Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Con Gorozidis wrote:If we go purely on the points system.
We gave up pick 5 (1878)
for
Carlisle + pick 22 (845)
Values Carlisle at 1033 which is ~ pick 17 (1025).
Probably a fair trade.
I still think it lazy recruiting if you compare it to the key defenders in this week's GF.
Lake (pick 71)
Schofield (51)
McGovern (Nothing/Rookie)
Frawley (Nothing/FA)
Con you are just picking the lowest pick for those players. You say Lake is 71 when he was first drafted but use Frawley when he was a FA. And I'm sure other backs have gone at higher picks than those.
They are all the Key Defenders playing in this weeks GF.
This is a thread about Carlisle - a key defender.
Con Gorozidis wrote:If we go purely on the points system.
We gave up pick 5 (1878)
for
Carlisle + pick 22 (845)
Values Carlisle at 1033 which is ~ pick 17 (1025).
Probably a fair trade.
I still think it lazy recruiting if you compare it to the key defenders in this week's GF.
Lake (pick 71)
Schofield (51)
McGovern (Nothing/Rookie)
Frawley (Nothing/FA)
Con you are just picking the lowest pick for those players. You say Lake is 71 when he was first drafted but use Frawley when he was a FA. And I'm sure other backs have gone at higher picks than those.
They are all the Key Defenders playing in this weeks GF.
This is a thread about Carlisle - a key defender.
Ok but why don't you say Frawley was pick 12 because that was about his pick when drafted. And I know they are all playing this weekend but there are still plenty of backs who go at higher picks. There is no way I would pay pick 5 for an unproven back but it seems this year pick 2 will go for unproven back. I don't think we will pay only pick 5 for Carlisle if he comes to us. I expect as you said to get their second round back in return which we can use on Freeman.
So Carlisle isnt going to make a difference in any of those areas. While I am definitely happy to have him he isnt going to be a messiah and our midfield needs two young A graders to be added to it asap.
Con Gorozidis wrote:If we go purely on the points system.
We gave up pick 5 (1878)
for
Carlisle + pick 22 (845)
Values Carlisle at 1033 which is ~ pick 17 (1025).
Probably a fair trade.
I still think it lazy recruiting if you compare it to the key defenders in this week's GF.
Lake (pick 71)
Schofield (51)
McGovern (Nothing/Rookie)
Frawley (Nothing/FA)
Con you are just picking the lowest pick for those players. You say Lake is 71 when he was first drafted but use Frawley when he was a FA. And I'm sure other backs have gone at higher picks than those.
They are all the Key Defenders playing in this weeks GF.
This is a thread about Carlisle - a key defender.
Ok but why don't you say Frawley was pick 12 because that was about his pick when drafted. And I know they are all playing this weekend but there are still plenty of backs who go at higher picks. There is no way I would pay pick 5 for an unproven back but it seems this year pick 2 will go for unproven back. I don't think we will pay only pick 5 for Carlisle if he comes to us. I expect as you said to get their second round back in return which we can use on Freeman.
Cos last time I looked Melbourne werent playing in a GF? Would you say Melbourne got value from pick 12? I guess they kind of did because it got them Brayshaw - but that was really more luck than good fortune. Without that compo - Frawley wasnt really worth their while.
The Hawks, on the other hand ARE in a GF. In fact their 5th in 8 years. And they havent spent anything draft wise on key defenders. Nor have the Eagles.
The point is that it appears to be the case that good sides dont spend their high draft picks on key defenders.
Not saying its a hard rule - but its a trend.
The Eagles used high picks on mids:
Masten (3)
Gaff (4)
Shuey (18)
Sheed (11)
NicNat (2)
Sheppard (7)
And of course, famously they got Priddis as a Rookie.
footnote: Duggan (11) is another mid who is only 18yo but was showing good signs before being injured.
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Thu 01 Oct 2015 3:19am, edited 1 time in total.
Con Gorozidis wrote:
Cos last time I looked Melbourne werent playing in a GF? Would you say Melbourne got value from pick 12? I guess they kind of did because it got them Brayshaw - but that was really more luck than good fortune. Without that compo - Frawley wasnt really worth their while.
The Hawks, on the other hand ARE in a GF. In fact their 5th in 8 years. And they havent spent anything draft wise on key defenders. Nor have the Eagles.
The point is that it appears to be the case that good sides dont spend their high draft picks on key defenders.
Not saying its a hard rule - but its a trend.
The Eagles used high picks on mids:
Gaff (4)
Shuey (18)
Sheed (11)
NicNat (2)
Sheppard (7)
And of course, famously they got Priddis as a Rookie.
Ok but then Lake must be pick 27 or whatever he went for. I have said for many years we should draft mids. I wouldn't have taken McCartin last year myself. The problem is this year we weren't sure about what pick we would end up with until today. Hopefully we can work a 3 way trade so we get carlisle at around pick 10 to 15 which I rate as true value. If Carlisle wasn't available I would take only mids. Half will probably fail but that gives you a couple that wont.
Hope we keep pick 5. Means we probs need to give up a player and our 2nd round . Will have to be a player of perceived value not one of our Sandy regulars. Much nashing of teeth.
“If you want the rainbow you gotta put up with rain” Dolly Parton
Bulldogs probably out of race. Beveridge whinge on SEN yesterday followed up by Gordon on SEN today saying they won't be Pershing any aggressive trades.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bulldogs probably out of race. Beveridge whinge on SEN yesterday followed up by Gordon on SEN today saying they won't be Pershing any aggressive trades.
Obviously SC maxed out
Was always going to be a problem after offering $1m per year to a teenager on a 7 year contract........
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
CQ SAINT wrote:I wouldn't worry too much about his form in 2014/15. Its obvious his welfare and Essendon's lake of game plan never sat well with his form. WADA wont do s*** and I expect that they are just running Essendon's ragged reputation into the ground. Fines and minimal suspension at most, if anything. Its fairly obvious the players aren't to blame and have suffered enough. Looking forward to adding white to his jumper. The Bulldogs are dreaming. We have the opportunity, the need and the cash. It is a better option than waiting 4 years for a tall and average 19 year old to develop and we wont get Collins with #5. His mere presence on the ground next year will benefit Goddard's development and with Fisher, Dempster, Gilbert and Roberton added all of a sudden we have depth and versatility in our defensive tall stocks. I would be very happy to land Carlisle, Freeman, Rice and secure Sinclair and still take a first or second round pick. Would love to see that happen.
That prospect has me feeling:
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
It'd be interesting hearing the discussion about Jake Carlisle over dinner in the Beveridge household. They would both probably know where he's going unless he's off to Carlscum or the Dorks.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bulldogs probably out of race. Beveridge whinge on SEN yesterday followed up by Gordon on SEN today saying they won't be Pershing any aggressive trades.
Obviously SC maxed out
Was always going to be a problem after offering $1m per year to a teenager on a 7 year contract........
SC is only going to get worse for them. Still early but if they could fast forward 12 months I bet they wouldn't have done that type of deal.
Might still pay off but was always going to be risky for a few reasons.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bulldogs probably out of race. Beveridge whinge on SEN yesterday followed up by Gordon on SEN today saying they won't be Pershing any aggressive trades.
Obviously SC maxed out
Was always going to be a problem after offering $1m per year to a teenager on a 7 year contract........
SC is only going to get worse for them. Still early but if they could fast forward 12 months I bet they wouldn't have done that type of deal.
Might still pay off but was always going to be risky for a few reasons.
So are we also to understand that the Blues dont have much Cap room either? They must be paying Gibbs, Murphy and Thomas a fortune. Value for money finishing 18th from 18.
Can anyone tell me when we are supposed to meet Jake Carlisle ? I have read reports that we have met him and then read reports that we are going to meet him in a few days so if anyone has reliable sources in regards to Carlisle and the any information as to whether he is leaning towards us or not that would be great.
Burkey 1 wrote:Can anyone tell me when we are supposed to meet Jake Carlisle ? I have read reports that we have met him and then read reports that we are going to meet him in a few days so if anyone has reliable sources in regards to Carlisle and the any information as to whether he is leaning towards us or not that would be great.
The AFL Trade period goes from, Monday October 12, 10am - NAB AFL Trade Period begins, until
Thursday October 22, 2pm – NAB AFL Trade Period closes.
At some point during that trade period we will learn where Carlisle went. You won't learn anything prior to the trade period.
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
Burkey 1 wrote:Can anyone tell me when we are supposed to meet Jake Carlisle ? I have read reports that we have met him and then read reports that we are going to meet him in a few days so if anyone has reliable sources in regards to Carlisle and the any information as to whether he is leaning towards us or not that would be great.
At the coaches awards night (last tuesday), Richo said he'd spoken the Jake between the end of the season and Jake going overseas. Richos got no reason to make that up, so I think that one's true.
The reports in the last couple of days stated he was coming to Seaford for another meeting and a medical. There's no point wasting time with a medical if he had no interest in being at St Kilda, even if we're not his No. 1 destination. Can't be sure of the accuracy on this one, but I reckon we'll hear from Jake this week about his preferred home.
FWIW, I only want the guy if he really wants to be there. There's something great building down our way, but the foundations for that is a commitment to the cause. If he's only interested cause we're offering the most, the Blues can have him.
