Confirmed 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

[Charlie Bucket]

Nice to see we're also the ones making the Dogs ask for ridiculous compensation for a couple of 30 year olds they've got running around in the VFL

Macrae played one more VFL game this season than what Esava did last year.

What did you trade him out for? I can’t recall.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Presumably to placate the clubs.
To keep the competition as even as possible so that us "fans" watch each game thinking their team is half a chance to win.

Not sure what this has to do with an out of contract 23 year old wanting to move from one finalist to another.

You're almost getting it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Apart from all the usual brinkmanship in this thread it's good to see how mad Geelong is making certain fans.

Geelong want Smith for as little as they can get away with. Obviously. But they're offering a first rounder.

Certain dogs fans seem to think this is highly offensive and disrespectful. But the're not doing a Dodoro and offering Ted Clohesy plus a future 4th.

Dogs want more. Cats don't want to pay more. The dogs will drag it out hoping the cats blink. It's almost certain to be done in the last half our of the trade period for the first rounder plus a sweetener. Yawn.

 

[STPer18]

Because Andrew Mackie is a campaigner and out of his depth.

Ollie Henry for peanuts, Ratugolea for a nice haul including Lawson Humphries. No complaints from Geelong supporters!

 

[Basil brush]

Ollie Henry for peanuts, Ratugolea for a nice haul including Lawson Humphries. No complaints from Geelong supporters!

Nor should there be any complaint from your supporters, but you have to be careful as a club continually trying to stitch up other clubs in trades. It could come back to bite you eventually.

However, if the deals get done, that is all that matters, I guess

 

[STPer18]

Melbourne criticised for trading Grundy to Sydney for a “bag of chips”

The ruckman had a massive impact in his Swans debut.

www.sen.com.au

Our club lives rent free in Kane’s head loves giving us a whack any chance he gets.

Bulldogs are well within their rights to ask the world for their players regardless, I was just putting it out there that depending on who you ask every club is #hardtodealwith. It's as if the blokes running the ship during trade week have an obligation to get the best possible results for their club, not appease the peanut gallery.

 

[Iago]

You're almost getting it.

Almost but not quite obviously.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Almost but not quite obviously.

I'll spell it out for you then:

• Even accepting that there needs to be an element of player freedom, that has to be counterbalanced with:
• A desire for equalisation. The draft serves that purpose.
• Teams should be rewarded in a competitive setting for correctly identifying and developing talented AFL footballers (as have the Dogs with Smith), even if such reward isn't directly the on-field output of that player themselves (ie their desire to leave your club)
• So even if you cannot fully prevent freedom of movement, you can either limit its ease and scope, or otherwise organise your rules that a team will get a good reward or compensation for losing a player they identified and developed (even if they can't prevent that team physically wanting to move to a different club if out of contract).
• For instance, players accept that their fate is not entirely in their hands if they want to enter the league as an 18 year old. It is possible to suggest that that principle not be wholly different, if a player, having not given eight years of service to their existing club, desires to leave that club - much like when they were 18, they don't have full control over their fate.

It should be costly for Geelong to acquire Smith in that context, because Smith was a high draft pick recruited to a team that was bad in the year they recruited him (equalisation), that his out-of-contract rights are less expansive than if he had served eight years (both equalisation and rewarding the dogs in identifying and deveoping his talent, by making it more difficult for him to leave), and that it should be more difficult for him to move to a team who finished immediately higher than the Dogs on the ladder the season before (equalisation, and I do find it funny you handwaving away the fact that Geelong finished higher as some sort of equivalent "both made finals". No, one team got knocked out of the possibility of wining the premiership two steps earlier than the other, and is otherwise equalised to that fact, such as receiving earlier draft picks in the subsequent drafts).

I have no issue with Geelong fans admitting that they're openly widening the crevasse that the system is flawed to advantage their team or to leverage the fact that they're a bigger team than us, and recognising my above facts, and that the current systems aren't achieving its intentions in a very good manner.

But pretending that they have some right to Smith because he's out of contract without any recognition of the equalisation principles of the entire list management rules ecosystem, which includes and rewarding teams for identifying and developing talent, is not it.

 

[Wojcinski]

Macrae played one more VFL game this season than what Esava did last year.

What did you trade him out for? I can’t recall.

A lot less than the Dogs are asking for Macrae, who was dropped twice, played 3 VFL games, 4 games (including the only final) as the sub, played out of position all year and 30yo

 

[Libbaaaa]

Nice to see we're also the ones making the Dogs ask for ridiculous compensation for a couple of 30 year olds they've got running around in the VFL

The Weeman is 28, but Kaneo being a touch silly. Expects us to just give them away like a completely fried Jack Darling for pick 67.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Ollie Henry for peanuts, Ratugolea for a nice haul including Lawson Humphries. No complaints from Geelong supporters!

Live pictures of Mackie out of his depth

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I'll spell it out for you then:

• Even accepting that there needs to be an element of player freedom, that has to be counterbalanced with:
• A desire for equalisation. The draft serves that purpose.
• Teams should be rewarded in a competitive setting for correctly identifying and developing talented AFL footballers (as have the Dogs with Smith), even if such reward isn't directly the on-field output of that player themselves (ie their desire to leave your club)
• So even if you cannot fully prevent freedom of movement, you can either limit its ease and scope, or otherwise organise your rules that a team will get a good reward or compensation for losing a player they identified and developed (even if they can't prevent that team physically wanting to move to a different club if out of contract).
• For instance, players accept that their fate is not entirely in their hands if they want to enter the league as an 18 year old. It is possible to suggest that that principle not be wholly different, if a player, having not given eight years of service to their existing club, desires to leave that club - much like when they were 18, they don't have full control over their fate.

It should be costly for Geelong to acquire Smith in that context, because Smith was a high draft pick recruited to a team that was bad in the year they recruited him (equalisation), that his out-of-contract rights are less expansive than if he had served eight years (both equalisation and rewarding the dogs in identifying and deveoping his talent, by making it more difficult for him to leave), and that it should be more difficult for him to move to a team who finished immediately higher than the Dogs on the ladder the season before (equalisation, and I do find it funny you handwaving away the fact that Geelong finished higher as some sort of equivalent "both made finals". No, one team got knocked out of the possibility of wining the premiership two steps earlier than the other, and is otherwise equalised to that fact, such as receiving earlier draft picks in the subsequent drafts).

I have no issue with Geelong fans admitting that they're openly widening the crevasse that the system is flawed to advantage their team or to leverage the fact that they're a bigger team than us, and recognising my above facts, and that the current systems aren't achieving its intentions in a very good manner.

But pretending that they have some right to Smith because he's out of contract without any recognition of the equalisation principles of the entire list management rules ecosystem, which includes and rewarding teams for identifying and developing talent, is not it.

The crevasse is actually getting smaller not larger. There was 2 wins between Melbourne one rung above bottom 4 and Carlton playing finals. Only 2 more wins between that and top 4. As valuable as this trade looks it only holds ground for the Cats, it doesn't land them a flag

 

[Wojcinski]

Live pictures of Mackie out of his depth

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The crevasse is actually getting smaller not larger. There was 2 wins between Melbourne one rung above bottom 4 and Carlton playing finals. Only 2 more wins between that and top 4. As valuable as this trade looks it only holds ground for the Cats, it doesn't land them a flag

For the purposes of equalisation, such as determining draft order, the AFL is only concerned with ultimate finishing position.

Saying "well ackchyually, teams are getting closer" is a huge swing and a miss. At preliminary final week, you were significantly closer to winning the flag than 14 other teams were. That's it. The AFL desires to equalise the competition on the basis of the fact that 14 other teams didn't get to preliminary final week.

It isn't a matter of how close you might be to a flag in the future, it's a matter of the fact that you had a chance to win the flag after week one (and week two) of the finals, and the Dogs didn't.

 

[Iago]

I'll spell it out for you then:

• Even accepting that there needs to be an element of player freedom, that has to be counterbalanced with:
• A desire for equalisation. The draft serves that purpose.
• Teams should be rewarded in a competitive setting for correctly identifying and developing talented AFL footballers (as have the Dogs with Smith), even if such reward isn't directly the on-field output of that player themselves (ie their desire to leave your club)
• So even if you cannot fully prevent freedom of movement, you can either limit its ease and scope, or otherwise organise your rules that a team will get a good reward or compensation for losing a player they identified and developed (even if they can't prevent that team physically wanting to move to a different club if out of contract).
• For instance, players accept that their fate is not entirely in their hands if they want to enter the league as an 18 year old. It is possible to suggest that that principle not be wholly different, if a player, having not given eight years of service to their existing club, desires to leave that club - much like when they were 18, they don't have full control over their fate.

It should be costly for Geelong to acquire Smith in that context, because Smith was a high draft pick recruited to a team that was bad in the year they recruited him (equalisation), that his out-of-contract rights are less expansive than if he had served eight years (both equalisation and rewarding the dogs in identifying and deveoping his talent, by making it more difficult for him to leave), and that it should be more difficult for him to move to a team who finished immediately higher than the Dogs on the ladder the season before (equalisation, and I do find it funny you handwaving away the fact that Geelong finished higher as some sort of equivalent "both made finals". No, one team got knocked out of the possibility of wining the premiership two steps earlier than the other, and is otherwise equalised to that fact, such as receiving earlier draft picks in the subsequent drafts).

I have no issue with Geelong fans admitting that they're openly widening the crevasse that the system is flawed to advantage their team or to leverage the fact that they're a bigger team than us, and recognising my above facts, and that the current systems aren't achieving its intentions in a very good manner.

But pretending that they have some right to Smith because he's out of contract without any recognition of the equalisation principles of the entire list management rules ecosystem, which includes and rewarding teams for identifying and developing talent, is not it.

Both made finals is factually correct. That the Dogs lost their first final is on the Bulldogs not anyone else. The Dogs had just as much opportunity to finish higher than Geelong with arguably a more talented team.

Lets not pretend that big bad Geelong are picking over the carcass of a cellar dweller. Both have played in a Grand Final in the last 4 seasons.

Do the Bulldogs not trade in players that are out of contract with other clubs? If so do they pay overs just to make it fair for the other team? Reportedly Sam Power is a tough negotiator. If he is I can't imagine he would be that generous.

Where are Geelong pretending they have a right to Smith? Should Geelong issue a press release recognising the principles of list management? Or should they go about making their own team better? Like most teams all I have heard is that Smith has requested a move to Geelong and that Geelong will talk to the Bulldogs about facilitating that move.
Sounds no different to the 17 other clubs in the same situation.

I am sure there will be a negotiated outcome where either both or one set of supporters will feel aggrieved.
No point getting worked up over some people in the media who offer opinions. Opinions are just that, opinions.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

For the purposes of equalisation, such as determining draft order, the AFL is only concerned with ultimate finishing position.

Saying "well ackchyually, teams are getting closer" is a huge swing and a miss. At preliminary final week, you were significantly closer to winning the flag than 14 other teams were. That's it. The AFL desires to equalise the competition on the basis of the fact that 14 other teams didn't get to preliminary final week.

It isn't a matter of how close you might be to a flag in the future, it's a matter of the fact that you had a chance to win the flag after week one (and week two) of the finals, and the Dogs didn't.

Ok so the fact that a side almost universally tipped to miss the 8 made a prelim is evidence that equalisation doesn't work because that side was Geelong. Because... ?

Let's also ignore:

• That Hawks went from being a bottom 4 contender accused of tanking to make a semi
• That Melbourne who were widely tipped to go top 4 finished one rung above bottom 4
• That the previous premier that was tipped to go back to back by many missed the 8 completely
• That only one of the 4 premiers this decade has won a final since winning said premiership
• That 3 of the top 8 last year didn't make it this year
• Essendon and Freo, who finished 10th and 11th were tipped mid and late in season respectively to finish top 4

Every side outside the bottom 4 this year at various points quite reasonably expected to make the 8

But Geelong (a side that finished 12th last year) made a prelim this year therefore equalisation doesn't work.....

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ok so the fact that a side almost universally tipped to miss the 8 made a prelim is evidence that equalisation doesn't work because that side was Geelong. Because... ?

Let's also ignore:

• That Hawks went from being a bottom 4 contender accused of tanking to make a semi
• That Melbourne who were widely tipped to go top 4 finished one rung above bottom 4
• That the previous premier that was tipped to go back to back by many missed the 8 completely
• That only one of the 4 premiers this decade has won a final since winning said premiership
• That 3 of the top 8 last year didn't make it this year
• Essendon and Freo, who finished 10th and 11th were tipped mid and late in season respectively to finish top 4

Every side outside the bottom 4 this year at various points quite reasonably expected to make the 8

But Geelong (a side that finished 12th last year) made a prelim this year therefore equalisation doesn't work.....

Teams should also be allowed to win games because they make good footballing decisions, up next on the late news at 11.

Equalisation means equalisation of opportunity, equalisation over a medium to long term period of time, not equsliation of short-term outcomes.

Only a deliberatley dense person wouldn't understand this.

 

[year of the cat]

Someone mentioned in our thread the Cats offer is their 2024 1st for Sniff and our future 1st.

Do you believe everything you read on the internetz?

 

[Charlie Bucket]

A lot less than the Dogs are asking for Macrae, who was dropped twice, played 3 VFL games, 4 games (including the only final) as the sub, played out of position all year and 30yo

You asked for less than a 2nd rounder? They just ended up giving you more?

Ahh righto. Totally believable.

Esava was also dropped twice. Not because of his age though. That was because he’s shit. Clear difference between the two. Macrae misses because of team balance.

Cats played tough for a shit player, getting well overs.

Only a cats supporter missing brain cells would think that’s not far more unreasonable than what the dogs are wanting.

Speaking of, has anyone been down Geelongs main drag recently? Plenty of missing brain cells down there. Looked liked the audience lining up for a Jerry Springer taping.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Do you believe everything you read on the internetz?

Random question.

You ok mate?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Both made finals is factually correct. That the Dogs lost their first final is on the Bulldogs not anyone else. The Dogs had just as much opportunity to finish higher than Geelong with arguably a more talented team.

Which is irrelevant that the Dogs had the opportunity to. They didn't.

For the purposes of equalisation, the league aims to equalise the future on the basis of past achievement. Geelong was far closer to the flag this season, having made it further in finals, and thus was deemed by the AFL to be the better team. That is not only also factually correct, but more pertinent to the discussion at hand rather than treating all finals teams as equal or trying to determine the vague interpretation of which team was "talented".

Lets not pretend that big bad Geelong are picking over the carcass of a cellar dweller. Both have played in a Grand Final in the last 4 seasons.

But they are picking over the carcass of a team that didn't make the preliminary final the year before. It's irrelevant that the Dogs were vaguely a good team too last year, in terms of the official pronoucement of where each team ranked last year, Geelong ranked in the top 4, Dogs didn't. Dogs may be more likely to win next year's flag. Who cares. They certainly weren't more likely to win the 2024 flag between Week 1 and Week 3 of the finals series.

For the purposes of distributing talent on a year-by-year annual basis, such as handing out compensation picks and through the draft order, the AFL is only concerned with one year's results. A team could win 10 flags in a row, they could have 22 players tear ACLs, they would still get the first pick in the draft because the fact of the matter is that they finished last. The fact that they are likely to win the flag with 22 returning players doesn't stop them for getting the first pick. Indeed, the first pick in the draft it to help them and make them more likely to win the flag in the future, to equalise the fact that in the previous year, they couldn't win the flag because of the ACL's.

I can't believe I'm explaining the logic as to why the draft exists. Bloody hell.

Do the Bulldogs not trade in players that are out of contract with other clubs?

And I'm willing to accept the fact that the Dogs may not ultimately be able to recruit them if they weren't free agents, or that we should have to pay appropriate other assets to do so.

Reportedly Sam Power is a tough negotiator. If he is I can't imagine he would be that generous.

Yes obviously because he wants to help his team win by maximising a combination of quality of playing list and draft assets that represent quality of future playing lists.

He's not acting entitled to obtain a player who is not a free agent, out of contract, and requests a trade to the team. Such as working with their management to suggest that the systems are such that they are that it's no guarantee they make the way to their team. Given Smith has already moved to the Geelong area, we can only assume Geelong have not done that with Smith and his team.

Where are Geelong pretending they have a right to Smith? Should Geelong issue a press release recognising the principles of list management? Or should they go about making their own team better?

I'm more talking about the attitudes of fans, if you read the earlier posts.

Quote Mackie:
"We have had a couple of chats with Sam Power (Western Bulldogs), they have been held with good intent from both parties," Mackie said.

"It is great that Bailey does want to come and play for us, so that is exciting. Our intention is to trade him in and put him in the Hoops, so we will see where it gets to.

"It is day one of trade period, he is out of contract and had an injury throughout the year. It is interesting times, but hopefully it all lands well for both clubs."

It's lip service, but it's an appropriate way of discussing this in the public domain.

I am sure there will be a negotiated outcome where either both or one set of supporters will feel aggrieved.

But Dogs fans will feel aggrieved because of inherent flaws in the rules of list management that allow certain clubs to exploit others, against the principles and creating inconsistencies as to why things like a draft and free agency compensation exist in our league at all.

Counter-intuitively, the Dogs are getting less compensation for having Smith serve only six years, not eight, where they would be getting Band 1 compensation, which is more than what Geelong are offering, even though the Dogs' compensation should be greater for having received only 75% of his years of service after drafting him.

Cats fans will feel aggrieved because they believe that they may not have exploited such flaws as well as they would have hoped.

That's the difference in feeling aggrieved.

 

[Wojcinski]

You asked for less than a 2nd rounder? They just ended up giving you more?

Ahh righto. Totally believable.

Esava was also dropped twice. Not because of his age though. That was because he’s shit. Clear difference between the two. Macrae misses because of team balance.

Cats played tough for a shit player, getting well overs.

Only a cats supporter missing brain cells would think that’s not far more unreasonable than what the dogs are wanting.

Speaking of, has anyone been down Geelongs main drag recently? Plenty of missing brain cells down there. Looked liked the audience lining up for a Jerry Springer taping.

Ah its a 2nd rounder now, you must be an ITK because last I heard it was a first rounder.

I'm not gonna address the rest of your post because you seem like you might be mentally unwell to get so viscerally upset over someone talking about a player at your footy club

 

[Wojcinski]

Sam Power

Sam Power

Age

41

Ht

190cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

7.8

3star

HB

6.9

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

7.8

2star

K

3.8

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.6

4star

's list management ability surprisingly mirrors his football skills

 

[Doggies7]

Sam Power's list management ability surprisingly mirrors his football skills

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Ah its a 2nd rounder now, you must be an ITK because last I heard it was a first rounder.

I'm not gonna address the rest of your post because you seem like you might be mentally unwell to get so viscerally upset over someone talking about a player at your footy club

Who told you we were requesting a 1st for Macrae? Your crack dealer?

Lay off the pipe chief. It’s been Saints 2nd rounder since the first sun rise.