Josh Bruce to be traded?

[takeaway]

Great question - well asked. Add Dunstan to that question too. In any case - I think I'd just keep running to the bench. Both of those two poor decision making ball butchers by foot would more than likely miss you anyway so, you might as well head off for a breather. So happy Ratten has called out this shite skill level (whereas the previous numpty aided and abetted it)

This is so ridiculous. What you're complaining about was explicitly Ratten's responsibility all year. And you're looking forward to him being in charge of the whole show!

Bollocks it is ridiculous. Ratten was in charge of forwards and transition. So - he was acutely aware of the crap his forwards had dished up to them week after week by the spuds charged with being the conduit from back to front.

Use your brain and think - in the same way Teague couldn't publicly denounce Bolton's rubbish negative game style that stifled skill and intuition (now acknowledged by Carlton as a point of contention between Bolton and his assistants); Ratten couldn't publicly bag the crap out of the perpetrators mid-season when he couldn't trade/delist them out so - he took it upon himself to out them immediately after the season and put everyone with shite skills on notice. Perfect! Our crap skills have been on show for years and yet, name me one time - in-season or post - when Cho uttered anything like Ratten did after the Sydney game?

By the way - it wasn't a complaint ... more a factual observation that I'd invite you to refute should you be able to muster an alternative set of facts.

Ah, selective memory. Richo referred to our sub par skills quite often, usually in the after the match presser, didn't actually name players, but neither did Ratts.
In fact, I recall on here Richo was criticised for always blaming the players and not taking any responsibility himself. The issue re butchering ball use has not gone away, (which I agree Richo must assume some responsibility for) and Ratts, as interim coach, has correctly called it out again, and in a decisive manner, which would impress the Saint's board, as an extension of his job interview.

You just need to google it, and you will come up with a number of pressers/interviews where Richo was not happy with the skill levels. Example below.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-29/ ... ills-again

[SydneySainter]

I think the idea of trading Bruce sucks big time, because I just can’t see us getting more than a late 2nd round pick at best for him.

I’m not saying he should be untouchable, but unless we get at least a first round pick or very good player for him, I don’t think his market value will improve our list.

Also, we don’t exactly have a surplus of talls who can easily replace him.

[realdeal]

Great question - well asked. Add Dunstan to that question too. In any case - I think I'd just keep running to the bench. Both of those two poor decision making ball butchers by foot would more than likely miss you anyway so, you might as well head off for a breather. So happy Ratten has called out this shite skill level (whereas the previous numpty aided and abetted it)

This is so ridiculous. What you're complaining about was explicitly Ratten's responsibility all year. And you're looking forward to him being in charge of the whole show!

Bollocks it is ridiculous. Ratten was in charge of forwards and transition. So - he was acutely aware of the crap his forwards had dished up to them week after week by the spuds charged with being the conduit from back to front.

Use your brain and think - in the same way Teague couldn't publicly denounce Bolton's rubbish negative game style that stifled skill and intuition (now acknowledged by Carlton as a point of contention between Bolton and his assistants); Ratten couldn't publicly bag the crap out of the perpetrators mid-season when he couldn't trade/delist them out so - he took it upon himself to out them immediately after the season and put everyone with shite skills on notice. Perfect! Our crap skills have been on show for years and yet, name me one time - in-season or post - when Cho uttered anything like Ratten did after the Sydney game?

By the way - it wasn't a complaint ... more a factual observation that I'd invite you to refute should you be able to muster an alternative set of facts.

Ah, selective memory. Richo referred to our sub par skills quite often, usually in the after the match presser, didn't actually name players, but neither did Ratts.
In fact, I recall on here Richo was criticised for always blaming the players and not taking any responsibility himself. The issue re butchering ball use has not gone away, (which I agree Richo must assume some responsibility for) and Ratts, as interim coach, has correctly called it out again, and in a decisive manner, which would impress the Saint's board, as an extension of his job interview.

You just need to google it, and you will come up with a number of pressers/interviews where Richo was not happy with the skill levels. Example below.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-29/ ... ills-again

Unfortunately Richo kept selecting the same players with bad skills, game after game, year after year.

It looks like Ratten might clear out at least a couple in his first offseason.. or they get a chance to improve with the knowledge that it won't be accepted next season..

[groupie1]

I'm hearin' this but is it not realistic enough to insist on a Steven-Kelly-Hill three-way and hold onto pick 5?
Freo win in that trade.

If you could go back a year in time then yes.

But here and now in 2020, NO.

At the end of 2020:
-Kelly is significantly worth more than Hill
-Hill is significantly worth more than Steven

A three way deal of these three clubs may happen. But that requires the Cats to put in extra and the Saints even more.

If it was say:
Kelly to Freo
Freo first, Steven. Saints 5 and some of Steven's salary paid by Saints to Cats
Hill and Constable to StKilda

...then I think that would be a great result for St Kilda and all parties reasonably happy

OK, so the obstacle here is Steven is significantly less valuable than Kelly and Hill ?

[groupie1]

A couple of objections to that scenario :
I think pick 5 is overs for Hill. If Saints can split that pick for a couple in the low teens and give up one of them, that would be a better balance IMO. Acres may also have something to do with that deal.

Taking my St Kilda fan hat off:
- I think a single pick in the teens will not get the Hill deal done
- Is a teens pick and Acres that much different to pick 5 alone?
- Well that would really depend on how Freo rate Acres.
- And it may also really depend on what Freo need to prise Kelly out of the Cats.

Also sorts of deals and sweeteners are possible.

ie
It could be:
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and a 2nd or 3rder back.
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and Tucker


Hill of all the players that are said to be available is the won that excites me the most and the one who I believe can make the most difference to our team both next year and the next few years
(as to why, well read this https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/mitch- ... 2174461cef )

If we have to pay a little overs for Hill I am comfortable with that as:
- We need QUALITY. We have ample role and depth players at the club. What we need is more midfield class and a player like Hill on the outside will make up for the deficiencies of Steele, Dunstan and Ross. His pace will get him there to support them and to provide an out for their extractions.
- We are not the most attractive date at the dance.

Yes agree Hill is right for us and it’s exciting that he does, if reports are correct, want to come. Also agree that its more likely the Hill deal will be a mix of players and picks. It’s all speculation, who knows wtf will happen, but Hill plus a second rounder for a low teens pick and Acres would be ok with me. Splitting our first rounder into 2 picks gives us a bit more flexibility, especially if we have players to trade as well.

I see what you mean about what Freo need to get Kelly. They might actually need a top five pick and they might want it from us.

That article by Mitch Robinson is really good. Very interesting. Am going to the Lions / Tigers final this weekend and really looking forward to seeing the two midfields go at it.

How about this:

Saints get Hill
Freo get Kelly
Cats get Steven and Carlisle

(we keep pick 5)

[barneyboyz]

With Dermie and now Roughie to help him it would be stupid to trage Bruce out
He is capable of being all over the ground and with their help, an even better player

If B Hill (not Benny) comes, I reckon all our forwards will kick 10 - 20 extra goals each next year

[saintsRrising]

OK, so the obstacle here is Steven is significantly less valuable than Kelly and Hill ?

Indeed.

[Scollop]

Great question - well asked. Add Dunstan to that question too. In any case - I think I'd just keep running to the bench. Both of those two poor decision making ball butchers by foot would more than likely miss you anyway so, you might as well head off for a breather. So happy Ratten has called out this shite skill level (whereas the previous numpty aided and abetted it)

This is so ridiculous. What you're complaining about was explicitly Ratten's responsibility all year. And you're looking forward to him being in charge of the whole show!

Bollocks it is ridiculous. Ratten was in charge of forwards and transition. So - he was acutely aware of the crap his forwards had dished up to them week after week by the spuds charged with being the conduit from back to front.

Use your brain and think - in the same way Teague couldn't publicly denounce Bolton's rubbish negative game style that stifled skill and intuition (now acknowledged by Carlton as a point of contention between Bolton and his assistants); Ratten couldn't publicly bag the crap out of the perpetrators mid-season when he couldn't trade/delist them out so - he took it upon himself to out them immediately after the season and put everyone with shite skills on notice. Perfect! Our crap skills have been on show for years and yet, name me one time - in-season or post - when Cho uttered anything like Ratten did after the Sydney game?

By the way - it wasn't a complaint ... more a factual observation that I'd invite you to refute should you be able to muster an alternative set of facts.

Ah, selective memory. Richo referred to our sub par skills quite often, usually in the after the match presser, didn't actually name players, but neither did Ratts.
In fact, I recall on here Richo was criticised for always blaming the players and not taking any responsibility himself. The issue re butchering ball use has not gone away, (which I agree Richo must assume some responsibility for) and Ratts, as interim coach, has correctly called it out again, and in a decisive manner, which would impress the Saint's board, as an extension of his job interview.

You just need to google it, and you will come up with a number of pressers/interviews where Richo was not happy with the skill levels. Example below.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-29/ ... ills-again

Perhaps Richo should have googled the word 'leadership' and the word 'coach' when he was appointed in 2013

[saintsRrising]

Taking my St Kilda fan hat off:
- I think a single pick in the teens will not get the Hill deal done
- Is a teens pick and Acres that much different to pick 5 alone?
- Well that would really depend on how Freo rate Acres.
- And it may also really depend on what Freo need to prise Kelly out of the Cats.

Also sorts of deals and sweeteners are possible.

ie
It could be:
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and a 2nd or 3rder back.
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and Tucker

How about this:

Saints get Hill
Freo get Kelly
Cats get Steven and Carlisle

(we keep pick 5)

Yes something like that is possible as well.

Essentially in whatever deal Kelly is worth more than Hill, and Steven is worth considerably less.

Carlisle is worth more than Steven, but most likely less than Hill.


With us chasing Keath, Carlisle to be gone seems quite likely now. We just have to hope that there are at least 2 clubs who will want him to drive the price up somewhat.

[Saint 58]

Taking my St Kilda fan hat off:
- I think a single pick in the teens will not get the Hill deal done
- Is a teens pick and Acres that much different to pick 5 alone?
- Well that would really depend on how Freo rate Acres.
- And it may also really depend on what Freo need to prise Kelly out of the Cats.

Also sorts of deals and sweeteners are possible.

ie
It could be:
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and a 2nd or 3rder back.
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and Tucker

How about this:

Saints get Hill
Freo get Kelly
Cats get Steven and Carlisle

(we keep pick 5)

I like it but add Freo’s 3rd round pick for us
Carlisle in a Cats jumper ...

[bigred]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

[st.byron]

Taking my St Kilda fan hat off:
- I think a single pick in the teens will not get the Hill deal done
- Is a teens pick and Acres that much different to pick 5 alone?
- Well that would really depend on how Freo rate Acres.
- And it may also really depend on what Freo need to prise Kelly out of the Cats.

Also sorts of deals and sweeteners are possible.

ie
It could be:
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and a 2nd or 3rder back.
- 5 and Acres gets us a Hill and Tucker

How about this:

Saints get Hill
Freo get Kelly
Cats get Steven and Carlisle

(we keep pick 5)

Yes something like that is possible as well.

Essentially in whatever deal Kelly is worth more than Hill, and Steven is worth considerably less.

Carlisle is worth more than Steven, but most likely less than Hill.


With us chasing Keath, Carlisle to be gone seems quite likely now. We just have to hope that there are at least 2 clubs who will want him to drive the price up somewhat.

If Geelong were to take Steven and Carlisle for Kelly they’d be mad. Both towards the back end of their careers - both look past their best - for one of the comp’s elite mids.

This article from today’s West Australian says that Geelong want picks not players in return for Kelly.
https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/geelon ... 881310922z

Freo hold six and 24 before trading begins. If we could say swap our pick 5 for a couple in the low teens and then package one of them up with a player like Acres to get Hill and maybe a third rounder in return, then Freo would have 6, 12ish and 24 as place to start trading for Kelly.

[st.byron]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

I think you’re over rating the value of Carlisle and Steven.

[Ghost Like]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

I think you’re over rating the value of Carlisle and Steven.

Yes, was thinking the same. Great attitude to have going into a trade though, if we don't believe their value then how will another club.

Geelong may feel good initially but would be all downhill for them from 2021.

[saintsRrising]

If Geelong were to take Steven and Carlisle for Kelly they’d be mad. Both towards the back end of their careers - both look past their best - for one of the comp’s elite mids.

This article from today’s West Australian says that Geelong want picks not players in return for Kelly.
https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/geelon ... 881310922z

Freo hold six and 24 before trading begins. If we could say swap our pick 5 for a couple in the low teens and then package one of them up with a player like Acres to get Hill and maybe a third rounder in return, then Freo would have 6, 12ish and 24 as place to start trading for Kelly.

Yes agree, and as I mentioned that Kelly is worth more than Hill and so Cats would need something extra to Calrlisle and Hill.

I doubt Carlisle is headed to them though and was purely a hypothetical.


Cats have been topping up for a while. And so while I could see them grabbing Steven for unders I think this trade/draft period will not have then overly going down the oldies path.

3 picks in the top 30 as mentioned yesterday all on youth would allow them to address their aging profile, and the Cats have long been a club who think long-term as well as short-term.

[barneyboyz]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

I think you’re over rating the value of Carlisle and Steven.

Yes, was thinking the same. Great attitude to have going into a trade though, if we don't believe their value then how will another club.

Geelong may feel good initially but would be all downhill for them from 2021.

They might pay that for a flag though, especially if they miss out this year

[Ghost Like]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

I think you’re over rating the value of Carlisle and Steven.

Yes, was thinking the same. Great attitude to have going into a trade though, if we don't believe their value then how will another club.

Geelong may feel good initially but would be all downhill for them from 2021.

They might pay that for a flag though, especially if they miss out this year

I hope they are thinking that's all they need. Personally, I don't a key back with a questionable attitude & a mid, returning from a season battling demons, with questionable disposal efficiency is what they will be found short of.

The two players on St Kilda's list that would complete Geelong are Marshall & Membrey.

[The Fireman]

the keepers.
Marshall
Membrey
Hunter
Hanna

negotiate with the rest

[barneyboyz]

A couple of points here.

#1. We need to be f****** ruthless with the list. Every player is a commodity. They damn well are in this industry. No warm and fuzzies. We need to be more like the NFL and be absolutely cutthroat with the list. Enough of the jobs for the boys panel we have had for the past five years.

#2. We don't want to make other clubs stronger. Hence, giving Geelong both Carlisle and Steven is f****** abhorrent and we would need to cut their list, or draft future to the bone to make that happen.

I think you’re over rating the value of Carlisle and Steven.

Yes, was thinking the same. Great attitude to have going into a trade though, if we don't believe their value then how will another club.

Geelong may feel good initially but would be all downhill for them from 2021.

They might pay that for a flag though, especially if they miss out this year

I hope they are thinking that's all they need. Personally, I don't a key back with a questionable attitude & a mid, returning from a season battling demons, with questionable disposal efficiency is what they will be found short of.

The two players on St Kilda's list that would complete Geelong are Marshall & Membrey.

Agree on those two. Kelly is the PITA for them. Not much they can do if he wants out, but could base their next 10 years around him

[Saintmatt]

Great question - well asked. Add Dunstan to that question too. In any case - I think I'd just keep running to the bench. Both of those two poor decision making ball butchers by foot would more than likely miss you anyway so, you might as well head off for a breather. So happy Ratten has called out this shite skill level (whereas the previous numpty aided and abetted it)

This is so ridiculous. What you're complaining about was explicitly Ratten's responsibility all year. And you're looking forward to him being in charge of the whole show!

Bollocks it is ridiculous. Ratten was in charge of forwards and transition. So - he was acutely aware of the crap his forwards had dished up to them week after week by the spuds charged with being the conduit from back to front.

Use your brain and think - in the same way Teague couldn't publicly denounce Bolton's rubbish negative game style that stifled skill and intuition (now acknowledged by Carlton as a point of contention between Bolton and his assistants); Ratten couldn't publicly bag the crap out of the perpetrators mid-season when he couldn't trade/delist them out so - he took it upon himself to out them immediately after the season and put everyone with shite skills on notice. Perfect! Our crap skills have been on show for years and yet, name me one time - in-season or post - when Cho uttered anything like Ratten did after the Sydney game?

By the way - it wasn't a complaint ... more a factual observation that I'd invite you to refute should you be able to muster an alternative set of facts.

Ah, selective memory. Richo referred to our sub par skills quite often, usually in the after the match presser, didn't actually name players, but neither did Ratts.
In fact, I recall on here Richo was criticised for always blaming the players and not taking any responsibility himself. The issue re butchering ball use has not gone away, (which I agree Richo must assume some responsibility for) and Ratts, as interim coach, has correctly called it out again, and in a decisive manner, which would impress the Saint's board, as an extension of his job interview.

You just need to google it, and you will come up with a number of pressers/interviews where Richo was not happy with the skill levels. Example below.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-29/ ... ills-again

Unfortunately Richo kept selecting the same players with bad skills, game after game, year after year.

It looks like Ratten might clear out at least a couple in his first offseason.. or they get a chance to improve with the knowledge that it won't be accepted next season..

@takeaway - that's my point. I'm not having selective memory issues - Richo had 6 years to do something about the atrocious skill level of our players. And yet he persisted with (a) a game style that didn't mitigate the crap skills and (b) largely kept the same personnel. FWIW - I never criticised him for blaming the players - it's not his job to execute the plan. My criticism of Richo was that he largely kept the same failing game plan with the same failing players. He had at least 5 off-seasons to trade out/delist the ball butchers

[To the top]

I understand the desperation given St Kilda's history, with only the one (1) Premiership and that in 1966, so 53 years ago.

From my relatively recent knowledge of St Kilda, dating back 30 odd years but the Club known to me from 1959 and me at primary school, there are a raft of reasons why St Kilda has languished the majority of these reasons internal and some down to the Cartel that runs the AFL.

The Club SHOULD have folded apart from Lindsay Fox and his influence at ANZ Banking Group Limited.

And so on to the Social Club and Football Club, where the money was and where the focus was.

That desperation is evident on this Forum - and, no doubt, among the wider supporter base (and, indeed, with the Administration and Football Department - including the players - no doubt)

So we continue to see change at the Administrative levels that change also impacting on the Football Department.

As supporters (or even Members) we are obviously not privy to Board deliberations

and the results of those deliberations.

We only know the "Corporate speak", which is a practiced art in deflection

What we do see on here (if reflective of the wider support?) is the result of the frustration(s) playing out including the naming of the Coach and some players, and where there is a group mentality denigrating the Coach and (certain only) players.

Firstly, of course, supporters are not aware of the instruction the players perform to or, for that matter, the patterns the team is coached to act in accordance with.

That said, and with a history with successful Clubs both on the footy field and in the land of the flanneled fools in the midday sun (when you could perform both - so I would like to think only a generation ago1) I would like to think that I retain an ability to identify talent - and equally to identify deficiencies, the relevance diminished because of the preceding paragraph obviously, but you still have to win the ball, use it when you have it and otherwise put pressure on when you don't have it.

To cut to the chase we see the likes of Carlisle, Steven, Acres and Bruce vilified as liabilities.

And, before that, Hickey.

But we fete Minchington and Geary and Longer and Pierce and Brown and Hind and Parker along with others I view have deficiencies and significant deficiencies.

The consideration is chopping and changing players - to what outcome?

Where is the significantly better player from all this chopping and changing that is the subject of opinion on here?

Keath better than Carlisle? A Second's player at Geelong better than Steven? Who better than Bruce?

Yes, Hill including because of demographic (and noting the state Fremantle is in, including looking at Kelly, they would, to me at least, want a high Draft Pick, so Pick 5/6 for Hill. If Hill wants out to St Kilda that should do it and should be the offer. Full stop)

But who else is a premier player across the competition which is the AFL and being mentioned on here as coming to St Kilda?

My experience tells me that you build sides, year in and year out regardless.

And you do that building by identifying your "bottom 6", turning them and therefore improving the side.

And you start from your defence, which is why I am positive with Coffield and Clark

IF we get Hill for 5/6, introduce King and Bytel and they perform as we all trust they will, then that is 3 of the 6.

Plus we have generic improvement across what is generally a young side.

This demands focus and patience.

Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We are in times of the Draft, Free Agency and Contracts, plus a Salary Cap.

The days of scouring the Nation in search of precocious schoolboy talent and signing them up - so going into Round 1 with the likes of Ditterich, to give a St Kilda bias to it, are times from the past.

You take your turn in the Draft these days (well basically unless the Cartel dictates otherwise and when they do it is for their advantage).

So, I repeat, focus and patience.

NOT the rubbish which pollutes this Forum

[Ghost Like]

the keepers.
Marshall
Membrey
Hunter
Hanna

negotiate with the rest

Totally agree, I wasn't saying put those two up. Simply saying it is those two that Geelong are missing. If they want to give us fair trade for Steven or Carlisle, then deal.

[Ghost Like]

Oh my TTT, that was a lot to basically say...

Don't criticise the Board, the Coach, the Players. Stay patient with what you don't understand. Believe that pick 5 is fair for Hill & trust that our Top 16 is OK and our turn will come once the missing bottom 3 is filled.

[Scollop]

Some of the rubbish gets recycled. Some portrays as harmless scraps.
And some others pretend to to be passing on inside info and harmless scraps but they have a toxic agenda
E.g. The thread about Bruce midyear claiming he was overrated and only B grade...was it just a coincidence or was it selfish influences who don't have the St Kilda FC's interest at heart?

[To the top]

To me there is a continuing problem with the demographics of the List (and not only the age demographic, the rucking problem and the key last line defender problem along with "tall" forward resources, noting that McCartin and King remain on our List).

The demographic problem to me revolves around these groupings of players:-

Savage, Geary. Webster, White, Paton. McKenzie, Rice (noting we have Coffield and Clark)

Ross, Dunstan, Steele, Hannebery (squeezing Acres out of mid-field time so collateral damage to boot)

Lonie, Newnes ("defensive" forward), Long, Kent, Parker, Sinclair, Hind, Young, Langlands.

To me, our bottom 6 we look to rotate out and improve on come from the names above.

NOT those being mentioned on this Forum.

We obviously require a "big body" mid presence, but complimentary to balance performance.