Traded Devon Smith [traded to Essendon]

[Chocoholic]

To be honest, I don't really want Devon all that much. I am sure he is a good player and all.

Also can't imagine he will leave. I guess we could push for him to come to Geelong if Menzel was to leave, but my heart would be broken.

 

[Impatient Saint]

To be honest, I don't really want Devon all that much. I am sure he is a good player and all.

Also can't imagine he will leave. I guess we could push for him to come to Geelong if Menzel was to leave, but my heart would be broken.

Gees we'll take him at Saints - the kid is a gun IMO!

 

[aussierulesrules]

All the talk that I've read in the paper of late has said that he's staying.

They seem pretty definite about it.

 

[dazbroncos]

Pretty much. Its more the ability to use a firebreak than prevention to start the fire , and the AFL want to see that the fire is under control.

If I use a GWS player for an example .. I doubt that any club trading with GWS for a Hooper type of player would be prevented from doing so... whether they have traded their last 4 or 5 picks or not. What they would have serious concerns about would be trading 2 R1's for a Deludio type to ice the cake.. Sell the future situation. And then whether it worked or not , ones list is young talent deprived. In reality its probably more likely to be something in the middle and not as obvious.

If Geelong , after trading R1's for Danger, Henderson and 2E would then trade a Deludio or an Ablett or any good player thats 30+ , I'd expect the AFL to be less lenient if Geelong asked for exemption unless Geelong could show proof that i had young players, no matter where they have been drafted , that are showing they will be AFL types. So in this example the success of players like Stewart at 23 would help the AFL be more lenient.

So I see the 2019 date as a bit fluid anyway. The closer a side is to the pointy end , the more its try for now the more likely it is to recruit for now and be willing to trade R1's. That can be fine but they must have a plan for introducing youth as well and must use them responsibly , and they must have luck that it all works and the players remain injury free.

The issue I see is that you dont want the AFL marking case by case decisions...

EG the NBA blocking the CP3 trade to Lakers. The League vetoed it and it created an uproar.

Same here - the 2019 timeline must be adhered to for all teams. They can't be changing things once it comes in.

Go Catters

 

[Turbocat]

The issue I see is that you dont want the AFL marking case by case decisions...

EG the NBA blocking the CP3 trade to Lakers. The League vetoed it and it created an uproar.

Same here - the 2019 timeline must be adhered to for all teams. They can't be changing things once it comes in.

Go Catters

Daz , as usual always interested in your "local" reference points.. I'm only very vaguely aware of the blocked trade .. what was the justification for the block?

As for the AFL blocking a trade... they already have stated its more than just a simple 2 in 4 as a club can apply for an exemption .. the murkiness may well be , as you say , if they allow one club and then not allow another.

For mine , this comp should not be a nanny state little league and for the AFL to knock back a trade , it would need to show its more than just a "chase ones tail" , "short term high price" , "poor trade on top of poor trade". Its not up to the afl to prevent a club self harming itself.. it may be up to the afl to prevent one club gain such an advantage that it distorts the comp. Should the afl have blocked the Hawks trade last year? I dare say if it had of been the GWS that ended up with the Hawks R1 pick , there would be a lot more disgruntled supporters than seeing it in the Saints hands.

So in the NBA example..was it considered a club would be too strong? Hard to think so ..when we look at the strength of of the GS Warriors.

I could only imagine if Geelong were the super side , and were even more in the PnP mode than they are.. that they decided to apply for exemption to trade away their R1 for the 4th year in the row.. for an Ablett type , that they would get a no. yet if they applied for a trade to acquire Lever or Kelly etc that it may be looked upon as acceptable as the trade would have a length of service to it , and a certain accepted quality in the player gained.

A trade , any trade can go bad..but so can any kid drafted.. neither method ensures a clubs future if bad luck taps the club on the shoulder. Look at the number of players that have been churned at GWS , if a club with a normal number of R1 picks had drafted Ahern or Pickett etc they would be in a lot more pain. That pain can be bad luck , but sometimes its even self inflicted. Read a few posts on the Saints board and some are already fearing a decade of pain just because of a selection choice of McCartin over Petricca. So using picks is no perfect way to ensure a clubs future strength. And not to mention R1 picks are not all the same.. trading P1 is not the same as trading P18.

The flip side of that of course is Kelly got to GWS because Melb trade their R1 for Tyson.. It shows that the draft is far more speculative. More upside , more downside , more unknown. So is the draft really the perfect model to prevent a clubs fall into trouble?

The 2019 time is the start of when clubs must target 2 in 4 to ensure that they have enough list balance. For mine if there is enough youth , not just on the list but in the side it should be hard for the afl to refuse a club. After all , there is more certainty in a known in system player like a Kelly than using a pick on a kid who may fail or at least not reach the heights hoped for. Would a clubs future be considered more certain with a drafted McCartin or Schache ..or having traded a R1 pick for Kelly or Lever?

 

[dazbroncos]

Daz , as usual always interested in your "local" reference points.. I'm only very vaguely aware of the blocked trade .. what was the justification for the block?

As for the AFL blocking a trade... they already have stated its more than just a simple 2 in 4 as a club can apply for an exemption .. the murkiness may well be , as you say , if they allow one club and then not allow another.

For mine , this comp should not be a nanny state little league and for the AFL to knock back a trade , it would need to show its more than just a "chase ones tail" , "short term high price" , "poor trade on top of poor trade". Its not up to the afl to prevent a club self harming itself.. it may be up to the afl to prevent one club gain such an advantage that it distorts the comp. Should the afl have blocked the Hawks trade last year? I dare say if it had of been the GWS that ended up with the Hawks R1 pick , there would be a lot more disgruntled supporters than seeing it in the Saints hands.

So in the NBA example..was it considered a club would be too strong? Hard to think so ..when we look at the strength of of the GS Warriors.

I could only imagine if Geelong were the super side , and were even more in the PnP mode than they are.. that they decided to apply for exemption to trade away their R1 for the 4th year in the row.. for an Ablett type , that they would get a no. yet if they applied for a trade to acquire Lever or Kelly etc that it may be looked upon as acceptable as the trade would have a length of service to it , and a certain accepted quality in the player gained.

A trade , any trade can go bad..but so can any kid drafted.. neither method ensures a clubs future if bad luck taps the club on the shoulder. Look at the number of players that have been churned at GWS , if a club with a normal number of R1 picks had drafted Ahern or Pickett etc they would be in a lot more pain. That pain can be bad luck , but sometimes its even self inflicted. Read a few posts on the Saints board and some are already fearing a decade of pain just because of a selection choice of McCartin over Petricca. So using picks is no perfect way to ensure a clubs future strength. And not to mention R1 picks are not all the same.. trading P1 is not the same as trading P18.

The flip side of that of course is Kelly got to GWS because Melb trade their R1 for Tyson.. It shows that the draft is far more speculative. More upside , more downside , more unknown. So is the draft really the perfect model to prevent a clubs fall into trouble?

The 2019 time is the start of when clubs must target 2 in 4 to ensure that they have enough list balance. For mine if there is enough youth , not just on the list but in the side it should be hard for the afl to refuse a club. After all , there is more certainty in a known in system player like a Kelly than using a pick on a kid who may fail or at least not reach the heights hoped for. Would a clubs future be considered more certain with a drafted McCartin or Schache ..or having traded a R1 pick for Kelly or Lever?

It was blocked by the NBA league office ( read commissioner) in the interest of team balances allegedly.

It was a bad look and still is.

IMO the NBA did it not to protect the Lakers but to protect the rest of the league and get some newer faces at the top. Admirable quality perhaps but poorly executed at best.

My reference to AFL and specifically the Rd1 rule, is that the AFL can't cherry pick when to enforce it. Its a back hole they dont want to go down with this.

GO Catters

 

[Turbocat]

It was blocked by the NBA league office ( read commissioner) in the interest of team balances allegedly.

It was a bad look and still is.

IMO the NBA did it not to protect the Lakers but to protect the rest of the league and get some newer faces at the top. Admirable quality perhaps but poorly executed at best.

My reference to AFL and specifically the Rd1 rule, is that the AFL can't cherry pick when to enforce it. Its a back hole they dont want to go down with this.

GO Catters

So the NBA did not want LA to be too strong? If it was just to shuffle the names then Id guess it would be a bad look.
To me , on the surface , the R1 is far from equitable anyway. As I mentioned P18 and P1.. the player that can be gained with those picks are so different in standard... just nominating R1 is a poor way to have a check and balance. If we want to remove the possibility of a cheery pick , then just take the rule out. If a club wants to trade 2 R1's for Kelly then thats their issue.

 

[Teagueeee15]

It was blocked by the NBA league office ( read commissioner) in the interest of team balances allegedly.

It was a bad look and still is.

IMO the NBA did it not to protect the Lakers but to protect the rest of the league and get some newer faces at the top. Admirable quality perhaps but poorly executed at best.

My reference to AFL and specifically the Rd1 rule, is that the AFL can't cherry pick when to enforce it. Its a back hole they dont want to go down with this.

GO Catters

So the NBA did not want LA to be too strong? If it was just to shuffle the names then Id guess it would be a bad look.
To me , on the surface , the R1 is far from equitable anyway. As I mentioned P18 and P1.. the player that can be gained with those picks are so different in standard... just nominating R1 is a poor way to have a check and balance. If we want to remove the possibility of a cheery pick , then just take the rule out. If a club wants to trade 2 R1's for Kelly then thats their issue.

The NBA Commissioner blocked the CP3 trade to the Lakers because at the time, the NBA owned the New Orleans Hornets (who CP3 played for at the time) and as owners, they had the power to veto the trade because it wasn't a good one for the Hornets. If it were a team that the NBA didn't own, there is no way they would have stepped in and blocked it.

 

[MotleyLemon]

The NBA Commissioner blocked the CP3 trade to the Lakers because at the time, the NBA owned the New Orleans Hornets (who CP3 played for at the time) and as owners, they had the power to veto the trade because it wasn't a good one for the Hornets. If it were a team that the NBA didn't own, there is no way they would have stepped in and blocked it.

And then the NBA rigged the next draft to give the Hornets/Pelicans the first selection, as somewhat of an apology.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

So what's happening with this one people. Staying or going? Any recent news?

 

[aussierulesrules]

So what's happening with this one people. Staying or going? Any recent news?

The HS have been reporting for quite a while that he's staying. I imagine if Kelly leaves he will almost certainly stay.

I also reckon if Smith re-signs within the next 2-3 weeks and Kelly doesn't it will tell us something about what Kelly is doing.

 

[PostPaolo]

He's had a rotten run, very talented small half forward who's played 22 games the past two years.

If you were to pick a perceived weak spot on this GWS list other than a long term full-time ruck, I'd say quality small forwards would be an area of concern so I would think Smith (aged 24) would be of high priority, especially if Kelly is to leave.

 

[coniglio_number1]

He's had a rotten run, very talented small half forward who's played 22 games the past two years.

If you were to pick a perceived weak spot on this GWS list other than a long term full-time ruck, I'd say quality small forwards would be an area of concern so I would think Smith (aged 24) would be of high priority, especially if Kelly is to leave.

Reid and Lloyd make ok stop gaps but a high quality crumbing small is a position of paper thin depth for us. Stevie J is absolute gold but he is past it

 

[Bokonon_]

He's had a rotten run, very talented small half forward who's played 22 games the past two years.

If you were to pick a perceived weak spot on this GWS list other than a long term full-time ruck, I'd say quality small forwards would be an area of concern so I would think Smith (aged 24) would be of high priority, especially if Kelly is to leave.

Yeah but
He's really an outside mid taking a half forward spot. He's said he wants to stay. Whisper is we need him to settle for less than his markst price and that's a problem if Kelly stays.
Will miss him big time if he goes, he's a star and can play small forward or wing.

 

[Orange Agent]

Yeah but
He's really an outside mid taking a half forward spot. He's said he wants to stay. Whisper is we need him to settle for less than his markst price and that's a problem if Kelly stays.
Will miss him big time if he goes, he's a star and can play small forward or wing.

This makes sense to me. I rate him highly but it seems in the past we have paid guys on potential rather than output, hence offloading WHE, Pickett, Ahern etc just to get rid of contracts. Ive read Smith was on possibly $500k and when you are not playing 20 games a year, thats a steep price. On output he probably needs to come down a bit which would be a tough thing to get past a player manager.

 

[Snookers]

Word is he is staying, for less, than he could command on the open market.
The thought that we would lose him to keep Kelly had a lot of merit, but Devon wants to stay with his mates and is happy to sign a 2 year deal below market wage. He realises he still has 2-3 more contracts in his career where he can make up his money. Kelly and Smith and Kennedy are all staying.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I also reckon if Smith re-signs within the next 2-3 weeks and Kelly doesn't it will tell us something about what Kelly is doing.

Kelly is not engaged in any bidding processes.

The delay relates to potentially slicing up the $800K that is on hold for Kelly.

 

[unplugged]

Was interesting hearing him on the AFL Today show on Fox Footy saying that he'd probably like to come home one day, and saying if he does sign it'll ideally be for 2 years which would then leave him as a Free Agent. Very open about it.

That, coupled with the rest of his interview, made it sound like he may indeed stay and really wants reward (a flag) for going through the "tough times" of the early years of hardly winning.

 

[McCraeBF]

Watch this space....

Billings out
and Kelly and Devon smith inn...................

 

[Colonial]

Watch this space....

Billings out
and Kelly and Devon smith inn...................

Hahaha

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Gallagher]

And then the NBA rigged the next draft to give the Hornets/Pelicans the first selection, as somewhat of an apology.

Really? Who gives a ****? And what does it have to do with Smith?

 

[aussierulesrules]

Watch this space....

Billings out
and Kelly and Devon smith inn...................

Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

[tenderwarrior]

Really? Who gives a ****? And what does it have to do with Smith?

It was far more relevant to the thread than your contribution..

 

[Kyuss]

Word is he is staying, for less, than he could command on the open market.
The thought that we would lose him to keep Kelly had a lot of merit, but Devon wants to stay with his mates and is happy to sign a 2 year deal below market wage. He realises he still has 2-3 more contracts in his career where he can make up his money. Kelly and Smith and Kennedy are all staying.

If he does indeed stay for less money on a contract taking him out to free agency.. wonder if that would that make him an unrestricted free agent straight away.... interesting