Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Gershwin wrote:Brett Anderson (twitter):
"If No.13 gets to GWS via CARL in Gibbs/Marchbank deals, don't rule out STK shipping 23 & 36 for 13. Would be cunning dealing by Saints."
But don't we have to use 3 picks in the national draft? If we give 23 & 36 for 13 and if the dogs accept pick 50 for Stevens then we only have the on pick at 13 to use in the draft.
If we get pick 13 and then give up 50 for Stevens, then we still have 86 and 104 up our sleeve?
Maybe that is the hold up on Stevens. We are either offering them 86 or offering them 50 but asking for 61 back.
That means we can use 13, 61 and 86 in the draft.
Still leaves us with two first rounders next year as well.
Okay thanks. I didn't realise we had later picks.
No problem. I only knew about the 3 picks rule because you mentioned it - so I looked it up.
My next question is - if we use 104 on Holmes does that count as a 3rd draft pick or not?
I am speculating but my guess is that Richo is content getting Steele, Stevens and Brown and is happy to let Bains and Elshaugh do their thing from here on.
This means letting Elshaugh & the recruiting lads have a good crack at pick 23 and 36 in the draft and also letting Bains keep the two first rounders up his sleeve for next year.
This seems to be a good sensible balanced & long term approach to trading where everyone in the team is satisfied with their part in it.
Gershwin wrote:Brett Anderson (twitter):
"If No.13 gets to GWS via CARL in Gibbs/Marchbank deals, don't rule out STK shipping 23 & 36 for 13. Would be cunning dealing by Saints."
But don't we have to use 3 picks in the national draft? If we give 23 & 36 for 13 and if the dogs accept pick 50 for Stevens then we only have the on pick at 13 to use in the draft.
If we get pick 13 and then give up 50 for Stevens, then we still have 86 and 104 up our sleeve?
Maybe that is the hold up on Stevens. We are either offering them 86 or offering them 50 but asking for 61 back.
That means we can use 13, 61 and 86 in the draft.
Still leaves us with two first rounders next year as well.
Okay thanks. I didn't realise we had later picks.
No problem. I only knew about the 3 picks rule because you mentioned it - so I looked it up.
My next question is - if we use 104 on Holmes does that count as a 3rd draft pick or not?
Gershwin wrote:Brett Anderson (twitter):
"If No.13 gets to GWS via CARL in Gibbs/Marchbank deals, don't rule out STK shipping 23 & 36 for 13. Would be cunning dealing by Saints."
But don't we have to use 3 picks in the national draft? If we give 23 & 36 for 13 and if the dogs accept pick 50 for Stevens then we only have the on pick at 13 to use in the draft.
If we get pick 13 and then give up 50 for Stevens, then we still have 86 and 104 up our sleeve?
Maybe that is the hold up on Stevens. We are either offering them 86 or offering them 50 but asking for 61 back.
That means we can use 13, 61 and 86 in the draft.
Still leaves us with two first rounders next year as well.
Okay thanks. I didn't realise we had later picks.
No problem. I only knew about the 3 picks rule because you mentioned it - so I looked it up.
My next question is - if we use 104 on Holmes does that count as a 3rd draft pick or not?
Con Gorozidis wrote:I am speculating but my guess is that Richo is content getting Steele, Stevens and Brown and is happy to let Bains and Elshaugh do their thing from here on.
This means letting Elshaugh & the recruiting lads have a good crack at pick 23 and 36 in the draft and also letting Bains keep the two first rounders up his sleeve for next year.
This seems to be a good sensible balanced & long term approach to trading where everyone in the team is satisfied with their part in it.
Geelong looks set to trade another first round draft pick in deal that will finally see them secure Zach Tuohy from Carlton.
Geelong will give up their first round pick next year as well as other draft picks this year and get Tuohy and draft picks back from Carlton in the deal.
The deal if it goes through will mean Geelong will not have had a first round pick in three successive drafts.
The surprise move to be able to trade a future first round pick was given AFL approval after clubs - including Geelong - believed they were precluded from trading another future first round pick given they had last year traded out of this year's first round."
Geelong looks set to trade another first round draft pick in deal that will finally see them secure Zach Tuohy from Carlton.
Geelong will give up their first round pick next year as well as other draft picks this year and get Tuohy and draft picks back from Carlton in the deal.
The deal if it goes through will mean Geelong will not have had a first round pick in three successive drafts.
The surprise move to be able to trade a future first round pick was given AFL approval after clubs - including Geelong - believed they were precluded from trading another future first round pick given they had last year traded out of this year's first round."
I'd heard this being spoken about right at the start from trade week (can't remember who it was though), but essentially, it means clubs can do what they like with future picks but they will be forced to trade back into the first round to meet the "2x1st's every 4 years" rule.
Certainly wouldn't want the Saints finding themselves into that position - it really ties your hands with trading out a gun. If you look down the Cats list, and with their older guns and dud kids, there's not a whole lot of names that demand a 1st round pick in 2017??
bob__71 wrote:I get the feeling we may delist then re draft a couple of players with late picks.
We have to use one of the late picks to upgrade Holmes as he signed a new one year contract.
That would mean we need to make 2 actual picks in the draft, presently picks 23 and 36.
We need to get rid of pick 50 for Koby Stevens.
Yep, and then we are done for this year.
If we traded 23 and 36 for 13 or whatever. and we delisted eli or shents we could draft a kid with 13 eli or shents at 80 or whatever our next pick is and then holmes with whatever our last pick is. Delisted and picked back up is an actual pick.
dragit wrote:Sounds like Templeton will find a new home.
Where?
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
stonecold wrote:Hey Jax, see your online again, what do you know about big news about to come out of St.Kilda?????
That statement infers that you know about some big news coming ....... well ..do you .. ???????
or are you just posturing and waiting for jaxons to give some info so you can say .. stonecold told ya !!!!!
Question marks would tell you that it was a question, not a statement!!!!!
I'm sure Jax will PM me like he has before, with an answer, so don't involve yourself!!!!!!
'Cause StoneCold Said So'!!!!! We will be great again once Billy is back playing!!!!!
stonecold wrote:Hey Jax, see your online again, what do you know about big news about to come out of St.Kilda?????
That statement infers that you know about some big news coming ....... well ..do you .. ???????
or are you just posturing and waiting for jaxons to give some info so you can say .. stonecold told ya !!!!!
Question marks would tell you that it was a question, not a statement!!!!!
I'm sure Jax will PM me like he has before, with an answer, so don't involve yourself!!!!!!
540 posts in and I, for one, flick straight past any "contribution" from this self proclaimed oracle's font of useless "knowledge", which is predominately recalcitrant querying of the integrity, contributions and knowledge of others.
Why give him/her oxygen?
Just enjoy the fun of the speculation - because that is all this is (including because matters progress so nothing is necessarily the same now as it was an hour ago).
The OtherThommo wrote:Posted this @ E'dope, but one would think GWS would be factoring this in to their list thinking, should it go the wrong way (for them and Whitfield).
"The legal advice means the drugs body is briefed to consider its own independent move on the trio if the AFL does not lay charges.
The AFL has received legal advice and is deciding whether to lay charges of avoiding a performance-enhancing drugs test, which brings a mandatory minimum four-year penalty. The news that ASADA has sought legal advice separate to the AFL indicates it was preparing for the possibility of acting regardless of the AFL."
Lachie Whitfield will think twice before finding another girlfriend - 4 years and maybe all your footy career gone because an ex-girlfriend wanted revenge so dobbed you in.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
dragit wrote:Sounds like Templeton will find a new home.
Where?
I like my home near the beach in St Kilda.
I'm not looking for a new home but it does need a reno.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
stonecold wrote:Hey Jax, see your online again, what do you know about big news about to come out of St.Kilda?????
He is just checking to see that no-one has let the cat out of the bag pending our big deal.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
To the top wrote:540 posts in and I, for one, flick straight past any "contribution" from this self proclaimed oracle's font of useless "knowledge", which is predominately recalcitrant querying of the integrity, contributions and knowledge of others.
Why give him/her oxygen?
Just enjoy the fun of the speculation - because that is all this is (including because matters progress so nothing is necessarily the same now as it was an hour ago).
Flick!!!!!!
'Cause StoneCold Said So'!!!!! We will be great again once Billy is back playing!!!!!
To be fair, no-one seems to have predicted anything much.
A little heads up that Stevens would choose us over Dons is about it.
We already knew about Steele, and no-one tipped the pick swap, Nathan Brown was general knowledge as a possibility
