2025 List Management Thread

[Mitcha]

I had a cursory glance at h is finals record. It's pretty handy.

Understand that but he hasn't played finals footy for a long time. He was much cleaner (and quicker) as a younger man.

[Mantis]

I think we also need to look at a tall defender as Lobb and jones are on the tail end of their careers. The jury is out on Busslinger and Garner could fill a role nut is more break glass that leaves Croft who is playing more forward.
O'Donnell is improving and can have his moments, but we saw Larkey was all over him when matched up. I think we need 200 plus key defender who can take a contested mark and at least have reasonable disposal skills.
Who that is I have no idea but I think it's an area of weakness.

I can see Lobb playing for another 3-4 years... he is in the prime of his career right now.

[Hotdog60]

I think we also need to look at a tall defender as Lobb and jones are on the tail end of their careers. The jury is out on Busslinger and Garner could fill a role nut is more break glass that leaves Croft who is playing more forward.
O'Donnell is improving and can have his moments, but we saw Larkey was all over him when matched up. I think we need 200 plus key defender who can take a contested mark and at least have reasonable disposal skills.
Who that is I have no idea but I think it's an area of weakness.

[Mofra]

I guess things tighten pretty quickly when you offer up a few million to bring players in, which is what they have in mind.

Hill would have come in on relatively large coin and is very much a player in his twilight who you mightn't need hanging around if you're wanting to rebuild quickly. Interesting comparison with Davidson. When I look at those comparisons I tend to gravitate towards effective disposals as much as anything else. Hill is a clean running player who I think would bring us genuine class, he's been durable in his time at the Saints.

When the whips are cracking I want players in the side who can be relied upon to maintain and reach a standard. As much as I've been impressed with Davidson and others I don't feel we've got that proven standard just yet, and we need to strike while the iron is hot. Two years out of Hill might help us do that.

They had enough to keep Battle and chased Kemp last year, North aside I don't think there's a team in the competition with more cap space than St Kilda. They'll keep him even if they have to shell out over $2.7m pa next year for TdK & Bergman.

If we're really chasing twilight wings, Langdon is covering as much ground as he ever has which fits perfectly into the way we want to play. Melbourne may be on the verge of imploding. I still think a genuine small defender is a much more pressing concern though.

[jeemak]

Would have won a Gold medal for fumbling last night. Handy player if given time and space but wouldn't trust him with a contested footy in a tight final, thanks but no thanks.

I had a cursory glance at h is finals record. It's pretty handy.

[jeemak]

I don't think we need a short term solution for the role he plays.

We need a short term solution for anything in any position that makes us better and more likely to capitalise on our core of quality players. This is chips in time, so if we can find someone better than Dolan or even Williams we go for it. It doesn't mean we can't address needs, but at this point we just need to raise the class levels on our list because we all lament it's a lack of outside class forward of centre that undoes us against the better teams, on top of some holes in our defence.

[jeemak]

No thanks. He will be 32 next year. I would rather give opportunities to our younger players like Dolan

Age aside, Dolan isn't anywhere near Hill's standard and most likely won't ever reach Hill's standard irrespective of the games we might feed him now or over the next couple of years. He may of course, but we are in the premiership window now and need to be topping up with quality now.

As for Hill's age, others have already pointed to this possibly not being an issue. I know it's a thing for you (lucky he's not a fatty as well!!!! ) but to me as JD has pointed out in modern footy it seems to be less of a problem - particularly if players have been durable.

[jeemak]

If Libba can run him down his well past his prime.

Libba has always been super quick. He's just usually too cooked from repeat stoppage efforts to show it.

[jeemak]

The last thing St Kilda need is a salary cap dump when they're overpaying and front loading what they have.

Although if we got Hill in, maybe Davidson could teach him how to tackle. They're actually a bit similar this year, comparatively.

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...&fid1=S&fid2=S

I guess things tighten pretty quickly when you offer up a few million to bring players in, which is what they have in mind.

Hill would have come in on relatively large coin and is very much a player in his twilight who you mightn't need hanging around if you're wanting to rebuild quickly. Interesting comparison with Davidson. When I look at those comparisons I tend to gravitate towards effective disposals as much as anything else. Hill is a clean running player who I think would bring us genuine class, he's been durable in his time at the Saints.

When the whips are cracking I want players in the side who can be relied upon to maintain and reach a standard. As much as I've been impressed with Davidson and others I don't feel we've got that proven standard just yet, and we need to strike while the iron is hot. Two years out of Hill might help us do that.

[Bornadog]

Which has-beens have we brought in over recent years?
I don't think Hill offers us as much others might but it seems a touch short sighted to rule out players mainly because of their age which is what you led with.
A few years back you ran a line through Isaac Smith because of his age and the Cats got 70 games out of him averaging 21 possessions.
He would have been handy for us over those 3 years as we were very much a contending team.

It's certainly no good bringing in older players like Hill on big coin if the best you are likely to do is be knocking on the top 10.
I 100% agree with you that we don't need to trade for Hill but his age is a very secondary consideration.

Lets be realistic, we would all love to be a club that could attract players in their actual prime but it doesn't happen too much so at times we need to focus on a shorter horizon.

The club believes it's capable of contending for a flag, with that in mind players who can add some value for 2 or 3 years should be considered.

I don't think we need a short term solution for the role he plays.

[GVGjr]

Only when we bring in hasbeens. If we are going to bring in a decent player I want them at their peak and to give us a few years service. No matter what you say a player in their 30s can go down quickly and it is hit and miss.

If we had a lack of experience like a Richmond, maybe then you bring in a player in their 30s to mentor the younger ones.

Which has-beens have we brought in over recent years?
I don't think Hill offers us as much others might but it seems a touch short sighted to rule out players mainly because of their age which is what you led with.
A few years back you ran a line through Isaac Smith because of his age and the Cats got 70 games out of him averaging 21 possessions.
He would have been handy for us over those 3 years as we were very much a contending team.

It's certainly no good bringing in older players like Hill on big coin if the best you are likely to do is be knocking on the top 10.
I 100% agree with you that we don't need to trade for Hill but his age is a very secondary consideration.

Lets be realistic, we would all love to be a club that could attract players in their actual prime but it doesn't happen too much so at times we need to focus on a shorter horizon.

The club believes it's capable of contending for a flag, with that in mind players who can add some value for 2 or 3 years should be considered.

[jazzadogs]

Only when we bring in hasbeens. If we are going to bring in a decent player I want them at their peak and to give us a few years service. No matter what you say a player in their 30s can go down quickly and it is hit and miss.

If we had a lack of experience like a Richmond, maybe then you bring in a player in their 30s to mentor the younger ones.

Alternatively if we think we might win a flag in the next two years, why not bring in a guy that we think can be in our best 22 for that year or two?

I'm not so interested in age for recruits, but a) what have their performances at AFL level been in the past few years and b) what has their injury history been in the past few years?

I was against Harmes recruitment because of his injury history. I wanted us to chase Isaac Smith when he was available. Brad Hill has been inconsistent but had some good games in a crap team this year, putting up the same numbers as he has since 2021, and has hardly missed a game since 2019. I think he'd be a decent target.

[Hotdog60]

If Libba can run him down his well past his prime.

[Bornadog]

Players ages are very important with you aren't they?

Only when we bring in hasbeens. If we are going to bring in a decent player I want them at their peak and to give us a few years service. No matter what you say a player in their 30s can go down quickly and it is hit and miss.

If we had a lack of experience like a Richmond, maybe then you bring in a player in their 30s to mentor the younger ones.

[Stevo]

No thanks. He will be 32 next year. I would rather give opportunities to our younger players like Dolan

Players ages are very important with you aren't they?
I don't think we need Hill but if I thought he could make a difference for us over the next 2 years I'd be all for it.

My priorities would be small defender, key position player (forward/ruckman) and centre square midfielder.