Trade Requested Bailey Smith

Remove this Banner Ad

supahoops said:
Pies got Krueger cheap as chips from us, swings and roundabouts. It’s only clueless fans that don’t get it but keep trying.
Click to expand...
Spot on. If Smith goes to Geelong we'll get what they can afford
The clueless fans forget how cheap we got Bruce and Keath for.
Treloar was daylight robbery of the highest order .
You win some, you lose some.
 
4Seasons said:
Spot on. If Smith goes to Geelong we'll get what they can afford
The clueless fans forget how cheap we got Bruce and Keath for.
Treloar was daylight robbery of the highest order .
You win some, you lose some.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not about team A "owning" team B in what ultimately changes hands; it's simply that the Dogs have more to lose by a trade not occurring than Geelong does. What goes around comes around: it'll be our turn to give away an out of contract player for 70 cents on the dollar soon enough.

They'll likely get this year's first, next year's second and probably another second or a player of about that value, something like that. To me, that's not peanuts and it'd be silly to turn it down and get nothing for a player who's gone anyway.

Geelong, on the other hand, if a trade isn't done, we keep the picks that we would have had to trade away, along with the significant cap space that not signing Bailey Smith will allow. A bit disappointing and anticlimactic sure, but oh well.
 
4Seasons said:
Spot on. If Smith goes to Geelong we'll get what they can afford
The clueless fans forget how cheap we got Bruce and Keath for.
Treloar was daylight robbery of the highest order .
You win some, you lose some.
Click to expand...

You clearly don’t understand how it works.

Dogs will ask for value around pick 7, and probably end up being screwed over with pick 18 + f1.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

MC Extra Dollop said:
Yeah it's not about team A "owning" team B in what ultimately changes hands; it's simply that the Dogs have more to lose by a trade not occurring than Geelong does. What goes around comes around: it'll be our turn to give away an out of contract player for 70 cents on the dollar soon enough.

They'll likely get this year's first, next year's second and probably another second or a player of about that value, something like that. To me, that's not peanuts and it'd be silly to turn it down and get nothing for a player who's gone anyway.

Geelong, on the other hand, if a trade isn't done, we keep the picks that we would have had to trade away, along with the significant cap space that not signing Bailey Smith will allow. A bit disappointing and anticlimactic sure, but oh well.
Click to expand...
A lot of the angst against Geelong is unfounded. We had to trade for Dangerfield and Cameron. Every club had multiple chances to take JHenry, Kolo, Stewart, Zuthrie, Bews, Dempsey, Humphries, Mannagh, Close, Miers, Neale, Atkins. One crack at least at Holmes & Duncan. Free hits at Blicavs and Mullin. Some laughed at us giving early 20’s for Stanley. Bowes & Stengle was good business others could have agreed.

Bruhn, Henry and Tuohy the only ones traded where the other club may have felt shortchanged but hardly worthy of all the melts some put out here.

That’s our 24 that were involved in an 84 point qualifying final win.

We’ll cough up a first and possibly second for Smith and that feels about right. If not we’ll move on to something else, as we always do.
 
PurpJuice said:
You clearly don’t understand how it works.

Dogs will ask for value around pick 7, and probably end up being screwed over with pick 18 + f1.
Click to expand...
I understand how it works.
We will get this year's first, and Geelong's future second, just like dude who keeps repeating himself says.
 
supahoops said:
A lot of the angst against Geelong is unfounded. We had to trade for Dangerfield and Cameron. Every club had multiple chances to take JHenry, Kolo, Stewart, Zuthrie, Bews, Dempsey, Humphries, Mannagh, Close, Miers, Neale, Atkins. One crack at least at Holmes & Duncan. Free hits at Blicavs and Mullin. Some laughed at us giving early 20’s for Stanley. Bowes & Stengle was good business others could have agreed.

Bruhn, Henry and Tuohy the only ones traded where the other club may have felt shortchanged but hardly worthy of all the melts some put out here.

That’s our 24 that were involved in an 84 point qualifying final win.

We’ll cough up a first and possibly second for Smith and that feels about right. If not we’ll move on to something else, as we always do.
Click to expand...
It’s one thing to say a 1st and a 2nd feels right but that realistically could be pick 20 and pick 40. Not sure anyone would think that feels right.
 
The Inbetweener said:
It’s one thing to say a 1st and a 2nd feels right but that realistically could be pick 20 and pick 40. Not sure anyone would think that feels right.
Click to expand...

Thats why there will probably be later pick shuffles that favour the dogs. But there wont be an F1 in that is the point.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
Thats why there will probably be later pick shuffles that favour the dogs. But there wont be an F1 in that is the point.
Click to expand...

It entirely depends on how Geelong go for the rest of the year. If it’s pick 18, it will absolutely involve f1 too.

Pick 18, and what could also be pick 18, is essentially two second rounders after academy bids etc.

That’s what we paid for Lobb, who has admittedly turned into a fantastic player but the point still stands.
 
PurpJuice said:
It entirely depends on how Geelong go for the rest of the year. If it’s pick 18, it will absolutely involve f1 too.

Pick 18, and what could also be pick 18, is essentially two second rounders after academy bids etc.

That’s what we paid for Lobb, who has admittedly turned into a fantastic player but the point still stands.
Click to expand...
I would be shocked and surprised if Geelong added a F1 on the Smith trade I just don’t see that happening.
 
PurpJuice said:
It entirely depends on how Geelong go for the rest of the year. If it’s pick 18, it will absolutely involve f1 too.

Pick 18, and what could also be pick 18, is essentially two second rounders after academy bids etc.

That’s what we paid for Lobb, who has admittedly turned into a fantastic player but the point still stands.
Click to expand...
Why are you comparing a contracted key position player, to an uncontracted small midfielder?
 
year of the cat said:
It won’t happen. I’d say it will start as 2024 first plus F2, with anything more needed coming from later picks.
Click to expand...
Reckon there will be a few people disappointed in the outcome with the trade if they think we somehow get a F1
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PurpJuice said:
It entirely depends on how Geelong go for the rest of the year. If it’s pick 18, it will absolutely involve f1 too.

Pick 18, and what could also be pick 18, is essentially two second rounders after academy bids etc.

That’s what we paid for Lobb, who has admittedly turned into a fantastic player but the point still stands.
Click to expand...

Our pick next year could easily be top 6 which is why we wont trade it.

Also your lobb trade involved 2 later 2nds not top 20 picks.

We will trade our 1st and 2nd this year plus change, maybe its a future 2nd, maybe theres a (fringe) player involved. But the future 1st absolutely wont be.
 
If I was the Bulldogs, the comparison would be Tim Kelly.
Out of contract. Wanted to leave. Similar age.
Geelong asked for, and received, 2 firsts plus 2 seconds.
Obviously Geelong cannot trade F1 and F2, so the Dogs might need to accept a 1st and 2nd this year, plus F1.

People might say the Eagles paid too much for Kelly, and I agree, but that is the value placed on him by Geelong. So people might call them hypocritical if they complained.

At the end of the day, 2 firsts for Smith and a second, is probably realistic but the Dogs could start with the Kelly comparison.
 
Books said:
If I was the Bulldogs, the comparison would be Tim Kelly.
Out of contract. Wanted to leave. Similar age.
Geelong asked for, and received, 2 firsts plus 2 seconds.
Obviously Geelong cannot trade F1 and F2, so the Dogs might need to accept a 1st and 2nd this year, plus F1.

People might say the Eagles paid too much for Kelly, and I agree, but that is the value placed on him by Geelong. So people might call them hypocritical if they complained.

At the end of the day, 2 firsts for Smith and a second, is probably realistic but the Dogs could start with the Kelly comparison.
Click to expand...
2 x 1st will get it done i think
 
Books said:
If I was the Bulldogs, the comparison would be Tim Kelly.
Out of contract. Wanted to leave. Similar age.
Geelong asked for, and received, 2 firsts plus 2 seconds.
Obviously Geelong cannot trade F1 and F2, so the Dogs might need to accept a 1st and 2nd this year, plus F1.

People might say the Eagles paid too much for Kelly, and I agree, but that is the value placed on him by Geelong. So people might call them hypocritical if they complained.

At the end of the day, 2 firsts for Smith and a second, is probably realistic but the Dogs could start with the Kelly comparison.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 2 firsts will be the bare minimum cost for Geelong, and I’m assuming we will accept that.
 
Books said:
If I was the Bulldogs, the comparison would be Tim Kelly.
Out of contract. Wanted to leave. Similar age.
Geelong asked for, and received, 2 firsts plus 2 seconds.
Obviously Geelong cannot trade F1 and F2, so the Dogs might need to accept a 1st and 2nd this year, plus F1.

People might say the Eagles paid too much for Kelly, and I agree, but that is the value placed on him by Geelong. So people might call them hypocritical if they complained.

At the end of the day, 2 firsts for Smith and a second, is probably realistic but the Dogs could start with the Kelly comparison.
Click to expand...

Tim Kelly was coming off an AA season and top 5 in the brownlow, not off a knee reco FFS.

And WC not drafting him originally, then not getting it done the previous year when he was contracted and requested to be traded, put extra pressure on them closing the deal the second time
 
Hamingja said:
Tim Kelly was coming off an AA season and top 5 in the brownlow, not off a knee reco FFS.

And WC not drafting him originally, then not getting it done the previous year when he was contracted and requested to be traded, put extra pressure on them closing the deal the second time
Click to expand...

They really just compared All Australian and Top 5 Brownlow Finish Tim Kelly to post ACL tear Bailey Smith who hasn’t played in 12 months….how many All Australian gigs? How many times has he gone close to winning the freaking Brownlow?

Laughable, there’s levels to this.
 
Books said:
If I was the Bulldogs, the comparison would be Tim Kelly.
Out of contract. Wanted to leave. Similar age.
Geelong asked for, and received, 2 firsts plus 2 seconds.
Obviously Geelong cannot trade F1 and F2, so the Dogs might need to accept a 1st and 2nd this year, plus F1.

People might say the Eagles paid too much for Kelly, and I agree, but that is the value placed on him by Geelong. So people might call them hypocritical if they complained.

At the end of the day, 2 firsts for Smith and a second, is probably realistic but the Dogs could start with the Kelly comparison.
Click to expand...
Assuming he picks Hawthorn I’m guessing we’ll be seeing the exact same offer on the table?

Idk, to me it would seem hypocritical to suggest what other teams should give up and not back it up with your own team making the same offer. Right?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Trade Requested Bailey Smith

Similar threads

Elmer_Hauser
Recommitted Bailey Smith [OOC 2024]
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
740
Views
44K
Lore
Lore
Cursedsword02
Bailey Banfield - Signs 2 Year Extension [UFA 2026]
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
CatToTheFuture
CatToTheFuture
The Nostradamus
Recommitted Bailey Williams [signs 4 year deal]
2 3
Replies
57
Views
7K
Foxman98
Foxman98

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top