Bruce Requests trade to Dogs

[HarryM]

FYI. Josh was not one of the more popular members of the playing group. I’m sorry I’m not going to further expand on that but just trying to give you some reason for his movement.

Oh come on you know you're just bursting to expand, all the inner secrets, but yeah best to just keep the gang guessing I think.

[terry smith rules]

so now we get a pile on of rubbish comments

"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"

yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence

[evertonfc]

Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.

You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.

I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.

I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.

I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.

[Rocket]

Heard the same. Josh is all about Josh the word I’ve heard.....

[DownAtTheJunction]

+1@saintkid
Billings is soft

Overrated

He sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.

Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.

Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.

Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.

[jays]

we wont miss him imo trade him while he still worth someting

[saintkid]

+1@saintkid
Billings is soft

Overrated

He sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.

Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.

Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.

Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.

We all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.

[The Fireman]

so now we get a pile on of rubbish comments

"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"

yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence

if Tony gives out too much he may have to hide in an embassy

PS I will refrain from calling your posts rubbish...although I'd like to

[takeaway]

+1@saintkid
Billings is soft

Overrated

He sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.

Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.

Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.

Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.

We all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.

Sheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.

[DownAtTheJunction]

+1@saintkid
Billings is soft

Overrated

He sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.

Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.

Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.

Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.

We all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.

Sheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.

You're right - Hudson would have been a good get

[mad saint guy]

I'm very disappointed to read this. However the reality is that he's contracted and he's worth far more than two mediocre picks. Pick 12 for Bruce and a future 3rd rounder I would accept. Or Bruce for Toby McLean and one of the Dogs' third rounders.

[saintsRrising]

Or Bruce for Toby McLean and one of the Dogs' third rounders.

Please no.

McClean is not really any better than what we have. What would be the point, as that is just going shuffle one average mid in our best 22 for another?

Anyone we gain needs to be a clear upgrade or addresses a need that we do not adequately cover.

[SaintPav]

But hey thats St.Kilda .

I don't think a single person that is making these decisions has been at St Kilda for more than a year or two have they?

If anything, it's very 'un-St Kilda'. These are not St Kilda decisions. These are decisions made by non-St Kilda people.

Maybe that's not a bad thing.

Lol.

What ”St Kilda people”? They're not run like community clubs anymore; they are a commercial enterprises. I think you're about 15 years behind.

That's exactly my point.

Exactly!

[SaintPav]

Bruce is contracted so we hold all the cards.

Your pick 12 thanks and no less so pay up Shitscray aka Dullbogs or ya can f*** off.

[Linton Lodger]

The Bulldogs certainly need him more than we do, so do Collingwood.

Its sad to see him go, however even if McCartin never plays again, we have enough tall forwards. We need outside speed and skill.

Then there's Max King.

[Linton Lodger]

Bruce is contracted so we hold all the cards.

Your pick 12 thanks and no less so pay up Shitscray aka Dullbogs or ya can f*** off.

I think we can wrangle a first rounder for him.

[SaintPav]

Bruce is contracted so we hold all the cards.

Your pick 12 thanks and no less so pay up Shitscray aka Dullbogs or ya can f*** off.

I think we can wrangle a first rounder for him.

I'm loving your tough talk LL.

[skeptic]

Read somewhere online that we’re after Jenkins now

[SaintPav]

Read somewhere online that we’re after Jenkins now

They must have read my trade idea.

[To the top]

Well Peter Hudson did come to St Kilda.

With Ken Sheldon.

Then, off the back of an under performing season, the Board of the time did not know where responsibility lay, so both were gone.

Is John Beverage still advising the Club in any way?

Recruitment is what it is these days.

Initially you line up in the (compromised as always seems to be the case in some form or other and which continues) Draft, basically selecting from an Under 18 Competition (and sometimes, but rarely, those players have show-cased at League level in SA and WA, noting those Leagues have been savaged by the AFL including now mid-season Drafting).

So there will be a failure rate because these kids (and they are kids) are coming from Under 18 Competitions (basically except as above).

To say "We should have drafted ..........." is a nonsense because success is not guaranteed.

The presentation of some can come down to body size, so the collateral assessment as to improvement in prospect can be written down because the bigger body sees dominance at Under-age level.

The Draft was meant to be an "equalization" audit, but is now further demeaned by trading including "Free Agency", rule changes that benefit the Cartel Clubs, Clubs which dominate the AFL including the scheduling fixture.

The question in all this is has the Draft, compromised as it is and always has been, past its use by date - and should the competition resort to Clubs scouring the Nation for players with ability.

Times have changed, but the Club of my youth owned the freehold of a residential property where kids as young as 14 boarded from the Country and were schooled at a particular private College, for whom they played at under-age levels.

They first appeared at Under 17 level (there were then the Under 17's and Under 19's competitions, each Club participating) then working their way to League level.

Some fell by the wayside, but there were very significant successes with some Champion players.

So do we go back to putting responsibility with the AFL Clubs and not "feeding" them thru a disassociated Under 18 competition with all the rules and regulations that attach, such as under-age?

You do not now see 16 year olds debuting because they are good enough, with the attaching excitement.

And I would add that, given some of these kids debut immediately after being Drafted from Under 18 competitions, the standard of the competition has decayed.

To support that, a kid from Adelaide can play at Under 18 level for his home Club, not considered for a SANFL debut (or even a Seconds game) but then appearing in Round 1 of the next AFL season.

There are not that many, so good at Under 18 level that they are fixtures at SANFL level ahead of being Drafted (so playing SANFL at 16 or 17, noting that competition is not now what it once was).

The current Draft is, to me, a part of the constant PR the AFL relies upon, so it is never out of the headlines.

So there you go.

[avid]

Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.

You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.

I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.

I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.

I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.

I so agree.

Unless we get a 10-15 pick I'll be gutted.
Even if we do I'll still be gutted at losing the Brooster.
Our forward half will be gutted too.

[st.byron]

Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.

You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.

I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.

I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.

I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.

I so agree.

Unless we get a 10-15 pick I'll be gutted.
Even if we do I'll still be gutted at losing the Brooster.
Our forward half will be gutted too.

I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.

[Linton Lodger]

Read somewhere online that we’re after Jenkins now

That's utterly pointless given we've got Ryder. I imagine we made enquiries before we knew we had Ryder.

It certainly makes it clear what our forward structure will be next year.

[terry smith rules]

I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.

So in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the team

to he has an attitude problem and is not liked and therefore needs to go

Based on one poster starting this ball rolling (back on page 3)

This is exactly how social media is used to deflect and create "truth"

Probably by tomorrow there will be a mainstream story on how Bruce created a toxic culture at St Kilda

[st.byron]

I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.

So in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the team

to he has an attitude problem and is not liked and therefore needs to go

Based on one poster starting this ball rolling (back on page 3)

This is exactly how social media is used to deflect and create "truth"

Probably by tomorrow there will be a mainstream story on how Bruce created a toxic culture at St Kilda

It's not the first time I've heard that Josh is not the greatest influence in and around the playing group. It's speculation indeed suggesting that the club may be willing to accept less for him because they want him out. But it does seem that maybe he's not well regarded within the club and if that's the case there must be a reason for that. Tony74 wouldn't post that without reason. I also heard similar info from a fella I know who worked with the playing group for a couple of years.

My take on it is that we are not just reshaping the list but reshaping the culture as well. There's a distinctly Hawthorn influence and that can't be a bad thing given the success they've had.