happens. Banned for life under the rules. Seems a little harsh considering the way some others peak to each other but I suppose its up to me to show some brains for change.
Who is this?
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Apologies P66. We get off my meds for a while, but will wait until next week. Cant have you getting on a holiday
Its more than a holiday if something happens. Banned for life under the rules. Seems a little harsh considering the way some others peak to each other but I suppose its up to me to show some brains for change.
White Winmar wrote:We must hang onto Jack. As BM pointed out, we've lost too much midfield class over the past couple of years, with Joey not far from the end as well. I think some have forgotten how good Jack was in 2013. His 2014 was hampered by preseason injuries and he rarely showed his absolute best. A fully fit, in form Jack, will be a massive asset to the team. As a RFA, we are in the box seat to retain him. Let's just hope no one offers him a ridiculous amount.
I don't blame Jack for testing the market, but if he chooses to stay next year, we will be able to stitch him up for the medium to long term. We desperately need him to stay.
And what about Armo. In some ways he's got the same temptations as Jack. Armo may not play finals for another 5 years at St Kilda. Often players are approached just to sow some seeds of doubt and get them thinking. If Richmond or North come at him next year does he start to think "He's a chance to go to a team that will be shooting for a flag while I'm at my best". These are all the problems we've got now because we really didn't plan the future well at all.
Too right, Bluthy. Armo is desperately required, but if he has the chance to leave as an UFA in order to play finals, we may struggle to hold him. Gee the pressure is right on for us to show improvement in 2015, so that we can offer hope to the likes of Armo and Jack.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
plugger66 wrote:If we lose Steven to FA we wont be chasing Dangerfield...
Why not? I'd swap Steven for Dangerfield in a heartbeat. They're exactly the same age but Dangerfield has been AA twice to Steven's zero times. It's a no-brainer. Though I'm not sure why he'd come to us unless we paid him $1m+ a year.
Geelong are said to have put in a massive offer and are in the box seat because the family comes from down the coast.
My tip is Dangerfield to Richmond. Just signed Cotchin to a long term deal, Martin has another year and Rance only player coming out of contract in near future of value , and with the increase in TV rights over the next few years passing through to salary cap Richmond is set to make a huge offer.
I think Steven will stay and regarding free agent chase look for us to chase guys from either GWS or GC looking to leave , return home or perhaps get more chances. May not be BIG name signings but 1st round picks ala Port recruiting getting first rounder collections over a number of drafts and then nab a guy like Polec.
Why do people even want Dangerfield?
He's not in our "window" and will be on the wrong side by the time he is.
If anything, I'd be after R.Sloane, otherwise continue to get first round draft picks on 18 yr olds, my thoughts.
I'd only target a free agent closer to the window, or if its for a young player in the 18-23 yr old bracket, otherwise, forgettt aboutttt it.
Hyperthetical question, Jack Steven walks from the club, gets 750000 a year and says doesn't want to stay at St Kilda, Saints choose not to match for a player who doesn't want to be there.
Pick two guaranteed.
Or we choose to get Dangerfield and forego pick 2.
Or do we get pick two and see who we can pry out of GWSs list?
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
desertsaint wrote:Don't want Dangerfield, and unless he has his best ever season, don't think we'd get a first round pick for jack.
Well if he was given a 4 year contract and 600k a year we would, That's the thing with FA, its not their true trade worth its what they get paid by the other side. I reckon clubs would pay that on 2013 form. No hope on 2014 form.
lefty wrote:Why do people even want Dangerfield?
He's not in our "window" and will be on the wrong side by the time he is.
Dangerfield was born a week after Steven, so either they're both in our "window" or neither of them are. He'd slot into our list here:
Armitage: June 88
Geary: June 88
Delaney: June 89
Saad: Oct 89
Holmes: Oct 89
Steven: Mar 90 Dangerfield: Apr 90
Simpkin: Aug 90
Shenton: Sep 90
Lee: Jan 91
Savage: Jan 91
Hickey: Mar 91
Roberton: Jun 91
If we're not picking him up because of age then there are a bunch of guys already on our list who should go.
St Ick wrote:Hyperthetical question, Jack Steven walks from the club, gets 750000 a year and says doesn't want to stay at St Kilda, Saints choose not to match for a player who doesn't want to be there.
Pick two guaranteed.
Or we choose to get Dangerfield and forego pick 2.
Or do we get pick two and see who we can pry out of GWSs list?
Jack Steven is a great player but $750 000 per year is full forward money. If Geelong or a challenging team have that money to spend on a mid they are cheating the cap. He's probably worth $500 000 to $600 000 as a tempter deal but he's elite at the Saints.... probably is the 4th or 5th best mid at a top team. We will have money to match most clubs that come knocking and still think it's unlikely we will let him walk. His manager will be trying to test the market and hope on the back of FA he ends up a lot richer but I don't think he seems unhappy with where he is at.
gringo wrote: probably is the 4th or 5th best mid at a top team..
He'd be the second best mid at the reigning premiers, behind Mitchell only and perhaps Lewis after his out-of-the-box season. At their peak I believe Steven is better.
With Mitchell likely to slow down this season, likewise Burgoyne, come the end of 2015 I would confidently say Steven would walk into Hawthorns side as their best mid. He certainly would be their best option right now under 25..
Think we overrate the individual quality of the top teams and underrate the spread and evenness.. Hawthorn have 7 or 8 players who play through the midfield who are 8/10 quality. That's the spread that's needed along side one or two stars.
