Traded Jack Steven [traded to Geelong for #58]

Remove this Banner Ad

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Dec 4, 2000
37,211
70,272
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
Saints fans a bit midfed @ 58.

I know Geelong did their due diligence.

Jack may get fit and play blinders for 10 games, but there is a big risk the psychological issues he is dealing with returns and he is out for a length of time.

Cats may get 3 years of 3 games.

Also Cats take on his problems and his welfare.
They have been painted as taking advantage, but from what I know, that is harsh.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cronin

Premiership Player
Jul 22, 2015
3,578
6,167
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Seattle Supersonics
watching and enjoying geelong flop at the most important time of the year
I feel for you guys, must be a f'en long offseason every year.

I'm guessing apart from watching Geelong play in September, the draft would be the most exciting part of your season:D
 

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Dec 4, 2000
37,211
70,272
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
I feel for you guys, must be a f'en long offseason every year.

I'm guessing apart from watching Geelong play in September, the draft would be the most exciting part of your season:D
Do you play in September? Didn't see the lights on once at Kardinia Park, you must have played somewhere else
 

Sully111

Team Captain
Jun 10, 2018
578
1,990
AFL Club
St Kilda
My bet is he becomes an absolute gun for them. I'm guessing that the powers that be at Geelong feel that way too. They played the risk card to the max, but they knew what they were getting. St Kilda were in a no win situation. Geelong have shown no class in this situation. None.. zero.. nada.
 

ManOfClay

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 27, 2012
18,927
22,498
On the couch
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies, Aston Villa
My bet is he becomes an absolute gun for them. I'm guessing that the powers that be at Geelong feel that way too. They played the risk card to the max, but they knew what they were getting. St Kilda were in a no win situation. Geelong have shown no class in this situation. None.. zero.. nada.
what would you have had Geelong do? Give you their first or second rounder for him to be “classy”?

that wouldn’t have been very smart by them if st kilda we’re willing to take pick 58
 

Sully111

Team Captain
Jun 10, 2018
578
1,990
AFL Club
St Kilda
what would you have had Geelong do? Give you their first or second rounder for him to be “classy”?

that wouldn’t have been very smart by them if st kilda we’re willing to take pick 58
Let's be real here. Mental health issues in the AFL is still an area where the industry as a whole is finding its feet. It's not the same deal as a bad knee for example.
As I said, St Kilda were pretty much painted into a corner. Jack presented with mental health issues. It was put to the club that regarding those issues, it would be helpful for him to play for Geelong so he could be closer to his family. Imagine if the Saints had said no.
There is a certain risk taking Jack.. but again, let's be real here. He missed the best part of a season. How much has Daniher been on the park over the last few seasons, yet look at what they were asking for him.
Geelong's narrative right from the get go was to pretty much portray Jack as being next to worthless due to the apparently huge risk of taking him on. Right from when petulant child Chris Scott starting talking about it on 360. Geelong showed ZERO consideration for a fair deal. They saw an opportunity to exploit a delicate situation, and they did so, and then some.
I think there needs to be some sort of mutual respect shown in the industry when dealing with mental health issues. Obviously many others don't feel that way, including the geelong football club.
Jack is a 4 time b&f winner, who missed some footy. Geelong exploited the situation and showed no class. None.. zero... nada.
 

ManOfClay

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 27, 2012
18,927
22,498
On the couch
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies, Aston Villa
Let's be real here. Mental health issues in the AFL is still an area where the industry as a whole is finding its feet. It's not the same deal as a bad knee for example.
As I said, St Kilda were pretty much painted into a corner. Jack presented with mental health issues. It was put to the club that regarding those issues, it would be helpful for him to play for Geelong so he could be closer to his family. Imagine if the Saints had said no.
There is a certain risk taking Jack.. but again, let's be real here. He missed the best part of a season. How much has Daniher been on the park over the last few seasons, yet look at what they were asking for him.
Geelong's narrative right from the get go was to pretty much portray Jack as being next to worthless due to the apparently huge risk of taking him on. Right from when petulant child Chris Scott starting talking about it on 360. Geelong showed ZERO consideration for a fair deal. They saw an opportunity to exploit a delicate situation, and they did so, and then some.
I think there needs to be some sort of mutual respect shown in the industry when dealing with mental health issues. Obviously many others don't feel that way, including the geelong football club.
Jack is a 4 time b&f winner, who missed some footy. Geelong exploited the situation and showed no class. None.. zero... nada.
While he’s a 4 time bnf he hardly played in 2019, appears unfit and will be 30 by the start of next season. Do you think Geelong should have paid overs simply because mental health?
 

slowedawg

Premium Gold
Apr 18, 2011
150
160
AFL Club
Melbourne
Overs? No. A fair deal? Yes.

They took advantage of the situation and got him for next to nothing.
It's business. They aren't going to give a damn about what fans think, or the valuation put on someone due to the amount of b&f's they've won. Saints saw it as inevitable, he was retiring or moving to the Cats. Get the $$ off the books, rejuvenate the list.

Realistically for the Saints is a salary dump that gives them extra $$ to bring in Howard/Jones/Hill/Ryder - and also retain some talent. As much as it's nice to cling to someone who has given so much to the club, realistically, cap-space wise, the Saints have done well, and Geelong have an opportunity to gain as well. To improve a quite a few parts of the best 22 for the cost of one (admittedly who at his best is great) will give you more consistency and hopefully allow you to play finals.

Geelong aren't always miracle workers - Clark went there and was useless. I think you cut and run, and hope you can turn that late pick into an absolute gun, or take some mature age talent (as you have in the past few years) and bolster your side considerably.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DanA

Norm Smith Medallist
May 15, 2006
8,595
4,668
Richmond
AFL Club
Geelong
Overs? No. A fair deal? Yes.

They took advantage of the situation and got him for next to nothing.
But how do you know what the deal was? We know the pick but as far as I am aware we don't know what the salary situation is. If St Kilda got out from under an 800k contract having to cover none of it then that's a pretty darn good deal for them IMO.
 

BrutThough

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2010
9,640
36,656
AFL Club
St Kilda
But how do you know what the deal was? We know the pick but as far as I am aware we don't know what the salary situation is. If St Kilda got out from under an 800k contract having to cover none of it then that's a pretty darn good deal for them IMO.
Saints still playing a portion of his contract next season. Lethlean confirmed it on Radio.
 

ManOfClay

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 27, 2012
18,927
22,498
On the couch
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies, Aston Villa
Saints still playing a portion of his contract next season. Lethlean confirmed it on Radio.
then it’s admirable by the saints but as a professional organisation Geelong had no obligation to give st kilda more than what they’d be willing to accept, and st kilda accepted 58
 

Sully111

Team Captain
Jun 10, 2018
578
1,990
AFL Club
St Kilda
then it’s admirable by the saints but as a professional organisation Geelong had no obligation to give st kilda more than what they’d be willing to accept, and st kilda accepted 58
The point you seem to be missing is that "what they'd be willing to accept" was guided by the fact that the issues involved were related to mental health.... not something like suspect hammies etc. If St Kilda had said "no, 58 isn't good enough. You can't go and be closer to your family, Jack. We're making you see out your contract" It would have been a terrible look for the club. Geelong knew that, and took advantage it.

I believe Saints genuinely wanted what was best for Jack. I applaud them for that. Geelong?... not so much

Let's see how this plays out. My guess is next year the commentary will be along the lines of "Look at what Jack Steven is doing a Geelong, I can't believe they got him for pick 58"
 

ManOfClay

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 27, 2012
18,927
22,498
On the couch
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies, Aston Villa
Let's see how this plays out. My guess is next year the commentary will be along the lines of "Look at what Jack Steven is doing a Geelong, I can't believe they got him for pick 58"
And then it would have been smart business by Geelong. And regrettable but unavoidable for St Kilda.

Geelong had no obligation to give St Kilda more than what St Kilda accepted. You don’t seem to understand that in your quest for moral high ground saying Geelong had no class.
 

Shadow89

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2018
5,661
12,241
AFL Club
Geelong
The point you seem to be missing is that "what they'd be willing to accept" was guided by the fact that the issues involved were related to mental health.... not something like suspect hammies etc. If St Kilda had said "no, 58 isn't good enough. You can't go and be closer to your family, Jack. We're making you see out your contract" It would have been a terrible look for the club. Geelong knew that, and took advantage it.

I believe Saints genuinely wanted what was best for Jack. I applaud them for that. Geelong?... not so much

Let's see how this plays out. My guess is next year the commentary will be along the lines of "Look at what Jack Steven is doing a Geelong, I can't believe they got him for pick 58"
A former Pick 1 KPF in Jon Patton who is 3 years younger, went for less to the Hawks, despite being physically fine for the past several months. GWS asked for a third rounder, and Hawthorn wouldn't even give up that. Not a whisper from anyone due to his physical ailments. Steven has mental ailments, and suddenly it's not a risk?

You can't state that 'he has documented mental health issues', but then also say that 'Geelong should have paid more' because of said issues. You're simultaneously stating that we should do the right thing by St Kilda and him, while possible screwing ourselves over; see Mitch Clark for a recent example of that exact situation taking place. The fact that we're taking on the vast majority of his contract, is where we're being 'compassionate.' It has already been said that if you guys had of paid more of his contract, we would have given up a higher pick. As you had to pay new big money contracts to all your incoming players, Steven was a salary dump. Much like Scully last year and Patton this year.

We get panned because we bring in a player who we're taking a risk on, who has 2 or 3 years left in his career. A player who might not play more than a handful of games, who we have to fit into our salary cap, whilst taking him off yours. I think it's ridiculous for you and others making similar arguments, to assert we 'took advantage.' If you had of paid a huge chunk of his salary, we would have given up Pick 36 or 37. As it stood, the salary was the sticking point, and you didn't have the salary cap to accomodate a large portion of his salary - given your rumoured 2MIL. + to all incoming players.

Apparently salary dumps are fine for physical ailments, but when it's a mental one, you should still pay through the nose. Everyone needs to stop with this 'exploitation' nonsense. You guys won because you didn't have to pay much of his salary, and that pick got Brad Hill over the line. We won because we had to give up a fair chunk of salary for a player who may or may not work out, but not much in picks.

Either way, it's done. Move on.

***********

P.S. You and others like you should starting paying attention to your own fans. Joffaboy explained it perfectly (he sounds like he has closer knowledge than you or I) when he said this:


Saints fans a bit miffed @ 58.

I know Geelong did their due diligence.

Jack may get fit and play blinders for 10 games, but there is a big risk the psychological issues he is dealing with returns and he is out for a length of time.

Cats may get 3 years of 3 games.

Also Cats take on his problems and his welfare.
They have been painted as taking advantage, but from what I know, that is harsh.
 
Last edited:

Shadow89

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2018
5,661
12,241
AFL Club
Geelong
If you think that's what i'm saying... i really don't know what to tell you
If you don't understand what I was trying to say, then I'm not sure what to tell you, lol. Perhaps respond to the whole argument, rather than just selecting one line you don't like.

I'll clarify again. If you're simultaneously stipulating that he has mental health issues, whilst stating that we're exploiting the situation by not offering purported 'fair value', then you're trying to have both sides of the argument.

You can't say that Steven has mental health issues, whilst playing the 'big bad wolf Geelong' card, and then say that we're exploiting your club because of his need to get home.

Real exploitation would have been saying 'you can have Pick 93, and pay more than half his salary, because he'll retire anyway and doesn't want to go anywhere else'...and then it coming out later that we counselled Steven to say that he'll retire so we didn't have to pay a thing in draft picks or salary.

As it stands, we offered a lower pick, due to us paying the vast majority of his salary. That was already explained as the sticking point, as both clubs didn't want to pay a large amount of his salary. We ended up footing the bill, at the cost of you getting a negligible draft pick (which is still more than the Hawks paid for Patton who is 3 years younger and physically fit right now; as I pointed out earlier).

You need to understand, that there are several moving cogs involved in this deal. Brad Hill, Zac Smith, Steven, salary, draft picks etc. You acting liking it's just us getting a 'freebie' because we only gave up Pick 58, is disingenuous given that you've failed to mention the aforementioned in your argument.

If St Kilda had of held him, it would have been no different to GC holding Ablett to his contract, whilst his sister had documented issues that he needed to be home for - something they haven't been panned for despite the eventual outcome (nor should they). You had every right to hold him, but it was mutually agreed by all parties (once Brad Hill nominated you guys on big money), that he would come to Geelong. The sticking point was the salary, which is why it took so long for negotiations to go through.

For the record, I pushed for Jack to remain all year, if he was comfortable to return to St Kilda. I thought that was the best outcome for all concerned. You're speculating and sensationalizing, given that no-one has said anything bad about St Kilda possibly holding Jack to his contract (if that had of happened). As it stands, everyone got what they want and you're still here acting like we're the bad guys. Despite the fact that we're paying a big enough portion of his salary, that it allowed you to get Brad Hill, Zak Jones and Dougal Howard through the door on big money.

As I said before, it's done.

Move on.
 
Last edited:

BrutThough

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 2, 2010
9,640
36,656
AFL Club
St Kilda
The devil is in the detail. Unless you know specifics you're not really in a position to comment.
It's on the record that StKilda are playing for part of his contract in his first year and none of it in his 2nd year.
I didn't mention specifics just what's already public knowledge.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom