Out of interest, what do you think he will cost?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Traded Jack Steven [traded to Geelong for #58]
- Thread starter Turbocat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Would just like to point out, without any malice or agenda, that the situation appears to be one where Steven wants to get back down the coast to be closer to family/support network.
Mental health is tricky, as it means that it's a risk for all parties involved. Using Beams as a reference point, he still played most games last year (except when not injured), meaning he appeared to be managing better. After his injury this year and citing mental health again, it appears now that he's not doing as well. The risk at first appeared to be with the incumbent (Brisbane), letting their star captain go when they were in a rebuilding phase, hence why they asked fair value from Collingwood. After acquiring Neale, Lyons, McCarthy and getting another year into their youngsters, they now sit above Collingwood on the ladder. The risk now appears to be with Collingwood, given Beams' age, his salary, the picks they gave up and another injury to add into the fold.
The above is the same as Mitch Clark for us a few years back, alongside trades like Bryce Gibbs, Brett Deledio, to name but a couple. You guys took on Hannebery, despite his injury history, but he was a bit younger, so it makes sense.
A player of Steven's calibre is tough to give up, but he'll also be on the wrong side of 30 next year and may not even play more than a few games for us (see Mitch Clark). I think someone like Joel Selwood would be a good reference point for Steven. On the wrong side of 30, beloved servant and future hall of famer/legend of our club, yet footy is starting to wane a bit given a few niggles and an interrupted pre-season. Could bounce back next year and have another 3 good years, or could retire at the end of next year. I would think if a club looked at taking him on (Gold Coast for a hypothetical example), that we would of course want a first rounder, as he's so important to our club, in more ways than just on field. Realistically, however, we would be lucky to get a mid second-round pick, given his age and form this year. Even though he's played most games this year, which Steven has not, his trade value has drastically dropped from even last year.
I wanted to use Sel as an example, because I feel that's where the Saints supporters are coming from. I think that gets lost in a lot of these conversations, that losing someone as important to the culture of your club as Steven has been, makes the reality that much tougher. I don't think we should be taking pot shots and having a go at them, when they are rightfully aggrieved at possibly losing a player that is quintessentially and intrinsically linked to what the 'Saints brand' is all about.
Apologies on behalf of any of our supporters who have been too heavy handed in their response, but I also get where they're coming from. We've had years of 'top-up recruits', which from 2016 on, we've finally starting getting away from that mentality. Bringing in Steven signifies a step back towards that, and it's something we don't want.
A player of Steven's calibre will add to any side, but he'll also be a loss to the side that he's leaving (Saints). The thing that will surpass all of these arguments though, is player welfare. Whether we agree with the situation or not, player welfare take precedence in the eyes of the AFL and the AFLPA. This means, that if he does want to play on and both parties agree, that a trade will be brokered that is in the best interest of the player, not either club. In my eyes the most likely outcome given circumstances of both clubs, would be the below:
Geelong with a tighter salary cap, gives up a higher pick (early-mid second instead of late second or third rounder)
Saints with a looser salary cap, cover a fair chunk of Steven's salary (400K-500K or so), with Geelong covering the remainder.
It is only for one year, so both parties would likely not to be too fussed at this outcome if it's in the best interest of the player. I think talk of a third rounder is laughable, as it wouldn't be a salary dump, so St Kilda aren't going to cover his salary AND take a crappy pick as well.
This thread has gone off the tracks a bit, so I thought I'd offer up a bit of middle ground, as there's really no history of bad blood between Saints and Cats supporters (our rivalry during the 09-11 era was epic but not with any malice). We also gave up pick 21 for Stanley (I still haven't figured out who that trade was better for all these years later), which is ironically in the same ball-park (Pick 25-30) of what I think we should be giving up for Steven.
Peace
Mental health is tricky, as it means that it's a risk for all parties involved. Using Beams as a reference point, he still played most games last year (except when not injured), meaning he appeared to be managing better. After his injury this year and citing mental health again, it appears now that he's not doing as well. The risk at first appeared to be with the incumbent (Brisbane), letting their star captain go when they were in a rebuilding phase, hence why they asked fair value from Collingwood. After acquiring Neale, Lyons, McCarthy and getting another year into their youngsters, they now sit above Collingwood on the ladder. The risk now appears to be with Collingwood, given Beams' age, his salary, the picks they gave up and another injury to add into the fold.
The above is the same as Mitch Clark for us a few years back, alongside trades like Bryce Gibbs, Brett Deledio, to name but a couple. You guys took on Hannebery, despite his injury history, but he was a bit younger, so it makes sense.
A player of Steven's calibre is tough to give up, but he'll also be on the wrong side of 30 next year and may not even play more than a few games for us (see Mitch Clark). I think someone like Joel Selwood would be a good reference point for Steven. On the wrong side of 30, beloved servant and future hall of famer/legend of our club, yet footy is starting to wane a bit given a few niggles and an interrupted pre-season. Could bounce back next year and have another 3 good years, or could retire at the end of next year. I would think if a club looked at taking him on (Gold Coast for a hypothetical example), that we would of course want a first rounder, as he's so important to our club, in more ways than just on field. Realistically, however, we would be lucky to get a mid second-round pick, given his age and form this year. Even though he's played most games this year, which Steven has not, his trade value has drastically dropped from even last year.
I wanted to use Sel as an example, because I feel that's where the Saints supporters are coming from. I think that gets lost in a lot of these conversations, that losing someone as important to the culture of your club as Steven has been, makes the reality that much tougher. I don't think we should be taking pot shots and having a go at them, when they are rightfully aggrieved at possibly losing a player that is quintessentially and intrinsically linked to what the 'Saints brand' is all about.
Apologies on behalf of any of our supporters who have been too heavy handed in their response, but I also get where they're coming from. We've had years of 'top-up recruits', which from 2016 on, we've finally starting getting away from that mentality. Bringing in Steven signifies a step back towards that, and it's something we don't want.
A player of Steven's calibre will add to any side, but he'll also be a loss to the side that he's leaving (Saints). The thing that will surpass all of these arguments though, is player welfare. Whether we agree with the situation or not, player welfare take precedence in the eyes of the AFL and the AFLPA. This means, that if he does want to play on and both parties agree, that a trade will be brokered that is in the best interest of the player, not either club. In my eyes the most likely outcome given circumstances of both clubs, would be the below:
Geelong with a tighter salary cap, gives up a higher pick (early-mid second instead of late second or third rounder)
Saints with a looser salary cap, cover a fair chunk of Steven's salary (400K-500K or so), with Geelong covering the remainder.
It is only for one year, so both parties would likely not to be too fussed at this outcome if it's in the best interest of the player. I think talk of a third rounder is laughable, as it wouldn't be a salary dump, so St Kilda aren't going to cover his salary AND take a crappy pick as well.
This thread has gone off the tracks a bit, so I thought I'd offer up a bit of middle ground, as there's really no history of bad blood between Saints and Cats supporters (our rivalry during the 09-11 era was epic but not with any malice). We also gave up pick 21 for Stanley (I still haven't figured out who that trade was better for all these years later), which is ironically in the same ball-park (Pick 25-30) of what I think we should be giving up for Steven.
Peace
Good post mate. My thoughts aren't far away from yours (I was thinking 20-25)Would just like to point out, without any malice or agenda, that the situation appears to be one where Steven wants to get back down the coast to be closer to family/support network.
Mental health is tricky, as it means that it's a risk for all parties involved. Using Beams as a reference point, he still played most games last year (except when not injured), meaning he appeared to be managing better. After his injury this year and citing mental health again, it appears now that he's not doing as well. The risk at first appeared to be with the incumbent (Brisbane), letting their star captain go when they were in a rebuilding phase, hence why they asked fair value from Collingwood. After acquiring Neale, Lyons, McCarthy and getting another year into their youngsters, they now sit above Collingwood on the ladder. The risk now appears to be with Collingwood, given Beams' age, his salary, the picks they gave up and another injury to add into the fold.
The above is the same as Mitch Clark for us a few years back, alongside trades like Bryce Gibbs, Brett Deledio, to name but a couple. You guys took on Hannebery, despite his injury history, but he was a bit younger, so it makes sense.
A player of Steven's calibre is tough to give up, but he'll also be on the wrong side of 30 next year and may not even play more than a few games for us (see Mitch Clark). I think someone like Joel Selwood would be a good reference point for Steven. On the wrong side of 30, beloved servant and future hall of famer/legend of our club, yet footy is starting to wane a bit given a few niggles and an interrupted pre-season. Could bounce back next year and have another 3 good years, or could retire at the end of next year. I would think if a club looked at taking him on (Gold Coast for a hypothetical example), that we would of course want a first rounder, as he's so important to our club, in more ways than just on field. Realistically, however, we would be lucky to get a mid second-round pick, given his age and form this year. Even though he's played most games this year, which Steven has not, his trade value has drastically dropped from even last year.
I wanted to use Sel as an example, because I feel that's where the Saints supporters are coming from. I think that gets lost in a lot of these conversations, that losing someone as important to the culture of your club as Steven has been, makes the reality that much tougher. I don't think we should be taking pot shots and having a go at them, when they are rightfully aggrieved at possibly losing a player that is quintessentially and intrinsically linked to what the 'Saints brand' is all about.
Apologies on behalf of any of our supporters who have been too heavy handed in their response, but I also get where they're coming from. We've had years of 'top-up recruits', which from 2016 on, we've finally starting getting away from that mentality. Bringing in Steven signifies a step back towards that, and it's something we don't want.
A player of Steven's calibre will add to any side, but he'll also be a loss to the side that he's leaving (Saints). The thing that will surpass all of these arguments though, is player welfare. Whether we agree with the situation or not, player welfare take precedence in the eyes of the AFL and the AFLPA. This means, that if he does want to play on and both parties agree, that a trade will be brokered that is in the best interest of the player, not either club. In my eyes the most likely outcome given circumstances of both clubs, would be the below:
Geelong with a tighter salary cap, gives up a higher pick (early-mid second instead of late second or third rounder)
Saints with a looser salary cap, cover a fair chunk of Steven's salary (400K-500K or so), with Geelong covering the remainder.
It is only for one year, so both parties would likely not to be too fussed at this outcome if it's in the best interest of the player. I think talk of a third rounder is laughable, as it wouldn't be a salary dump, so St Kilda aren't going to cover his salary AND take a crappy pick as well.
This thread has gone off the tracks a bit, so I thought I'd offer up a bit of middle ground, as there's really no history of bad blood between Saints and Cats supporters (our rivalry during the 09-11 era was epic but not with any malice). We also gave up pick 21 for Stanley (I still haven't figured out who that trade was better for all these years later), which is ironically in the same ball-park (Pick 25-30) of what I think we should be giving up for Steven.
Peace
I think if St Kilda agrees to let him go, neither club will try and screw each other over.
Last year during trade week I definitely would of said a 1st round pick without doubt...
But now, unfortunately with all what has happened to him and not playing football this year I think a late 2nd round pick would be easily enough..
And this is just my opinion...
And what do you think his worth?
I think if it's a straight pick sawp a pick in the 20's
I wouldn't be surprised to see him become part of the deal for Kelly though.
rocker_oz33
TheBrownDog
Good player when hes up and about .
Hope he gets himself healthy .
But in terms of trade l would rather someone younger.
Hope he gets himself healthy .
But in terms of trade l would rather someone younger.
Im neither for or against a Jack Steven to Geelong trade but I wouldn't think the value would be anything around a 2nd round pick.
He'll be 30 before next season starts, missed pretty much a whole year with something that will be an ongoing issue.
For me this has the makings of a late round pick trade similar to what we saw for Tom Scully last year.
Scully was younger and in my opinion had much more value to add Hawthron going forward than Steven would have to Geelong going forward.
He'll be 30 before next season starts, missed pretty much a whole year with something that will be an ongoing issue.
For me this has the makings of a late round pick trade similar to what we saw for Tom Scully last year.
Scully was younger and in my opinion had much more value to add Hawthron going forward than Steven would have to Geelong going forward.
Yes, but like Hannebery, the Giants were keen to free up some salary cap space. We dont have that issue.
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,256
- 87,341
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
At the risk of having bricks theoretically thrown at my head, I would value the three players in the potential 3-way as follows (taking into account age, contract status and current output)
Stevens: Late 2nd
Kelly: PIck 6-10 and a mid 2nd
Hill: Pick 6-10 and a late 2nd/early 3rd
Am i over-valuing Hill on ability, yes, but he's playing elite football (unlike Stevens at the moment) and he's contracted for 2 year. We wont let him go for anything less than overs. I'm with Geelong guys here on Stevens value, you dont get to basically sit out a year of football at 29 and carry much value, contracted or no.
St Kilda
In: Hill, Freo 2nd (26ish)
Out: Stevens, 1st (5ish)
Explanation: Pay overs for Hill, get overs for Stevens on my ratings
Geelong
In: Stevens, St 1st (5ish)
Out: Kelly, 2nd (36ish)
Explanation: Get experienced player and a top 5 pick. Kelly is uncontracted and they arent getting anything close to this value from WC. I think Geelong get shafted the most, but then again, they are only team with the uncontracted player and the immediate Kelly replacement (if he plays) and top 5 pick would be decent compo
Freo
In: Kelly, Geel 2nd (36ish)
Out: Hill, 2nd (26ish)
Explanation: Others will say its overs for Hill, I know but 2 YEARS ON CONTRACT. We'e shown we dont let contracted players go unless happy.
Stevens: Late 2nd
Kelly: PIck 6-10 and a mid 2nd
Hill: Pick 6-10 and a late 2nd/early 3rd
Am i over-valuing Hill on ability, yes, but he's playing elite football (unlike Stevens at the moment) and he's contracted for 2 year. We wont let him go for anything less than overs. I'm with Geelong guys here on Stevens value, you dont get to basically sit out a year of football at 29 and carry much value, contracted or no.
St Kilda
In: Hill, Freo 2nd (26ish)
Out: Stevens, 1st (5ish)
Explanation: Pay overs for Hill, get overs for Stevens on my ratings
Geelong
In: Stevens, St 1st (5ish)
Out: Kelly, 2nd (36ish)
Explanation: Get experienced player and a top 5 pick. Kelly is uncontracted and they arent getting anything close to this value from WC. I think Geelong get shafted the most, but then again, they are only team with the uncontracted player and the immediate Kelly replacement (if he plays) and top 5 pick would be decent compo
Freo
In: Kelly, Geel 2nd (36ish)
Out: Hill, 2nd (26ish)
Explanation: Others will say its overs for Hill, I know but 2 YEARS ON CONTRACT. We'e shown we dont let contracted players go unless happy.
Peel67skin
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 21, 2017
- 8,387
- 3,941
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
- Banned
- #136
Missing something Ross Lyon back to St kilda.
I think if we have up a top 5 pick as well as Steven for Brad Hill and a second round round pick pick our fans would burn the joint to the ground.
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,256
- 87,341
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I get that from reading your board. I significantly disagree in your boards assessments of the players worth.
For example, what would you think is a fair value for Stephen Hill IF he was contracted given his injury concerns. I wouldnt be expecting much more than an early 3rd. Steven's has sat out most of the year and will be 30 in March next year, I cant see how your going to get much
Brad Hill will cost a lot to get. Given the eveness of picks 3-10ish this year. A pick of 6-10 will be the starting point
Edit: Do you think Geelong is getting the best deal or Freo?
Last edited:
Mindtraveller
Premium Gold
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2024
Veteran
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2023
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2022
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2017
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2016
St Kilda - Player Sponsor Nathan Wright 2015
St Kilda - Nathan Wright Player Sponsor 2014
Petition the AFL to change the rules on the fly again and allow conditional picks
This actually isn't horrible, but I would say maybe Freo 2nd and Future 2nd for a Future 3rd back (something similar). I could take getting Stephen (with a portion of his salary paid) and Pick 5 for losing Kelly. St Kilda should get a little more, and Freo should get a little less, but you're in the ball-park of what would be fair and reasonable for all (considering the circumstances surrounding all 3). You guys got Hill for Pick 23 and now you would send back 26 and Hill. Provided there's another future pick swap, I think all parties would be satisfied, just no-one would be in raptures.
First of all, we only have one Jack, so it is Steven, not Stevens.
I've stated a few times that with his issues he's worth a pick in the 20's. I cannot see us trading him for a 3rd rounder, that's laughable.
Freo are clearly the winners there
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,256
- 87,341
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
That's my fault, I meant Stephen Hill. What do you think Stephen HIll is worth.
He's a FA so nothing
He's also not a 4 time best and fairest and won one just 9 months ago
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,256
- 87,341
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
That wasnt my question
Stephen Hill didn't win a best and fairest in 2018 like Jack did.
Jack has won 4 of them and is clearly our best player.
I doubt we'd even chase him if he weren't a FA. His body has been an issue for a while now.
- Oct 14, 2012
- 4,647
- 7,823
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- West Ham DEN Broncos BOS Celtics
Past. Champion
Present. MIA.
Future. Bleak.
Present. MIA.
Future. Bleak.
After looking it up, and not to be disparaging, but it does take some of the gloss off when he won those in years where you guys finished 16th (2013), 14th (2015), 9th (2016) and 16th (2018), respectively. Doesn't change what he's achieved, but the field was pretty thin when he won those (just like Selwood winning his in years where there was literally no-one else that was even close - 2010 exempted)
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,256
- 87,341
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Ok so Stephen Hill wouldnt be chased because of injury concerns and would have minimal value. I suppose you can assume Steven's is being chased by Geelong which might increase his value a little bit to your valuation of pick 20-25 but I dont think too many Geelong fans would be happy with that unless he gets on the park at some point in the rest of the season and shows he can play still.
That makes 26 not too far off in value for Steven's anyway (per your assessment)
So your real problem is in paying 5 for Hill. If you want an elite contracted player, you will have to pay - see all our trades of late.
I think you've said yourself Hill is worth 10ish contracted. I'd say he's worth 10ish uncontracted, and he's contracted for 2 years.
As Shadow89 said, some other picks swaps might be needed but it seems to be pretty spot on all round
Similar threads
