2 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Don't know what the rules are these days but in the past that may have prevented him from starting pre season with them. 75 is useless to us and I would make them go to the draft if that's all they are willing to part with.

If it’s take pick 75 or Kent goes to the draft; I take 75. Both options amount to nothing, however one tells the footy world we’re big tough chest thumpers at the trade table, the other says we do the right thing by our players. I understand why people want us not to be seen as pushovers, but I think it’s misguided. I think not delivering the trade does us more reputational harm than any good it does.

If St Kilda lowball us, they have identified themselves as poor traders and this will harm their future business. The clubs all have rivals they like dealing with and clubs they avoid. I know which club I want to be.

It all comes down to Kent’s attitude about it. As @Fifty-5 said, if he gets in cahoots with St Kilda and says he’ll walk, we’re stuffed and he can have fun getting booed every time he play us. If he insists they deal fairly, we regain some power and we negotiate a fair outcome. There’s no point trying to throw our weight around if he throws us under the bus though.

What goes around comes around? It seems that Jack Lonie and Jack Steele are still uncontracted. 

21 minutes ago, Nasher said:

If it’s take pick 75 or Kent goes to the draft; I take 75. Both options amount to nothing, however one tells the footy world we’re big tough chest thumpers at the trade table, the other says we do the right thing by our players. I understand why people want us not to be seen as pushovers, but I think it’s misguided. I think not delivering the trade does us more reputational harm than any good it does.

If St Kilda lowball us, they have identified themselves as poor traders and this will harm their future business. The clubs all have rivals they like dealing with and clubs they avoid. I know which club I want to be.

It all comes down to Kent’s attitude about it. As @Fifty-5 said, if he gets in cahoots with St Kilda and says he’ll walk, we’re stuffed and he can have fun getting booed every time he play us. If he insists they deal fairly, we regain some power and we negotiate a fair outcome. There’s no point trying to throw our weight around if he throws us under the bus though.

That's all well and good and I can see where you're coming from but if we find ourselves caught short with the departures of both Kent and VDB (and possibly others), then we may rely more heavily on the trade (pick) to facilitate other player movements. Alternatively, we may be forced to use the pick in the draft given the higher number of departures. Pick 75 is not very helpful for either scenario.

I hope it's just posturing by St Kilda or more likely, utter tripe peddled by the Hun.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Regardless of what pick we get, St Kilda are still a pack of Kents.

Hey StKilda how's McCartin going? And thanks for that.

1 hour ago, Tim said:

And why not? That’s the exact number of games Cyril’s played these last 2 years.... ?

? Got me there 

75 ?‍♂️

Shows that the club is in a poor bargaining position as soon as a player starts to look elsewhere

8 hours ago, Nasher said:

And achieve what? If he goes to the draft, he gets to St Kilda and we get nothing. We can go all Essendon and thump our chest and make big statements about not being push overs, but all that does is make us look like flogs and wastes time. They hold all the aces. Cut our losses and move on.

Agreed, but I'd put the memory of this in our back pocket and remembering this the next time we hold the aces and St Kilda don't. No more nice guy with them from now on.

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

If it’s take pick 75 or Kent goes to the draft; I take 75. Both options amount to nothing, however one tells the footy world we’re big tough chest thumpers at the trade table, the other says we do the right thing by our players. I understand why people want us not to be seen as pushovers, but I think it’s misguided. I think not delivering the trade does us more reputational harm than any good it does.

If St Kilda lowball us, they have identified themselves as poor traders and this will harm their future business. The clubs all have rivals they like dealing with and clubs they avoid. I know which club I want to be.

It all comes down to Kent’s attitude about it. As @Fifty-5 said, if he gets in cahoots with St Kilda and says he’ll walk, we’re stuffed and he can have fun getting booed every time he play us. If he insists they deal fairly, we regain some power and we negotiate a fair outcome. There’s no point trying to throw our weight around if he throws us under the bus though.

Completely agreed. We are a club that gets stuff done and are fair to deal with. That’s why we get so many deals done unlike clubs like Essendon. 

You would hope Kent would have enough respect for the club that drafted and nursed him through loads of injuries, to ensure we don’t get screwed. If he doesn’t care, then honestly he’s no big loss. Either you’re with us, or you can get stuffed. 

13 minutes ago, A F said:

Agreed, but I'd put the memory of this in our back pocket and remembering this the next time we hold the aces and St Kilda don't. No more nice guy with them from now on.

Don’t worry. Clubs that are crap to deal with, get what they deserve in the end. 

11 minutes ago, Jaded said:

You would hope Kent would have enough respect for the club that drafted and nursed him through loads of injuries, to ensure we don’t get screwed. If he doesn’t care, then honestly he’s no big loss. Either you’re with us, or you can get stuffed. 

 

The only card Dean Kent has to force or influence Saints is to not go to them and I doubt he's pregnant with choices.  He can encourage them to play fair but if they say "no" what does he do?  Not play with them and pass up a three year contract?  It's not his decision to make.  It's between us and them so don't blame Kent if we get a crap deal.

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

If it’s take pick 75 or Kent goes to the draft; I take 75. Both options amount to nothing, however one tells the footy world we’re big tough chest thumpers at the trade table, the other says we do the right thing by our players. I understand why people want us not to be seen as pushovers, but I think it’s misguided. I think not delivering the trade does us more reputational harm than any good it does.

If St Kilda lowball us, they have identified themselves as poor traders and this will harm their future business. The clubs all have rivals they like dealing with and clubs they avoid. I know which club I want to be.

It all comes down to Kent’s attitude about it. As @Fifty-5 said, if he gets in cahoots with St Kilda and says he’ll walk, we’re stuffed and he can have fun getting booed every time he play us. If he insists they deal fairly, we regain some power and we negotiate a fair outcome. There’s no point trying to throw our weight around if he throws us under the bus though.

If I were Kent, I’d absolutely want St Kilda paying a higher price than 75.

He’s meant to be going there to be more valued.

However, 3 years and (I think Chook said?) 3x money... maybe he doesn’t care about the other number

I think the issue is St Kilda don't have a lot to trade Pick 3, 57, 61 and 63.  Good chance we get 57 or 61 for him which really is not far off his value.

No idea how St Kilda is going to execute all the trades they want, Dan Hannebery is going to cost them a first round pick with a bit of change coming back, doubt it will be Pick 3 might be future first round and Sydneys pick 30 this year. 

If that deal happens like that I would take pick 30, 57 and give them pick 43 and Kent

Edited October 4, 20186 yr by drdrake

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Some folk have a very strange idea of trading. It's not war , it's an opportunity to exchange for mutual benefit. Of course there are times it's slanted, but that's just market forces at play.

It is what it is. 

And it's never just about a single trade. There are other longer-term reasons to be "nice" to clubs we deal with. If that means we sometimes don't do as well as we like in one trade, it will inevitably even out in another.

3 hours ago, Tim said:

And why not? That’s the exact number of games Cyril’s played these last 2 years.... ?

And Kent and Cyril have four Premierships between them.

On 6/14/2018 at 1:15 PM, chook fowler said:

A good example of the Peter principle in trying to rise above his sphere of competence. He is very much an outside player with not a great tank. Will have to work very hard to become a midfielder with us or elsewhere.

Definitely needs a tank.

I don't think we have seen a truly fit Kent due to his injury. 

It's a pity because he has given us glimpses of what he could become. 

He remains very stiff and inflexible in the lower back often a cause or precursor of hamstring problems. Hard to see him ever having a fit body and having a tank that is needed to play 4Q of footy at the top level. 

15 hours ago, Nasher said:

Who cares. Was a delisting candidate anyway IMO, I'm still in shock from what they've offered him. Just sign it and move on to the actual business.

I see what you're saying Nash, but two things stand out about Kent:

One is that, every time he got himself fit, he got himself in the side.  The club clearly rates him and looked to get him in the side when they could.  His injury history meant that offering him a 1 year deal, from our end, made sense, but it also makes sense for him to look for more security.

The second thing is that the Saints clearly rate him as well, otherwise they wouldn't offer him a 3 year deal on much better money than what we were offering (which is what Chook in Perth alluded to).  A deal like that is worth more than Pick 75.  

I know we have our hands tied with this so it's a moot point I guess, but going by some of those factors I think a third round pick would have been fair.  We won't get that now, not with the threat of the pre-season draft hanging over us, and we might end up using that pick to upgrade someone or draft a local league player, but I think he's worth more to us than what we'll get when he leaves.

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I know we have our hands tied with this so it's a moot point I guess, but going by some of those factors I think a third round pick would have been fair.  We won't get that now,

We could still get a reasonable pick.

St Kilda have players on the move so their picks will change, it's not static.

We could also have access to future picks or Kent's move could be linked in to our KK deal...

 

15 hours ago, Adzman said:

Would rather let him walk for nothing then get screwed by St Kilda. I wouldn't be surprised to see a side like the Gold Coast spend a pick in the 50s in the draft for him if he were forced into the draft.

 

Or Freo...  Ross may want to give the Saints some saddle rash

 

15 hours ago, Nasher said:

Who cares. Was a delisting candidate anyway IMO, I'm still in shock from what they've offered him. Just sign it and move on to the actual business.

No. we have to show we are a serious club, not to be worked over by others, then we just lay down.. laying down is defeatist.

 

... "and it's the principle for which I am fighting... & If you haven't got principle, you haven't it got it in it... and I've got Principle"

"And I'll fight for this principle, till the day I die"

We got Jordan Lewis and Jeffy Garlett for  basically nothing.

Still... Its the trade period. It shouldn't be hard for the Saints to get a pick around the 50s to satisfy us.

Stkilda - hey dean would you like a 3 year deal on decent coin and to be part of our regular best 22 

 

also stkilda - sorry dees he’s only worth pick 75. 

 

Not how it works saints. We want a pick around 40 for him 

33 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

Stkilda - hey dean would you like a 3 year deal on decent coin and to be part of our regular best 22 

 

also stkilda - sorry dees he’s only worth pick 75. 

 

Not how it works saints. We want a pick around 40 for him 

St.Kilda:  fine, we'll take him through the preseason draft for nothing.

Honestly this guy is not worth a lot. Injury prone and very inconsistent. 63 games in six seasons is not flash and a lot of the early games were when we were hardly More than VFL standard. He was the best of a bad lot. 

39 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

St.Kilda:  fine, we'll take him through the preseason draft for nothing.

Melbourne: That's fine.

Also Melbourne: Hello Carlton, just thought we'd give you a heads up about someone who will be available in the PSD.

Kent is probably worth a pick in the 40's. I have no doubt that we'd accept St Kilda's Pick 57 (likely approx 63 after FA compo) as we've shown that we're fair and reasonable to trade with. Pick 75 is not fair and reasonable.

Edited October 4, 20186 yr by MadAsHell

26 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Melbourne: That's fine.

Also Melbourne: Hello Carlton, just thought we'd give you a heads up about someone who will be available in the PSD.

Kent is probably worth a pick in the 40's. I have no doubt that we'd accept St Kilda's Pick 57 (likely approx 63 after FA compo) as we've shown that we're fair and reasonable to trade with. Pick 75 is not fair and reasonable.

But they have to match the terms Kent puts on himself. Unlikely.  But who cares if they do. 

Kent’s a solid player. St Kilda’s offer reflects this (even though it looks and feels like an offer from MFC’s playbook circa 2012).

I think Kent’s best 22 for us. In this context, pick 75 is a joke - mid 30s seems about right.

 

29 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

But they have to match the terms Kent puts on himself. Unlikely.  But who cares if they do. 

I would have thought no issue at all. Not as though Carlton's list is bursting with talent. He'd be in their top dozen players.

Don't see 3 years being an issue for Carltank either.