Rumour GFC 2024 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 2

[cats_09]

Ask and we'll try our best to assist - so here's 2024 Provisional AFL Draft Order

As normal, would like to acknowledge & thank Lore for creating this, keeping it up to date and making it available for all users on BF to use and keep track of the picks ahead of the upcoming draft





I'll also sticky this post to ensure it's easily accessible for discussion of our hypothetical trader

 

[frggr]

Its the attitude that gets me.

He's shown what he can do when unmotivated, pouty and suffering from poor decisions.

Now, when he first gets to Geelong ( if) im sure we'll have the best Baz.

But what happens when (if) his form drops, he makes another poor choice and gets busted for it, or when things just naturally get harder for him. Are we gonna see him double down and work harder to get back if that's whats needed or will we see what've seen already.

People can surely change as they get older etc but paying an upfront heavy price ignoring those risk potentials can be horrendous as you state.

Go Catters

I think we'll see him work harder to get back.

From the outside, the Dog's culture looks absolutely shit house - leading from the front with Beveridge.

The way he treats people outside the club is disgusting. Understandable that you need to go into bat for your players but the way he goes about it is counter-productive and non-conducive to building a safe/comfortable environment and culture.

It's an insular, "us against the world" mentality - can be useful short term but isn't a way to run the club for years on end. It's tiring.

 

[frggr]

The discussion is around which player would you prefer to acquire, and at what cost.

Oh right.

Yeah probably LDU slightly but it's immaterial because he's not available and Smith is.

Wouldn't turn down Smith and don't mind the price. Draft picks are overrated and ours more than most because I can't remember the last one we had that wasn't compromised by draft concessions

 

[cats_09]

For me the contract is far more important than the trade cost.

7 years for hopper was madness.

If we get him on a contract comparable to what we paid Stengle and Holmes, then I am happy to give up the equivalent of pick 20 ish to get him.

I hope we are smart enough to keep the deal to 3 years or less. But I think it will be a minimum of 4.

Unless a team is signing a 30+yr old or an unwanted FA, when recruiting/signing a player from another club, especially one who's a wanted player, 5yr is likely to be the default contract length - unless your a crazy team like Richmond and offering 7yr deals

Players from other clubs aren't going to seriously consider offers of only 3yrs - they'd laugh it off as it's a waste of their time and not even worth a counter offer

It also wouldn't take long for that info to be shared amongst player managers which would result in other players not even caring to listen to an initial offer

 

[cats_09]

LDU would cost a top 5 pick minimum.

At a minimum North would want 2 x first round picks with at least one a guaranteed top 10/5 pick

Would have potentially more luck signing him as a FA, but he's definitely not a trade target this year no matter how much we may want him

 

[dazbroncos]

We just gave Stengle a big pay rise and his off field behaviour is more questionable than Smiths

Stengle is 3 years at least removed from that - and he's not coming off and ACL that can effect performance and lead back to those issues.

Baz - Jury is out.

GO Catters

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I see what you did there..

Have I mentioned that I don't like cricket...

Bit of context would be great. I don’t classify a 35yo dangerfield as an A grader anymore. He is a 20 touch midfielder these days who fades in and out of games in bursts. Most elite midfielders rack up much better numbers than that.

He still can influence, but his no longer at that elite level

 

[CatToTheFuture]

So you can’t compare players kicking ability if they are not acquired the same way?

I thought it was being brought up in terms of acquisition not general player ability

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Stengle is 3 years at least removed from that - and he's not coming off and ACL that can effect performance and lead back to those issues.

Baz - Jury is out.

GO Catters

Stengle was one year removed from it when we picked him up. Smith is 2 years removed.

The acl could be an issue, but it's also why he's comparatively cheap for a the level of player he is

 

[D BRIDGE]

Stengle was one year removed from it when we picked him up. Smith is 2 years removed.

The acl could be an issue, but it's also why he's comparatively cheap for a the level of player he is

I agree "if" it's our R1 (which seems to be what we are all talking ourselves into) then it's a good get for Smith.

Just looking back through all those draft screenshots I posted yesterday with picks 13 to 18 for the last 8 years shows how unlikely it is to get a player half as good as Smith is with one of those selections. We have missed so many times in that #15 range that I'd bite off the Dog's arm to get Smith with a pick around #15.

Imagine if we were all way off and gave up our R1 + F1... or R2, R3 + F1. We'd be wrong in our assessments & filthy.

I do think our R1 will (if he comes) be the meat and potatoes of the deal... Time will tell I guess.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I agree "if" it's our R1 (which seems to be what we are all talking ourselves into) then it's a good get for Smith.

Just looking back through all those draft screenshots I posted yesterday with picks 13 to 18 for the last 8 years shows how unlikely it is to get a player half as good as Smith is with one of those selections. We have missed so many times in that #15 range that I'd bite off the Dog's arm to get Smith with a pick around #15.

Imagine if we were all way off and gave up our R1 + F1... or R2, R3 + F1. We'd be wrong in our assessments & filthy.

I do think our R1 will (if he comes) be the meat and potatoes of the deal... Time will tell I guess.

Yeah I don't think they'd at all consider 2x firsts for an OOC player off an ACL.

He'll be the right player at the right price. Then we can assess again next year for either more mids or Key Forward

 

[Hinkley29]

Unless a team is signing a 30+yr old or an unwanted FA, when recruiting/signing a player from another club, especially one who's a wanted player, 5yr is likely to be the default contract length - unless your a crazy team like Richmond and offering 7yr deals

Players from other clubs aren't going to seriously consider offers of only 3yrs - they'd laugh it off as it's a waste of their time and not even worth a counter offer

It also wouldn't take long for that info to be shared amongst player managers which would result in other players not even caring to listen to an initial offer

Just because something is the default does not make it a good idea.

5 yrs for smith is a bad idea, and we should walk away at that point.

There are players that I would be fine giving 5/6 (maybe more) years to. Smith is not one of them.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

For me the contract is far more important than the trade cost.

7 years for hopper was madness.

If we get him on a contract comparable to what we paid Stengle and Holmes, then I am happy to give up the equivalent of pick 20 ish to get him.

I hope we are smart enough to keep the deal to 3 years or less. But I think it will be a minimum of 4.

We offer 3 years and he doesn't come, no decent free agent or OOC player leaves for a 3 year deal when they have many options.

5 years, 700-800k and a first round pick and it's done

 

[Hinkley29]

Stengle is 3 years at least removed from that - and he's not coming off and ACL that can effect performance and lead back to those issues.

Baz - Jury is out.

GO Catters

Stengle is a known quantity for us - we have had him on the list for 3 years and he has no major injury red flags.

Smith is an unknown quantity, with known red flags.

Buyer beware

 

[Hinkley29]

We offer 3 years and he doesn't come, no decent free agent or OOC player leaves for a 3 year deal when they have many options.

5 years, 700-800k and a first round pick and it's done

I agree, he wouldn’t take three years.

I also agree that 5 yrs $800k and a first round pick gets the deal done.

I just wouldn’t pay the price.

For all parties best interests, we should walk away.

 

[Hinkley29]

I agree "if" it's our R1 (which seems to be what we are all talking ourselves into) then it's a good get for Smith.

Just looking back through all those draft screenshots I posted yesterday with picks 13 to 18 for the last 8 years shows how unlikely it is to get a player half as good as Smith is with one of those selections. We have missed so many times in that #15 range that I'd bite off the Dog's arm to get Smith with a pick around #15.

Imagine if we were all way off and gave up our R1 + F1... or R2, R3 + F1. We'd be wrong in our assessments & filthy.

I do think our R1 will (if he comes) be the meat and potatoes of the deal... Time will tell I guess.

The draft cost is not the big issue with smith.

I am in the “draft capital is overrated” camp, and fully endorse using high draft picks to acquire proven players.

The big issue in this instance is the contract that we will need to give out. Clubs can recover from overpaying with draft picks. Clubs often can’t recover from tying up their salary cap in underperforming players.

 

[Lana]

Are we still competing for a flag with our current list next year?

 

[Jumping Jack]

Having a quiet chuckle reading some of the stuff here about Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

. Can't be stuffed responding to each point but here's my bullet point thoughts against what some people are alluding to.

-- People say we shouldn't give him a long term deal. We gave Stengle 5 years so I'd be surprised if Smith wasn't being offered 4-5 years to move clubs. As a comparison - Stengle is 25 / Smith is 23. My personal view is that he'll get 5 years and that's fine. Nowhere near the stupidity of the Hopper deal at 7 years.
-- Some oddball comparisons between Smith and Holmes despite one being drafted for the other will be traded for. What I would say though is that plenty of what Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

has produced is equal to, or better than what Max Holmes has. Go back and look at his finals performances. Quote below from the papers in 2021 but since then he's had a couple of injuries and clearly a falling out with Bevo / a few personal challenges. He's coming to a good environment and a coach who will extract the best from him.

Remember - he's still only 23.

"At his peak in the 2021 finals series when he kicked 8 goals in 3 games, Smith was considered one of the best game breaking midfielders in the competition."

Time for a few people to chill and get a dose of reality over this bloke. Could easily be in the top 10 players in the AFL with the right support and a good run at it.

 

[cats_09]

I agree, he wouldn’t take three years.

I also agree that 5 yrs $800k and a first round pick gets the deal done.

I just wouldn’t pay the price.

For all parties best interests, we should walk away.

Smith instantly makes us a better team, and a 5-year deal isn't a crazy offer for what he'd bring

How is it in our best interest to walk away from a player that we've clearly been interested in & invested time in engaging with them over a couple of years, and also a player who has also shared that interested & time investment in us?

Besides, if the club walked away now we'd look like a joke, be laughed at and considered time wasters - other players who were potential targets would think twice about any suggested interest and question if we'd also just be wasting their time

 

[cats_09]

Are we still competing for a flag with our current list next year?

If the only additions we make to our current list are via the draft, no we aren't competing next year

If we want to put ourselves in a position of competing for the flag, we need to hit the trade table or FA recruitment but not sure there's anyone available in the latter who fills an obvious need or would be clear best 22

 

[Jumping Jack]

Smith instantly makes us a better team, and a 5-year deal isn't a crazy offer for what he'd bring

How is it in our best interest to walk away from a player that we've clearly been interested in & invested time in engaging with them over a couple of years, and also a player who has also shared that interested & time investment in us?

Besides, if the club walked away now we'd look like a joke, be laughed at and considered time wasters - other players who were potential targets would think twice about any suggested interest and question if we'd also just be wasting their time

He's coming to Geelong.

Commonly accepted now across most clubs recruiting teams that the deal is effectively done and Smith will get to Geelong. Collingwood have declared they are out of the race - and Hawthorn have moved to target different players in recent weeks which is a pointer to them having taken a step back.

I know for a fact that he's still actively looking at properties in the Geelong area (Torquay / Bellbrae)

Fast becoming the worst kept secret in the AFL. If you ask around there's been plenty of Bailey Smith spotting's in Geelong in the last 6 months - and not Cotton On related either. He's getting his ducks in a row - as anyone would if they were packing up and moving.

 

[Lana]

If the only additions we make to our current list are via the draft, no we aren't competing next year

If we want to put ourselves in a position of competing for the flag, we need to hit the trade table or FA recruitment but not sure there's anyone available in the latter who fills an obvious need or would be clear best 22

If we have Smith are we still competing for flag?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I agree, he wouldn’t take three years.

I also agree that 5 yrs $800k and a first round pick gets the deal done.

I just wouldn’t pay the price.

For all parties best interests, we should walk away.

Draft capital and $$$ are not of concern to me.

Draft picks ore often overrated. We consistently outperform clubs with many more R1 and specifically high R1 picks.

By the end of the contract 700-800k won't be that high. It's already borderline not enough anymore for band 1 FA compensation as we sit here now.

I can understand the 5 years being a risk aspect. His 2023 'bad year' has been better than any of our mids output since the 22 GF.

 

[Jumping Jack]

If we have Smith are we still competing for flag?

The answer is yes - particularly if Geelong pull off a couple of other moves as some are suggesting.

Young players won't get any worse - but we'd want to get our ruck stocks sorted if Stanley goes (as he will).

 

[Hinkley29]

Smith instantly makes us a better team, and a 5-year deal isn't a crazy offer for what he'd bring

How is it in our best interest to walk away from a player that we've clearly been interested in & invested time in engaging with them over a couple of years, and also a player who has also shared that interested & time investment in us?

Besides, if the club walked away now we'd look like a joke, be laughed at and considered time wasters - other players who were potential targets would think twice about any suggested interest and question if we'd also just be wasting their time

I clearly have a different opinion of smiths value than most on this board.

That is fine, it would be boring if we all just agreed all the time.

I don’t agree with a 5 year deal for smith for the following reasons:

• too many red flags
• too much uncertainty = risk

I also think it would be a slap in the face to Holmes and Stengle who are better players, less risky and just signed 4 year deals.

I somewhat agree that we would look silly if we walked away if we had already agreed on a deal with smith.

But that is not a good enough reason to overpay for a player, and I would be disappointed if we left it get that far.

The one hope I have is that the club will not give him a five year+ deal if they stuck to their guns on 4 with Holmes and Stengle. If they cave and give him a longer deal then I would question our competency. And I don’t think we are incompetent. Time will tell

 

[Hinkley29]

Draft capital and $$$ are not of concern to me.

Draft picks ore often overrated. We consistently outperform clubs with many more R1 and specifically high R1 picks.

By the end of the contract 700-800k won't be that high. It's already borderline not enough anymore for band 1 FA compensation as we sit here now.

I can understand the 5 years being a risk aspect. His 2023 'bad year' has been better than any of our mids output since the 22 GF.

I don’t want players who have better output than our current midfielders.

For a big contract I want high quality, top end midfielders.

Saying that smith is better than our current crop does not give me any comfort that we are making a good deal.

I also think Holmes is better than smith at a very similar role.