Official Trade Week Thread...

[SaintWodonga]

Surely a swap for Anonthy Rock for Harris is fair.. Good enough for me...

[stkfc1]

If we could somehow come away with Cousins and Harris, I would be a very happy man. Harris is a good inside player that we really need, and Cousins is a gun inside and out. We are a long way behind the best teams as far as midfield depth goes so the more quality we get, the better.

Now that would be the dream result.

WOULD TAKE IT IN A HEARTBEAT! (so long as Harris was a third rounder)

[LTN16]

■ St Kilda has informed Hawthorn of an interest in forward Tim Boyle, who has attracted some interest from the Bulldogs.

■ Port Adelaide has also shown interest in uncontracted Saint Xavier Clarke, while the Tigers lead the race for Port's uncontracted midfielder Adam Thomson.

[FullMonty]

Third rounder for Harris IMO

[maverick]

Would rather Lovett than Harris.


Would this be a great result?

Pick 14 for O'Keefe
Pick 31 for Lovett
Cousins in PSD

Yes we mortgage a bit of our future but, our very best are peaking NOW, we need to take advantage...

Everyone is talking about this being the last draft etc, it does mean half decent experienced players come cheap.....

[St Fidelius]

Would rather Lovett than Harris.


Would this be a great result?

Pick 14 for O'Keefe
Pick 31 for Lovett
Cousins in PSD

Yes we mortgage a bit of our future but, our very best are peaking NOW, we need to take advantage...

Everyone is talking about this being the last draft etc, it does mean half decent experienced players come cheap.....

Sorry, but NO WAY KNOWN!

This year's draft run very deep and you want to trade our top to picks for a 28 year old forward (O'Keefe) and a lazy individual in Lovett...

Oh, I am pretty sure our pick is #13 not #14

[mick13]

Third rounder for Harris IMO

From BigFooty:

I'd take Dal & your pick 31 for Harris. Nothing else.

Harris should be worth more then Dal.

I loled.

[remboy]

I honestly hope that any trade we do is designed to get us more picks not to give them away. Giving up the opportunity of getting an 18 year old potential 200 game player for a 27 or 28 year old who has probably played their best football is crazy.
Draft the kids and if whoever is out of contract ends up in the PSD we can get them for nothing then.

[WayneJudson42]

I honestly hope that any trade we do is designed to get us more picks not to give them away. Giving up the opportunity of getting an 18 year old potential 200 game player for a 27 or 28 year old who has probably played their best football is crazy.
Draft the kids and if whoever is out of contract ends up in the PSD we can get them for nothing then.

The theory doesn't hold. Even if we draft 4 kids with big futures, you eventually run into salary cap issues... depending on how quickly they develop.

[bob__71]

I think the Saints find it all too easy to run and hide behind a youth policy. Smart trades that keep us in the the first rounds of the draft and avoid longshots, whilst obtaining more quality ready made players, is a smart policy.

The biggest problem we had this year was lack of depth. People have a go about Jones being in the side and Fiora, its because we had no one better. The time for youth policy is past, its time to fix the depth and have a real crack.

[maverick]

I think the Saints find it all too easy to run and hide behind a youth policy. Smart trades that keep us in the the first rounds of the draft and avoid longshots, whilst obtaining more quality ready made players, is a smart policy.

The biggest problem we had this year was lack of depth. People have a go about Jones being in the side and Fiora, its because we had no one better. The time for youth policy is past, its time to fix the depth and have a real crack.

I agree, we have the core of our list peaking, the time is not right for youth policies

[WayneJudson42]

I think the Saints find it all too easy to run and hide behind a youth policy. Smart trades that keep us in the the first rounds of the draft and avoid longshots, whilst obtaining more quality ready made players, is a smart policy.

The biggest problem we had this year was lack of depth. People have a go about Jones being in the side and Fiora, its because we had no one better. The time for youth policy is past, its time to fix the depth and have a real crack.

Speechless

Well said.

[remboy]

I honestly hope that any trade we do is designed to get us more picks not to give them away. Giving up the opportunity of getting an 18 year old potential 200 game player for a 27 or 28 year old who has probably played their best football is crazy.
Draft the kids and if whoever is out of contract ends up in the PSD we can get them for nothing then.

The theory doesn't hold. Even if we draft 4 kids with big futures, you eventually run into salary cap issues... depending on how quickly they develop.

So rather than draft 4 kids with big futures you'd rather get 4 players with no future? At least with the kids they'll still be around in 4 or 5 years. And not everyone ends up getting paid a million bucks a year. If we can't afford to keep them at least we'll have some tradeable commodities. Not sure what we'll get for Schultz or Boyle or O'Keefe in 4 years.

[maverick]

Would rather Lovett than Harris.


Would this be a great result?

Pick 14 for O'Keefe
Pick 31 for Lovett
Cousins in PSD

Yes we mortgage a bit of our future but, our very best are peaking NOW, we need to take advantage...

Everyone is talking about this being the last draft etc, it does mean half decent experienced players come cheap.....

Sorry, but NO WAY KNOWN!

This year's draft run very deep and you want to trade our top to picks for a 28 year old forward (O'Keefe) and a lazy individual in Lovett...

Oh, I am pretty sure our pick is #13 not #14

Fair enough, your opinion.
I have heard this draft runs deep thing far too many times....

O'Keefe is quality, would be good at the Dome as well....

[WayneJudson42]

I honestly hope that any trade we do is designed to get us more picks not to give them away. Giving up the opportunity of getting an 18 year old potential 200 game player for a 27 or 28 year old who has probably played their best football is crazy.
Draft the kids and if whoever is out of contract ends up in the PSD we can get them for nothing then.

The theory doesn't hold. Even if we draft 4 kids with big futures, you eventually run into salary cap issues... depending on how quickly they develop.

So rather than draft 4 kids with big futures you'd rather get 4 players with no future? At least with the kids they'll still be around in 4 or 5 years. And not everyone ends up getting paid a million bucks a year. If we can't afford to keep them at least we'll have some tradeable commodities. Not sure what we'll get for Schultz or Boyle or O'Keefe in 4 years.

What guarantees do we have that kids work out and will be around in 4 or 5 years time?

Have stated this numerous times...

If an opportunity comes along that can build on what we have, then you take it.

Look at this way...

Kids may take 2 to 3 years before we see some good footy from them.

By that stage, our core will be past it's prime, and there's no guarantees that Armo, Geary and co will develop into anything special, IMO.

You don't trade for the sake of a trade. Likewise, you don't draft for the sake of some misguided youth policy in the belief that eventually all kids develop accordingly.

Even the Hawks did some topping up, and are keen on O'Keefe.

[SainterK]

I honestly hope that any trade we do is designed to get us more picks not to give them away. Giving up the opportunity of getting an 18 year old potential 200 game player for a 27 or 28 year old who has probably played their best football is crazy.
Draft the kids and if whoever is out of contract ends up in the PSD we can get them for nothing then.

The theory doesn't hold. Even if we draft 4 kids with big futures, you eventually run into salary cap issues... depending on how quickly they develop.

So rather than draft 4 kids with big futures you'd rather get 4 players with no future? At least with the kids they'll still be around in 4 or 5 years. And not everyone ends up getting paid a million bucks a year. If we can't afford to keep them at least we'll have some tradeable commodities. Not sure what we'll get for Schultz or Boyle or O'Keefe in 4 years.

What guarantees do we have that kids work out and will be around in 4 or 5 years time?

Have stated this numerous times...

If an opportunity comes along that can build on what we have, then you take it.

Look at this way...

Kids may take 2 to 3 years before we see some good footy from them.

By that stage, our core will be past it's prime, and there's no guarantees that Armo, Geary and co will develop into anything special, IMO.

You don't trade for the sake of a trade. Likewise, you don't draft for the sake of some misguided youth policy in the belief that eventually all kids develop accordingly.

Even the Hawks did some topping up, and are keen on O'Keefe.

I think you raise a good point, and balance is the key.

As we have seen in recent weeks, some coaches who feel the pressure of an unperforming senior list resort to the "kids" policy to prolong their contract (ahem Dean Laidley) and guarantee themselves another couple of years using the "but we have a very young side" excuse.

We'll see after the draft period if RL has shown this kind of panic, or continued to show confidence in his plan for the list. I think you will find it is the latter, and he will draft accordingly.

[remboy]

[You don't trade for the sake of a trade. Likewise, you don't draft for the sake of some misguided youth policy in the belief that eventually all kids develop accordingly.

Even the Hawks did some topping up, and are keen on O'Keefe.

I take your point. And I agree that if the right player becomes available at the right price we'd be mad not to at least look at a deal. I just don't think that too many of the players who have been mentioned in the last few days are worth trading for ( I think I may have lost it when I heard Jay Schulz and X mentioned in the same sentence).
You can't directly compare us with the Hawks. They are in a better position than us (possibly where we were 4 years ago). They have a younger list, talent in their VFL side that other clubs would love to have (Dowler, Thorpe, Muston) and they have room in their salary cap.

[sunsaint]

So rather than draft 4 kids with big futures you'd rather get 4 players with no future? At least with the kids they'll still be around in 4 or 5 years. And not everyone ends up getting paid a million bucks a year. If we can't afford to keep them at least we'll have some tradeable commodities. Not sure what we'll get for Schultz or Boyle or O'Keefe in 4 years.

I'll tell you what we get.. a flag
you go for the best players available that will add to the side, it's simple, two years of Cousins is better than none at all, how many goals will O'keefe kick in 4 years, Harris will take a load off Hayes and Ball. This is the time to jockey position to get the best you can get. Rolling the dice with rookies comes later.

[WayneJudson42]

So rather than draft 4 kids with big futures you'd rather get 4 players with no future? At least with the kids they'll still be around in 4 or 5 years. And not everyone ends up getting paid a million bucks a year. If we can't afford to keep them at least we'll have some tradeable commodities. Not sure what we'll get for Schultz or Boyle or O'Keefe in 4 years.

I'll tell you what we get.. a flag
you go for the best players available that will add to the side, it's simple, two years of Cousins is better than none at all, how many goals will O'keefe kick in 4 years, Harris will take a load off Hayes and Ball. This is the time to jockey position to get the best you can get. Rolling the dice with rookies comes later.

Amen to that.

What Remboy was upset about is fair enough. Mind you we have 6 pages of "official" trade crap on this thread.

[n1ck]

Hamish is an average kick IMO and less than average kick for goal...

24 goals 17 points, in lets say 3 seasons, is not a lovely kick for goal

Im not mistaking him for anyone.

How is that less than average

a lovely kick for goal.

just explain your comment on how he is a lovely kick for goal when he has booted 24 goals 17 points in 3 seasons

and don't bother rolling your eyes at me you ungrateful pr1ck, it's the last time I will offer you a reserved seat....

Not even a thankyou

Yep 24 goals 17 points is a lovely kick for goal

LOL!

Didnt even see this. Sorry to all those who were waiting on my response...

Fid, relax mate. You roll your eyes at many people.

Anyway, I DID say thankyou. Im a very appreciative person, anyone who knows me would know that - you either didnt hear me, or are now just lying to spite me.

Ok, maybe i 'overstated' his goalkicking - pehaps i saw a few games where he excelled in that ability, but for a ruckman I would think those stats are not less than average, that goal tally would infact be about average - if not MORE than average.

Most ruckmen dont get in the position to have that many shots at goal, let alone kick that many, and the fact that he has more goals than behinds in 40 or 50 shots is a good sign IMO.

Abit of an overreaction there, mate.

[WayneJudson42]

Hamish is an average kick IMO and less than average kick for goal...

24 goals 17 points, in lets say 3 seasons, is not a lovely kick for goal

Im not mistaking him for anyone.

How is that less than average

a lovely kick for goal.

just explain your comment on how he is a lovely kick for goal when he has booted 24 goals 17 points in 3 seasons

and don't bother rolling your eyes at me you ungrateful pr1ck, it's the last time I will offer you a reserved seat....

Not even a thankyou

Yep 24 goals 17 points is a lovely kick for goal

LOL!

Didnt even see this. Sorry to all those who were waiting on my response...

Fid, relax mate. You roll your eyes at many people.

Anyway, I DID say thankyou. Im a very appreciative person, anyone who knows me would know that - you either didnt hear me, or are now just lying to spite me.

Ok, maybe i 'overstated' his goalkicking - pehaps i saw a few games where he excelled in that ability, but for a ruckman I would think those stats are not less than average, that goal tally would infact be about average - if not MORE than average.

Most ruckmen dont get in the position to have that many shots at goal, let alone kick that many, and the fact that he has more goals than behinds in 40 or 50 shots is a good sign IMO.

Abit of an overreaction there, mate.

How does his accuracy compare to Roo's?

58.5% coversion.

[Moccha]

You couldnt go past a fit Prismal

and you couldnt go past Harris at right price

But you could at the right pace

[BAM! (shhhh)]

As long as there aren't any long term injury issues with Hamish (which im spectacle about)

If there was I reckon you could see straight through them.

Sometimes trades need to be seen through a different lens.

Several of our past trades require viewing through rose coloured glasses.

I'm not sure trades should be the focal point.

Agreed, we should not be adopting a myopic view of the trading process. There may come into view several trading options that were not envisioned at first sight, and deserve more than a passing glance. It is important that we are not blinkered to opportunities, nor have the shades pulled over our eyes. We must have a clear vision of where we want to end up, or we could be left on the outside looking in.

Now you're just making a spectacle of yourself.

Nah.... This is our window of opportunity.

Love what you're seeing, but I think you're viewing through rose coloured glasses.

[cowboy18]

As long as there aren't any long term injury issues with Hamish (which im spectacle about)

If there was I reckon you could see straight through them.

Sometimes trades need to be seen through a different lens.

Several of our past trades require viewing through rose coloured glasses.

I'm not sure trades should be the focal point.

Agreed, we should not be adopting a myopic view of the trading process. There may come into view several trading options that were not envisioned at first sight, and deserve more than a passing glance. It is important that we are not blinkered to opportunities, nor have the shades pulled over our eyes. We must have a clear vision of where we want to end up, or we could be left on the outside looking in.

Now you're just making a spectacle of yourself.

Nah.... This is our window of opportunity.

Love what you're seeing, but I think you're viewing through rose coloured glasses.

Your contacts giving any further insights into our trades?

[mick13]

As long as there aren't any long term injury issues with Hamish (which im spectacle about)

If there was I reckon you could see straight through them.

Sometimes trades need to be seen through a different lens.

Several of our past trades require viewing through rose coloured glasses.

I'm not sure trades should be the focal point.

Agreed, we should not be adopting a myopic view of the trading process. There may come into view several trading options that were not envisioned at first sight, and deserve more than a passing glance. It is important that we are not blinkered to opportunities, nor have the shades pulled over our eyes. We must have a clear vision of where we want to end up, or we could be left on the outside looking in.

Now you're just making a spectacle of yourself.

Nah.... This is our window of opportunity.

Love what you're seeing, but I think you're viewing through rose coloured glasses.

Your contacts giving any further insights into our trades?

CHOO CHOO