Saints trade rating

[Bowey Boy]

Apparently Saints looking to Rookie List...
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/bc7 ... width=1024

[ss1986]

Apparently Saints looking to Rookie List...
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/bc7 ... width=1024

That WOULD get me back to the footy for the first time in about 5 years

[chico2001]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

Rubbish once again from you. No, it wasn't a good trade period at all. Go back and read my post...that about nailed it. It is a wonder you didn't add …."end of story" at that post. Don't try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I think you yourself had about 9 posts in this thread giving it a B and one of your mates had 3/4 giving it a B, a half smart move but it didn't work. Do the maths properly.

Stacks of people are pissed off about the trading effort of the saints, it was insipid. One more decent player who would walk into the team would have gave it a C+

All a matter of opinion, not rubbish, Chico. When you said your previous post had nailed it, I had a look - as far as I'm concerned the your nail was crooked and didn't go in. Just your view, I expressed mine earlier in the thread.
I'm not sure what "do the maths correctly" means - you seem to refer to that sort of statement quite often.

Look up the term opinionated and read it aloud to yourself. To hell with other peoples viewpoint, so that puts it in the rubbish basket when you try that caper. He has some type of psychological disorder. If you read my post you would have seen that I referenced the same rating come up several times by this condescending twat, this skewed the so called results ( consensus Haha) thereby that poster trying to justify his own viewpoint and ignoring everyone elses opinion.

If you are going to add up figures or scores in a forum, you better get it right. So do you understand what it means " do the maths correctly" ? and I refer to that statement because it sorts out the wheat from the chaff, don't bulls***....you get caught out. Go back and have a look at the posts again. I didn't read your post first time around either......just read it and it was like the saints trading period.....insipid. But hey...thats just my opinion.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Buckenara...lol. Brad Hardie has more credibility.

Fact is, the majority of reviews gave us a good trade rating. Good job to Lethlean and Gallagher. The list management is looking like its in good hands.

[chico2001]

So you have more credibity than Buckenara then. And even Brad hardie sounds no good by your implication. Tell us about how you know more than those guys.

Lethlean and Gallagher are a couple of duds...just like you

Trading period by those two was insipid. The list management is in probably the worst hands we have had for 20 years. One is a banker with no experience at AFL level list Management and the other is a secretary f**cker and got the job because of another dud who runs the AFL.

[st.byron]

From the Age

ST KILDA
The Saints are struggling to attract talent and had to offer deals no other club contemplated for Dan Hannebery and Kent. If the Saints were in denial about their list this time last year, the penny has surely dropped now.
At a glance: Off the pace.

In a nutshell

[Joffa Burns]

It was agressive and done with intent and we did very well in the trade period considering our ladder position in '18.

So Buckenara rates us a c- but rates Freo A+ & Lions A-

How was their ladder position compared to ours, not a lot of difference.
Both clubs from the bottom sector scored A grade talent in their prime.

How do you rate us as "did very well"?
An AA gun well past his best as a salary dump and a fringe player from Melbourne.

[Joffa Burns]

Apparently Saints looking to Rookie List...
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/bc7 ... width=1024

[Joffa Burns]

Fact is, the majority of reviews gave us a good trade rating. Good job to Lethlean and Gallagher. The list management is looking like its in good hands.

Fact is most reviews gave us a good rating....

How about posting a couple of these good reviews?
I'm yet to find one other than yours on this site.

Show me the majority.

Yep, no fan of Bukenara, but he has a lot more footy credentials that you.
If he'd written us as an A+ trade you'd refer to him as a oracle.

Remind me again how you are dismissive of Conca & Colyer as players but talk up Dean Kent as an astute trade?

[stonecold]

Never known 'Media Experts' to be wrong before, haha!!!!!

Dan will provide value for money on and off the field!!!!!

Look at what we gave up to get him, nothing of any value what so ever!!!!!

[chico2001]

As long as DH gets on the park then he will get his 20-25 disposals and keep a good opposition player occupied. If he has a good summer getting his body right and you will then see a difference in Ross and Jack. Only problem is the buggers are poor kicks which really hurts.

[Joffa Burns]

Never known 'Media Experts' to be wrong before, haha!!!!!

Dan will provide value for money on and off the field!!!!!

Look at what we gave up to get him, nothing of any value what so ever!!!!!

Agree little fella, happy to have Dan and Dean (sounds like a surfie singing group from the 60's) join the club and ZI'm sure both will be solid contributors.
.
But lets not pretend we have blindsided the competition with our astute trading.
The likes of Brisbane and Freo (the shambles) who were both bottom end of the ladder clubs managed to recruit A grade talent in their prime.

[fugazi]

Never known 'Media Experts' to be wrong before, haha!!!!!

Dan will provide value for money on and off the field!!!!!

Look at what we gave up to get him, nothing of any value what so ever!!!!!

Agree little fella, happy to have Dan and Dean (sounds like a surfie singing group from the 60's) join the club and ZI'm sure both will be solid contributors.
.
But lets not pretend we have blindsided the competition with our astute trading.
The likes of Brisbane and Freo (the shambles) who were both bottom end of the ladder clubs managed to recruit A grade talent in their prime.

And lost A grade talent too

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

B+

http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/2 ... b-gradings

St Kilda
In: Dan Hannebery, Dean Kent, pick 36, pick 46, West Coast 2019 fourth-round pick
Out: Tom Hickey, pick 61, pick 65, 2019 second-round pick, 2019 fourth-round pick

2018 Draft Picks: 4, 36, 46, 67, 79

Grade: B+

Rationale: St Kilda's deal for Dan Hannebery was arguably one of the best recruiting decisions during the trade period. Buying on a low, Hannebery adds much needed experience, veteran leadership and quality through the midfield. Dean Kent can rotate between the midfield and front half and contend for if not earn a best 22 position. The departure of Tom Hickey weakens St Kilda's ruck stocks with the return received less than rucks of comparable quality who have been traded in the past.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Another B.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/10/18/t ... ed-by-you/

St Kilda Saints
In: Dan Hannebery, Dean Kent, pick 36, pick 46, 2019 fourth-round pick (West Coast).

Out: Tom Hickey, pick 61, pick 65, 2019 second-round pick (St Kilda), 2019 fourth-round pick (St Kilda).

2018 draft picks: 4, 36, 46, 67, 79.

For a while before the trade period it looked like things might get a little wacky at St Kilda this offseason so I’m glad to see that the club ultimately remained rather sensible at the trade table.

With a new list manager arriving at the Saints only a short time before the window opened it wasn’t the right time to reinvent the wheel – instead the Saints made a number of smart and canny deals that will help solve at least some of their problems.

Moving on Tom Hickey gets a tick. It’s a shame because the Saints spent so much to get him when they did, but c’est la vie. Finally now the headache of not being able to pick between him and Billy Longer is forcibly removed: just pick Longer.

Bringing in some mid-range draft picks gets a tick too. The Hickey deal saw them gain pick 39, which they traded up to pick 28 as part of the Dan Hannebery deal, then downgraded back to 36 and 46. Those aren’t especially early selections, but in a draft with a lot of depth to it, they can find good players there.


Advertisement
Dan Hannebery gets a tick also – particularly, the fact they got him so cheaply. The Saints gave up their future second rounder in exchange for Hannebery and an upgrade in 2018.

To put it in context, that’s less than St Kilda paid for Nathan Freeman three years ago, and it’s less than Carlton paid this year for Will Setterfield.

Is Hannebery going to get back to his best? Probably not, though who knows, maybe.

Even if not he’s going to be an excellent influence on the club. They desperately need more leadership, something which he’ll do plenty to provide.

I reckon there’s a very good chance he becomes captain of the club at some point, and in fact I wouldn’t be stunned at all if he’s in that role by Round 1, 2019.

The Crowd’s grade: C (38 per cent)
My grade: B

[Devilhead]

As long as DH gets on the park then he will get his 20-25 disposals and keep a good opposition player occupied. If he has a good summer getting his body right and you will then see a difference in Ross and Jack. Only problem is the buggers are poor kicks which really hurts.

Thanks for the kind words Chico but I have decided to hang up the boots

Disappointing I know but I have seen the future and all is good

[chico2001]

Nah....your grade is wrong.. self promotion and condescending..C at best 38 percent. My grade...………….D all the way

[chico2001]

As long as DH gets on the park then he will get his 20-25 disposals and keep a good opposition player occupied. If he has a good summer getting his body right and you will then see a difference in Ross and Jack. Only problem is the buggers are poor kicks which really hurts.

Thanks for the kind words Chico but I have decided to hang up the boots

Disappointing I know but I have seen the future and all is good

I wish you all the best in any future endeavors DH

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

3 grades gave a B. AFL 6/10. Another graded us a C.

So on average a B- I guess. Vastly different to a very negative and unreasonable D or F assessment off some posters here.

[chico2001]

Playing the negative card again!!! jeez, read you like a book. Whats next...…. troll. Keep googling and keep searching for any scrap of evidence to support your opinionated theory, go back years if you want and keep putting it up here. One poster called it F and one called it Z.

Rating..................….D

[skeptic]

I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that the moves we made were bad...

Even the harshest critics here haven’t suggested that Hannebery and Kent are bad picks ups.

I think the criticism was that we would actually address some of the glaring holes on our list...

For 3 years we’ve needed a good, classy ball user with pace
For 3 years we’ve needed a primary ruck

I’m struggling to see what we’ve done that will really improve the list.

[takeaway]

Consensus is between B and C grade then. Definitely a pass mark and some more. So it was a good trade period.

Rubbish once again from you. No, it wasn't a good trade period at all. Go back and read my post...that about nailed it. It is a wonder you didn't add …."end of story" at that post. Don't try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I think you yourself had about 9 posts in this thread giving it a B and one of your mates had 3/4 giving it a B, a half smart move but it didn't work. Do the maths properly.

Stacks of people are pissed off about the trading effort of the saints, it was insipid. One more decent player who would walk into the team would have gave it a C+

All a matter of opinion, not rubbish, Chico. When you said your previous post had nailed it, I had a look - as far as I'm concerned the your nail was crooked and didn't go in. Just your view, I expressed mine earlier in the thread.
I'm not sure what "do the maths correctly" means - you seem to refer to that sort of statement quite often.

Look up the term opinionated and read it aloud to yourself. To hell with other peoples viewpoint, so that puts it in the rubbish basket when you try that caper. He has some type of psychological disorder. If you read my post you would have seen that I referenced the same rating come up several times by this condescending twat, this skewed the so called results ( consensus Haha) thereby that poster trying to justify his own viewpoint and ignoring everyone elses opinion.

If you are going to add up figures or scores in a forum, you better get it right. So do you understand what it means " do the maths correctly" ? and I refer to that statement because it sorts out the wheat from the chaff, don't bulls***....you get caught out. Go back and have a look at the posts again. I didn't read your post first time around either......just read it and it was like the saints trading period.....insipid. But hey...thats just my opinion.

I would respond to the above but I have no idea what you are posting about, or why "maths" has to come into it. You should sell that box of nails - they're all crooked.

[saintsRrising]

I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that the moves we made were bad...

.

For the pick cost neither pick up is bad. BUT both have poor recent injury records and so both may struggle to stay on the park. As such both are high risk acquisitions. Neither are certainties, and that why my ranking is low. I do suspect that Hannas worst will be stodgey if he cannot get back to his fitness of 2 years back. If he can get his fitness back, then he will be a bargain for us.just two

The Lions were looked at as a basket case just two drafts back. But they have done very well in rebuilding their list. Saints with our ins and outs have been only been treading water at best.


The Hawks have for example landed one player in Wingard who will lay very good football week in week out, and one high risk pick up in Scully who may well never, or rarely, play.

Scully virtually cost nothing though, but will squeeze their salary cap which is the only real negative in throwing the dice in gaining him. If they can get him back to his best then having Tom, JOM, Wingard and Scully gives them an elite midfield.

Even without Scully they have some cream in Wingard.


The main thing that gets up fan's noses is the constant PR Spin from the club which does not match with what is actually being achieved list wise. There is way too much chest thumping and wishful thinking going on.

[Saintmatt]

I just think that until we improve our on field performance - and address The Dribbler elephant in the room issue - we're exactly where we are and where we're going to be for a while to come.

Basically - Lethlean had this to work with: -

- A club who'd madly traded away their 2nd rd pick in a super draft the previous year meaning they had little trade for a contracted upper/middle range player from another club. It was either pick 4 or 57 (i.e. all or nothing)
- A club who's CEO had bizarrely and needlessly extended the tenure of the Coach who'd shown little over the past 4 years as to why he should even keep his job, let alone be extended. The industry knows Richo is a struggler; don't believe for one minute the rest of the industry views him as Buckley or Hardwick Mk III (who just needs a bit of help)
- A poorly performed playing list in season 2018
- A list stacked with C+ with the odd B grader who'd stagnated or gone backwards.
- A list that is massively imbalanced with (1) lots of underwhelming HBFs; (2) Poorly performed and injured KPFs; (3) a collection of slow, poorly skilled inside mids.

When you read that out aloud to yourself - it's amazing he got anyone to come across. Would I have liked Shiel, Wingard, Scully, May to choose us? Hell yes. But being realistic - we're barely a club right now; let alone a 'destination' club.

Footy clubs largely have hope and hope-only to sell. Every year, 1 team wins it and the other 17 have to manufacture some kind of narrative to sell to their fans that they'll challenge or be close the next season.

Our only hope is that the players we have and the couple we've just recruited (+ presumably a DFA or two) add considerably to what we have with the aim of making us competitive in 2019. I always want to win but - our expectations need to be realistic. Quite frankly - I'd be delighted if we somehow managed to lose The Dribbler early in the season and then mount a run of winning momentum that saw us relevant again for 2020 and beyond. That's basically what North did in 2018 whilst we were spending the season sh!tting in our own letterbox. Whilst they might've missed on De Goey earlier this year - they were right in the frame for Gaff and eventually landed Polec, Pittard and Hall (all 3 of whom would make us instantly better) mainly, because they showed they were a cohesive team that's well coached with a brighter future.

[cwrcyn]

You can only play the hand that you have. Going in with picks 4 and 57 is not a strong hand in anyone's language, especially when no one is leaving. Hawthorn had to cough up a fine young player and a first and second round pick to get Wingard. Freo wouldn't have been able to achieve what it did if Lachie Neale wasn't demanding to leave. Melbourne wouldn't have been able to do what it did if Jessie Hogan wasn't pursuing a move out west. Essendon gave up two first rounders for a player who nominated them probably because his close mate already played for them. Geelong gave up a couple of fringe players for a bucket of chips. Port were only able to do what they did by giving up a couple of very high quality players. West Coast only did Hickey, after losing a higher performing ruck. Brisbane gained, and then lost a bit in return. Richmond dumped some fringe players. Carlton, defying expectation, were low key, as were Sydney and Adelaide. GWS did what they did to offload salary cap pressure. Collingwood, already loaded up with lots of high quality midfielders gave up two first rounders for a 29 year old midfielder....huh??

Bottom line....everyone's circumstances were different, and you can only play to your particular situation. There is no justification for slagging off the club's performance during the trade period. None.