Saints trade rating

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

[Joffa Burns]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

If you are happy with mediocrity it was certainly a good trade period.

If you are striving for immediate improvement and hope that the club can back up its statements of being aggressive in the trade period and netting free agents you’d be left a little flat.

One mans trash is another’s treasure Ted.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

It was agressive and done with intent and we did very well in the trade period considering our ladder position in '18. We have a stronger draft hand also.

Shiel didn't come off, but we went harder for him than I can ever remember with anyone. If thats not agressive then what is it? Probably with a couple of others too which we don't know about.

All in all, trading in and out players never guarantees top end success.

[ace]

Let's not waste 2019 pick No1 on another diabetic.
We only have 2019 pick 37 (our 3rd round) and 2019 pick 72 (West Coast 4th round) left after 2019 pick 1.

For every club that is in debt to the tune of 2nd and 4th round picks, there is a club in credit.

We are in debt 2019 pick 19 and 2019 pick 55 but have 2019 pick 72 as credit.
Damn AFL gave our children a credit card to play with.
In debt and the worst list in the competition to show for it.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Some diabetics are the best athletes in the world.

[chico2001]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

Rubbish once again from you. No, it wasn't a good trade period at all. Go back and read my post...that about nailed it. It is a wonder you didn't add …."end of story" at that post. Don't try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I think you yourself had about 9 posts in this thread giving it a B and one of your mates had 3/4 giving it a B, a half smart move but it didn't work. Do the maths properly.

Stacks of people are pissed off about the trading effort of the saints, it was insipid. One more decent player who would walk into the team would have gave it a C+

[Aussie Jonestown]

Z-

[ace]

Some diabetics are the best athletes in the world.

Mental gymnastics don't count.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Wrong again Chico. Most reviews have given our trade period a B and C. Thats the consensus that counts, not the ramblings of some negative nutter off Saintsational.net.

[kosifantutti]

Some interesting analysis here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-18/ ... d/10389904
It uses a system to rate each player and each pick and does some analysis on impact for 2019 and overall impact.
We are slightly ahead for 2019 but behind in long term results.
Interestingly, the three teams behind us for long term impact are Essendon, Hawthorn and Carlton

Indivdual trades:
Kent and Hannaberry both rated as short term wins and long term losses
The second round pick swap was rated as a small short term gain and a larger long term gain
The Hickey trade was a short term and long term loss.

[kosifantutti]

And more from the same source on the pick trade and what it says about Mav Welller.
http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31096

[suss]

I was chatting to a hawks fan the other day and bitching about our involvement in the trade period. His view was that the acquisition of Ratten was much more important than any player we could've got. He suggested Ratts was a big part in their three-peat and would improve us no-end. Interesting view. We have made loads of off-field changes so maybe that's where our significant improvement lies.

I reckon we've done okay player-wise. Hannebury improves us for little outlay. Similar with Kent. We just need to get Rankine with pick 4, and poach one of Kelly or Whitfield and 2020 is looking much better.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Agreed.

Our other biggest improvement will come from all the players we have drafted since the Billings, Acres draft to last years draft.

[The_Dud]

Wrong again Chico. Most reviews have given our trade period a B and C. Thats the consensus that counts, not the ramblings of some negative nutter off Saintsational.net.

I read in the paper today an article rating everyone’s trade period (winners, losers, status quo) and they had us in the ‘losers’ section.

[Joffa Burns]

It was agressive and done with intent and we did very well in the trade period considering our ladder position in '18. We have a stronger draft hand also.

Shiel didn't come off, but we went harder for him than I can ever remember with anyone. If thats not agressive then what is it? Probably with a couple of others too which we don't know about.

All in all, trading in and out players never guarantees top end success.

Trade ‘guru’ (as written in Herals Sun) Gary Buckenara rated our trade as C-

He rated Freo (the shambles) at A+ marginally ahead of the Lions.

Interesting two lower ladder based clubs rated highest from Buckenara on the back of luring A grade talent.

[stonecold]

I was chatting to a hawks fan the other day and bitching about our involvement in the trade period. His view was that the acquisition of Ratten was much more important than any player we could've got. He suggested Ratts was a big part in their three-peat and would improve us no-end. Interesting view. We have made loads of off-field changes so maybe that's where our significant improvement lies.

I reckon we've done okay player-wise. Hannebury improves us for little outlay. Similar with Kent. We just need to get Rankine with pick 4, and poach one of Kelly or Whitfield and 2020 is looking much better.

This, the only problem with getting Rankine is he will only stay for 2 years!!!!!

[Sainternist]

C- seems closer to the mark. We have gained two injury prone players at not much of a cost and a couple of second round picks, whilst offloading Hickey and keeping our pick 4. Not much to celebrate about in that.

[stonecold]

C- seems closer to the mark. We have gained two injury prone players at not much of a cost and a couple of second round picks, whilst offloading Hickey and keeping our pick 4. Not much to celebrate about in that.

C'mon Nisty, stay positive, we got rid of 'what's he's name', that's an 'A-Rating' right there!!!!!

[chico2001]

Wrong again Chico. Most reviews have given our trade period a B and C. Thats the consensus that counts, not the ramblings of some negative nutter off Saintsational.net.

C'mon now...….got you in the gutter with one post....too easy.

You still haven't provided your footballing credentials nor your university qualifications for the forum to dissect either....What's the problem there? Remember that you said the posters had a low IQ and hadn't played the game...….therefore were no match for you in any post.

[ss1986]

From the Age

ST KILDA
The Saints are struggling to attract talent and had to offer deals no other club contemplated for Dan Hannebery and Kent. If the Saints were in denial about their list this time last year, the penny has surely dropped now.
At a glance: Off the pace.

[ss1986]

And the Herald Sun....

Saints' Hannebery trade 'smells of desperation'

ST KILDA were the big trade losers this year after missing out on several stars and bringing in a banged up Dan Hannebery, recruiting expert GARY BUCKENARA writes

[ss1986]

Gary Buckenara doesn't know much about football though does he Teddybear?

[Sainter_Dad]

With the signing of Sam Alabakis I feel that we have only just about earned our B rating!

[takeaway]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

Rubbish once again from you. No, it wasn't a good trade period at all. Go back and read my post...that about nailed it. It is a wonder you didn't add …."end of story" at that post. Don't try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I think you yourself had about 9 posts in this thread giving it a B and one of your mates had 3/4 giving it a B, a half smart move but it didn't work. Do the maths properly.

Stacks of people are pissed off about the trading effort of the saints, it was insipid. One more decent player who would walk into the team would have gave it a C+

All a matter of opinion, not rubbish, Chico. When you said your previous post had nailed it, I had a look - as far as I'm concerned the your nail was crooked and didn't go in. Just your view, I expressed mine earlier in the thread.
I'm not sure what "do the maths correctly" means - you seem to refer to that sort of statement quite often.

[chico2001]

I was chatting to a hawks fan the other day and bitching about our involvement in the trade period. His view was that the acquisition of Ratten was much more important than any player we could've got. He suggested Ratts was a big part in their three-peat and would improve us no-end. Interesting view. We have made loads of off-field changes so maybe that's where our significant improvement lies.

I reckon we've done okay player-wise. Hannebury improves us for little outlay. Similar with Kent. We just need to get Rankine with pick 4, and poach one of Kelly or Whitfield and 2020 is looking much better.

This, the only problem with getting Rankine is he will only stay for 2 years!!!!!

Better off recruiting Victorians or Tasmanians. At least they are already home. The way it is going now, any player can walk out of a club and a contract. It is wrong but that is the way it is going. Be a real bugger to get a pick 4 who is good and he wants out after a couple of years.