Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
B.M wrote: ↑Tue 01 Oct 2019 8:37pm
If we had balls, we demand at least a second rounder... we don’t and will do what’s politically correct.
I was thinking exactly the same thing regarding the decision and the club wanting to portray itself as doing what's politically correct
After all, the CEO has a reputation for it
The priority for our club is to maximise what we get if a player wishes to break their contract. It's simply a business decision. It doesn't make sense to give your opposition an advantage
The business decision was to keep Steven and not entertain a trade in 2018.
We got 7 games out of him and lost absolutely all bargaining power.
This is the real world. You can choose to say no and the likely outcome is paying out this healthy contract for no output next season but is that really a ‘business’ decision in reality?
Or do you mean business decision i.e throws the toys out of the cot hissy fit business decision? If so you are right.
Stop rewriting history. You weren't privy to the conversations Steven had with the club or his situation, which obviously changed. What happened at the end of 2018 is irrelevant now.
Very relevant. Geelong obviously think so. St Kilda obviously think so.
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
Apparently he is on about 800,000 at saints next year
If he stays and has similar issues to this year at saints 6-10 games .......just an example
if that was the case if we pay geelong 200,00 -300,000 and he is gone......
500,000 to 600,000 freed up for the loss of maybe six games ...could be more
It is a hard thing to swallow re 4 times b&f etc........
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
I guess our options are we pay him (let's guess $600K) to sit out another 12 months with mental illness or play a handful of games as an overweight unfit forward or at Sandy.
What coin do we use to pay the recruits we are looking to bring in?
Let's say we get $400K of his salary off our books and #54 or a player in return.
We have one year at say one third of his salary and the problem is off our books.
Steven was a A grade player for our club, but lets not get fooled by the past.
He didn't want to be there in 2019 and what did we get out of him playing wise?
Like a bad investment you need to know when to cut your losses and remove the stress and noise of a bad situation.
Move him on, he will not be part of our next finals campaign so lets get what we can while he has a small amount of currency.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
The Age today says we will be seeking a pick in the 20's and Geelong will offer a later pick, as you would expect I guess. Gallagher says we won't be giving him away for nothing.
Pick 54? As far as I am concerned forget it. Might be "bad business" but I would walk away if that is all the Cats are offering, let him either stay with the Saints or sit out the year. That would mean no-one wins, but it would affect future deals, with clubs realising we are no pushover.
We have supported Jack to the hilt, and if he is ready to get fit and play AFL at 100% again, then it is game on as far as negotiations go. Think Dodoro.
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
I guess our options are we pay him (let's guess $600K) to sit out another 12 months with mental illness or play a handful of games as an overweight unfit forward or at Sandy.
What coin do we use to pay the recruits we are looking to bring in?
Let's say we get $400K of his salary off our books and #54 or a player in return.
We have one year at say one third of his salary and the problem is off our books.
Steven was a A grade player for our club, but lets not get fooled by the past.
He didn't want to be there in 2019 and what did we get out of him playing wise?
Like a bad investment you need to know when to cut your losses and remove the stress and noise of a bad situation.
Move him on, he will not be part of our next finals campaign so lets get what we can while he has a small amount of currency.
Okay I get it from a purely dollars point of view. But what does it say to the rest of the comp about our club? Yep can bend us over and we’re easy. And if he’s such a washed up crock who can eke out a few games, why do Geelong want him? He could return to full fitness and good form. Let’s not forget, this guy is a gun when on his game. Pick 54....nup.
I watched the trade wrap with Riley Beveridge and Mitch Cleary last night and they were very offhand about it being a done deal Stuv would be traded for Geelong’s third rounder. No way we should get bent over like this.
St Kilda coach Brett Ratten says the Saints are happy to trade Jack Steven to Geelong, but forward Josh Bruce might find it harder to get to the Western Bulldogs.
“For Jack to be in the best space he can be, if that means he has to move to Geelong, I think we’ll try and make that happen,” Ratten said on SEN.
“But if he wants to stay at St Kilda and that’s the best space for him, we’ll do that as well.
"This is more about the person. He's 29, he's got the rest of his life to live and if we can make the last part of his footy career as enjoyable as possible, I think that's something that we'd do."
The Cats and Saints need to negotiate a fair asking price for the four-time Trevor Barker Award winner, who has battled mental health issues and wants to move closer to his family in Lorne.
The Cats currently have picks 17 and 36 in the draft.
“We’re happy to maybe let him go, but we want something reasonable back for him," Ratten said.
But he said Bruce, who is contracted for one more season at Moorabbin, was a required player.
The Western Bulldogs have made a strong play for the goalkicker with a lucrative three or four-year deal well above what the Saints are believed to be prepared to offer.
But Ratten said Bruce "hasn't come to us and said that he's out".
“At the moment he’s contracted and we see him playing at the Saints,” Ratten told SEN.
“He kicked 36 goals; he was fifth in contested marks in the competition – they don’t grow on trees.
“The ability to mark the ball in congestion is so valuable now and he’s a very good player in that space. We see him playing in our forward line.”
Ratten said he was looking forward to welcoming Docker Brad Hill to the Saints, declaring the wingman is a player now than when he won two premierships at Hawthorn."
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
I guess our options are we pay him (let's guess $600K) to sit out another 12 months with mental illness or play a handful of games as an overweight unfit forward or at Sandy.
What coin do we use to pay the recruits we are looking to bring in?
Let's say we get $400K of his salary off our books and #54 or a player in return.
We have one year at say one third of his salary and the problem is off our books.
Steven was a A grade player for our club, but lets not get fooled by the past.
He didn't want to be there in 2019 and what did we get out of him playing wise?
Like a bad investment you need to know when to cut your losses and remove the stress and noise of a bad situation.
Move him on, he will not be part of our next finals campaign so lets get what we can while he has a small amount of currency.
Okay I get it from a purely dollars point of view. But what does it say to the rest of the comp about our club? Yep can bend us over and we’re easy. And if he’s such a washed up crock who can eke out a few games, why do Geelong want him? He could return to full fitness and good form. Let’s not forget, this guy is a gun when on his game. Pick 54....nup.
I hear you st.byron, my point of view is that if Steven doesn't want to play at St Kilda all we are going to get for our (say $600K) is another year like 2019.
What does another season of an overweight not committed Jack Steven do for the club and what message does that send to the rest of the playing list?
Better to let him go and have players who want to play at the club.
If he stays, he has to commit but getting that commitment from him seems unlikely based on the 2019 season.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but that is my opinion.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
Saints want a pick around 20 for him (reported by Dal Santo on Trade Radio), Geelong are offering around 60. Looks like we're after pick 32.
I know Jack has mental health issues, but let's dispel some bulls*** here. Whatever Jack's mental health issues are, they will not be cured by moving from Elwood (where I think he lives now) to Geelong.
He may benefit from a change in workplace and in that case if Geelong aren't willing to pay, we should be talking to Gold Coast.
In regard to Bruce, The Bulldogs need him badly, so a first rounder thanks or hello Collingwood.
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
So we’re basically giving him away and paying Geelong to take him. If that’s true.....surely not.........
I guess our options are we pay him (let's guess $600K) to sit out another 12 months with mental illness or play a handful of games as an overweight unfit forward or at Sandy.
What coin do we use to pay the recruits we are looking to bring in?
Let's say we get $400K of his salary off our books and #54 or a player in return.
We have one year at say one third of his salary and the problem is off our books.
Steven was a A grade player for our club, but lets not get fooled by the past.
He didn't want to be there in 2019 and what did we get out of him playing wise?
Like a bad investment you need to know when to cut your losses and remove the stress and noise of a bad situation.
Move him on, he will not be part of our next finals campaign so lets get what we can while he has a small amount of currency.
Okay I get it from a purely dollars point of view. But what does it say to the rest of the comp about our club? Yep can bend us over and we’re easy. And if he’s such a washed up crock who can eke out a few games, why do Geelong want him? He could return to full fitness and good form. Let’s not forget, this guy is a gun when on his game. Pick 54....nup.
I hear you st.byron, my point of view is that if Steven doesn't want to play at St Kilda all we are going to get for our (say $600K) is another year like 2019.
What does another season of an overweight not committed Jack Steven do for the club and what message does that send to the rest of the playing list?
Better to let him go and have players who want to play at the club.
If he stays, he has to commit but getting that commitment from him seems unlikely based on the 2019 season.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but that is my opinion.
Yeah I read Ratten’s comments in the article Saynta posted above. “It’s more about the person”. Good that they’re looking at it from a human perspective, but..........at what point is it not ok for players, who are under contract, to dictate terms like that. “ Send me to Geelong or I’ll be a half arsed dead weight”. Surely that’s not ok. Contracts work both ways and if someone has signed a contract for a specified period but wants out before the contract period ends, then if the club can’t negotiate a suitable deal, the player needs to meet the terms of their contract. Maybe Jack’s mental health makes this a different situation, but it will be very hard to stomach if he goes for a pick in the 50’s and then plays very good footy for Geelong. And they must think that’s a chance, otherwise they wouldn’t want him.
Linton Lodger wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 12:25pm
Saints want a pick around 20 for him (reported by Dal Santo on Trade Radio), Geelong are offering around 60. Looks like we're after pick 32.
I know Jack has mental health issues, but let's dispel some bulls*** here. Whatever Jack's mental health issues are, they will not be cured by moving from Elwood (where I think he lives now) to Geelong.
He may benefit from a change in workplace and in that case if Geelong aren't willing to pay, we should be talking to Gold Coast.
In regard to Bruce, The Bulldogs need him badly, so a first rounder thanks or hello Collingwood.
There seems to be a common misconception about trading, you can't under collective bargaining trade a player somewhere without their genuine consent. No point saying that if geelong won't give up a pick we should talk to gold coast, jack still needs to sign off on the trade.
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
You lost me at 'According to Barrett and Lloyd...'
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 9:22am
According to Barrett and Lloyd the proper trade for Steven is pick 54 and includes us paying a sizable chunk of his salary.
Gee whiz. We're giving away our most gifted player and paying the recipient hundred of thousands to boot.
Meanwhile Barrett and Lloyd also agree that the proper trade for Brad Hill is pick 5.
We seem to be playing our preferred role as an incubation chamber, spare parts depository, retirement home for wounded champions and laughing stock at the draft table.
You lost me at 'According to Barrett and Lloyd...'
With all due respect, if I was Jack Steven I don't think I could stomach hearing that Geelong won't part with more than a 3rd round and that the Saints would have to pay some of my salary to get me there. This couldn't be any good for his self esteem, surely.
id do the deal at 36 or even 50ish if they take on his full salary. should've traded him last year. just a lack of foresight at the club. remove the burden and start over.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
desertsaint wrote: ↑Wed 02 Oct 2019 1:20pm
id do the deal at 36 or even 50ish if they take on his full salary. should've traded him last year. just a lack of foresight at the club. remove the burden and start over.
Contract finishes and so no contract salary to take on.
This move is wanted by Jack and is not driven by the Saints, and that means that Jack is going to have to be ok with less money next year. He will not be getting the $$$ he has been on full stop.
If Cats want us to contribute $$$, then only way is that Jack becomes a lower pick, or they stump up a reasonable player (they have stated that Constable stays).
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
