Saints are said to Be helping Eagles land Bsker

[damienc]

We’ve reportedly entered into discussions.

My question is how? It would have to be pick swaps.

So, is it 8 and a future pick for the Eagles 3?

Eagles stay in the top 10, land Baker and we move up potentially landing Draper and another top 10 draft pick.

Yes? No? You’re dreaming?

[Waltzing St Kilda]

RTB helping out Mini.

[damienc]

RTB helping out Mini.

How?

[magnifisaint]

Somehow it benefits the Saints so who cares how!

[BackFromUSA]

West Coast 3rd is the 4th pick.

They don't want to give that for Liam Baker without getting something back from Richmond.

And Richmond can satisfy them with 21 or 29 or 39 and they will be offering 39 at this stage.

Don't be surprised if it is Baker and 29 for Pick 3.

If Richmond don't budge, then it gets interesting.

Saints may go Pick 8 (in reality is 9th pick) plus our future 1st (probably pick 10-14) for pick 3 this year from West Coast.

Why because I think the Saints would love Murphy Reid at the fourth selection (pick 3), then I think Adelaide will take Sid Draper next, and Melbourne will take Finn O'Sullivan (so Richmond don't get him and he is an outstanding player), Richmond at 6 (from the Rioli trade) will pick Sam Lalor and we will pick Josh Smillie at the eighth selection (pick 7) - but he has gone then O'Sullivan or Lalor will be available - if it is O'Sullivan then that is a steal.

I really can't see Langford or Smith dropping out of the top 3. Richmond will take Langford and North will take Smith.

[Otiman]

Future first trading is frought with danger.

You are effectively gambling on your own performances.

If we trade our future first, consider it admission of tanking this year.

[Brunswicksainter]

Yeah this would be a horrible trade for St Kilda, really concerning hearing this news. It is really the case this year that crop of top 8 in this draft: O’Sullivan, Langford, Lalor, Ashcroft, Draper, Draper, Smith and Smilie are completely equal in potential, no single player could be singled out as better than any other (with perhaps the minor exception of O’Sullivan who will go #1). You could probably also through in Armstrong and travagalia into that conversation as well. In my view we would be effectively trading our future first for nothing if we go through with this.

[wally]

It’s hard to follow and hard to know what’s best.
Not long ago the theory was we may trade pick 8 for 2 later picks in a strong draft now we want to give 8 plus a future first for 3.
Personally I don’t think you should trade (or be able to) future picks., although I still think we should have given that future 2nd for Xerri a couple of years ago.

[D.B.Cooper]

Let’s wait and see what the deal looks like.

I’m not against trading #8 up to #3 as it basically gives us two midfield rated guns.

If we show enough promise, perhaps next year we can finally land a FA or two?

We have made out like bandits with the Battle compo, let’s make sure we don’t blow it.

[Otiman]

It’s hard to follow and hard to know what’s best.
Not long ago the theory was we may trade pick 8 for 2 later picks in a strong draft now we want to give 8 plus a future first for 3.
Personally I don’t think you should trade (or be able to) future picks., although I still think we should have given that future 2nd for Xerri a couple of years ago.

I agree the future pick trades are not great.

Restricting it to 3rd round or later would help.

Another option (which could be a bad one as I've not thought about it) is that the future picks are tied to your own ladder position in that round. i.e. if you trade future picks you get one after your original pick in that round instead of tied to the ladder position of the team you trade it from. Trade tampering could be a big problem here.

[ROLS-LEE]

Future first trading is frought with danger.

You are effectively gambling on your own performances.

If we trade our future first, consider it admission of tanking this year.

This is incorrect. If we trade our future pick, we ain't wanting to tank next year, it's the opposite. We would think we would be better and go up ladder
The team we trade too is hoping we tank.

[Otiman]

Future first trading is frought with danger.

You are effectively gambling on your own performances.

If we trade our future first, consider it admission of tanking this year.

This is incorrect. If we trade our future pick, we ain't wanting to tank next year, it's the opposite. We would think we would be better and go up ladder
The team we trade too is hoping we tank.

Not next year, this year. There was a good article that if the close games went our way we'd make finals (or be close to it).

[St Dave]

It’s hard to follow and hard to know what’s best.
Not long ago the theory was we may trade pick 8 for 2 later picks in a strong draft now we want to give 8 plus a future first for 3.
Personally I don’t think you should trade (or be able to) future picks., although I still think we should have given that future 2nd for Xerri a couple of years ago.

I agree the future pick trades are not great.

Restricting it to 3rd round or later would help.

Another option (which could be a bad one as I've not thought about it) is that the future picks are tied to your own ladder position in that round. i.e. if you trade future picks you get one after your original pick in that round instead of tied to the ladder position of the team you trade it from. Trade tampering could be a big problem here.

I find trading future picks is actually pretty interesting because the unknown makes the value variable which opens it up to creating value for both teams but also some risk.

Eg last year we completed two trades with Melbourne, sending them Billings and our future third and getting back pick 42 that year and their future third. Going in to those trades, they might have expected us to slide (as we did) and for them to finish up near the top again, so maybe that moves them up 8 spots. As it worked out though, they slid too so we ended up moving up a couple of spots.

If the Bulldogs end up getting Geelong's future first for Bailey Smith, that could end up being around 15-17 again, but it can't be worse than 18 (excluding FA and F/S matching), so there is plenty of potential for it to be a better pick than they would get this year.

Also if I am understanding your proposal right, if Richmond traded for Brisbane's future first last year, they would get pick 2 (after their first pick) rather than Brisbane's actual pick 18? That seems a bit too open to tanking. Trade out good players for as many future firsts as possible and finish last the next year to get the first X picks is too broken.

[Otiman]

Also if I am understanding your proposal right, if Richmond traded for Brisbane's future first last year, they would get pick 2 (after their first pick) rather than Brisbane's actual pick 18? That seems a bit too open to tanking. Trade out good players for as many future firsts as possible and finish last the next year to get the first X picks is too broken.

Yes, you're right on that.

Also the idea that clubs could trade future firsts when they know they're finishing bottom 4 next year, with a top team, who reciprocate in kind down the track.

Nothing is a perfect solution, so just ban future 1st round pick trades.

I will also say that decisions around trade week as 'entertainment' shouldn't apply, the purpose of trades and drafts is to distribute talent across the league effectively and fairly.

[St Dave]

Also if I am understanding your proposal right, if Richmond traded for Brisbane's future first last year, they would get pick 2 (after their first pick) rather than Brisbane's actual pick 18? That seems a bit too open to tanking. Trade out good players for as many future firsts as possible and finish last the next year to get the first X picks is too broken.

Yes, you're right on that.

Also the idea that clubs could trade future firsts when they know they're finishing bottom 4 next year, with a top team, who reciprocate in kind down the track.

Nothing is a perfect solution, so just ban future 1st round pick trades.

I will also say that decisions around trade week as 'entertainment' shouldn't apply, the purpose of trades and drafts is to distribute talent across the league effectively and fairly.

You will be waiting a long time for banning of future pick trading, especially given they are opening up a third year of pick trading from next year.

Picks and players are all currency clubs have available to spend in the trade period. With more picks to spend they have more currency to buy players or better picks. Without future picks how do you buy A grade talent? The selling club would expect multiple first round picks, but the only way the buying club could get another first round pick is by trading a player to another club. It would basically never happen, so any A grade talent that wanted to leave would do so in free agency or run the risk of ending up anywhere via the draft.

Trading future picks also acts as a disincentive to tanking. If you trade out your future pick you want to finish as high as possible in order to minimise the value lost by losing that pick. If you trade in a future pick you want to play as well as possible (especially against the team who's pick you more own) in order to make them finish as low as possible and maximise the value you get from that pick.

Also I don't know who is advocating purely for entertainment value. Trade period already goes on too long.

[Dave McNamara]

West Coast 3rd is the 4th pick.

They don't want to give that for Liam Baker without getting something back from Richmond.

And Richmond can satisfy them with 21 or 29 or 39 and they will be offering 39 at this stage.

Don't be surprised if it is Baker and 29 for Pick 3.

If Richmond don't budge, then it gets interesting.

Saints may go Pick 8 (in reality is 9th pick) plus our future 1st (probably pick 10-14) for pick 3 this year from West Coast.

Why because I think the Saints would love Murphy Reid at the fourth selection (pick 3), then I think Adelaide will take Sid Draper next, and Melbourne will take Finn O'Sullivan (so Richmond don't get him and he is an outstanding player), Richmond at 6 (from the Rioli trade) will pick Sam Lalor and we will pick Josh Smillie at the eighth selection (pick 7) - but he has gone then O'Sullivan or Lalor will be available - if it is O'Sullivan then that is a steal.

I really can't see Langford or Smith dropping out of the top 3. Richmond will take Langford and North will take Smith.

Don't be surprised if it is Baker and 29 for Pick 3.

If I was a Tugger, I'd be over the moon if that happened. Hell, if I were them, I'd be over the moon with just Pick 3.


Sam Lalor and we will pick Josh Smillie at the eighth selection (pick 7) - but he has gone then O'Sullivan or Lalor will be available - if it is O'Sullivan then that is a steal.

I really can't see Langford or Smith dropping out of the top 3. Richmond will take Langford and North will take Smith.

My dream draft would be Langford and Smillie. Those two, plus what we've picked up in the last couple of drafts would see us winning flags. (I could also cope if Lalor was substituted for one of those.)

Unfortunatley, I agree that Langford is unlikely. That said, I'd definitely do one of the deals mentioned above (and elsewhere) if it meant we could trade up high enough to guarantee getting Langford. Pick 8 + our 2025 first rounder, with a 2025 second rounder plus some favourable swapping of later draft picks coming back our way - for Langford.

But very serendipitously, Smillie is looking a farily reasonable chance to be available for us. And that would be a monumental steal.

Smillie combined with Langford... my dream draft outcome. We'd be in GFs from 2026 onwards.

[Otiman]

There are a few trades that haven't gone through yet that seem ludicrous. Baker is one and Rioli another.

I doubt either will go through, at least not for the trade value mentioned.

It makes me start to think about conspiracy theories about clubs baiting other clubs into pick swaps only to back out of deals.

[chook23]

Carlton have got pick 3

[bobmurray]

Tuesday October 15
ST KILDA and Brisbane have initiated a pick swap that could unlock a move for Jack Macrae to get to the Saints.

The Saints have landed picks 32 and 45 from the Lions in exchange for their second-round pick, which is currently No.27.

Three-way trade between Carlton, Richmond & West Coast

Carlton gets Pick 3, 63 & 68. Carlton gives Pick 12, 14, 73 & Matt Owies.

Richmond gets Pick 14. Richmond gives Liam Baker.

West Coast gets Liam Baker, Matt Owies, Picks 12 & 73. West Coast gives Pick 3, 63 & 68.

[chook23]

Tuesday October 15
Trade between St Kilda and Brisbane

St Kilda receives pick 27

Brisbane receives pick 32 and pick 45

Three-way trade between Carlton, Richmond & West Coast

Carlton gets Pick 3, 63 & 68. Carlton gives Pick 12, 14, 73 & Matt Owies.

Richmond gets Pick 14. Richmond gives Liam Baker.

West Coast gets Liam Baker, Matt Owies, Picks 12 & 73. West Coast gives Pick 3, 63 & 68.

St Kilda GAVE up pick 27

For 32 and 45

[bobmurray]

Tuesday October 15
Trade between St Kilda and Brisbane

St Kilda receives pick 27

Brisbane receives pick 32 and pick 45

Three-way trade between Carlton, Richmond & West Coast

Carlton gets Pick 3, 63 & 68. Carlton gives Pick 12, 14, 73 & Matt Owies.

Richmond gets Pick 14. Richmond gives Liam Baker.

West Coast gets Liam Baker, Matt Owies, Picks 12 & 73. West Coast gives Pick 3, 63 & 68.

St Kilda GAVE up pick 27

For 32 and 45

Thanks, the site i got the info from was wrong.