McEvoy and Stanley.

[Drake Huggins]

As if Friday wasn't bad enough, we then had to watch two of our former players show us a thing or two on Easter Monday. Apart from the standard of the match, which was so far ahead of ours it was in the next century, McEvoy showed us why a club like Hawthorn wanted him in the first place. Rhys, although not as successful as McEvoy has been, still played well enough to show us he would be ideal in a role we have no serious candidates for. That is the mobile second ruckman, who can play forward and kick goals.

McEvoy has won two flags and was runner up in their B and F last year. I hate it when people on here say he isn't that good. He was being touted as a future captain when he was at our club. He is far superior to any of the ruckmen on our list in every way. He has vice like hands, is a beautiful kick for goal and gets his share of the ball around the ground. The knocks on his ruck work must stem from ignorance or envy, or both. Let's face it, by letting him go we screwed up again.

Rhys has always been the teaser. From winning the GF sprint to a number of promising games, I couldn't wait for him to mature and realise his potential. That he didn't at our club is a shame. Apparently a lack of worth ethic was the problem. Even Roo couldn't inspire him, apparently. What an indictment on our club that we lost two players of this calibre. While I admit Rhys is no world beater, he has slotted in nicely at Geelong as a more than useful swingman, filling in as a forward when not providing a chop out to Smith. How we could use him now.

Before anyone starts howling me down, who would you rather have on the list right now, McEvoy and Stanley, or Billy and Tom, who boast 7 possessions and 2 senior games between them this year? I'm sick of seeing our players go to other clubs and do well. It's been happening since the Stewart/Barrott fiasco. I'd drag out all the premiership players and greats we've handed to others, but I think at this time it might push me over the edge. Save it for another post, or would someone take the responsibility and list them in this thread for me? Cheers in advance.

[CURLY]

Stanley was rubbish so McEvoy played well no surprise there.

[hayes66]

Agree re McEvoy.
Stanley is a tease and can be handy at times but I don’t believe trading him was a mistake. Two of the worst trades in my opinion were McEvoy and Lynch.
Ben is a great club man and good Ruck men. A lot of people bemoan the fact that he was pick 9 in the draft. Yes, that may have been too high but gee, it wasn’t a bust.
Tom hurts even more as he was a Saints fan all his life. He can play and pick 13 was correct. He is a much better player than people give him credit for.
Whilst Ross Lyon did not rate either player particularly high, especially Lynch who he thought was a dud, Ross had left the club when both where traded.
It was the Pelchen, Bain’s and Elshaug regime that made that decision. They judged both players incorrectly. Why trade out two good young players, as they were at the time, and bring in two reasonable young players who aren’t any better?
I think in Ben’s case it was Savage and Dunstan and for Lynch it was Newnes.
In my opinion the new regime wanted picks to justify their position so everything that happened before they came must of been no good. At least they saw the potential in Jack Steven and didn’t trade him.

[ace]

What you forget is McEvoy has trained at Hawthorn.

He could not run when at St Kilda - he waddled like a duck.
He could not ruck when at St Kilda so he would ignore the ball and try to wrestle his opponent.

Hawthorn has taken a lump of lard and turned it into a football.

[Mr Magic]

Agree re McEvoy.
Stanley is a tease and can be handy at times but I don’t believe trading him was a mistake. Two of the worst trades in my opinion were McEvoy and Lynch.
Ben is a great club man and good Ruck men. A lot of people bemoan the fact that he was pick 9 in the draft. Yes, that may have been too high but gee, it wasn’t a bust.
Tom hurts even more as he was a Saints fan all his life. He can play and pick 13 was correct. He is a much better player than people give him credit for.
Whilst Ross Lyon did not rate either player particularly high, especially Lynch who he thought was a dud, Ross had left the club when both where traded.
It was the Pelchen, Bain’s and Elshaug regime that made that decision. They judged both players incorrectly. Why trade out two good young players, as they were at the time, and bring in two reasonable young players who aren’t any better?
I think in Ben’s case it was Savage and Dunstan and for Lynch it was Newnes.
In my opinion the new regime wanted picks to justify their position so everything that happened before they came must of been no good. At least they saw the potential in Jack Steven and didn’t trade him.

I don't think we traded Tom Lynch out.
IIRC he had already decided to leave us before Lyon quit and we couldn't talk him out of it?

[hayes66]

I think you’ll find, if you do some research, that the McEvoy can’t run statement is factually incorrect. He broke 10 minutes for the 3 km time trail whilst at the Saints. Ben is an endurance beast. He is slow, yes but run, no.
I think everyone at the club forgot ruckman are slow maturers and also hard to find.
What would GWS give for a ruckman at the moment?

[SaintPav]

Agree re McEvoy.
Stanley is a tease and can be handy at times but I don’t believe trading him was a mistake. Two of the worst trades in my opinion were McEvoy and Lynch.
Ben is a great club man and good Ruck men. A lot of people bemoan the fact that he was pick 9 in the draft. Yes, that may have been too high but gee, it wasn’t a bust.
Tom hurts even more as he was a Saints fan all his life. He can play and pick 13 was correct. He is a much better player than people give him credit for.
Whilst Ross Lyon did not rate either player particularly high, especially Lynch who he thought was a dud, Ross had left the club when both where traded.
It was the Pelchen, Bain’s and Elshaug regime that made that decision. They judged both players incorrectly. Why trade out two good young players, as they were at the time, and bring in two reasonable young players who aren’t any better?
I think in Ben’s case it was Savage and Dunstan and for Lynch it was Newnes.
In my opinion the new regime wanted picks to justify their position so everything that happened before they came must of been no good. At least they saw the potential in Jack Steven and didn’t trade him.

I don't think we traded Tom Lynch out.
IIRC he had already decided to leave us before Lyon quit and we couldn't talk him out of it?

Correct or that’s how it was reported anyway

[skeptic]

I think this is the most over criticised and under substantiated story doing the rounds here at the moment

The trades were fine and neither really has come back to haunt beyond the fact that we have developed our own good ruck since then... if Tom Hickey had maintained his form of 2 years ago we'd all still be laughing about it. This knowledge based on results thing is rubbish though.

McEvoy is still the same player now as to when he left - average in the centre, prone to getting cut up even but a beast around the ground. Was a contested marking beast even with us and always great at dropping back... he's at most a marginally better player but in Hawthon's peak they had another seasoned ruck to help out and his poor ruck was covered by their mids

And Stanley... he's practically the exact same player as when he left: injured most of the time, highly erratic and occasionally putting in a good game. Hickey's best is better than both of them... too bad we haven't seen it for 2 years

[bigcarl]

I always rated McEvoy very highly and didn’t agree with the decision to trade him. Just a smart footballer.

It came as no surprise when he pantsed Stanley on Monday.

[stonecold]

I think this is the most over criticised and under substantiated story doing the rounds here at the moment

The trades were fine and neither really has come back to haunt beyond the fact that we have developed our own good ruck since then... if Tom Hickey had maintained his form of 2 years ago we'd all still be laughing about it. This knowledge based on results thing is rubbish though.

McEvoy is still the same player now as to when he left - average in the centre, prone to getting cut up even but a beast around the ground. Was a contested marking beast even with us and always great at dropping back... he's at most a marginally better player but in Hawthon's peak they had another seasoned ruck to help out and his poor ruck was covered by their mids

And Stanley... he's practically the exact same player as when he left: injured most of the time, highly erratic and occasionally putting in a good game. Hickey's best is better than both of them... too bad we haven't seen it for 2 years

Good post!!!!!

My questions are these: Look at what we got for both players?????
Still good trades!!!!!
Were either going to be in their prime by the time we challenged next?????
No, as stated by the Club at the time!!!!!

What has hurt us?????

Tom Hickey had what has proved to be a fluke season in 2016 and not been able to back it up at any stage since!!!!! (No third man up has really hurt Tom)

It's proven that Billy (more than most), needs a full preseason to be able to perform like he did in 2017!!!!! Despite what some posters think, he provides a genuine physical presence, just ask the current mid fielders!!!!!

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place at the minute, however, would we still do the trades we did (without the benefit of hindsight)?????
Yes!!!!!

Hindsight, the non thinking posters early Christmas!!!!!

Too many no-sayers here, after the event experts!!!!!

[saynta]

As if Friday wasn't bad enough, we then had to watch two of our former players show us a thing or two on Easter Monday. Apart from the standard of the match, which was so far ahead of ours it was in the next century, McEvoy showed us why a club like Hawthorn wanted him in the first place. Rhys, although not as successful as McEvoy has been, still played well enough to show us he would be ideal in a role we have no serious candidates for. That is the mobile second ruckman, who can play forward and kick goals.

McEvoy has won two flags and was runner up in their B and F last year. I hate it when people on here say he isn't that good. He was being touted as a future captain when he was at our club. He is far superior to any of the ruckmen on our list in every way. He has vice like hands, is a beautiful kick for goal and gets his share of the ball around the ground. The knocks on his ruck work must stem from ignorance or envy, or both. Let's face it, by letting him go we screwed up again.

Rhys has always been the teaser. From winning the GF sprint to a number of promising games, I couldn't wait for him to mature and realise his potential. That he didn't at our club is a shame. Apparently a lack of worth ethic was the problem. Even Roo couldn't inspire him, apparently. What an indictment on our club that we lost two players of this calibre. While I admit Rhys is no world beater, he has slotted in nicely at Geelong as a more than useful swingman, filling in as a forward when not providing a chop out to Smith. How we could use him now.

Before anyone starts howling me down, who would you rather have on the list right now, McEvoy and Stanley, or Billy and Tom, who boast 7 possessions and 2 senior games between them this year? I'm sick of seeing our players go to other clubs and do well. It's been happening since the Stewart/Barrott fiasco. I'd drag out all the premiership players and greats we've handed to others, but I think at this time it might push me over the edge. Save it for another post, or would someone take the responsibility and list them in this thread for me? Cheers in advance.

We were conned DH. We actually thought the pelican was working for us in our best interests as we were paying his salary when in actual fact he was still working in the best interests of his former employer.

Well there is no other explanation afaics.

[hayes66]

Re McEvoy. Whether you agree with the trade or not, I think, gets down to whether you rate McEvoy.
I rate him so, I think the trade was a mistake. If you don’t rate him then of course you’ll agree with the trade. As for Lynch, he did not want to go. He Saints hawked him around. They did not rate him. It was the old regime that recruited Lynch so once they went Tom was doomed.

[samuraisaint]

I think this is the most over criticised and under substantiated story doing the rounds here at the moment

The trades were fine and neither really has come back to haunt beyond the fact that we have developed our own good ruck since then... if Tom Hickey had maintained his form of 2 years ago we'd all still be laughing about it. This knowledge based on results thing is rubbish though.

McEvoy is still the same player now as to when he left - average in the centre, prone to getting cut up even but a beast around the ground. Was a contested marking beast even with us and always great at dropping back... he's at most a marginally better player but in Hawthon's peak they had another seasoned ruck to help out and his poor ruck was covered by their mids

And Stanley... he's practically the exact same player as when he left: injured most of the time, highly erratic and occasionally putting in a good game. Hickey's best is better than both of them... too bad we haven't seen it for 2 years

Spot On. I'm with you on this.

[saint64]

I'm sick of seeing our players go to other clubs and do well. It's been happening since the Stewart/Barrott fiasco. I'd drag out all the premiership players and greats we've handed to others, but I think at this time it might push me over the edge. Save it for another post, or would someone take the responsibility and list them in this thread for me? Cheers in advance.

We did that a couple of months ago in the post Best Team of Saints Players Who Have Gone Elsewhere

[saint-stu]

I liked McEvoy and was really disappointed when we traded him. He struggled a bit with winning the taps but was fantastic around the ground. Lots of strong intercept marks.

He didn't walk either if I remember correctly, we asked him if we could trade him. What is he going to say?

[saint-stu]

I liked McEvoy and was really disappointed when we traded him. He struggled a bit with winning the taps but was fantastic around the ground. Lots of strong intercept marks.

He didn't walk either if I remember correctly, we asked him if we could trade him. What is he going to say?

[mad saint guy]

I rate McEvoy but have no issue with the trade. We effectively landed Dunstan, Acres and Savage for McEvoy and Hartung. McEvoy had an excellent 2011 season with us but stagnated in the following two seasons before being traded and took another 3 years before he started genuinely playing good footy again. He has always been outstanding around the ground but has improved his ruck work significantly which is why he's playing so well now.

It was really strange to me that we traded Stanley considering his versatility and the fact that he was about to approach his physical prime. Now with 100 games under his belt at age 27 he is going to start playing his best footy. He may still be inconsistent but there aren't too many better forward/rucks going around. His forward play is strong enough that he could play 60% of the game there and 20% providing strong support in the ruck.

[Moods]

Personally I thought both wre good trades at the time. What this tells me is not the trading/drafting errors but what we have been banging on about for awhile this week. It's the DEVELOPMENT of our players.
McEvoy looked slow and cumbersome whilst at the Saints. What was worse though was that it appeared that he couldn't jump. He barely won a tap out! At the hawks it's like a different player. He's trimmed down now as has much more lean muscle on him. This makes him more agile (not necessarily faster) and he now appears to be able to leap for the ball. He has developed into a fine ruckman. Anyone who say different needs to talk to a Hawks supporter. They love him.

Lynch is another one who looked a complete dud at the Saints. In fact I could barely find one redeeming feature of him when he was at the Saints. He looked slow, thought slow and was a shallow kick. I've read at other times people saying he had potential. I saw none of that and in actual fact thought at the time that he looked one of the worst 1st round picks I'd ever seen. Coupled with all this was rumours that he was ahead of himself and wasn't putting the work in on the track.

Now we find a player at the Crows who is probably the best 3rd tall in the comp. He works hard up and down the ground. Is a beautiful kick, has a smart brain and is a crucial player for the Crows. How can two players become that good after being so average (esp Lynch) really begs a question of our development program over the years.

Stanley has never fulfilled his potential, even at the Cats. Having said that as a 2nd ruckman he would be far better than any option we currently have at the Saints. He can actually compete in the ruck . Is capable of playing very well. I would still be frustrated with him if he was at the Saints, only because I wouldn't be aware how deplorable the other options are. Bruce or Gilbert??? I reckon we can mark that trade as fair enough in hindsight, we just haven't be able to develop our own 2nd ruck.

[desertsaint]

exactly right moods - our biggest problem is development. has been since we sacked GT. The worst thing about failing in this area is it ruins young players careers. Why would a still young player like Kelly want to come here?

[Drake Huggins]

Spot on Moods. Lynch in particular. He was recommended by Loewey who had a huge opinion of him as a junior. Same with Nathan Buckley who coached him in U/18 squads. I saw him a few times in the U/18s and I was impressed. What I saw once he got to the saints left me speechless. At first, I thought he must be carrying an injury, but his get up and go seemed to have got up and gone. I know RL didn't rate him at all. No wonder he left. Now he's a star of the competition in a genuine premiership contender.

I think Ben was always going to be a very good player and that he was developing as expected. Whatever Hawthorn has done with him has accelerated the process. One of the best ruckmen in the competition now. Even the inconsistent Stanley at least plays a crucial role at Geelong and occasionally shows flashes of his undoubted talent. With Rhys, I was told it was a lack of dedication that was his downfall, with even cajoling from Rooey failing to hit the mark. Again, Geelong seems to have the answer for him.

Watching Paddy flounder, I wonder if he's a touch of Lynch MK II. Mismanaged, not well coached and drained of confidence. I've sometimes wondered if Paddy ends up at Geelong, who were very interested before last year's disastrous season, he becomes a very good player. If that was to happen I'd do a Terry Wallace and fair dinkum spew up!

[Spinner]

As if Friday wasn't bad enough, we then had to watch two of our former players show us a thing or two on Easter Monday. Apart from the standard of the match, which was so far ahead of ours it was in the next century, McEvoy showed us why a club like Hawthorn wanted him in the first place. Rhys, although not as successful as McEvoy has been, still played well enough to show us he would be ideal in a role we have no serious candidates for. That is the mobile second ruckman, who can play forward and kick goals.

McEvoy has won two flags and was runner up in their B and F last year. I hate it when people on here say he isn't that good. He was being touted as a future captain when he was at our club. He is far superior to any of the ruckmen on our list in every way. He has vice like hands, is a beautiful kick for goal and gets his share of the ball around the ground. The knocks on his ruck work must stem from ignorance or envy, or both. Let's face it, by letting him go we screwed up again.

Rhys has always been the teaser. From winning the GF sprint to a number of promising games, I couldn't wait for him to mature and realise his potential. That he didn't at our club is a shame. Apparently a lack of worth ethic was the problem. Even Roo couldn't inspire him, apparently. What an indictment on our club that we lost two players of this calibre. While I admit Rhys is no world beater, he has slotted in nicely at Geelong as a more than useful swingman, filling in as a forward when not providing a chop out to Smith. How we could use him now.

Before anyone starts howling me down, who would you rather have on the list right now, McEvoy and Stanley, or Billy and Tom, who boast 7 possessions and 2 senior games between them this year? I'm sick of seeing our players go to other clubs and do well. It's been happening since the Stewart/Barrott fiasco. I'd drag out all the premiership players and greats we've handed to others, but I think at this time it might push me over the edge. Save it for another post, or would someone take the responsibility and list them in this thread for me? Cheers in advance.

Stanley has been terrible in Geelong - count yourself lucky to actually watch him playing seniors on Monday. McEvoy was always a good player for us, albeit not as strong in the ruck.

McEvoy was traded to fast forward the re-build. The logic of it cannot be argued with... no point having a dominant ruckman and a poor midfield/team. Unfortunately the draft picks are yet to fully produce. Would not have one of Acres or Dunstan (possible both), along with Savage. Invested in picks 18 and 19 from the Hawks.

Savage has been so so, geez there was a poor 5 minutes in the last quarter against Roos where there was about 3 clanger kicks in 2 minutes. Acres coming along, and I have faith in Dunstan still.

[Selhurst Saint]

Can someone please remind me what we actually received in the Lynch, McEvoy, Stanley, Goddard, and Dal Santo trades. As much as the trades hurt supporters I could understand that the drafting of young talent would lead to a strong emerging young list. I have a feeling we have been left no better off due to poor drafting and poor development.

[Spinner]

Can someone please remind me what we actually received in the Lynch, McEvoy, Stanley, Goddard, and Dal Santo trades. As much as the trades hurt supporters I could understand that the drafting of young talent would lead to a strong emerging young list. I have a feeling we have been left no better off due to poor drafting and poor development.

Off top of head...


Goddard ---> Free Agent, 1st round draft pick aligned to our pick 12... so pick 13 (on traded for Hickey with 25 coming back (used on White/Wright)

Dal Santo ---> Free Agent, 2nd round draft pick aligned to our pick 23... so pick 24 (on traded for Longer)

Lynch -----> pick 37 odd used on Newnes

Stanley ----> pick 21 odd used on H Goddard

McEvoy ----> pick 18, pick 19 savage with pick 24 going the other way

[Drake Huggins]

Good points, Spinner. I wasn't lamenting the decisions to trade. Risk is part of that. While we haven't done all that well out of those trades, they're hardly a disaster . My beef is that clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong, without the bonanza of draft picks we've had in the past six years, seem to be light years ahead in recruiting and development. They regularly find hidden gems in the draft and seem to effectively recycle other club's GOP's and turn them into decent contributors.

[Selhurst Saint]

Something that dawned on me watching Geelong play on Monday was that every year they seem to add a mature aged rookie to their list. These guys are taken with low draft picks and are essentially ready to play immediately. Outstanding recruiting and/or development.

Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Sam Menagola, Mark Blicavs, and Podsiadly immediately come to mind.