For those bagging picking up King...

[saintsRrising]

Some seem to be bagging picking up King. Why?

Personally I think he is a great pick up for nil cost as 90 is not a real pick.

In the GF he played very well against quality opponents. Now yes he has had some injury problems in recent year...but at present seems to be fit and able t make a contribution.. If he can say play 70% of games over the next two year then I will be very very pleased.

So I am happy...but you are not. OK what would have you done instead?????

Criticism of King seems to be that he is not mobile enough (though he look ok in the GF). Now yes we would all love a Dean Cox....BUT no point raving about Cox and that we need a ruckman like him...he is not at the saints...and was not tradeable.



Status quo does not look good.....

* Kosi is improving , but against quality ruck opposition is found wanting..

*Rix is an honest toiler and will be handy to have when others are injured or suspended....but is not good enough for week in week out

* Brooks..not good enough..and evidently is now delisted...though perhaps he was your solution?

* Van Reehan..a raw rookie who MAY make it...but is a few years away yet

*Blake....handy for short bursts to spell....but not good enough for regular work


So if you want to win a flag in the next year or two.....the above are not good enough.


So if you are unhappy about King...what are your solutions:

* pick up a kid in the draft...well RL may still do this anyway....but anyone picked up is going to be 3 or more years away..

* would you have traded for another ruck?? If so who.

Wood looks ok.....but would not be as good as King in 2008. yes is a better long term solution....BUT the Pies gave pick 14.

Would you have given Pick 9 for Wood? I would not have.

So you would have to have given up a QUALITY player....who?

Moran...is raw and not there yet and may never be..

Meesan...is said to be a bit like Brooks. Some talent but not enough heart. Would you have given 26 for him?

Hudson?? King for free is clearly better.



So what is left......a mature age rookie??? Would seem unlikely that you will get better than King.


If you want to bag King...then that is fine....but then lets her what your viable solutions are?..or could have been.





Now personally I think King is a good acquisition. he is a handy ruck now, and probably more than handy....and he will give us two years to "grow" a replacement.

[chook23]

they are entitled to their opinion just like you.

[True Blue Sainter]

Very good post SRR.

Summed up beautifully. As is publicly known, King doesn't require any off-season surgeries - so should be good to go from day 1 in pre-season! Another thing - King is pretty good around the ground, particularly as a linkman, which is something we have been lacking in the ruck department (obviously not including Blake (not a ruckman), who can run other rucks off their feet, but doesn't hurt enough with disposal).

[saintsRrising]

they are entitled to their opinion just like you.

True....I just want to here what there alternatives are though

[fonz_#15]

my opinon is that other peoples opinion does not count when they are as stuoid as some on this forum

[LennyBoy]

my opinon is that other peoples opinion does not count when they are as stuoid as some on this forum

Are you pointing the finger at poochy

[mad saint guy]

Hudson?? King for free is clearly better.

The trade was - Hudson, Pick 43 for Pick 30, Pick 38

If we had have convinced Hudson to come to St Kilda we could have got him very cheap, and he has proven that he is a quality ruckman who can stand up to a full season of footy.

In terms of salary I don't think there would be much difference between him and King. King refused a contract at Geelong because he wanted more money. We would probably be paying him about 200k in 2008.

Hudson has 3-4 years left and is in the top 6 ruckmen in the competition. He is good in ruck contests and is very good around the ground.

King played one reasonable game in 2007, and in that game the opposition was pathetic, his team's midfield dominated and he was given no respect and allowed to run loose to pick up possessions. He gave away 5 free kicks, which would have been costly had it been a closer game. He did compete well with a quality ruck duo, but by no means did he beat them.

But, King is at St Kilda in 2008 and nothing anyone says on here changes that, so I'm dropping the subject.

[fonz_#15]

my opinon is that other peoples opinion does not count when they are as stupid as some on this forum

Are you pointing the finger at poochy

poochy is an ignorant fool...BUT NO...
more the agenda driven egomaniacs whose stubborness often makes this forum turn to s***.

[SaintBot]

Hudson?? King for free is clearly better.

The trade was - Hudson, Pick 43 for Pick 30, Pick 38

If we had have convinced Hudson to come to St Kilda we could have got him very cheap, and he has proven that he is a quality ruckman who can stand up to a full season of footy.

Hudson had his heart set on the Bulldogs. He has plenty of mates there as he used to play for their former VFL team, Werribee. Wouldve been pretty darn hard to convince him, and not worth the effort imo.

[Oh When the Saints]

King played alright in a game I saw ... may have been against the Tigers? Can't remember ... it was later in the year.

He also played some good football in 2006.

[Washedup]

King played one reasonable game in 2007, and in that game the opposition was pathetic, his team's midfield dominated and he was given no respect and allowed to run loose to pick up possessions. He gave away 5 free kicks, which would have been costly had it been a closer game. He did compete well with a quality ruck duo, but by no means did he beat them.

You should be over the moon that we got King. You are a rap for the costly one (Brooks) so you obviously dont have much of a grasp on what makes a good footballer.
Kings played 190 odd games, a 2 time B&F and an AA and we get him for pick #90 and your still not happy.
While you have a guy like B.Brooks as your idol i suggest you should think twice before bagging any ruckmen in the competition

[Ghost Like]

Hudson?? King for free is clearly better.

The trade was - Hudson, Pick 43 for Pick 30, Pick 38

Hudson has 3-4 years left and is in the top 6 ruckmen in the competition. He is good in ruck contests and is very good around the ground.

But, King is at St Kilda in 2008 and nothing anyone says on here changes that, so I'm dropping the subject.

Aren't they both 28 y.o.?

One is a Premiership Ruckman, former AA and former AFL Club captain with a point to prove?

The other, a relatively no name GOP who got homesick and wants to play with his mates and whose chances may have slowly diminished next year at the Crows.

Cannot see how he could be considered in the Top 6 ruckman in the competition: Cox, Seaby, Sandilands, Warnock, Lade, Brogan, Everitt, Jolly and Ottens. I could throw in Simmonds, White, Fraser and even Hille. I cannot think of Brisbane's pair or the Hawk's pair but I'm sure they are better than Hudson.

I'm happy with who we got for what was available and the cost we paid. Not sure the Crows would have preferred pick 42 over one in the 30s and nor would I have liked receiving a later selection for the priveledge.

[Saint_Express]

King is certainly a positive recruit for the club. The club recognise a major flaw in the club and are actively pursuing players on the market. As with other people I find it distressing that the club is only looking at mature aged recruits and has blatantly ignored Cameron Wood and John Meesen.

As already said Cameron is a very promising talent with his best yet to come and went for a high draft pick. However, it must be remebered that Cameron was a first round draft pick a few years ago and has been already developed. John Meesen went at pick 8 a few years ago and has also been developed by the crows. He went at a 3rd round draft pick which is undoubtly a bargain.

While we all want a premiership in the next few years, St Kilda must continue to develop youth players for when they become ready to dominate. King, 28 and having played 13 years at Geelong battling injuries is hardly the answer to the future, however, is a good decision for the clubs imminent ruck problems. For whatever reason the club didn't pursue the future ruck prospects in Meesen and wood it is unknown, as the failure of Matthew Clarke last season provided nothing a upcoming ruckman could produce.

[Armoooo]

There is no way that we could have gotten Wood, Collingwood were too desperate, there is no way that he would be worth St.Kilda's pick 9, and seeing as what we got for pick 26 that was also out of the question.
Meesan has done nothing, he had all the potential to be our next Brooks.
Atleast this way we got a proven ruckman who will hopefully be around for a couple of years until we get a new young ruckman developing.

[linz]

I'm happy getting King. If he can play 190 games he certainly is no dud. A lot will come down to whether he is committed to perform for us when his 28 year old bones start to creak. Maybe he should have a yak with ole grandpa Harvey who will probably say: "Hell what are you on about, I won a Brownlow when I was nearly your age "

[nicko016]

I was very happy with picking him up and thought the trade was a bargain but some people may be dissappointed not with King, but the fact that he was one of four players we picked up who will take 4 spots from 4 young players in the draft. But, I was very happy with it and as he is fit he should be in a good position to have a good impact next year.

[Washedup]

Meesan has done nothing, he had all the potential to be our next Brooks.

If only we had paid for Brooks what Meesen has cost the Dees

[Armoooo]

I was very happy with picking him up and thought the trade was a bargain but some people may be dissappointed not with King, but the fact that he was one of four players we picked up who will take 4 spots from 4 young players in the draft. But, I was very happy with it and as he is fit he should be in a good position to have a good impact next year.

We had 5 players detire and we have delisted 5 aswell, i think that there is more than enough room for young kids coming through, even if we were to promote two rookies...

[nicko016]

I was very happy with picking him up and thought the trade was a bargain but some people may be dissappointed not with King, but the fact that he was one of four players we picked up who will take 4 spots from 4 young players in the draft. But, I was very happy with it and as he is fit he should be in a good position to have a good impact next year.

We had 5 players detire and we have delisted 5 aswell, i think that there is more than enough room for young kids coming through, even if we were to promote two rookies...

That's if in fact Brooks, McQualter and Watts are delisted. If they are there's definately enough room but I didn't have a problem with our trades anyway.

[Armoooo]

I was very happy with picking him up and thought the trade was a bargain but some people may be dissappointed not with King, but the fact that he was one of four players we picked up who will take 4 spots from 4 young players in the draft. But, I was very happy with it and as he is fit he should be in a good position to have a good impact next year.

We had 5 players detire and we have delisted 5 aswell, i think that there is more than enough room for young kids coming through, even if we were to promote two rookies...

That's if in fact Brooks, McQualter and Watts are delisted. If they are there's definately enough room but I didn't have a problem with our trades anyway.

Oh sorry, I haven't been online in a few days and when I cam back on it seemed to be stated like a fact, in that case I think I would prefer if it were only Brooks + McQualter, which would give us room for 9 new players, 4 from trades, 3 from draft, 1 from PSD and 1 rookie elevation sounds good to me...

[nicko016]

It sounds pretty official but until I hear anything from the club I won't take it as fact. Plus, it has also been said that Brooks and McQualter had meetings with RL to determine their future and both passed the test. Also, I find it highly unlikely that they would delist Watts after his injury problems and lack of match time.

[mad saint guy]

Also, I find it highly unlikely that they would delist Watts after his injury problems and lack of match time.

With Watts it may just be that the coaches believe he is too slow and one-dimensional. You can't rely on an average forward to be taking 5 contested marks per game if you want a decent return. Is too slow to get away from an opponent on a lead and doesn't possess great skills at ground level. He either takes a one-on-one contested mark or the opposition rebound the ball.

[Armoooo]

Also, I find it highly unlikely that they would delist Watts after his injury problems and lack of match time.

With Watts it may just be that the coaches believe he is too slow and one-dimensional. You can't rely on an average forward to be taking 5 contested marks per game if you want a decent return. Is too slow to get away from an opponent on a lead and doesn't possess great skills at ground level. He either takes a one-on-one contested mark or the opposition rebound the ball.

But when he is potentially on the oppositions 4th best defender surely he could be able to get a half decent return...

[bobmurray]

I'm all for list changes,especially as the team has been steadily going backwards the last couple of years,all i hope is that they get the recruiting balance right between experience and youth......

We won't really know how any of these 4 traded players are going to go in the team until they are in the team and are expected to perform,only then will the merits of acquiring them be answered........

It makes no difference how varied the opinions on here are,the answers are on the field,not on here....

[saintsRrising]

As with other people I find it distressing that the club is only looking at mature aged recruits and has blatantly ignored Cameron Wood and John Meesen.

.

Only mature aged recruits??

We basically only traded away one draft pick as pick 90 would never have been used by us.

So we still have picks 9, 42 and 58 (maybe even 74) which will most likely be used on kids.

Securing Meesen or Wood would have cost us one or more of the kids from the 2007 Draft.

Wood I too quite like....but I just don't think we could have obtained him without trading No 9....or a quality player...and I prefer to have kept both.