Josh Bruce to be traded?

[freely]

Young - and top-up - players develop best when they're brought into a fully functional successful team. Back when we getting success, we failed to bring in new players. Instead, we waited till we were unsuccessful. That's why we're playing catch up.

[Linton Lodger]

The more I think about it, this is a good move.

If King plays next year, and he will if fit, where does Bruce fit? King will be our target for long balls into the forward 50, its a no-brainer. So what would Bruce's role be? Is he going to keep out King or spend more time at Sandy which diminishes his trade value?

Wouldn't we still be short if McCartin is gone? We have been all season.

We go from one established forward and one short to hopefully one forward that can establish himself and one short!!!!

It looks like they intend to have Marshall & Ryder rotating through there.

[BarryGrogan]

Not recruiting established top-end talent over the last 10-12 years has brought us to this.
We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft.

Compare us to the Hawks with Wingard, Mitchell, O'Meara, Frawley, McEvoy, Scully, Burgoyne, etc.- they just keep bringing in more and more top end talent -. to see what makes them great.
Their recruiting has sustained their (and their coach's) success!

We are playing catch ups - and the sting in the tail now is, I'm not sure what trading out (or even signalling our preparedness to trade out) Bruce does to team morale - it might encourage others to leave?

??

Firstly, we've been throwing the kitchen sink at anyone that moves over the past 5 years.

WTF leads you to believe that "We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft."??

That's just a complete fabrication. Landing 'big fish' was even in the infamous 'Roadmap to success' FFS.

We have nothing to offer them, that other clubs can't. So they decline our desperate attempts.

With Ratten as coach, I'll be fascinated to see if anyone now agrees to play for us?



Secondly, why are Hawthorn 'great' and where does missing the 8 fit in with 'sustained successful'?


Thirdly, how would you propose we actually land a trade target if we can't offer anything in return?

[BarryGrogan]

Let’s get this right

What are we expecting for Bruce?

Pick 14... what suggests that a player at that pick will develop into a 40 goal power forward or a player of equivalent value. Should I list the last 20 pick 14s?

Bruce is an important structural player... he’s not a great player. He won’t kick 70 at the dogs next year... but I can Guarantee that Naughton and Schache play better with his presence... similar to how Gehrig and Roo played better with Hamill in the side when Roo was developing.

It is a illogical decision to let Bruce go
When you can build a forward line of

Parker - Membrey - Hind
Lonie - Bruce - King

With Gresham and Long rotating through the forward line.

I thunk it's illogical to think that that forward line will be vastly different to what it was this year, and the year before.

It's almost more illogical to think that even if it does improve drastically - it will count for s*** if our midfield gets slaughtered every week like they have for the past 6 years.


Making a below average forward line into a decent forward line, will do f*** all to improve us.

Hiwever turning a below average mifldfield into a good midfield will. That has to be the priority.

Trading Bruce will only be done if it's aimed at improving the midfield. And if we can improve it, they'd be mad to do it.

[BarryGrogan]

Personally I think it's madness to trade Bruce... a player that is an established forward at AFL level for a pick to hopefully get a player that could be an established player - it's an extremely high risk, low reward strategy IMO

Especially given thta we don't have an obvious replacement - can't bank on McCartin and King, even if he is the savior, is unlikely to come in at round one and better 50 goal a year forward from the get go.
Ryder can't play forward that well either... that's a folly of a move

For picks, you're supposed to trade out players that have the potential tag on them that aren't going to be what you want.

Surely the pick will be used for trading though.

[samoht]

Not recruiting established top-end talent over the last 10-12 years has brought us to this.
We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft.

Compare us to the Hawks with Wingard, Mitchell, O'Meara, Frawley, McEvoy, Scully, Burgoyne, etc.- they just keep bringing in more and more top end talent -. to see what makes them great.
Their recruiting has sustained their (and their coach's) success!

We are playing catch ups - and the sting in the tail now is, I'm not sure what trading out (or even signalling our preparedness to trade out) Bruce does to team morale - it might encourage others to leave?

??

Firstly, we've been throwing the kitchen sink at anyone that moves over the past 5 years.

WTF leads you to believe that "We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft."??

That's just a complete fabrication. Landing 'big fish' was even in the infamous 'Roadmap to success' FFS.

We have nothing to offer them, that other clubs can't. So they decline our desperate attempts.

With Ratten as coach, I'll be fascinated to see if anyone now agrees to play for us?



Secondly, why are Hawthorn 'great' and where does missing the 8 fit in with 'sustained successful'?


Thirdly, how would you propose we actually land a trade target if we can't offer anything in return?

Well Hawrthorn didn't have to throw the kitchen sink at anyone that moves and breathes, because they're all on the same page at Hawthorn - they have a plan that everyone has bought into, including the players.

They are a big picture club.

We on the other hand have players holding out for $900,000 per year that are not in the same league as the Hawk three-peat champs who accepted much lower than their worth as a trade-off for team success.
The Hawks had the available salary cap space to go after the top-end talent - even during their successful periods.

We need to develop and stick to a similar plan... that everyone - players, officials, admin, recruiting dept, coach, etc... commits to.

[BarryGrogan]

If other clubs want him then that is a sign that he has real value.

I definitely don't want him traded - yet I am happy for Steven, Acres, Dunstan and Ross to be traded - assuming we get quality users in.

I actually think he should be captain or at least in the leadership group.

The club wouldn't be trading him for a laugh. He's a very good player.

But if we can't get in 2 very good midfielders, we're wasting our time.

Given that the guys you mentioned above would have zero trade value, and given that we have a dearth of talls (comparatively speaking) then Bruce has to be put on the table if someone will give us what we need to get improve thr midfield.

[BarryGrogan]

Not recruiting established top-end talent over the last 10-12 years has brought us to this.
We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft.

Compare us to the Hawks with Wingard, Mitchell, O'Meara, Frawley, McEvoy, Scully, Burgoyne, etc.- they just keep bringing in more and more top end talent -. to see what makes them great.
Their recruiting has sustained their (and their coach's) success!

We are playing catch ups - and the sting in the tail now is, I'm not sure what trading out (or even signalling our preparedness to trade out) Bruce does to team morale - it might encourage others to leave?

??

Firstly, we've been throwing the kitchen sink at anyone that moves over the past 5 years.

WTF leads you to believe that "We have finally woken up to the fact that it's not only about the pre-season draft."??

That's just a complete fabrication. Landing 'big fish' was even in the infamous 'Roadmap to success' FFS.

We have nothing to offer them, that other clubs can't. So they decline our desperate attempts.

With Ratten as coach, I'll be fascinated to see if anyone now agrees to play for us?



Secondly, why are Hawthorn 'great' and where does missing the 8 fit in with 'sustained successful'?


Thirdly, how would you propose we actually land a trade target if we can't offer anything in return?

Well Hawrthorn didn't have to throw the kitchen sink at anyone that moves and breathes, because they're all on the same page at Hawthorn - they have a plan that everyone has bought into, including the players.

They are a big picture club.

We on the other hand have players holding out for $900,000 per year that are not in the same league as the Hawk three-peat champs who accepted much lower than their worth as a trade-off for team success.
The Hawks had the available salary cap space to go after the top-end talent - even during their successful periods.

We need to develop and stick to a similar plan... that everyone - players, officials, admin, recruiting dept, coach, etc... commits to.

Ok so you admit you were speaking s***?

[skeptic]

The more I think about it, this is a good move.

If King plays next year, and he will if fit, where does Bruce fit? King will be our target for long balls into the forward 50, its a no-brainer. So what would Bruce's role be? Is he going to keep out King or spend more time at Sandy which diminishes his trade value?

Wouldn't we still be short if McCartin is gone? We have been all season.

We go from one established forward and one short to hopefully one forward that can establish himself and one short!!!!

It looks like they intend to have Marshall & Ryder rotating through there.

Are you trying to start a war LL? I mentioned Marshal playing forward once about 6 months ago and another forumite had a meltdown. Still follows me around referencing the suggestion and how outrageous it was/is every time we talk about rucks and forwards.

On point though... surely we have to concede that even if he’s useful, all relevant indicators suggest that Ryder is not a good forward... and most forumties here... one in particular, are very against the idea of Marshall playing forward for any length of time.

Surely this move ultimately leads to us being considerably worse off next year then we are currently and possibly worse of for years if the middle of the road picks don’t turn into stars which seems unlikely

[samoht]

Barry Grogan wrote ...
Ok so you admit you were speaking s***?


Doesn't "three-peat" and "sustained success" fit into your logic?

The Hawks were able to retain their champs - who accepted lower salaries - and were able to bring in more top-end talent because they had the available salary cap to do that.

The Hawks are all on the same page - even their fans get along and respect each other.

[BarryGrogan]

Barry Grogan wrote ...
Ok so you admit you were speaking s***?


Doesn't "three-peat" and "sustained success" fit into your logic?

The Hawks were able to retain their champs - who accepted lower salaries - and were able to bring in more top-end talent because they had the available salary cap to do that.

The Hawks are all on the same page - even their fans get along and respect each other.

They're still getting big fish and can't make the 8.

They're not great, and not successful.


Secondly, they got their champs from thr Draft. They topped up around them from other clubs.

Precisely what we tried to do. Difference being that we didn't get any champs from compromised drafts and we didn't have a coach that most players would take unders to play for.

[mbogo]

Saints have not traded out one top ten player and got any benefit at all, as far as I can recall. This reeks of desperation and the potential loss is huge, both in terms of the playing group performance and morale, and supporters perceptions.

[samoht]

Precisely what we tried to do. Difference being that we didn't get any champs from compromised drafts and we didn't have a coach that most players would take unders to play for.

Our club hasn’t had faith in any of our coaches over the last 45 plus years and keeps changing them .. so the players don’t know which coach they would be committing to - if that coach will be around for long.
So do you blame our players for not wanting to take unders to play for any one of our musical-chair coaches.

The fish smells from the head.... but St Kilda always interprets that as meaning the head coach.

[Linton Lodger]

The more I think about it, this is a good move.

If King plays next year, and he will if fit, where does Bruce fit? King will be our target for long balls into the forward 50, its a no-brainer. So what would Bruce's role be? Is he going to keep out King or spend more time at Sandy which diminishes his trade value?

Wouldn't we still be short if McCartin is gone? We have been all season.

We go from one established forward and one short to hopefully one forward that can establish himself and one short!!!!

It looks like they intend to have Marshall & Ryder rotating through there.

Are you trying to start a war LL? I mentioned Marshal playing forward once about 6 months ago and another forumite had a meltdown. Still follows me around referencing the suggestion and how outrageous it was/is every time we talk about rucks and forwards.

On point though... surely we have to concede that even if he’s useful, all relevant indicators suggest that Ryder is not a good forward... and most forumties here... one in particular, are very against the idea of Marshall playing forward for any length of time.

Surely this move ultimately leads to us being considerably worse off next year then we are currently and possibly worse of for years if the middle of the road picks don’t turn into stars which seems unlikely

I agree that Marshall should be rucked alone, but it doesn't appear to be the opinion of the Club and I'm guessing that includes Ratten. Don't know about the assertion that Ryder cannot play forward.

[BarryGrogan]

Precisely what we tried to do. Difference being that we didn't get any champs from compromised drafts and we didn't have a coach that most players would take unders to play for.

Our club hasn’t had faith in any of our coaches over the last 45 plus years and keeps changing them .. so the players don’t know which coach they would be committing to - if that coach will be around for long.
So do you blame our players for not wanting to take unders to play for any one of our musical-chair coaches.

The fish smells from the head.... but St Kilda always interprets that as meaning the head coach.

?

Cho was at the club for 6 years. They even extended him.

That's just more total nonsense from you.

I didn't blame our players - I stated that Hawthorn have been able pay unders to land trade targets because they can offer them something we can't. Namely, playing under a great coach.

It's no coincidence Hill wants us cause of Ratten.

[saintsRrising]

Don't know about the assertion that Ryder cannot play forward.

He can play forward, but he would not be patch on Bruce. Ryder is more a ruck who rests forward rather than forward who can ruck as well.

Ryder is also not the player he was, and is also likely to rapidly decline from here.

If we were getting a younger Ryder I would be more interested, but we are not. So my only hope then is that by taking him that it allows us to gain an EXTRA really good mid in addition to Hill.

[skeptic]

Don't know about the assertion that Ryder cannot play forward.

He can play forward, but he would not be patch on Bruce. Ryder is more a ruck who rests forward rather than forward who can ruck as well.

Ryder is also not the player he was, and is also likely to rapidly decline from here.

If we were getting a younger Ryder I would be more interested, but we are not. So my only hope then is that by taking him that it allows us to gain an EXTRA really good mid in addition to Hill.

Agreed.

Ryder could line up at FF as could Longer... doesn’t mean he’s particularly good at it.

Even in his prime he was never a particularly good forward

[BarryGrogan]

Bruce for Schache and their second d/p

Why?

The only reason Bruce would be traded would be to get a quality midfielder in.

[CarlD]

Recruiting Ryder doesn’t seem to fit into what I thought were Ratten’s plans for improving the team. While it is clear that our ruck stocks need attention this doesn’t seem to value add to the team.

Does anyone know if Ryder has had a medical?

[samoht]

Cho was at the club for 6 years. They even extended him.

That's one coach! Hooray!

Cho's extension was as a result of "we can't keep turning over coaches at the rate we have in the past - we can't keep being that club" but he did have a couple of 50% w/l years, and turned things around for us in 2016. So his extension wasn't a hard decision to make.

Bottom line ...
The Hawks were all on the same page - players, admin, coaches, everyone. - they had available salary cap space to go after the top-end talent even during their successful periods, when they already had plenty of star players.

They were able to sustain their success on the back of that.

We on the other hand have a wide-receiver not willing to sign this year and holding out for $900,000 per annum - we are not on thre same page.

[BarryGrogan]

Cho was at the club for 6 years. They even extended him.

That's one coach! Hooray!

Cho's extension was as a result of "we can't keep turning over coaches at the rate we have in the past - we can't keep being that club" but he did have a couple of 50% w/l years, and turned things around for us in 2016. So his extension wasn't a hard decision to make.

So what's your point then? We churn coaches over - but we don't churn coaches over??

What are you even talking about??

GT coached for 5+ years.
Lyon coached for 5 seasons (including an extension).
Cho for 6 including an (extension).

We had to put up with 5 years of Summers, Finnis and Cho being on exactly the same page. The players were on the same page as no one left. Everyone was on the same f****** page for 5 years and it netted us sweet f*** all!

Bottom line ...
The Hawks were all on the same page - players, admin, coaches, everyone. - they had available salary cap space to go after the top-end talent even during their successful periods, when they already had plenty of star players.

They were able to sustain their success on the back of that.

We on the other hand have a wide-receiver not willing to sign this year and holding out for $900,000 per annum - we are not on thre same page.

WTF does that even mean?

They recruited Lake, Frawley, Burgoyne and Hale during their '3-peat' which cost them f*** all. Only Frawley was sought after by anyone else in terms of any sort of bidding match. Money wasn't the factor for any of them. They wanted to play in big games, big finals, under a freak coach and in a team that had drafted Hodge, Mitchell, Roughead, Franklin and Lewis as their core. These guys went there to play with these guys and win a flag.

The salary cap space had nothing to do with it. The only time the salary cap came into play, was when they couldn't afford Franklin and he walked out.

So once again, you're just speaking complete s***.


How do you propose we lure 'big fish' to the club?

Who have we ever lured to the club? In the past 40 years, who have we been able to lure?

The only time we've picked up sought after players was when Hamill, Gehrig and Lawrence came because they wanted to play under Blight. The only other one I can think of is Carlisle, who funnily enough chose us over Hawthorn.


Are you seriously delusional enough to think that everyone at the club 'being on the same page' is going suddenly make these guys choose us over other clubs that can offer:

• Blockbuster games

• 70k crowds most weeks

• MCG games every 2nd week

• Big bucks

• Gun coaches

• The go-home factor

We can't offer any of that. We never have been able to. We never will. That's why for the past 50 years we've never lured anyone to the club. It's not some conspiracy, or mystery. Who the f*** would want to play for St Kilda? It's not some failure happening on yearly basis that other clubs have unlocked the key to and we haven't.

[SaintPav]

Keep it nice Grogan.

Pull your head in.

[BarryGrogan]

Keep it nice Grogan.

Pull your head in.

That was the nice version.

[SaintPav]

Keep it nice Grogan.

Pull your head in.

That was the nice version.

I reckon your timing might be a bit poor.

[BarryGrogan]

Keep it nice Grogan.

Pull your head in.

That was the nice version.

I reckon your timing might be a bit poor.

?