Trade Requested Bailey Smith [reportedly headed to Geelong]

[TiAn_]

All I was suggesting is clubs are more open to trading second rounders to move up one or two slots when they know they'll be getting a specific player through a live trade than they would to just get a pick. That said, list vacancies and academy and F/S stuff can distort the value of picks during trade week as well. Dees traded 14, 27 and 35 for 11 last year but that was because they were only using two picks in the draft. We did similar in 2022, we only used two picks and traded several picks to Brisbane for their Ashcroft points so we could get a better pick to trade for Ollie Henry.

FWIW, I've been reluctantly fine with giving up two firsts all along. I'm also not trying to say our R1 and R2 are exactly equal to Dan Hanneberry's pick 12 valuation either (also not sure why anybody cares about Hanneberry's opinions either but this thread seemed to suddenly get a bit nasty after that was posted, like pick 12 had somehow now became Smith's exact value).

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.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Pretty sure you have more to lose on both fronts tbh

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.

 

[TiAn_]

The selwood comparison was only ever at how hard he cracked into the contest. No one seriously thought he'd be an actual selwood replacement. There is a reason the suns were happy to lose it.

The point is that every draft is is a completely different set of players and the numbers mean different things in different years. Bo Allen will likely be around the first we give you but I don't think he's any worse than Ginbey (pick 9)

The Suns traded that pick for nothing for cap reasons, not because they thought the last 50 players in the draft weren’t worth drafting. It’s so far removed from a normal valuation of a draft pick that the trade has zero value as a comparison to almost any other trade. It’s just irrelevant here.

There are years of drafts and numerous trades that indicate the value of picks in this range are relatively consistent, despite varying perceptions of the depth and quality of those individual drafts.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The Suns traded that pick for nothing for cap reasons, not because they thought the last 50 players in the draft weren’t worth drafting. It’s so far removed from a normal valuation of a draft pick that the trade has zero value as a comparison to almost any other trade. It’s just irrelevant here.

There are years of drafts and numerous trades that indicate the value of picks in this range are relatively consistent, despite varying perceptions of the depth and quality of those individual drafts.

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.

 

[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.