Trade Requested Bailey Smith - Reportedly headed to Geelong

[Wojcinski]

Geelong are #hardtodealwith

Cornes staggered by Bulldogs commentary on Smith, Macrae and Daniel

He has hit out at the comments.

www.sen.com.au

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

 

[Gee Class Loco]

Why is every trade Geelong in end up being an absolute shit fight

You simply don't stay at the pointy end this long by not having a fight in ya.
Never mind. Some get it & some just don't.
Lucky for us I say.
Cheers & GiddyUp as the Spring carnival is nearly upon us.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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

What's the point of having any discussion at all when both players were in the 23 to finish the season, and would presumably enter 2024 in our best 23 as well?

What's the point of having any discussion when Geelong fans have been all over this thread stating that the difference between being in contract and out of contract is meaningful, but when it comes to the Dogs having in-contract players, that's irrelavent in determining what their asking price is to move on from the fact that they're contracted to the Dogs, as "ridiculous"?

 

[Iago]

But naturally complete freedom of movement with complete free agency when a player is out of contract, including when a player enters the league (ie no national draft) is what the AFLPA would ideally want, and what would suit the the players best.

Why do you think that the AFL would have been against free agency being this expansive, though?

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.

 

[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?