Traded Bailey Smith: 4-way trade: B. Smith (WB) & pick 45 to Geel / pick 38 to Carl / Macrae (WB) to StK / pick 17 & Kennedy (Carl) to WB

[Ross]

Yeah the known quantity gives teams more certainty but I think likewise teams also hold picks until the draft to see who is available or trade for a premium, rather than trade before. Although I think it’s been pretty consistent in terms of what those picks in that range are valued at trade wise, in or outside of live trading.

Yeah, we don't see as many of those weird pick swaps now before the draft unless they're aiding academy or F/S picks. The other thing is Smith is also a known commodity and so trying to equate his value with a number in the draft is kind of pointless, clubs can't just move up and down the draft to obtain the exact satisfactory draft pick. Geelong have their picks and the Dogs have their picks, some combination of those will end up being used to make a deal.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

At the end of the day we're talking about a 6-7 pick drift in a flat quality curve. Respect your opinion but I don't think you're getting shafted to the degree dogs fans are insinuating.

You're not going to convince that an upgrade of 6-7 picks in the late teens or whatever is "meaningless".

Your evidence is a handwave that there's a perception that the "quality is flat"

Dogs' fans evidence is the direct and past evidence that there is a meaningful benefit in taking a player earlier in the top 20 that significantly drops away by the 30's that teams don't see a huge issue filling up their list with a zero-value pick rather than a pick in the 30's.

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[ShadowCat]

So the Dogs agree to Geelong making this statement. Then what?

Geelong don't offer a first round pick and offer a second round pick, because if they refuse to trade, they miss out on a second round pick.

Geelong don't offer a second round pick and offer a third round pick. A third round pick is more than nothing, so the Dogs would miss out on a third-round pick if they rejected every trade.

Clearly Geelong think there is some element of loss of not executing a trade, otherwise they would literally offer the barest minimum possible in a trade, because why would they pay more for something that they'd be guaranteed to get anyway?

Once you answer that question you can see how the premise of what you're proposing is stupid.

Purely from a maximising their own trade haul standpoint, Dogs have to be sincere with their risk of losing nothing and use the leverage of Smith not smoothly going to Geelong in a trade against Geelong.

I can answer this one pretty simply, which is what a fair few of the commentators discussing this have said as well - there's far more likelihood of us being able to secure Smith with our first round pick in the draft, than a 2nd or 3rd rounder. Anyone would take him once it got past the 1st round. In a draft this deep, not many - if any - are going to sacrifice their first round pick on someone who likely didn't want to be there.

It probably won't eventuate this way, but if Sam Power did decide to draw the line in the sand on this one, then I could see us offering a Future 2nd at the 11th hour, and then calling his bluff and sending Smith to the ND if need be. I imagine the thinking would be along the lines of 'they only offered him 2 years, he contemplated retiring and has had off-field issues, and just did his ACL...what do we consider as fair for an OOC player? We'll give them what we would use in the draft anyway, and then work backwards from that.'

Hasn't happened with a high profile player since Luke Ball, so I doubt it does. Will be a lot of posturing though, and I suspect neither side will be happy when it's all said and done.

This is very similar to Jordan Clark, imo. We knew just how good he could be, but Scarlett really screwed things up and Clark rightfully wanted out as he wasn't getting the exposure he should. Nek minnit, AA squad for Pick 22 and a Future 3rd. We were adamant we wanted a Top 10 pick, and at the very least a 1st rounder. Unfortunately, OOC does mean something, as you can't force them to honour their contract, ala Oliver, Kelly, Papley, Dunkley, Sav, etc.

I can say, from what I've seen on your guys' side, that this won't be pretty - as Smith has basically checked out and not treated your club the best. Obviously there's reasons like playing position, issues with coach, issues of his own, but I suspect we'll never fully know.

We wanted a 1st for Sav last year, as he played 19 out of 23 games, and was coming into his own as a KPD (other clubs wanted him too). Port put 25 on the table and said 'take it or leave it.' Stonewalled until the 11th hour, ended up with two 4th rounders - one which was Humphries. Is what it is. TK was the exception, not the rule, as he had just come off a phenomenal season where he was AA, Top 5 Brownlow, and runner up B+F...if Smith had of had that season just gone, I imagine we'd be talking similar picks. Unfortunately, his trade value has dropped, given he hasn't played a real dominant game since midway through 2022.

TL; DR offering a 2nd or 3rd would actually be ridiculous, because either way we have to use a 1st to secure him in the ND. Not giving it to you guys would just be asking for trouble. Who know what's top of that, but there is absolutely 100% no doubt that our 1st is guaranteed to you guys. It's what else is involved/not involved that is going to cause consternation over the next 2 weeks.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You're not going to convince that an upgrade of 6-7 picks in the late teens or whatever is "meaningless".

Your evidence is a handwave that there's a perception that the "quality is flat"

Dogs' fans evidence is the direct and past evidence that there is a meaningful benefit in taking a player earlier in the top 20 that significantly drops away by the 30's that teams don't see a huge issue filling up their list with a zero-value pick rather than a pick in the 30's.

Who are you trying to convince?

I've got no particular need to convince anyone. I just don't think you're walking away from a first and second round pick to make some kind of grand statement.

 

[Burtyl78]

Oh come on. Seriously. Get with the times

The times are it’s taken the blues 20 years to get competitive without buying their way out of it, YOU get with the times

 

[Pencil case]

TL; DR offering a 2nd or 3rd would actually be ridiculous, because either way we have to use a 1st to secure him in the ND. Not giving it to you guys would just be asking for trouble.

One would argue only offering a first and change is asking for trouble

 

[FootyLad0]

If Geelong don't pay up, Dogs fans would be fine with this, because we understand that it's far more risky for Geelong than Geelong fans are pretending than it is, even with their fans' confidence in situations like this. What you suggest isn't smooth at all, with a multitude of possibilities (however unrealistic, it's not zero), that either involve Smith not making his way to Geelong or otherwise Smith making his way to Geelong but in a way that's harmful to Smith and Geelong's relationship.

And to maximise your trade haul, you have to be sincere in your willingness to walk away.

Luke Ball made his way to Collingwood at close to the worst pick in the first round literally just like this scenario you’re referring to.
Not a single club took him because he made it clear. “I will ONLY play for Collingwood, do not draft me”

You think a list manager is going to waste a 1st round pick in a deep Draft on a guy as outspoken as Bailey who says, “I only want to play for Geelong” ???

Surely people understand that List managers aren’t petty and actually have a job to maintain?
Deal will get done and this posturing on here will be for nothing.

 

[FootyLad0]

Amazing how many neutral fans are so emotionally invested in a trade that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

You can smell the angst and anxiety from a mile away.
They are absolutely filthy Cats are doing well, tall poppy syndrome at its finest.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Geelongs pick likely to end up 20 now with Ashcroft, Kako and Lombard bids expected before it yeah?

2 firsts or send him to the draft

 

[Pencil case]

Geelongs pick likely to end up 20 now with Ashcroft, Kako and Lombard bids expected before it yeah?

2 firsts or send him to the draft

That’s the plan

 

[FootyLad0]

Geelongs pick likely to end up 20 now with Ashcroft, Kako and Lombard bids expected before it yeah?

2 firsts or send him to the draft

Where Geelong pick him with their first round pick….

You think any list manager is dumb enough in a deeeep draft to waste a first round pick (highly sought after this year) on a guy who says, “I won’t play for a team unless it’s Geelong”
You get a Luke Ball scenario all over again. It’s ridiculous posturing.

List managers aren’t this emotionally turbulent anymore. Careers ride on this sort of stuff.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Where Geelong pick him with their first round pick….

You think any list manager is dumb enough in a deeeep draft to waste a first round pick (highly sought after this year) on a guy who says, “I won’t play for a team unless it’s Geelong”
You get a Luke Ball scenario all over again. It’s ridiculous posturing.

List managers aren’t this emotionally turbulent anymore. Careers ride on this sort of stuff.

For pick 20? May as well sell him for a frozen coke and a box of sultanas.

 

[STPer18]

Might be in for more MackAttack magic. He always gets his man.

 

[Rockford]

May as well sell him for a frozen coke and a box of sultanas.

Done. Let me know the address to send frozen coke and box of sultanas to. Happy days, we get to keep first rounder and add Bailey.

 

[ShadowCat]

One would argue only offering a first and change is asking for trouble

That doesn't really seem like an objective conclusion, IMO. The facts as they stand are:

- He's OOC, and players command much less when OOC if they're not playing like absolute stars/Best 22 in their favoured position (Ratugolea and Jordan Clark as recent examples for us)

- You don't have a first round pick, and he has no interest in being at your club, so you can't threaten to re-draft

- We can either use a 1st rounder at the draft, or give it to you. If you choose not to take it as a power play, we still don't lose anything. We may lose Smith on the extremely remote chance that were to happen, but we still can draft someone else we like. You get nothing in this scenario. We get egg on our face, but we can still argue as a club that we didn't want to risk giving up any more for a player that could still have some concerns.

- Smith is widely despised now by your supporter base, has done his ACL, had drug/off-field issues where he contemplated retiring after taking time away from the club and the game...who's to say that won't happen again and we end up taking a large risk by giving up too much?

- You only offered him a 2 year contract, we've reportedly offered 5. That reads as pushing him out and getting what you can, again lowering his value.

- People said the exact same about Clark and Sav on our end, about us wielding power and sending him to the draft, but ultimately, we had to accept what our club perceived as unders.

- Your valuation as supporters seems heavily based on what he was back in 2021/2022, and what he could be. Our valuation seems heavily based on what he currently is. Neither are correct or incorrect, but your position of 'you offering a 1st and change is asking for trouble', seems heavily biased and doesn't take into account the facts and the history as laid out above. You only need to see Luke Ball to see how these things go. Hately as a more recent example, but he wasn't anything special, so it didn't really matter.

- Bottom line, if you want to gamble and draw a line in the sand, I would imagine that given how this is playing out in the media and through conversations on forums such as these, that neither club will budge until the very last minute - based on the differing perspectives of his value mentioned above. If, however, Power chooses to go the nuclear route, he'll be the one gambling more than we will - as I imagine Smith and Connors would be well aware that it's a possibility that it happens -, and will be planning on contingencies/contract structures to dissuade others if that were to happen.

- I have thought for months now, that his value would be somewhere around the mid 1st, plus a Future 2nd, and I reckon that's what we'll offer. We will likely trade out a Future 3rd pretty quickly, to make that the only likely scenario, just as we did with Ollie Henry - so it locks our 1st given drafting rules. You don't have to agree with it or think it's fair, but by all accounts we won't be giving up our Future 1st

- Unfortunately as it stands, and I don't say this to be harsh as we live in the West and love the Doggies (Macrae has been one of my favourite players for quite a while), you don't hold the whip hand here. You can threaten all you like, draw a line in the sand, but the facts are as outlined above:

• the player doesn't care what return you get so you can't lean on him that way
• you hold no 1st round draft pick, so you can't threaten to re-draft
• we do hold a 1st round pick, so we can call you on your bluff and draft him
• we could even not offer anything on top of the 1st, knowing the above (I do not think this will happen as Mackie doesn't run things anymore)
• he's OOC so AFL can enact restraint of trade measures/mediation if they feel you're not engaging; e.g. we offer a 1st and a 2nd and cite past concerns as not offering more (you also haven't offered him the same contract as us)
• all parties would be well aware that the draft would be a possible scenario, ala Luke Ball, and will probably enter trade period knowing it - given the lack of dialogue to this point/differing perspectives on value -, so won't be too concerned if this lever is pulled by Power
• the worst that happens to us is we don't get Smith, but we still get someone else (we can again cite our perspective over concerns about his previous issues, as reasons we didn't want to give anymore, to protect our status as a club of choice in the future)

I understand why you guys feel the way you do, and I legitimately am not trying to minimise it...but it's a little hard on the one hand to say he's a FIGJAM, only offer a contract for 2 years and say he's behind all of your best mids so has to be played elsewhere...but then on the other hand ask for value commensurate to some of the other best mids in the cop...despite the fact he hasn't played a decent game in his preferred position for nearly 2 years. His value isn't 2 1st rounders anymore, as we have no idea how he's going to come back. I would imagine this is what Geelong would argue. Bulldogs can argue the inverse and say he showed elite capability early on, but the facts as they stand, will be that a lot has transpired between the 2021 Finals series, and now. Thus, given his OOC status and other issues, his value is heavily diminished. I mean you only need to see how many supporters on our end have our concerns about his behaviour in recent weeks, to see how this is not such a 'sure thing' in the eyes of many.

If you think anything less than two 1sts is acceptable, then you're probably going to be disappointed. We could collapse in a heap and end up giving you Pick 8 and Pick 20 for him, which would be disastrous for us given the state of our list build/retirements coming. It's why it won't happen. There's no guarantee on it. I actually think it would be smarter for you guys to ask for a Future 1st and bank on a slide, plus our Current 2nd. The 2nd will come in due to bid matches, and the 1st will probably be much better than the 1st this year, if we have a down year. Either way, that's what I think will be offered at the 11th hour - a 1st and a 2nd from either year. It's really a matter of perspective/bias on either side, if you think that's fair or 'asking for trouble', or not.

 

[JackOutback]

Where Geelong pick him with their first round pick….

You think any list manager is dumb enough in a deeeep draft to waste a first round pick (highly sought after this year) on a guy who says, “I won’t play for a team unless it’s Geelong”
You get a Luke Ball scenario all over again. It’s ridiculous posturing.

List managers aren’t this emotionally turbulent anymore. Careers ride on this sort of stuff.

Bailey Smith has just missed a year of football. You think he’ll skip a second year of what is already a short career just to make a statement. If another club picks him, I suspect he suits up, otherwise his brand could be severely weakened.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Luke Ball made his way to Collingwood at close to the worst pick in the first round literally just like this scenario you’re referring to.
Not a single club took him because he made it clear. “I will ONLY play for Collingwood, do not draft me”

You think a list manager is going to waste a 1st round pick in a deep Draft on a guy as outspoken as Bailey who says, “I only want to play for Geelong” ???

Surely people understand that List managers aren’t petty and actually have a job to maintain?
Deal will get done and this posturing on here will be for nothing.

Luke Ball also reorganised his contract after the breakdown of trade talks with St Kilda, to get more money from Collingwood, to dissuade other clubs from drafting him, of which Melbourne were considered a chance.

The very fact that changing actions had to be taken post-breakdown of trade talks with St Kilda proves my point - it wasn't as simple as Collingwood walking him to the draft under identical contract terms pre-trade that Geelong fans want to make it out to be.

Also - why not? Richmond are losing all their best players and have a million draft picks. I don't think they will, but it's a non-zero chance that they would consider it, to make an impact on Geelong. It doesn't have to be likely. It just has to be enough greater than a 0% chance of happening to make Geelong think.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

An utterly strange post that would make many examples of historical propaganda proud.

- He's OOC, and players command much less when OOC if they're not playing like absolute stars/Best 22 in their favoured position (Ratugolea and Jordan Clark as recent examples for us)

Well done on figuring out that OOC players command less. Obviously. We're not expecting a Dylan Shiel in-contract trade haul here.

This idea that he wasn't playing in his favoured position is bizarre, and to the extent is true, is simply because a bunch of other elite mids also existed? existed in the same team, and being behind them in the pecking order shouldn't be controversial.

2022 CBA attendances from matches played: Macrae 64%, Libba 59%, Bont 58%, Smith 54%, Dunkley 50%, Treloar 34%.

He actually played more midfield minutes than both Dunkley (who eventually won our best and fairest by playing excellent footy on the basis of the midfield that he did play) and Treloar (who would return to All-Australian output by 2024, by playing again as a full-time, centre-bounce midfielder).

2023 CBA attendances: Bont 81% Libba 78%, Treloar 81%, Macrae 36%, Smith 30%.

Bont and Libba were both All-Australian squad members and Treloar played much better football. Macrae was coming off three All-Austrlaian performances.

Across his last two years that he played, he played as many midfield minutes as you would reasonably expect any player who is very good but not quite as good as literal best-and-fairest winners or All-Australians would play.

He was alternatively a hard-running half forward but would also play minutes as the forward +1 into the midfield (so adding to the midfield without starting at the centre bounce)

Compare, for instance, to the fact that Sydney have had to chop and change who plays in their centre bounce rotation to find success, but it didn't mean that any player was necessarily being played "out of position" when it could be the perspective of needing to "find their mix". I don't think you can really criticise the Dogs for wanting to play Bont in the midfield more and forward line less, and something has to give a bit, which is the case.

For Smith's "worth". His output was somewhat patchy, and his kicking in 2023 was pretty terrible, and didn't necessarily improve with age. But Dogs fans always valued his hard running, his versatility, and the fact that he had match-winning capabilities, above and beyond a young player appearing good with the potential to be match-winning in the future. For instance, he has 8 games with 8+ coaches votes, a rate unmached by many of the other midfielders in the league considered to be the "best" under 25. It is precisely those attributes that made him an in demand player.

- You don't have a first round pick, and he has no interest in being at your club, so you can't threaten to re-draft

GWS would immediately accept our future first and future second for pick 15 or 16 in the current draft, which we could use to to draft Smith, which we could threaten to do on draft day itself, the pick immediately before Geelong's. The threat of us doing that trade is not distinct from the threat of drafting Smith in any case.

The fact that he has no interest at being at our club is irrelavent in the context of us re-drafting him. All we have to do is be able to fit him in our salary cap. That's Smtih's risk for requesting a trade not as a free agent - all players agree to these rules part of their collective bargaining. In theory, I'm sure the AFL and the clubs would be willing to introduce more expansive free agency rights for players and freedom of movement if they took a smaller piece of the AFL's overall revenue.

We can either use a 1st rounder at the draft, or give it to you. If you choose not to take it as a power play, we still don't lose anything. We may lose Smith on the extremely remote chance that were to happen, but we still can draft someone else we like. You get nothing in this scenario. We get egg on our face, but we can still argue as a club that we didn't want to risk giving up any more for a player that could still have some concerns.

The willigness to get nothing in return is the whole point, because it has to be sincere, otherwise there's not reason for Geelong not to minimise their trade haul, as anything traded is by definition more than nothing.

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.

- Smith is widely despised now by your supporter base, has done his ACL, had drug/off-field issues where he contemplated retiring after taking time away from the club and the game...who's to say that won't happen again and we end up taking a large risk by giving up too much?

That would have been factored into the risk of the contract you were willing to offer him. The Dogs also aren't stupid. The club is aware of the historic nature of discussions between Smith's management and Geelong over the course of more than one year. Pretending that you're taking some big risk of drafting him or that the Geelong football club is only forming their opinion of Smith as a player in some sort of fake-"oh gee, we're only realising now, once the season has conlcuded, that he's out of contract" is fooling no-one, and achieves nothing.

I wouldn't say Smith is despised by the club and it's fans, the club is frustrated by him, especially by the good faith basis that we've treated him over the years, only for Smtih to talk to other clubs and not give the existing team its full support this season.

- You only offered him a 2 year contract, we've reportedly offered 5. That reads as pushing him out and getting what you can, again lowering his value.

Because a two-year contract takes Smith to free agency, which specifically in the case of the Dogs, is of greater value to Smith than the security gained in a long-term contract. The fact that you couldn't work out that the two years is both taking him to free agency and precisely a gift by the Dogs and us giving something up to Smith's benefit when it would be our preference to sign him for longer if we're signing him at all should invalidate the rest of your post

We're not pushing him out. We're allowing him to be out of contract in the very first year that he would be eligible for free agency as an out-of-contract player (8 years). Gee. Not rocket science.

- People said the exact same about Clark and Sav on our end, about us wielding power and sending him to the draft, but ultimately, we had to accept what our club perceived as unders.

The fact that Geelong fans consistently suggest that Ratugolea was some big underpay continues to be perplexing. He was a player that had one year of reasonable form, needed positional changes to determine his worth, and had played a lot of recent VFL football is the case. It probably was a slight underpay but not hugely so.

You also have to consider the balanced examples here - the Dogs rarely have in-demand players want to trade through to them. There was no benefit to Geelong wielding power because it was the same lack of other clubs wielding power that had benefitted them in the past (Bruhn, Cameron, Dangerfield after RFA matching etc.) so the net overall result was beneficial to Geelong. If you'd made a stand with Clark, than the future trades of the Bruhns of the world you wouldn't have been able to trade so cheaply yourself, as GWS would have treated you as you treated the same way with other clubs. The Dogs don't have that worry, because players so rarely come to us on big money deals, that we're not losing out on future trades.

Your valuation as supporters seems heavily based on what he was back in 2021/2022, and what he could be. Our valuation seems heavily based on what he currently is.

No, the valuation of him by both Geelong and Dogs fans is on the basis of the fact that Geelong are willing to pay him a five year contract for about a million dollars a year.

Both clubs' valuation of him as a player is similar. The Dogs are offering him similar money but only for two years, as we can also offer him free agency eligiblity after two years at the Dogs. If he moves to the Cats, he's not a free agent after two years there, so he may as well sign for the extra three years for the guaranteed money.

Neither are correct or incorrect, but your position of 'you offering a 1st and change is asking for trouble', seems heavily biased and doesn't take into account the facts and the history as laid out above.

People are suggesting that it's asking for trouble because a belief that Geelong are not paying up enough in a trade that reflects both the valuation of the player through the contracts both the Dogs and Geelong are offering is Geelong looking to take advantage of a flawed system of getting players to clubs they want to get to OOC but pre-free agent. Everyone can agree a system that Josh Battle gets St Kilda a top 10 pick but Smith, with fewer years of service to the Dogs, have to accept a worse pick as compensation is inherently flawed in the delicate balancing act of equalisation, for rewarding clubs for identifying talent in the league, and allowing freedom of movement and limiting the restraint of trade of players. People don't look to change it too deeply because most of the time, teams pay enough in trades for pre-FA, OOC players (see Cerra, Rankine etc) that nobody complains about the system too much. But in combination with F/S, Academy, the cracks can show - St Kilda's recent comments that would surely be louder if Geelong as a big club are perceived to screw over the Dogs, another small club with the Saints.

You only need to see Luke Ball to see how these things go.

Collingwood were willing to pay Luke Ball more money than their initial negotiations, in order to deter other clubs from drafting him. It wasn't as simple as Geelong fans want to make out. There was a very real threat of some clubs such as Melbourne drafting Ball, until Ball added more money to his contract demands.

Smith's salary demands are not so onerous that a team like Richmond couldn't fit him into their salary cap.

- Bottom line, if you want to gamble and draw a line in the sand, I would imagine that given how this is playing out in the media and through conversations on forums such as these, that neither club will budge until the very last minute - based on the differing perspectives of his value mentioned above.

We took that gamble in the Dunkley deal and won.

If, however, Power chooses to go the nuclear route, he'll be the one gambling more than we will

One that he's willing to take and Dogs fans and the Dogs board are happy to let him take.

as I imagine Smith and Connors would be well aware that it's a possibility that it happens -, and will be planning on contingencies/contract structures to dissuade others if that were to happen.

The very fact that you have to take contingencies is proof in and of itself that the nature of recruiting him to your list will be different and potentially more onerous, and costly (perhaps in managing your salary cap), than simply trading for him for the contract Smith has already agreed with for you. It is precisely that that the Dogs are leveraging. This is all assuming that both Smith and Connors would be happy to go along with this (rather than being pissed off with Geelong for not paying up) or that it can be successfully executed to the avoidance of all possibility that other clubs will recruit him, which is no guarantee.

I have thought for months now, that his value would be somewhere around the mid 1st, plus a Future 2nd, and I reckon that's what we'll offer.

You can think that, it's not reflective in reality.

All Dogs fans agree that his worsening form in 2023 largely driven by his poor kicking and his ACL dimishised some of his form. We have to take that form for what it was and it being the most relevant, but we also suspect that he had mentally checked out to some extent once he got played more on the half-forward flank and started getting the idea that he wanted to leave the Dogs, but that doesn't diminish his future output in and abstract sense, and his form pre-mid 2023 was elite for a young player, especially in the context of looking for match-winning performances as opposed to consistent but sub-BOG performanes.

As I've said before, he's gotten 8+ coaches votes, 8 times, all in wins, some in finals. He has totalled 132 coaches' votes in 5 seasons of play from the age of 18. Purely in terms of trade value, that is far more than a mid 1st plus a future 2nd. In comparison to similar deals like Rankine and Cerra, his is a bit below that, but probably just outside the top 10 in the draft with the ACL - a 2nd rounder doesn't improve a "mid 1st" (which becomes a late teens pick with bids/compensation) to a pick just outside the top 10.

We will likely trade out a Future 3rd pretty quickly, to make that the only likely scenario, just as we did with Ollie Henry - so it locks our 1st given drafting rules.

Not the Dogs' problem. We will ask for what we ask for in the trade and the ability for Geelong to service that wont change the Dogs' mind. As Dogs fans have pointed out for, you have 44 assets via players and a range of future picks to trade with other teams to build the trades that would satisfy the Dogs.

You don't have to agree with it or think it's fair, but by all accounts we won't be giving up our Future 1st

We circle back to the Dogs' willigness to reject any trade that doesn't either involve both your current and future first or other assets obtained in other trades and let the above play out.

the player doesn't care what return you get so you can't lean on him that way

Never claimed it was a factor

you hold no 1st round draft pick, so you can't threaten to re-draft

See example of trading back into the draft

we do hold a 1st round pick, so we can call you on your bluff and draft him

You do that.

The suggestion that it's a bluff it also an incorrect assumption.

The Dogs were willing to let Dunkley walk to the PSD. We got approval from the board and presented that fact to the Lions. Ergo, it wasn't a bluff, it was sincere. We have to assume the Dogs are taking steps to do something similar for Smith.

we could even not offer anything on top of the 1st, knowing the above

Not the Dogs' problem to solve or be worried about

he's OOC so AFL can enact restraint of trade measures/mediation if they feel you're not engaging

Cool. Dogs can point to the multitude of examples of similar contracts going for a bigger trade haul and Geelong will be the team that appears unreasonable in the act of mediating/discussing restraint of trade measures.

Also, AFL enacting restraint of trade measures: lol. They'll point to the example of players going through the draft as their solution if a trade can't be arranged, as they should, because the Dogs didn't restrain Smith's trade because they clearly were happy to offer him two years to get him to free agency.

(you also haven't offered him the same contract as us)

We have, in terms of money, or at least money + chance to leave in free agency is equivalent

all parties would be well aware that the draft would be a possible scenario, ala Luke Ball, and will probably enter trade period knowing it - given the lack of dialogue to this point/differing perspectives on value -, so won't be too concerned if this lever is pulled by Power

If you're confident you can walk him through to the draft, fair enough, but Dogs are making a calculated risk that you'd want to avoid that in order to maxmise their trade haul.

It worked with Dunkley and Brisbane.

the worst that happens to us is we don't get Smith, but we still get someone else (we can again cite our perspective over concerns about his previous issues, as reasons we didn't want to give anymore, to protect our status as a club of choice in the future)

Nobody would believe you. They would look at the reality that has played out that you have made a commitment to Smith going back to 2022 as per initial journalist reporting and didn't follow through. This is wishful thinking. Any future player would see Geelong as a team that doesn't follow through its commitments to players that they spend over a year recruiting and getting in-principle contract agreements with.

You can claim this but it's not what would happen.

but it's a little hard on the one hand to say he's a FIGJAM

We say this, because on footballing principles he acts as if he played better football than Bont, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Macrae, when he didn't. But at the same time, it's possible to still be a very good player but not better than those. We had and still have a very deep midfield with multiple all-Australian players.

only offer a contract for 2 years

To take him to free agency, which would be his preference.

say he's behind all of your best mids so has to be played elsewhere

Because in the first five years of his career, he was. Those other players were all-Australian quality. It is possible for him to have been the fourth to sixth best midfielder in our team and still have played as a top 50-75 midfielder in the league. We just had six of the top 75 midfielders in the league in those seasons.

but then on the other hand ask for value commensurate to some of the other best mids in the cop

Because we're willing to still pay him a lot of money into the future, on the expectation, as a young player, he improves, and that as the form of the older players drops off, he would have gotten more opportunity in the midfield.

We played Richards in the midfield for the first time in his career this season. We had too deep of a midfield to play him there previously, but with Smith's injury himself, and Macrae's and Daniel's decline in form, there was opportunity. Clearly, Smtih would have gotten more midfield minutes in 2024 than in 2023, had he not done his ACL, and even if his play and form was identical, because we had fewer elite midfielders in totality in the team. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and provides a logical explanation as to the varying amounts we did/would have played Smith in midfield.

despite the fact he hasn't played a decent game in his preferred position for nearly 2 years.

Factually untrue. He was BOG with 10 coaches votes with 75% CBA attendance in the Round 10, 2023 fixture vs. Adelaide.

He also played >50% CBA for the last two games of the 2023 season.

His value isn't 2 1st rounders anymore, as we have no idea how he's going to come back. I would imagine this is what Geelong would argue. Bulldogs can argue the inverse and say he showed elite capability early on, but the facts as they stand, will be that a lot has transpired between the 2021 Finals series, and now.

Currently we would value him around a single pick about pick 10-12, or combinations of picks that reflect that (not DVI picks and not overvaluing 2nd round picks, but what they're worth in reality).

I would argue that at his peak in early 2022, he was worth a top 3-5 pick, without knowing that his form would decline. This came after Round 10, 2022, where he had just played consecutive 8-coaches votes games in wins. This is after the first 4 games of 2022 he also received coaches votes, which followed immediately after 8 and 9 coaches votes games in the 2021 finals series with only the GF vs Melbourne a blip.

He achieved this all as a 21 year old.

For instance, one publication called him the 42nd best player in the league (linked) in the 2022-23 off-season.

And Dogs fans, not knowing that that would be the peak of his form at the time (why would we not assume that his form would continue?) Probably would not have accepted pick 4 or 5 in a straight swap for him at the time.

So I agree with you that a lot has transpired between then and now. If anything, two pick 11's wouldn't get you pick 3 in a trade, so his form and ACL has resulted in his value dropping by more than half.

Assuming that one of the 2 1st rounders you refer to is your current pick 17 that will be pushed back further with bids, a single 2nd round pick doesn't get that to the value of pick ~11.

Thus, given his OOC status and other issues, his value is heavily diminished. I mean you only need to see how many supporters on our end have our concerns about his behaviour in recent weeks, to see how this is not such a 'sure thing' in the eyes of many.

All of which would have been considered in your willingness to pay him a million dollar contract, which you've duly offered him.

Supporter trepidation doesn't overcome the realities that Geelong were valuing him as footballer represented by willing to allow him to take up a large amount of your salary cap.

I agree he isn't a sure thing either, and that he has a element of inconsistency and uncertainty in his game. On the other hand, he has been best on ground or close to in finals as a 20 year old in the 2021 finals series, among other top-end performances. That is proven output by someone who is still the same person. That is not unvaluable.

If you think anything less than two 1sts is acceptable, then you're probably going to be disappointed.

Fair enough. I would suggest that Geelong's steadfast refusal to not trade would factor into Power's risk caclulations.

Doesn't mean he would be that much more likely to accept a lessor trade though.

We could collapse in a heap and end up giving you Pick 8 and Pick 20 for him, which would be disastrous for us given the state of our list build/retirements coming.

You could collapse in a heap.

Alternativley, the TAB have you as sixth-favourite for next year's premiership.

In the absence of any better way of predicting the future (as least the TAB have money in the game, rather than empty statements about the potential to collapse in a heap), this is probably worth about pick 14 in current draft terms. It'll be pushed back by bids and compensation picks, but increase in value to pick 13 is more than the decrease to pick 15, so these balance each other outs.

You could collapse in a heap and give us pick 8, but you could also finish sixth, as the TAB are predicting, and merely give pick 15 and 20, not pick 8 and 20.

I actually think it would be smarter for you guys to ask for a Future 1st and bank on a slide, plus our Current 2nd.

I agree that your future 1st would hold more value than the current pick 20, lol.

But not because we're banking on a slide. We have to assuem you're approximately the sixth best team next year with your potential to slide not significantly different than the potential for the fifth-best or the seventh-best team to slide.

Making predictions this way is folly. Nobody would have predicted Geelong to make top four, after not making finals in 2023, after people predicted a "slide" following the retirements of players post 2022 to impact the team for more than one season.

All we have to go on is to assume that previous' seasons performances will carry over, to some extent. To predice rises/falls beyond that is folly.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Given the ridiculous rating of players for free agency compo, it would be worth drafting him, knowing could walk in 2 years.

Draft him in the teens then get a high first rounder in 2026.

 

[Warhorse]

An utterly strange post that would make many examples of historical propaganda proud.

Well done on figuring out that OOC players command less. Obviously. We're not expecting a Dylan Shiel in-contract trade haul here.

This idea that he wasn't playing in his favoured position is bizarre, and to the extent is true, is simply because a bunch of other elite mids also existed? existed in the same team, and being behind them in the pecking order shouldn't be controversial.

2022 CBA attendances from matches played: Macrae 64%, Libba 59%, Bont 58%, Smith 54%, Dunkley 50%, Treloar 34%.

He actually played more midfield minutes than both Dunkley (who eventually won our best and fairest by playing excellent footy on the basis of the midfield that he did play) and Treloar (who would return to All-Australian output by 2024, by playing again as a full-time, centre-bounce midfielder).

2023 CBA attendances: Bont 81% Libba 78%, Treloar 81%, Macrae 36%, Smith 30%.

Bont and Libba were both All-Australian squad members and Treloar played much better football. Macrae was coming off three All-Austrlaian performances.

Across his last two years that he played, he played as many midfield minutes as you would reasonably expect any player who is very good but not quite as good as literal best-and-fairest winners or All-Australians would play.

He was alternatively a hard-running half forward but would also play minutes as the forward +1 into the midfield (so adding to the midfield without starting at the centre bounce)

Compare, for instance, to the fact that Sydney have had to chop and change who plays in their centre bounce rotation to find success, but it didn't mean that any player was necessarily being played "out of position" when it could be the perspective of needing to "find their mix". I don't think you can really criticise the Dogs for wanting to play Bont in the midfield more and forward line less, and something has to give a bit, which is the case.

For Smith's "worth". His output was somewhat patchy, and his kicking in 2023 was pretty terrible, and didn't necessarily improve with age. But Dogs fans always valued his hard running, his versatility, and the fact that he had match-winning capabilities, above and beyond a young player appearing good with the potential to be match-winning in the future. For instance, he has 8 games with 8+ coaches votes, a rate unmached by many of the other midfielders in the league considered to be the "best" under 25. It is precisely those attributes that made him an in demand player.



GWS would immediately accept our future first and future second for pick 15 or 16 in the current draft, which we could use to to draft Smith, which we could threaten to do on draft day itself, the pick immediately before Geelong's. The threat of us doing that trade is not distinct from the threat of drafting Smith in any case.

The fact that he has no interest at being at our club is irrelavent in the context of us re-drafting him. All we have to do is be able to fit him in our salary cap. That's Smtih's risk for requesting a trade not as a free agent - all players agree to these rules part of their collective bargaining. In theory, I'm sure the AFL and the clubs would be willing to introduce more expansive free agency rights for players and freedom of movement if they took a smaller piece of the AFL's overall revenue.


The willigness to get nothing in return is the whole point, because it has to be sincere, otherwise there's not reason for Geelong not to minimise their trade haul, as anything traded is by definition more than nothing.

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.


That would have been factored into the risk of the contract you were willing to offer him. The Dogs also aren't stupid. The club is aware of the historic nature of discussions between Smith's management and Geelong over the course of more than one year. Pretending that you're taking some big risk of drafting him or that the Geelong football club is only forming their opinion of Smith as a player in some sort of fake-"oh gee, we're only realising now, once the season has conlcuded, that he's out of contract" is fooling no-one, and achieves nothing.

I wouldn't say Smith is despised by the club and it's fans, the club is frustrated by him, especially by the good faith basis that we've treated him over the years, only for Smtih to talk to other clubs and not give the existing team its full support this season.


Because a two-year contract takes Smith to free agency, which specifically in the case of the Dogs, is of greater value to Smith than the security gained in a long-term contract. The fact that you couldn't work out that the two years is both taking him to free agency and precisely a gift by the Dogs and us giving something up to Smith's benefit when it would be our preference to sign him for longer if we're signing him at all should invalidate the rest of your post

We're not pushing him out. We're allowing him to be out of contract in the very first year that he would be eligible for free agency as an out-of-contract player (8 years). Gee. Not rocket science.


The fact that Geelong fans consistently suggest that Ratugolea was some big underpay continues to be perplexing. He was a player that had one year of reasonable form, needed positional changes to determine his worth, and had played a lot of recent VFL football is the case. It probably was a slight underpay but not hugely so.

You also have to consider the balanced examples here - the Dogs rarely have in-demand players want to trade through to them. There was no benefit to Geelong wielding power because it was the same lack of other clubs wielding power that had benefitted them in the past (Bruhn, Cameron, Dangerfield after RFA matching etc.) so the net overall result was beneficial to Geelong. If you'd made a stand with Clark, than the future trades of the Bruhns of the world you wouldn't have been able to trade so cheaply yourself, as GWS would have treated you as you treated the same way with other clubs. The Dogs don't have that worry, because players so rarely come to us on big money deals, that we're not losing out on future trades.

No, the valuation of him by both Geelong and Dogs fans is on the basis of the fact that Geelong are willing to pay him a five year contract for about a million dollars a year.

Both clubs' valuation of him as a player is similar. The Dogs are offering him similar money but only for two years, as we can also offer him free agency eligiblity after two years at the Dogs. If he moves to the Cats, he's not a free agent after two years there, so he may as well sign for the extra three years for the guaranteed money.


People are suggesting that it's asking for trouble because a belief that Geelong are not paying up enough in a trade that reflects both the valuation of the player through the contracts both the Dogs and Geelong are offering is Geelong looking to take advantage of a flawed system of getting players to clubs they want to get to OOC but pre-free agent. Everyone can agree a system that Josh Battle gets St Kilda a top 10 pick but Smith, with fewer years of service to the Dogs, have to accept a worse pick as compensation is inherently flawed in the delicate balancing act of equalisation, for rewarding clubs for identifying talent in the league, and allowing freedom of movement and limiting the restraint of trade of players. People don't look to change it too deeply because most of the time, teams pay enough in trades for pre-FA, OOC players (see Cerra, Rankine etc) that nobody complains about the system too much. But in combination with F/S, Academy, the cracks can show - St Kilda's recent comments that would surely be louder if Geelong as a big club are perceived to screw over the Dogs, another small club with the Saints.


Collingwood were willing to pay Luke Ball more money than their initial negotiations, in order to deter other clubs from drafting him. It wasn't as simple as Geelong fans want to make out. There was a very real threat of some clubs such as Melbourne drafting Ball, until Ball added more money to his contract demands.

Smith's salary demands are not so onerous that a team like Richmond couldn't fit him into their salary cap.


We took that gamble in the Dunkley deal and won.


One that he's willing to take and Dogs fans and the Dogs board are happy to let him take.


The very fact that you have to take contingencies is proof in and of itself that the nature of recruiting him to your list will be different and potentially more onerous, and costly (perhaps in managing your salary cap), than simply trading for him for the contract Smith has already agreed with for you. It is precisely that that the Dogs are leveraging. This is all assuming that both Smith and Connors would be happy to go along with this (rather than being pissed off with Geelong for not paying up) or that it can be successfully executed to the avoidance of all possibility that other clubs will recruit him, which is no guarantee.


You can think that, it's not reflective in reality.

All Dogs fans agree that his worsening form in 2023 largely driven by his poor kicking and his ACL dimishised some of his form. We have to take that form for what it was and it being the most relevant, but we also suspect that he had mentally checked out to some extent once he got played more on the half-forward flank and started getting the idea that he wanted to leave the Dogs, but that doesn't diminish his future output in and abstract sense, and his form pre-mid 2023 was elite for a young player, especially in the context of looking for match-winning performances as opposed to consistent but sub-BOG performanes.

As I've said before, he's gotten 8+ coaches votes, 8 times, all in wins, some in finals. He has totalled 132 coaches' votes in 5 seasons of play from the age of 18. Purely in terms of trade value, that is far more than a mid 1st plus a future 2nd. In comparison to similar deals like Rankine and Cerra, his is a bit below that, but probably just outside the top 10 in the draft with the ACL - a 2nd rounder doesn't improve a "mid 1st" (which becomes a late teens pick with bids/compensation) to a pick just outside the top 10.


Not the Dogs' problem. We will ask for what we ask for in the trade and the ability for Geelong to service that wont change the Dogs' mind. As Dogs fans have pointed out for, you have 44 assets via players and a range of future picks to trade with other teams to build the trades that would satisfy the Dogs.

We circle back to the Dogs' willigness to reject any trade that doesn't either involve both your current and future first or other assets obtained in other trades and let the above play out.


Never claimed it was a factor

See example of trading back into the draft

You do that.

The suggestion that it's a bluff it also an incorrect assumption.

The Dogs were willing to let Dunkley walk to the PSD. We got approval from the board and presented that fact to the Lions. Ergo, it wasn't a bluff, it was sincere. We have to assume the Dogs are taking steps to do something similar for Smith.

Not the Dogs' problem to solve or be worried about

Cool. Dogs can point to the multitude of examples of similar contracts going for a bigger trade haul and Geelong will be the team that appears unreasonable in the act of mediating/discussing restraint of trade measures.

Also, AFL enacting restraint of trade measures: lol. They'll point to the example of players going through the draft as their solution if a trade can't be arranged, as they should, because the Dogs didn't restrain Smith's trade because they clearly were happy to offer him two years to get him to free agency.

We have, in terms of money, or at least money + chance to leave in free agency is equivalent


If you're confident you can walk him through to the draft, fair enough, but Dogs are making a calculated risk that you'd want to avoid that in order to maxmise their trade haul.

It worked with Dunkley and Brisbane.

Nobody would believe you. They would look at the reality that has played out that you have made a commitment to Smith going back to 2022 as per initial journalist reporting and didn't follow through. This is wishful thinking. Any future player would see Geelong as a team that doesn't follow through its commitments to players that they spend over a year recruiting and getting in-principle contract agreements with.

You can claim this but it's not what would happen.

We say this, because on footballing principles he acts as if he played better football than Bont, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Macrae, when he didn't. But at the same time, it's possible to still be a very good player but not better than those. We had and still have a very deep midfield with multiple all-Australian players.

To take him to free agency, which would be his preference.


Because in the first five years of his career, he was. Those other players were all-Australian quality. It is possible for him to have been the fourth to sixth best midfielder in our team and still have played as a top 50-75 midfielder in the league. We just had six of the top 75 midfielders in the league in those seasons.


Because we're willing to still pay him a lot of money into the future, on the expectation, as a young player, he improves, and that as the form of the older players drops off, he would have gotten more opportunity in the midfield.

We played Richards in the midfield for the first time in his career this season. We had too deep of a midfield to play him there previously, but with Smith's injury himself, and Macrae's and Daniel's decline in form, there was opportunity. Clearly, Smtih would have gotten more midfield minutes in 2024 than in 2023, had he not done his ACL, and even if his play and form was identical, because we had fewer elite midfielders in totality in the team. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and provides a logical explanation as to the varying amounts we did/would have played Smith in midfield.


Factually untrue. He was BOG with 10 coaches votes with 75% CBA attendance in the Round 10, 2023 fixture vs. Adelaide.

He also played >50% CBA for the last two games of the 2023 season.

Currently we would value him around a single pick about pick 10-12, or combinations of picks that reflect that (not DVI picks and not overvaluing 2nd round picks, but what they're worth in reality).

I would argue that at his peak in early 2022, he was worth a top 3-5 pick, without knowing that his form would decline. This came after Round 10, 2022, where he had just played consecutive 8-coaches votes games in wins. This is after the first 4 games of 2022 he also received coaches votes, which followed immediately after 8 and 9 coaches votes games in the 2021 finals series with only the GF vs Melbourne a blip.

He achieved this all as a 21 year old.

For instance, one publication called him the 42nd best player in the league (linked) in the 2022-23 off-season.

And Dogs fans, not knowing that that would be the peak of his form at the time (why would we not assume that his form would continue?) Probably would not have accepted pick 4 or 5 in a straight swap for him at the time.

So I agree with you that a lot has transpired between then and now. If anything, two pick 11's wouldn't get you pick 3 in a trade, so his form and ACL has resulted in his value dropping by more than half.

Assuming that one of the 2 1st rounders you refer to is your current pick 17 that will be pushed back further with bids, a single 2nd round pick doesn't get that to the value of pick ~11.




All of which would have been considered in your willingness to pay him a million dollar contract, which you've duly offered him.

Supporter trepidation doesn't overcome the realities that Geelong were valuing him as footballer represented by willing to allow him to take up a large amount of your salary cap.

I agree he isn't a sure thing either, and that he has a element of inconsistency and uncertainty in his game. On the other hand, he has been best on ground or close to in finals as a 20 year old in the 2021 finals series, among other top-end performances. That is proven output by someone who is still the same person. That is not unvaluable.



Fair enough. I would suggest that Geelong's steadfast refusal to not trade would factor into Power's risk caclulations.

Doesn't mean he would be that much more likely to accept a lessor trade though.


You could collapse in a heap.

Alternativley, the TAB have you as sixth-favourite for next year's premiership.

In the absence of any better way of predicting the future (as least the TAB have money in the game, rather than empty statements about the potential to collapse in a heap), this is probably worth about pick 14 in current draft terms. It'll be pushed back by bids and compensation picks, but increase in value to pick 13 is more than the decrease to pick 15, so these balance each other outs.

You could collapse in a heap and give us pick 8, but you could also finish sixth, as the TAB are predicting, and merely give pick 15 and 20, not pick 8 and 20.


I agree that your future 1st would hold more value than the current pick 20, lol.

But not because we're banking on a slide. We have to assuem you're approximately the sixth best team next year with your potential to slide not significantly different than the potential for the fifth-best or the seventh-best team to slide.

Making predictions this way is folly. Nobody would have predicted Geelong to make top four, after not making finals in 2023, after people predicted a "slide" following the retirements of players post 2022 to impact the team for more than one season.

All we have to go on is to assume that previous' seasons performances will carry over, to some extent. To predice rises/falls beyond that is folly.

I can't wait for your salty tears when Mackie bends the Bulldogs over at the trade table

 

[Art Vandelay_]

An utterly strange post that would make many examples of historical propaganda proud.

Well done on figuring out that OOC players command less. Obviously. We're not expecting a Dylan Shiel in-contract trade haul here.

This idea that he wasn't playing in his favoured position is bizarre, and to the extent is true, is simply because a bunch of other elite mids also existed? existed in the same team, and being behind them in the pecking order shouldn't be controversial.

2022 CBA attendances from matches played: Macrae 64%, Libba 59%, Bont 58%, Smith 54%, Dunkley 50%, Treloar 34%.

He actually played more midfield minutes than both Dunkley (who eventually won our best and fairest by playing excellent footy on the basis of the midfield that he did play) and Treloar (who would return to All-Australian output by 2024, by playing again as a full-time, centre-bounce midfielder).

2023 CBA attendances: Bont 81% Libba 78%, Treloar 81%, Macrae 36%, Smith 30%.

Bont and Libba were both All-Australian squad members and Treloar played much better football. Macrae was coming off three All-Austrlaian performances.

Across his last two years that he played, he played as many midfield minutes as you would reasonably expect any player who is very good but not quite as good as literal best-and-fairest winners or All-Australians would play.

He was alternatively a hard-running half forward but would also play minutes as the forward +1 into the midfield (so adding to the midfield without starting at the centre bounce)

Compare, for instance, to the fact that Sydney have had to chop and change who plays in their centre bounce rotation to find success, but it didn't mean that any player was necessarily being played "out of position" when it could be the perspective of needing to "find their mix". I don't think you can really criticise the Dogs for wanting to play Bont in the midfield more and forward line less, and something has to give a bit, which is the case.

For Smith's "worth". His output was somewhat patchy, and his kicking in 2023 was pretty terrible, and didn't necessarily improve with age. But Dogs fans always valued his hard running, his versatility, and the fact that he had match-winning capabilities, above and beyond a young player appearing good with the potential to be match-winning in the future. For instance, he has 8 games with 8+ coaches votes, a rate unmached by many of the other midfielders in the league considered to be the "best" under 25. It is precisely those attributes that made him an in demand player.



GWS would immediately accept our future first and future second for pick 15 or 16 in the current draft, which we could use to to draft Smith, which we could threaten to do on draft day itself, the pick immediately before Geelong's. The threat of us doing that trade is not distinct from the threat of drafting Smith in any case.

The fact that he has no interest at being at our club is irrelavent in the context of us re-drafting him. All we have to do is be able to fit him in our salary cap. That's Smtih's risk for requesting a trade not as a free agent - all players agree to these rules part of their collective bargaining. In theory, I'm sure the AFL and the clubs would be willing to introduce more expansive free agency rights for players and freedom of movement if they took a smaller piece of the AFL's overall revenue.


The willigness to get nothing in return is the whole point, because it has to be sincere, otherwise there's not reason for Geelong not to minimise their trade haul, as anything traded is by definition more than nothing.

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.


That would have been factored into the risk of the contract you were willing to offer him. The Dogs also aren't stupid. The club is aware of the historic nature of discussions between Smith's management and Geelong over the course of more than one year. Pretending that you're taking some big risk of drafting him or that the Geelong football club is only forming their opinion of Smith as a player in some sort of fake-"oh gee, we're only realising now, once the season has conlcuded, that he's out of contract" is fooling no-one, and achieves nothing.

I wouldn't say Smith is despised by the club and it's fans, the club is frustrated by him, especially by the good faith basis that we've treated him over the years, only for Smtih to talk to other clubs and not give the existing team its full support this season.


Because a two-year contract takes Smith to free agency, which specifically in the case of the Dogs, is of greater value to Smith than the security gained in a long-term contract. The fact that you couldn't work out that the two years is both taking him to free agency and precisely a gift by the Dogs and us giving something up to Smith's benefit when it would be our preference to sign him for longer if we're signing him at all should invalidate the rest of your post

We're not pushing him out. We're allowing him to be out of contract in the very first year that he would be eligible for free agency as an out-of-contract player (8 years). Gee. Not rocket science.


The fact that Geelong fans consistently suggest that Ratugolea was some big underpay continues to be perplexing. He was a player that had one year of reasonable form, needed positional changes to determine his worth, and had played a lot of recent VFL football is the case. It probably was a slight underpay but not hugely so.

You also have to consider the balanced examples here - the Dogs rarely have in-demand players want to trade through to them. There was no benefit to Geelong wielding power because it was the same lack of other clubs wielding power that had benefitted them in the past (Bruhn, Cameron, Dangerfield after RFA matching etc.) so the net overall result was beneficial to Geelong. If you'd made a stand with Clark, than the future trades of the Bruhns of the world you wouldn't have been able to trade so cheaply yourself, as GWS would have treated you as you treated the same way with other clubs. The Dogs don't have that worry, because players so rarely come to us on big money deals, that we're not losing out on future trades.

No, the valuation of him by both Geelong and Dogs fans is on the basis of the fact that Geelong are willing to pay him a five year contract for about a million dollars a year.

Both clubs' valuation of him as a player is similar. The Dogs are offering him similar money but only for two years, as we can also offer him free agency eligiblity after two years at the Dogs. If he moves to the Cats, he's not a free agent after two years there, so he may as well sign for the extra three years for the guaranteed money.


People are suggesting that it's asking for trouble because a belief that Geelong are not paying up enough in a trade that reflects both the valuation of the player through the contracts both the Dogs and Geelong are offering is Geelong looking to take advantage of a flawed system of getting players to clubs they want to get to OOC but pre-free agent. Everyone can agree a system that Josh Battle gets St Kilda a top 10 pick but Smith, with fewer years of service to the Dogs, have to accept a worse pick as compensation is inherently flawed in the delicate balancing act of equalisation, for rewarding clubs for identifying talent in the league, and allowing freedom of movement and limiting the restraint of trade of players. People don't look to change it too deeply because most of the time, teams pay enough in trades for pre-FA, OOC players (see Cerra, Rankine etc) that nobody complains about the system too much. But in combination with F/S, Academy, the cracks can show - St Kilda's recent comments that would surely be louder if Geelong as a big club are perceived to screw over the Dogs, another small club with the Saints.


Collingwood were willing to pay Luke Ball more money than their initial negotiations, in order to deter other clubs from drafting him. It wasn't as simple as Geelong fans want to make out. There was a very real threat of some clubs such as Melbourne drafting Ball, until Ball added more money to his contract demands.

Smith's salary demands are not so onerous that a team like Richmond couldn't fit him into their salary cap.


We took that gamble in the Dunkley deal and won.


One that he's willing to take and Dogs fans and the Dogs board are happy to let him take.


The very fact that you have to take contingencies is proof in and of itself that the nature of recruiting him to your list will be different and potentially more onerous, and costly (perhaps in managing your salary cap), than simply trading for him for the contract Smith has already agreed with for you. It is precisely that that the Dogs are leveraging. This is all assuming that both Smith and Connors would be happy to go along with this (rather than being pissed off with Geelong for not paying up) or that it can be successfully executed to the avoidance of all possibility that other clubs will recruit him, which is no guarantee.


You can think that, it's not reflective in reality.

All Dogs fans agree that his worsening form in 2023 largely driven by his poor kicking and his ACL dimishised some of his form. We have to take that form for what it was and it being the most relevant, but we also suspect that he had mentally checked out to some extent once he got played more on the half-forward flank and started getting the idea that he wanted to leave the Dogs, but that doesn't diminish his future output in and abstract sense, and his form pre-mid 2023 was elite for a young player, especially in the context of looking for match-winning performances as opposed to consistent but sub-BOG performanes.

As I've said before, he's gotten 8+ coaches votes, 8 times, all in wins, some in finals. He has totalled 132 coaches' votes in 5 seasons of play from the age of 18. Purely in terms of trade value, that is far more than a mid 1st plus a future 2nd. In comparison to similar deals like Rankine and Cerra, his is a bit below that, but probably just outside the top 10 in the draft with the ACL - a 2nd rounder doesn't improve a "mid 1st" (which becomes a late teens pick with bids/compensation) to a pick just outside the top 10.


Not the Dogs' problem. We will ask for what we ask for in the trade and the ability for Geelong to service that wont change the Dogs' mind. As Dogs fans have pointed out for, you have 44 assets via players and a range of future picks to trade with other teams to build the trades that would satisfy the Dogs.

We circle back to the Dogs' willigness to reject any trade that doesn't either involve both your current and future first or other assets obtained in other trades and let the above play out.


Never claimed it was a factor

See example of trading back into the draft

You do that.

The suggestion that it's a bluff it also an incorrect assumption.

The Dogs were willing to let Dunkley walk to the PSD. We got approval from the board and presented that fact to the Lions. Ergo, it wasn't a bluff, it was sincere. We have to assume the Dogs are taking steps to do something similar for Smith.

Not the Dogs' problem to solve or be worried about

Cool. Dogs can point to the multitude of examples of similar contracts going for a bigger trade haul and Geelong will be the team that appears unreasonable in the act of mediating/discussing restraint of trade measures.

Also, AFL enacting restraint of trade measures: lol. They'll point to the example of players going through the draft as their solution if a trade can't be arranged, as they should, because the Dogs didn't restrain Smith's trade because they clearly were happy to offer him two years to get him to free agency.

We have, in terms of money, or at least money + chance to leave in free agency is equivalent


If you're confident you can walk him through to the draft, fair enough, but Dogs are making a calculated risk that you'd want to avoid that in order to maxmise their trade haul.

It worked with Dunkley and Brisbane.

Nobody would believe you. They would look at the reality that has played out that you have made a commitment to Smith going back to 2022 as per initial journalist reporting and didn't follow through. This is wishful thinking. Any future player would see Geelong as a team that doesn't follow through its commitments to players that they spend over a year recruiting and getting in-principle contract agreements with.

You can claim this but it's not what would happen.

We say this, because on footballing principles he acts as if he played better football than Bont, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Macrae, when he didn't. But at the same time, it's possible to still be a very good player but not better than those. We had and still have a very deep midfield with multiple all-Australian players.

To take him to free agency, which would be his preference.


Because in the first five years of his career, he was. Those other players were all-Australian quality. It is possible for him to have been the fourth to sixth best midfielder in our team and still have played as a top 50-75 midfielder in the league. We just had six of the top 75 midfielders in the league in those seasons.


Because we're willing to still pay him a lot of money into the future, on the expectation, as a young player, he improves, and that as the form of the older players drops off, he would have gotten more opportunity in the midfield.

We played Richards in the midfield for the first time in his career this season. We had too deep of a midfield to play him there previously, but with Smith's injury himself, and Macrae's and Daniel's decline in form, there was opportunity. Clearly, Smtih would have gotten more midfield minutes in 2024 than in 2023, had he not done his ACL, and even if his play and form was identical, because we had fewer elite midfielders in totality in the team. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and provides a logical explanation as to the varying amounts we did/would have played Smith in midfield.


Factually untrue. He was BOG with 10 coaches votes with 75% CBA attendance in the Round 10, 2023 fixture vs. Adelaide.

He also played >50% CBA for the last two games of the 2023 season.

Currently we would value him around a single pick about pick 10-12, or combinations of picks that reflect that (not DVI picks and not overvaluing 2nd round picks, but what they're worth in reality).

I would argue that at his peak in early 2022, he was worth a top 3-5 pick, without knowing that his form would decline. This came after Round 10, 2022, where he had just played consecutive 8-coaches votes games in wins. This is after the first 4 games of 2022 he also received coaches votes, which followed immediately after 8 and 9 coaches votes games in the 2021 finals series with only the GF vs Melbourne a blip.

He achieved this all as a 21 year old.

For instance, one publication called him the 42nd best player in the league (linked) in the 2022-23 off-season.

And Dogs fans, not knowing that that would be the peak of his form at the time (why would we not assume that his form would continue?) Probably would not have accepted pick 4 or 5 in a straight swap for him at the time.

So I agree with you that a lot has transpired between then and now. If anything, two pick 11's wouldn't get you pick 3 in a trade, so his form and ACL has resulted in his value dropping by more than half.

Assuming that one of the 2 1st rounders you refer to is your current pick 17 that will be pushed back further with bids, a single 2nd round pick doesn't get that to the value of pick ~11.




All of which would have been considered in your willingness to pay him a million dollar contract, which you've duly offered him.

Supporter trepidation doesn't overcome the realities that Geelong were valuing him as footballer represented by willing to allow him to take up a large amount of your salary cap.

I agree he isn't a sure thing either, and that he has a element of inconsistency and uncertainty in his game. On the other hand, he has been best on ground or close to in finals as a 20 year old in the 2021 finals series, among other top-end performances. That is proven output by someone who is still the same person. That is not unvaluable.



Fair enough. I would suggest that Geelong's steadfast refusal to not trade would factor into Power's risk caclulations.

Doesn't mean he would be that much more likely to accept a lessor trade though.


You could collapse in a heap.

Alternativley, the TAB have you as sixth-favourite for next year's premiership.

In the absence of any better way of predicting the future (as least the TAB have money in the game, rather than empty statements about the potential to collapse in a heap), this is probably worth about pick 14 in current draft terms. It'll be pushed back by bids and compensation picks, but increase in value to pick 13 is more than the decrease to pick 15, so these balance each other outs.

You could collapse in a heap and give us pick 8, but you could also finish sixth, as the TAB are predicting, and merely give pick 15 and 20, not pick 8 and 20.


I agree that your future 1st would hold more value than the current pick 20, lol.

But not because we're banking on a slide. We have to assuem you're approximately the sixth best team next year with your potential to slide not significantly different than the potential for the fifth-best or the seventh-best team to slide.

Making predictions this way is folly. Nobody would have predicted Geelong to make top four, after not making finals in 2023, after people predicted a "slide" following the retirements of players post 2022 to impact the team for more than one season.

All we have to go on is to assume that previous' seasons performances will carry over, to some extent. To predice rises/falls beyond that is folly.

Can we get this essay in e-book?

 

[MacStradbroke]

An utterly strange post that would make many examples of historical propaganda proud.

Well done on figuring out that OOC players command less. Obviously. We're not expecting a Dylan Shiel in-contract trade haul here.

This idea that he wasn't playing in his favoured position is bizarre, and to the extent is true, is simply because a bunch of other elite mids also existed? existed in the same team, and being behind them in the pecking order shouldn't be controversial.

2022 CBA attendances from matches played: Macrae 64%, Libba 59%, Bont 58%, Smith 54%, Dunkley 50%, Treloar 34%.

He actually played more midfield minutes than both Dunkley (who eventually won our best and fairest by playing excellent footy on the basis of the midfield that he did play) and Treloar (who would return to All-Australian output by 2024, by playing again as a full-time, centre-bounce midfielder).

2023 CBA attendances: Bont 81% Libba 78%, Treloar 81%, Macrae 36%, Smith 30%.

Bont and Libba were both All-Australian squad members and Treloar played much better football. Macrae was coming off three All-Austrlaian performances.

Across his last two years that he played, he played as many midfield minutes as you would reasonably expect any player who is very good but not quite as good as literal best-and-fairest winners or All-Australians would play.

He was alternatively a hard-running half forward but would also play minutes as the forward +1 into the midfield (so adding to the midfield without starting at the centre bounce)

Compare, for instance, to the fact that Sydney have had to chop and change who plays in their centre bounce rotation to find success, but it didn't mean that any player was necessarily being played "out of position" when it could be the perspective of needing to "find their mix". I don't think you can really criticise the Dogs for wanting to play Bont in the midfield more and forward line less, and something has to give a bit, which is the case.

For Smith's "worth". His output was somewhat patchy, and his kicking in 2023 was pretty terrible, and didn't necessarily improve with age. But Dogs fans always valued his hard running, his versatility, and the fact that he had match-winning capabilities, above and beyond a young player appearing good with the potential to be match-winning in the future. For instance, he has 8 games with 8+ coaches votes, a rate unmached by many of the other midfielders in the league considered to be the "best" under 25. It is precisely those attributes that made him an in demand player.



GWS would immediately accept our future first and future second for pick 15 or 16 in the current draft, which we could use to to draft Smith, which we could threaten to do on draft day itself, the pick immediately before Geelong's. The threat of us doing that trade is not distinct from the threat of drafting Smith in any case.

The fact that he has no interest at being at our club is irrelavent in the context of us re-drafting him. All we have to do is be able to fit him in our salary cap. That's Smtih's risk for requesting a trade not as a free agent - all players agree to these rules part of their collective bargaining. In theory, I'm sure the AFL and the clubs would be willing to introduce more expansive free agency rights for players and freedom of movement if they took a smaller piece of the AFL's overall revenue.


The willigness to get nothing in return is the whole point, because it has to be sincere, otherwise there's not reason for Geelong not to minimise their trade haul, as anything traded is by definition more than nothing.

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.


That would have been factored into the risk of the contract you were willing to offer him. The Dogs also aren't stupid. The club is aware of the historic nature of discussions between Smith's management and Geelong over the course of more than one year. Pretending that you're taking some big risk of drafting him or that the Geelong football club is only forming their opinion of Smith as a player in some sort of fake-"oh gee, we're only realising now, once the season has conlcuded, that he's out of contract" is fooling no-one, and achieves nothing.

I wouldn't say Smith is despised by the club and it's fans, the club is frustrated by him, especially by the good faith basis that we've treated him over the years, only for Smtih to talk to other clubs and not give the existing team its full support this season.


Because a two-year contract takes Smith to free agency, which specifically in the case of the Dogs, is of greater value to Smith than the security gained in a long-term contract. The fact that you couldn't work out that the two years is both taking him to free agency and precisely a gift by the Dogs and us giving something up to Smith's benefit when it would be our preference to sign him for longer if we're signing him at all should invalidate the rest of your post

We're not pushing him out. We're allowing him to be out of contract in the very first year that he would be eligible for free agency as an out-of-contract player (8 years). Gee. Not rocket science.


The fact that Geelong fans consistently suggest that Ratugolea was some big underpay continues to be perplexing. He was a player that had one year of reasonable form, needed positional changes to determine his worth, and had played a lot of recent VFL football is the case. It probably was a slight underpay but not hugely so.

You also have to consider the balanced examples here - the Dogs rarely have in-demand players want to trade through to them. There was no benefit to Geelong wielding power because it was the same lack of other clubs wielding power that had benefitted them in the past (Bruhn, Cameron, Dangerfield after RFA matching etc.) so the net overall result was beneficial to Geelong. If you'd made a stand with Clark, than the future trades of the Bruhns of the world you wouldn't have been able to trade so cheaply yourself, as GWS would have treated you as you treated the same way with other clubs. The Dogs don't have that worry, because players so rarely come to us on big money deals, that we're not losing out on future trades.

No, the valuation of him by both Geelong and Dogs fans is on the basis of the fact that Geelong are willing to pay him a five year contract for about a million dollars a year.

Both clubs' valuation of him as a player is similar. The Dogs are offering him similar money but only for two years, as we can also offer him free agency eligiblity after two years at the Dogs. If he moves to the Cats, he's not a free agent after two years there, so he may as well sign for the extra three years for the guaranteed money.


People are suggesting that it's asking for trouble because a belief that Geelong are not paying up enough in a trade that reflects both the valuation of the player through the contracts both the Dogs and Geelong are offering is Geelong looking to take advantage of a flawed system of getting players to clubs they want to get to OOC but pre-free agent. Everyone can agree a system that Josh Battle gets St Kilda a top 10 pick but Smith, with fewer years of service to the Dogs, have to accept a worse pick as compensation is inherently flawed in the delicate balancing act of equalisation, for rewarding clubs for identifying talent in the league, and allowing freedom of movement and limiting the restraint of trade of players. People don't look to change it too deeply because most of the time, teams pay enough in trades for pre-FA, OOC players (see Cerra, Rankine etc) that nobody complains about the system too much. But in combination with F/S, Academy, the cracks can show - St Kilda's recent comments that would surely be louder if Geelong as a big club are perceived to screw over the Dogs, another small club with the Saints.


Collingwood were willing to pay Luke Ball more money than their initial negotiations, in order to deter other clubs from drafting him. It wasn't as simple as Geelong fans want to make out. There was a very real threat of some clubs such as Melbourne drafting Ball, until Ball added more money to his contract demands.

Smith's salary demands are not so onerous that a team like Richmond couldn't fit him into their salary cap.


We took that gamble in the Dunkley deal and won.


One that he's willing to take and Dogs fans and the Dogs board are happy to let him take.


The very fact that you have to take contingencies is proof in and of itself that the nature of recruiting him to your list will be different and potentially more onerous, and costly (perhaps in managing your salary cap), than simply trading for him for the contract Smith has already agreed with for you. It is precisely that that the Dogs are leveraging. This is all assuming that both Smith and Connors would be happy to go along with this (rather than being pissed off with Geelong for not paying up) or that it can be successfully executed to the avoidance of all possibility that other clubs will recruit him, which is no guarantee.


You can think that, it's not reflective in reality.

All Dogs fans agree that his worsening form in 2023 largely driven by his poor kicking and his ACL dimishised some of his form. We have to take that form for what it was and it being the most relevant, but we also suspect that he had mentally checked out to some extent once he got played more on the half-forward flank and started getting the idea that he wanted to leave the Dogs, but that doesn't diminish his future output in and abstract sense, and his form pre-mid 2023 was elite for a young player, especially in the context of looking for match-winning performances as opposed to consistent but sub-BOG performanes.

As I've said before, he's gotten 8+ coaches votes, 8 times, all in wins, some in finals. He has totalled 132 coaches' votes in 5 seasons of play from the age of 18. Purely in terms of trade value, that is far more than a mid 1st plus a future 2nd. In comparison to similar deals like Rankine and Cerra, his is a bit below that, but probably just outside the top 10 in the draft with the ACL - a 2nd rounder doesn't improve a "mid 1st" (which becomes a late teens pick with bids/compensation) to a pick just outside the top 10.


Not the Dogs' problem. We will ask for what we ask for in the trade and the ability for Geelong to service that wont change the Dogs' mind. As Dogs fans have pointed out for, you have 44 assets via players and a range of future picks to trade with other teams to build the trades that would satisfy the Dogs.

We circle back to the Dogs' willigness to reject any trade that doesn't either involve both your current and future first or other assets obtained in other trades and let the above play out.


Never claimed it was a factor

See example of trading back into the draft

You do that.

The suggestion that it's a bluff it also an incorrect assumption.

The Dogs were willing to let Dunkley walk to the PSD. We got approval from the board and presented that fact to the Lions. Ergo, it wasn't a bluff, it was sincere. We have to assume the Dogs are taking steps to do something similar for Smith.

Not the Dogs' problem to solve or be worried about

Cool. Dogs can point to the multitude of examples of similar contracts going for a bigger trade haul and Geelong will be the team that appears unreasonable in the act of mediating/discussing restraint of trade measures.

Also, AFL enacting restraint of trade measures: lol. They'll point to the example of players going through the draft as their solution if a trade can't be arranged, as they should, because the Dogs didn't restrain Smith's trade because they clearly were happy to offer him two years to get him to free agency.

We have, in terms of money, or at least money + chance to leave in free agency is equivalent


If you're confident you can walk him through to the draft, fair enough, but Dogs are making a calculated risk that you'd want to avoid that in order to maxmise their trade haul.

It worked with Dunkley and Brisbane.

Nobody would believe you. They would look at the reality that has played out that you have made a commitment to Smith going back to 2022 as per initial journalist reporting and didn't follow through. This is wishful thinking. Any future player would see Geelong as a team that doesn't follow through its commitments to players that they spend over a year recruiting and getting in-principle contract agreements with.

You can claim this but it's not what would happen.

We say this, because on footballing principles he acts as if he played better football than Bont, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Macrae, when he didn't. But at the same time, it's possible to still be a very good player but not better than those. We had and still have a very deep midfield with multiple all-Australian players.

To take him to free agency, which would be his preference.


Because in the first five years of his career, he was. Those other players were all-Australian quality. It is possible for him to have been the fourth to sixth best midfielder in our team and still have played as a top 50-75 midfielder in the league. We just had six of the top 75 midfielders in the league in those seasons.


Because we're willing to still pay him a lot of money into the future, on the expectation, as a young player, he improves, and that as the form of the older players drops off, he would have gotten more opportunity in the midfield.

We played Richards in the midfield for the first time in his career this season. We had too deep of a midfield to play him there previously, but with Smith's injury himself, and Macrae's and Daniel's decline in form, there was opportunity. Clearly, Smtih would have gotten more midfield minutes in 2024 than in 2023, had he not done his ACL, and even if his play and form was identical, because we had fewer elite midfielders in totality in the team. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and provides a logical explanation as to the varying amounts we did/would have played Smith in midfield.


Factually untrue. He was BOG with 10 coaches votes with 75% CBA attendance in the Round 10, 2023 fixture vs. Adelaide.

He also played >50% CBA for the last two games of the 2023 season.

Currently we would value him around a single pick about pick 10-12, or combinations of picks that reflect that (not DVI picks and not overvaluing 2nd round picks, but what they're worth in reality).

I would argue that at his peak in early 2022, he was worth a top 3-5 pick, without knowing that his form would decline. This came after Round 10, 2022, where he had just played consecutive 8-coaches votes games in wins. This is after the first 4 games of 2022 he also received coaches votes, which followed immediately after 8 and 9 coaches votes games in the 2021 finals series with only the GF vs Melbourne a blip.

He achieved this all as a 21 year old.

For instance, one publication called him the 42nd best player in the league (linked) in the 2022-23 off-season.

And Dogs fans, not knowing that that would be the peak of his form at the time (why would we not assume that his form would continue?) Probably would not have accepted pick 4 or 5 in a straight swap for him at the time.

So I agree with you that a lot has transpired between then and now. If anything, two pick 11's wouldn't get you pick 3 in a trade, so his form and ACL has resulted in his value dropping by more than half.

Assuming that one of the 2 1st rounders you refer to is your current pick 17 that will be pushed back further with bids, a single 2nd round pick doesn't get that to the value of pick ~11.




All of which would have been considered in your willingness to pay him a million dollar contract, which you've duly offered him.

Supporter trepidation doesn't overcome the realities that Geelong were valuing him as footballer represented by willing to allow him to take up a large amount of your salary cap.

I agree he isn't a sure thing either, and that he has a element of inconsistency and uncertainty in his game. On the other hand, he has been best on ground or close to in finals as a 20 year old in the 2021 finals series, among other top-end performances. That is proven output by someone who is still the same person. That is not unvaluable.



Fair enough. I would suggest that Geelong's steadfast refusal to not trade would factor into Power's risk caclulations.

Doesn't mean he would be that much more likely to accept a lessor trade though.


You could collapse in a heap.

Alternativley, the TAB have you as sixth-favourite for next year's premiership.

In the absence of any better way of predicting the future (as least the TAB have money in the game, rather than empty statements about the potential to collapse in a heap), this is probably worth about pick 14 in current draft terms. It'll be pushed back by bids and compensation picks, but increase in value to pick 13 is more than the decrease to pick 15, so these balance each other outs.

You could collapse in a heap and give us pick 8, but you could also finish sixth, as the TAB are predicting, and merely give pick 15 and 20, not pick 8 and 20.


I agree that your future 1st would hold more value than the current pick 20, lol.

But not because we're banking on a slide. We have to assuem you're approximately the sixth best team next year with your potential to slide not significantly different than the potential for the fifth-best or the seventh-best team to slide.

Making predictions this way is folly. Nobody would have predicted Geelong to make top four, after not making finals in 2023, after people predicted a "slide" following the retirements of players post 2022 to impact the team for more than one season.

All we have to go on is to assume that previous' seasons performances will carry over, to some extent. To predice rises/falls beyond that is folly.

Woah, no one could suggest you are not invested!!!

I just asked my Bulldog loving mate that never misses a game what he would think if the Dogs gave up a f1 & f2 to pick up Bailey Smith in this years draft…I can’t post his response

 

[JasRulz63]

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.

Was this Brisbane offering an additional future second in exchange for a future third?

 

[Pencil case]

An utterly strange post that would make many examples of historical propaganda proud.

Well done on figuring out that OOC players command less. Obviously. We're not expecting a Dylan Shiel in-contract trade haul here.

This idea that he wasn't playing in his favoured position is bizarre, and to the extent is true, is simply because a bunch of other elite mids also existed? existed in the same team, and being behind them in the pecking order shouldn't be controversial.

2022 CBA attendances from matches played: Macrae 64%, Libba 59%, Bont 58%, Smith 54%, Dunkley 50%, Treloar 34%.

He actually played more midfield minutes than both Dunkley (who eventually won our best and fairest by playing excellent footy on the basis of the midfield that he did play) and Treloar (who would return to All-Australian output by 2024, by playing again as a full-time, centre-bounce midfielder).

2023 CBA attendances: Bont 81% Libba 78%, Treloar 81%, Macrae 36%, Smith 30%.

Bont and Libba were both All-Australian squad members and Treloar played much better football. Macrae was coming off three All-Austrlaian performances.

Across his last two years that he played, he played as many midfield minutes as you would reasonably expect any player who is very good but not quite as good as literal best-and-fairest winners or All-Australians would play.

He was alternatively a hard-running half forward but would also play minutes as the forward +1 into the midfield (so adding to the midfield without starting at the centre bounce)

Compare, for instance, to the fact that Sydney have had to chop and change who plays in their centre bounce rotation to find success, but it didn't mean that any player was necessarily being played "out of position" when it could be the perspective of needing to "find their mix". I don't think you can really criticise the Dogs for wanting to play Bont in the midfield more and forward line less, and something has to give a bit, which is the case.

For Smith's "worth". His output was somewhat patchy, and his kicking in 2023 was pretty terrible, and didn't necessarily improve with age. But Dogs fans always valued his hard running, his versatility, and the fact that he had match-winning capabilities, above and beyond a young player appearing good with the potential to be match-winning in the future. For instance, he has 8 games with 8+ coaches votes, a rate unmached by many of the other midfielders in the league considered to be the "best" under 25. It is precisely those attributes that made him an in demand player.



GWS would immediately accept our future first and future second for pick 15 or 16 in the current draft, which we could use to to draft Smith, which we could threaten to do on draft day itself, the pick immediately before Geelong's. The threat of us doing that trade is not distinct from the threat of drafting Smith in any case.

The fact that he has no interest at being at our club is irrelavent in the context of us re-drafting him. All we have to do is be able to fit him in our salary cap. That's Smtih's risk for requesting a trade not as a free agent - all players agree to these rules part of their collective bargaining. In theory, I'm sure the AFL and the clubs would be willing to introduce more expansive free agency rights for players and freedom of movement if they took a smaller piece of the AFL's overall revenue.


The willigness to get nothing in return is the whole point, because it has to be sincere, otherwise there's not reason for Geelong not to minimise their trade haul, as anything traded is by definition more than nothing.

If the Dogs merely want to avoid not getting nothing for Smith, that logic has to extend out to accepting a fourth-round pick for Smith. There has to be a point that the willingness to accept nothing would make Geelong be the first to break and offer more. It worked for us with Dunkley, Brisbane added to their trade offer in the final hours of trade week.


That would have been factored into the risk of the contract you were willing to offer him. The Dogs also aren't stupid. The club is aware of the historic nature of discussions between Smith's management and Geelong over the course of more than one year. Pretending that you're taking some big risk of drafting him or that the Geelong football club is only forming their opinion of Smith as a player in some sort of fake-"oh gee, we're only realising now, once the season has conlcuded, that he's out of contract" is fooling no-one, and achieves nothing.

I wouldn't say Smith is despised by the club and it's fans, the club is frustrated by him, especially by the good faith basis that we've treated him over the years, only for Smtih to talk to other clubs and not give the existing team its full support this season.


Because a two-year contract takes Smith to free agency, which specifically in the case of the Dogs, is of greater value to Smith than the security gained in a long-term contract. The fact that you couldn't work out that the two years is both taking him to free agency and precisely a gift by the Dogs and us giving something up to Smith's benefit when it would be our preference to sign him for longer if we're signing him at all should invalidate the rest of your post

We're not pushing him out. We're allowing him to be out of contract in the very first year that he would be eligible for free agency as an out-of-contract player (8 years). Gee. Not rocket science.


The fact that Geelong fans consistently suggest that Ratugolea was some big underpay continues to be perplexing. He was a player that had one year of reasonable form, needed positional changes to determine his worth, and had played a lot of recent VFL football is the case. It probably was a slight underpay but not hugely so.

You also have to consider the balanced examples here - the Dogs rarely have in-demand players want to trade through to them. There was no benefit to Geelong wielding power because it was the same lack of other clubs wielding power that had benefitted them in the past (Bruhn, Cameron, Dangerfield after RFA matching etc.) so the net overall result was beneficial to Geelong. If you'd made a stand with Clark, than the future trades of the Bruhns of the world you wouldn't have been able to trade so cheaply yourself, as GWS would have treated you as you treated the same way with other clubs. The Dogs don't have that worry, because players so rarely come to us on big money deals, that we're not losing out on future trades.

No, the valuation of him by both Geelong and Dogs fans is on the basis of the fact that Geelong are willing to pay him a five year contract for about a million dollars a year.

Both clubs' valuation of him as a player is similar. The Dogs are offering him similar money but only for two years, as we can also offer him free agency eligiblity after two years at the Dogs. If he moves to the Cats, he's not a free agent after two years there, so he may as well sign for the extra three years for the guaranteed money.


People are suggesting that it's asking for trouble because a belief that Geelong are not paying up enough in a trade that reflects both the valuation of the player through the contracts both the Dogs and Geelong are offering is Geelong looking to take advantage of a flawed system of getting players to clubs they want to get to OOC but pre-free agent. Everyone can agree a system that Josh Battle gets St Kilda a top 10 pick but Smith, with fewer years of service to the Dogs, have to accept a worse pick as compensation is inherently flawed in the delicate balancing act of equalisation, for rewarding clubs for identifying talent in the league, and allowing freedom of movement and limiting the restraint of trade of players. People don't look to change it too deeply because most of the time, teams pay enough in trades for pre-FA, OOC players (see Cerra, Rankine etc) that nobody complains about the system too much. But in combination with F/S, Academy, the cracks can show - St Kilda's recent comments that would surely be louder if Geelong as a big club are perceived to screw over the Dogs, another small club with the Saints.


Collingwood were willing to pay Luke Ball more money than their initial negotiations, in order to deter other clubs from drafting him. It wasn't as simple as Geelong fans want to make out. There was a very real threat of some clubs such as Melbourne drafting Ball, until Ball added more money to his contract demands.

Smith's salary demands are not so onerous that a team like Richmond couldn't fit him into their salary cap.


We took that gamble in the Dunkley deal and won.


One that he's willing to take and Dogs fans and the Dogs board are happy to let him take.


The very fact that you have to take contingencies is proof in and of itself that the nature of recruiting him to your list will be different and potentially more onerous, and costly (perhaps in managing your salary cap), than simply trading for him for the contract Smith has already agreed with for you. It is precisely that that the Dogs are leveraging. This is all assuming that both Smith and Connors would be happy to go along with this (rather than being pissed off with Geelong for not paying up) or that it can be successfully executed to the avoidance of all possibility that other clubs will recruit him, which is no guarantee.


You can think that, it's not reflective in reality.

All Dogs fans agree that his worsening form in 2023 largely driven by his poor kicking and his ACL dimishised some of his form. We have to take that form for what it was and it being the most relevant, but we also suspect that he had mentally checked out to some extent once he got played more on the half-forward flank and started getting the idea that he wanted to leave the Dogs, but that doesn't diminish his future output in and abstract sense, and his form pre-mid 2023 was elite for a young player, especially in the context of looking for match-winning performances as opposed to consistent but sub-BOG performanes.

As I've said before, he's gotten 8+ coaches votes, 8 times, all in wins, some in finals. He has totalled 132 coaches' votes in 5 seasons of play from the age of 18. Purely in terms of trade value, that is far more than a mid 1st plus a future 2nd. In comparison to similar deals like Rankine and Cerra, his is a bit below that, but probably just outside the top 10 in the draft with the ACL - a 2nd rounder doesn't improve a "mid 1st" (which becomes a late teens pick with bids/compensation) to a pick just outside the top 10.


Not the Dogs' problem. We will ask for what we ask for in the trade and the ability for Geelong to service that wont change the Dogs' mind. As Dogs fans have pointed out for, you have 44 assets via players and a range of future picks to trade with other teams to build the trades that would satisfy the Dogs.

We circle back to the Dogs' willigness to reject any trade that doesn't either involve both your current and future first or other assets obtained in other trades and let the above play out.


Never claimed it was a factor

See example of trading back into the draft

You do that.

The suggestion that it's a bluff it also an incorrect assumption.

The Dogs were willing to let Dunkley walk to the PSD. We got approval from the board and presented that fact to the Lions. Ergo, it wasn't a bluff, it was sincere. We have to assume the Dogs are taking steps to do something similar for Smith.

Not the Dogs' problem to solve or be worried about

Cool. Dogs can point to the multitude of examples of similar contracts going for a bigger trade haul and Geelong will be the team that appears unreasonable in the act of mediating/discussing restraint of trade measures.

Also, AFL enacting restraint of trade measures: lol. They'll point to the example of players going through the draft as their solution if a trade can't be arranged, as they should, because the Dogs didn't restrain Smith's trade because they clearly were happy to offer him two years to get him to free agency.

We have, in terms of money, or at least money + chance to leave in free agency is equivalent


If you're confident you can walk him through to the draft, fair enough, but Dogs are making a calculated risk that you'd want to avoid that in order to maxmise their trade haul.

It worked with Dunkley and Brisbane.

Nobody would believe you. They would look at the reality that has played out that you have made a commitment to Smith going back to 2022 as per initial journalist reporting and didn't follow through. This is wishful thinking. Any future player would see Geelong as a team that doesn't follow through its commitments to players that they spend over a year recruiting and getting in-principle contract agreements with.

You can claim this but it's not what would happen.

We say this, because on footballing principles he acts as if he played better football than Bont, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Macrae, when he didn't. But at the same time, it's possible to still be a very good player but not better than those. We had and still have a very deep midfield with multiple all-Australian players.

To take him to free agency, which would be his preference.


Because in the first five years of his career, he was. Those other players were all-Australian quality. It is possible for him to have been the fourth to sixth best midfielder in our team and still have played as a top 50-75 midfielder in the league. We just had six of the top 75 midfielders in the league in those seasons.


Because we're willing to still pay him a lot of money into the future, on the expectation, as a young player, he improves, and that as the form of the older players drops off, he would have gotten more opportunity in the midfield.

We played Richards in the midfield for the first time in his career this season. We had too deep of a midfield to play him there previously, but with Smith's injury himself, and Macrae's and Daniel's decline in form, there was opportunity. Clearly, Smtih would have gotten more midfield minutes in 2024 than in 2023, had he not done his ACL, and even if his play and form was identical, because we had fewer elite midfielders in totality in the team. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and provides a logical explanation as to the varying amounts we did/would have played Smith in midfield.


Factually untrue. He was BOG with 10 coaches votes with 75% CBA attendance in the Round 10, 2023 fixture vs. Adelaide.

He also played >50% CBA for the last two games of the 2023 season.

Currently we would value him around a single pick about pick 10-12, or combinations of picks that reflect that (not DVI picks and not overvaluing 2nd round picks, but what they're worth in reality).

I would argue that at his peak in early 2022, he was worth a top 3-5 pick, without knowing that his form would decline. This came after Round 10, 2022, where he had just played consecutive 8-coaches votes games in wins. This is after the first 4 games of 2022 he also received coaches votes, which followed immediately after 8 and 9 coaches votes games in the 2021 finals series with only the GF vs Melbourne a blip.

He achieved this all as a 21 year old.

For instance, one publication called him the 42nd best player in the league (linked) in the 2022-23 off-season.

And Dogs fans, not knowing that that would be the peak of his form at the time (why would we not assume that his form would continue?) Probably would not have accepted pick 4 or 5 in a straight swap for him at the time.

So I agree with you that a lot has transpired between then and now. If anything, two pick 11's wouldn't get you pick 3 in a trade, so his form and ACL has resulted in his value dropping by more than half.

Assuming that one of the 2 1st rounders you refer to is your current pick 17 that will be pushed back further with bids, a single 2nd round pick doesn't get that to the value of pick ~11.




All of which would have been considered in your willingness to pay him a million dollar contract, which you've duly offered him.

Supporter trepidation doesn't overcome the realities that Geelong were valuing him as footballer represented by willing to allow him to take up a large amount of your salary cap.

I agree he isn't a sure thing either, and that he has a element of inconsistency and uncertainty in his game. On the other hand, he has been best on ground or close to in finals as a 20 year old in the 2021 finals series, among other top-end performances. That is proven output by someone who is still the same person. That is not unvaluable.



Fair enough. I would suggest that Geelong's steadfast refusal to not trade would factor into Power's risk caclulations.

Doesn't mean he would be that much more likely to accept a lessor trade though.


You could collapse in a heap.

Alternativley, the TAB have you as sixth-favourite for next year's premiership.

In the absence of any better way of predicting the future (as least the TAB have money in the game, rather than empty statements about the potential to collapse in a heap), this is probably worth about pick 14 in current draft terms. It'll be pushed back by bids and compensation picks, but increase in value to pick 13 is more than the decrease to pick 15, so these balance each other outs.

You could collapse in a heap and give us pick 8, but you could also finish sixth, as the TAB are predicting, and merely give pick 15 and 20, not pick 8 and 20.


I agree that your future 1st would hold more value than the current pick 20, lol.

But not because we're banking on a slide. We have to assuem you're approximately the sixth best team next year with your potential to slide not significantly different than the potential for the fifth-best or the seventh-best team to slide.

Making predictions this way is folly. Nobody would have predicted Geelong to make top four, after not making finals in 2023, after people predicted a "slide" following the retirements of players post 2022 to impact the team for more than one season.

All we have to go on is to assume that previous' seasons performances will carry over, to some extent. To predice rises/falls beyond that is folly.

Explains the situation perfectly. Well done.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

I don’t really know why we are arguing here.

**** Mr Cotton-on and **** Geelong.

Give us pick 10 (don’t care how you get it) or the prick take his chances in the draft.