Trade Requested Bailey Smith - Reportedly headed to Geelong

[threenewpadlocks]

You don't have to copy this or that wholesale, you can always pick and choose.

If it were my say-so, I'd make draftee contracts longer for top-20 and top-40 draftees, move FA compo between draft rounds, and make any player a FA at the end of any contract.

Right, so Geelong fans want to pick and choose the fact that players have complete freedom of movement, but not pick and choose the parts that give clubs more generous rules for retaining the talent that they correctly identify and develop through the draft.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Tjblues]

I’m sure this trade gets done.

But if it doesn’t, a team with 2 first round picks like a st kilda, Melbourne or Carlton would have to consider taking him in the draft.

You’d at the very least want to have a meeting.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've not once said Max Holmes didn't deserve his best and fairest, nor did I say Bailey Smith had a better year, clearly Holmes had a better season. The comparison was more so around the languages used to describe Smiths form in 2023. He very clearly wasn't mediocre.

Smith's form was patchy, kicking was poor, but he still had a clear, outright BOG performance in the 12th last game of footy in a winning team (Round 10 vs Adelaide), something that many other players in the league have never done in their career, let alone among the most recent 12 games that they have played.

No Dogs fan denies that he's patchy and inconsistent, but an inconsistent player who averages a certain output is worth more, because it's far easier to raise a person's floor and get them to play closer to their ceiling week-to-week, rather than find a consistent player but raise their ceiling and get them playing beyond a capability they've never demonstrated in the past.

All of this is exactly why Geelong are literally offering him the large contract they are, which seems to get lost in all this - we don't really need to debate how good or bad Smith is, because, the value of Geelong's contract does that for us. It literally cannot be true that Smith is a bad player yet worth his contract.

The same Geelong fans are trying to downplay his ability or expected future output, but not a single one of them is suggesting that Geelong are offering him far too generous a contract. In fact, it is being argued by Geelong fans that by virtue of the fact that Geelong are offering him the best contract among all 18 clubs, that he should be allowed to smoothly get to Geelong - suggesting that they are completely fine with Smith receiving that contract, a representation of how good of a player they expect him to be next year.

It's all utterly ridiculous, isn't it.

 

[Drunkcat]

This is crazy so many people have lost the plot over a trade that might not happen wow.

 

[iameviljez]

Right, so Geelong fans want to pick and choose the fact that players have complete freedom of movement, but not pick and choose the parts that give clubs more generous rules for retaining the talent that they correctly identify and develop through the draft.

I wonder why that is.

It's not always about which club you support.

I remember a time when nobody wanted to come to Geelong and it was a bit of a joke. Don't get me wrong, if we bottom out, we'll be right back there again.

IMO if Top 20 picks get four years, and Top 40 picks get three, it'll at least put some curtailment on player movement. However, the idea that a person in their mid twenties who is out of contract cannot freely choose their own employer is a bit ridiculous IMO.

 

[iameviljez]

because there's precendent in the EU, it utterly changed how contracts work in professional sporting leagues including soccer, basketball, ice hocket and more.

Bosman ruling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm a big soccer fan, I'm aware of it. However, the Bosman rule has been around for a long time and yet it hasn't done the business here.

 

[Iago]

Right, so Geelong fans want to pick and choose the fact that players have complete freedom of movement, but not pick and choose the parts that give clubs more generous rules for retaining the talent that they correctly identify and develop through the draft.

I wonder why that is.

Stop generalising, *some Geelong fans.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's not always about which club you support.

I remember a time when nobody wanted to come to Geelong and it was a bit of a joke. Don't get me wrong, if we bottom out, we'll be right back there again.

IMO if Top 20 picks get four years, and Top 40 picks get three, it'll at least put some curtailment on player movement. However, the idea that a person in their mid twenties who is out of contract cannot freely choose their own employer is a bit ridiculous IMO.

But over the long run, generationally, with complete freedom, more players should be expected to want to play for Geelong than to play for the Dogs, which in a league where all clubs have an equal stake in, and through their ability to recruit players and develop them and put them on the park should be equal, that remains unfair. I don't really care that there have been periods of time that Geelong haven't been able to recruit players - that has basically been the case for the Bulldogs since literally 1925.

You don't see Geelong willingly share around their Easter Monday fixture, for example, which is why Dogs take issue with Geelong fans insisting on complete and utter freedom - because without restrictions and benefits to the Dogs identifying and developing talent, we'd always lose out to the clubs that get to play blockbuster fixtures, a representation of being a bigger club. Then you extend that out to the supporters and view of the "big clubs" that they're happy to have the Dogs in the league, but only to beat down on, and they don't really want the Dogs to be able to threaten their dominance of being a big club and prevent them from winning flags.

 

[HairyO]

It's not always about which club you support.

I remember a time when nobody wanted to come to Geelong and it was a bit of a joke. Don't get me wrong, if we bottom out, we'll be right back there again.

IMO if Top 20 picks get four years, and Top 40 picks get three, it'll at least put some curtailment on player movement. However, the idea that a person in their mid twenties who is out of contract cannot freely choose their own employer is a bit ridiculous IMO.

So you hated the way Geelong screwed over West Coast when Kelly wanted to go back to WA for family/medical reasons ?

 

[iameviljez]

But over the long run, generationally, with complete freedom, more players should be expected to want to play for Geelong than to play for the Dogs, which in a league where all clubs have an equal stake in

The small Melbourne based clubs would absolutely be the losers as trading becomes more liberated, no doubt - the Dogs, StKilda and North chief among them. The expansion clubs wouldn't do well, either.

The major winners would be the biggest clubs in each state - Collingwood, West Coast, Brisbane, Sydney, etc. Geelong, I suspect, would be pretty neutral once they stop consistently winning.

I don't like the inequality either, but I also think it's unreasonable to hold uncontracted players to a club they no longer have an agreement with.

 

[iameviljez]

So you hated the way Geelong screwed over West Coast when Kelly wanted to go back to WA for family/medical reasons ?

Look, I think it was ridiculous that we could extort that kind of price out of West Coast. But you play with the rules you're given, and you only get one Alan Bond in your life...

What West Coast should have done, IMO, was trade into the Top 10 using their p14 and First Round pick, then stared Geelong down with the threat of the draft.

 

[MacStradbroke]

So you hated the way Geelong screwed over West Coast when Kelly wanted to go back to WA for family/medical reasons ?

I think you missed the line ‘who is out of contract’. Nice argument

 

[HairyO]

Look, I think it was ridiculous that we could extort that kind of price out of West Coast. But you play with the rules you're given, and you only get one Alan Bond in your life...

What West Coast should have done, IMO, was trade into the Top 10 using their p14 and First Round pick, then stared Geelong down with the threat of the draft.

I suspect that is what happens next time WCE and Geelong talk.

I think you missed the line ‘who is out of contract’. Nice argument

Kelly was out of contract. Geelong still made WCE pay massive overs.

 

[iameviljez]

I suspect that is what happens next time WCE and Geelong talk.

Probably. But I suspect it's also what's going to happen next time WCE negotiates for anyone who is out of contract.

West Coast agreed to pay a stupid price for a player who was out of contract. I don't see how that's Geelong's fault, any more than it's Fremantle's fault that Gold Coast were stupid enough to pony up p2 for Lachie Weller, or Brisbane and Collingwood's faults that they consistently got the other to overpay for Dayne Beams.

 

[Hamingja]

This is crazy so many people have lost the plot over a trade that might not happen wow.

99% chance it happens with Smith. I doubt Oliver happens.

 

[Oisin_the_Goat]

But over the long run, generationally, with complete freedom, more players should be expected to want to play for Geelong than to play for the Dogs, which in a league where all clubs have an equal stake in, and through their ability to recruit players and develop them and put them on the park should be equal, that remains unfair. I don't really care that there have been periods of time that Geelong haven't been able to recruit players - that has basically been the case for the Bulldogs since literally 1925.

You don't see Geelong willingly share around their Easter Monday fixture, for example, which is why Dogs take issue with Geelong fans insisting on complete and utter freedom - because without restrictions and benefits to the Dogs identifying and developing talent, we'd always lose out to the clubs that get to play blockbuster fixtures, a representation of being a bigger club. Then you extend that out to the supporters and view of the "big clubs" that they're happy to have the Dogs in the league, but only to beat down on, and they don't really want the Dogs to be able to threaten their dominance of being a big club and prevent them from winning flags.

If we're talking about "unfair", At least you get home finals. The Cats would gladly give up the Easter Monday fixture for a home final. And the fixtures are up to the AFL anyway, which we didn't really have many blockbusters this year.

And the thing is Geelong have had to rebuild on the run because unlike some other clubs we uncompromisingly try and compete every year.
We don't receive the same amount of high draft picks as the Bulldogs, which A. makes it very hard to trade and B. means we need to find players using high picks and C. we can't afford to pay overs for players.

But it is an attractive club to play for because the players who join know they will be playing finals most years and be in a positive fairly relaxed country Victoria environment.

You look at the amount of top 10 picks in the Bulldogs list, I wouldn't be complaining too much. There's so many the recruitment team have probably forgotten how to use a pick above ten.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

If we're talking about "unfair", At least you get home finals.

No, we don’t.

 

[Bald]

If we're talking about "unfair", At least you get home finals. The Cats would gladly give up the Easter Monday fixture for a home final (if it is even their decision).

And the thing is Geelong have had to rebuild on the run because we unlike some other clubs uncompromisingly try and compete every year.
We don't receive the same amount of high draft picks as the Bulldogs, which A. makes it very hard to trade and B. means we need to find players using high picks.
You look at the amount of top 10 picks in the Bulldogs list, I wouldn't be complaining too much. There's so many the recruitment team have probably forgotten how to use a pick above ten.

Is our home ground at the MCG, is it?

 

[WB_]

The Bulldogs get home finals? That's a new one.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If we're talking about "unfair", At least you get home finals. The Cats would gladly give up the Easter Monday fixture for a home final (if it is even their decision).

And the thing is Geelong have had to rebuild on the run because we unlike some other clubs uncompromisingly try and compete every year.
We haven't received the same amount of high draft picks as the Bulldogs, which A. makes it very hard to trade and B. means we need to find players using high picks.
You look at the amount of top 10 picks in the Bulldogs list, I wouldn't be complaining too much. There's so many the recruitment team have forgotten how to use a pick above ten.

I'm just using Easter Monday as a "for instance".

Everyone agrees that the draft exists because without it there wouldn't be enough competitive balance, both in the sense of general fairness of everyone having an equal stake in the league and therefore have a claim to a roughly equal chance to winning the league in the long run, but also, generally, just for the benefit of overall interest in the league and having an engaged base of fans for its various teams.

This is on top of a salary cap btw because salaries don't alone work as pure equalisation - players consistently prefer to play for bigger clubs for a smaller salary.

The fact that you try and compete is not really an argument either, considering teams that actively bottom out make it easier for you to win a flag. Tanking teams increase the chance that a "competing" team wins a flag.

I'm not really sure about the better draft picks is really an argument. The draft picks look to equalise the past into the future. Teams that have 20 players tear an ACL in a single season and finish bottom in a season still get a good draft pick for that season, even if they are expected to have those players return for the following year - equalisation works to make it more likely for that team to win the flag in the future for recognition of the fact that the injuries prevented them from winning the flag in the past year, even if they were already expected to win the flag in the future, because of the returning players from injury. Collingwood got Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury in 2005 (priority picks aside) in recognition of the fact that their 2005 was so woeful that they were considered so far away from winning the flag, not in some vague sense of their likelihood of winning the flag in the past or future outside of that 2005 season.

The Dogs have a large amount of top 10 picks simply because we haven't had a large amount of success relative to Geelong in the past decade or two. As such, it is fine for us to have more top 10 picks on our list heading forward, therefore having more chance of success - becuase we ultimately had less success in the past.

Even if we were to win the 2025 flag and the 2026 flag, and the 2027 flag, that is still fewer flags than Geelong have won in the 21s century. That's the point.

 

[_Cerberus_]

The Bulldogs get home finals? That's a new one.

MCG is closer to a home game for the Cats than it is the Dogs as well. They play a few games there a year compared to us.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

Is the pretentious one (Mackie) still attempting to fleece the Dogs? My gut instinct tells me he’ll eventually fold & add a 2nd Rounder to the mix. Smith’s probably already got a Cats Locker with his name on it.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Bulldogs will make things as difficult as possible until Geelong offer something that's at least in the orbit of what they want.

 

[Vindicater]

If Smith makes it to the draft and sets terms that Geelong want then his contract will be smallish right?

Surely Richmond with a bevy of picks in those teens takes him?

 

[MacStradbroke]

I suspect that is what happens next time WCE and Geelong talk.



Kelly was out of contract. Geelong still made WCE pay massive overs.

Different argument, nice try. Geelong held him when in contract.