What’s the latest on Jack Steven?

[magnifisaint]

Pick 33 is reasonable

[DownAtTheJunction]

My question is why would we do that?
I would have thought that if Steven wants to be traded to Geelong then he wishes to break his contract, and be signing a new contract with Geelong.
His current Saints contract would be void!
Or am I missing something?

[degruch]

Pick 33 is reasonable

But not if we're paying part of his wage...better also be a late third round pick coming our way if that's the case.

[SaintPav]

Even with pick 33 I still think we’re getting screwed.

[Spinner]

" With the Saints now expecting to receive a second-round selection, it is understood both parties are on the same page in the Saints paying a portion of his wage for 2020."

Supposedly pick 33

Watch him tear us a new A-hole in 2020 while we pay for the privilege.

Why on earth are we even entertaining paying his wage ?

I suspect us paying some of his wage is to get a higher pick in return...

Opposite of what we did for Hannebery?

[Saintmatt]

" With the Saints now expecting to receive a second-round selection, it is understood both parties are on the same page in the Saints paying a portion of his wage for 2020."

Supposedly pick 33

Watch him tear us a new A-hole in 2020 while we pay for the privilege.

Why on earth are we even entertaining paying his wage ?

I suspect us paying some of his wage is to get a higher pick in return...

Opposite of what we did for Hannebery?

Precisely. It’ll be .. we’ll give you pick 59 and pick up his wage bill or, we’ll give you 33 and you pay half.” Personally, I’m ok with the latter.

In All likelihood, we’ll prob send that pick to Sydney for Jones anyway.

[saintsRrising]

My question is why would we do that?
I would have thought that if Steven wants to be traded to Geelong then he wishes to break his contract, and be signing a new contract with Geelong.
His current Saints contract would be void!
Or am I missing something?

We can pay $0 and get a pick in the late fifties.

Or we can part part of his salary for one year and get pick 33 and trade that for Jones.

I take Jones and paying some $$$ for one year.

[bigred]

Pick 33 isnt enough.

Stop bying into the agenda that Geelong and the f****** media are creating.

Jack Steven is worth a better pick than 33 any day of the week.

[SaintPav]

Pick 33 isnt enough.

Stop bying into the agenda that Geelong and the f****** media are creating.

Jack Steven is worth a better pick than 33 any day of the week.

Absolutely.

He is a match winner. He's worth pick 20-25 or a Charlie Constable.

[longtimesaint]

Why should we accept what tidbit Geelong want to give us?
I’d rather keep him.

[Mr Magic]

So, have I got this correct?
Steven signs a 4 year contract with a salary in the last year of 800k
At the end of year 2 he states he wants to go live near Geelong and asks to be traded to Geelong
We say no - you're playing for us
He gets some sort of ''mental illness problem' and hardly plays for us but receives his 800k salary
At the end of year 3 he once again, whilst suffering some sort of 'mental illness problem', asks for a trade to Geelong so he can be closer to home. - we state that we'll try to make it happen and Geelong says they're happy to take him.
BUT
He wants to keep his 800k salary from a contract he wants to void and Geelong tells us to pay a portion of it
Or Geelong will give us a pick virtually worth nothing for him, and pay his 800k salary.

Surely what Geelong agree to pay him has nothing to do with us.
If Steven wants his 800k then he should stay and honour his contract.
If he wants to play at Geelong then he should accept the salary they're prepared to pay him.
He wants to break his contract with us but expects us to honour the payment side of the broken contract?

If we were trying to move him on I could understand him expecting us to pay, BUT we did nothing wrong in this situation.
BUT
Steven is the one driving this - he's the one who wants to go.
Why are we being held up for ransom?

[Viscount Jeremiah]

Pick 33 isnt enough.

Stop bying into the agenda that Geelong and the f****** media are creating.

Jack Steven is worth a better pick than 33 any day of the week.

Yes he is worth more than 33.

However he’s 29 years old, overweight, unfit with mental health issues. There is no guarantee next year he will be completely over those issues and getting back to full fitness won’t be a piece of cake.

So there is a fair bit of risk for Geelong and that’s what has driven his price down.

For mine given the circumstances 33 is fair. That's already more than most pundits thought we would get for him.

[fugazi]

A reasonable summation Mr Magic.
There are things we don't know about Jack's situation and a few dodgy rumours doing the rounds, which , if they have any basis in reality, might explain why the club seems to be so accommodating.
It is hard to see that we aren't being taken advantage of here. 2018 He was in the top 10 Brownlow votes. A year later he is pick in the 30s if we're lucky...How does that happen?

[st.byron]

So, have I got this correct?
Steven signs a 4 year contract with a salary in the last year of 800k
At the end of year 2 he states he wants to go live near Geelong and asks to be traded to Geelong
We say no - you're playing for us
He gets some sort of ''mental illness problem' and hardly plays for us but receives his 800k salary
At the end of year 3 he once again, whilst suffering some sort of 'mental illness problem', asks for a trade to Geelong so he can be closer to home. - we state that we'll try to make it happen and Geelong says they're happy to take him.
BUT
He wants to keep his 800k salary from a contract he wants to void and Geelong tells us to pay a portion of it
Or Geelong will give us a pick virtually worth nothing for him, and pay his 800k salary.

Surely what Geelong agree to pay him has nothing to do with us.
If Steven wants his 800k then he should stay and honour his contract.
If he wants to play at Geelong then he should accept the salary they're prepared to pay him.
He wants to break his contract with us but expects us to honour the payment side of the broken contract?

If we were trying to move him on I could understand him expecting us to pay, BUT we did nothing wrong in this situation.
BUT
Steven is the one driving this - he's the one who wants to go.
Why are we being held up for ransom?

Understand your frustration about how little we're going to get for Jack, agree he's worth more than 33 and we should not be paying any of his salary if he wants to go to Geelong and continue his career.

I do though have an issue with your language around his 'mental health problem'. You cast it as though it's somehow doubtful or invalid or not a reasonable excuse for not being able to perform. Unfortunately this kind of commentary around mental health is still well entrenched in our culture, especially amongst men, who paradoxically are the ones requiring the most help. 6 men a day in Australia kill themselves. Mental illness is just that. An illness. People who are incapacitated by mental illness require support and care, just like people with physical illnesses. What they don't need is the continuation of being stigmatised by having the validity of their being unwell cast into doubt.

[Dis Believer]

Pick 33 isnt enough.

Stop bying into the agenda that Geelong and the f****** media are creating.

Jack Steven is worth a better pick than 33 any day of the week.

Yes he is worth more than 33.

However he’s 29 years old, overweight, unfit with mental health issues. There is no guarantee next year he will be completely over those issues and getting back to full fitness won’t be a piece of cake.

So there is a fair bit of risk for Geelong and that’s what has driven his price down.

For mine given the circumstances 33 is fair. That's already more than most pundits thought we would get for him.

That's because most pundits get their info from the media, and Geelong have exerted significant effort in making sure that the easily led/complicit media have been fed a narrative about Steven being worth peanuts - which the media have been only too happy to regurgitate ad nauseum...…..

[Spinner]

So, have I got this correct?
Steven signs a 4 year contract with a salary in the last year of 800k
At the end of year 2 he states he wants to go live near Geelong and asks to be traded to Geelong
We say no - you're playing for us
He gets some sort of ''mental illness problem' and hardly plays for us but receives his 800k salary
At the end of year 3 he once again, whilst suffering some sort of 'mental illness problem', asks for a trade to Geelong so he can be closer to home. - we state that we'll try to make it happen and Geelong says they're happy to take him.
BUT
He wants to keep his 800k salary from a contract he wants to void and Geelong tells us to pay a portion of it
Or Geelong will give us a pick virtually worth nothing for him, and pay his 800k salary.

Surely what Geelong agree to pay him has nothing to do with us.
If Steven wants his 800k then he should stay and honour his contract.
If he wants to play at Geelong then he should accept the salary they're prepared to pay him.
He wants to break his contract with us but expects us to honour the payment side of the broken contract?

If we were trying to move him on I could understand him expecting us to pay, BUT we did nothing wrong in this situation.
BUT
Steven is the one driving this - he's the one who wants to go.
Why are we being held up for ransom?

This is nothing more than some sort of silly post.

Let’s all disrespect Steven’s and all other’s mental illness (without fact) just because we are too sensitive to losing a football player from our club.

Takes some sort of ‘supporter’ to write this garbage. Did I do it right?

[st.byron]

Pick 33 isnt enough.

Stop bying into the agenda that Geelong and the f****** media are creating.

Jack Steven is worth a better pick than 33 any day of the week.

Yes he is worth more than 33.

However he’s 29 years old, overweight, unfit with mental health issues. There is no guarantee next year he will be completely over those issues and getting back to full fitness won’t be a piece of cake.

So there is a fair bit of risk for Geelong and that’s what has driven his price down.

For mine given the circumstances 33 is fair. That's already more than most pundits thought we would get for him.

That's because most pundits get their info from the media, and Geelong have exerted significant effort in making sure that the easily led/complicit media have been fed a narrative about Steven being worth peanuts - which the media have been only too happy to regurgitate ad nauseum...…..

FWIW, I called trade radio about this issue on Monday and spoke to Dal. His take on it was that a mid / low 30's pick was fair. I know he's in the media, but he did play for us for a long time and he knows Jack and surely has some loyalty to the club. He was completely in agreement that a 3rd rounder was way under.

[Spinner]

So, have I got this correct?
Steven signs a 4 year contract with a salary in the last year of 800k
At the end of year 2 he states he wants to go live near Geelong and asks to be traded to Geelong
We say no - you're playing for us
He gets some sort of ''mental illness problem' and hardly plays for us but receives his 800k salary
At the end of year 3 he once again, whilst suffering some sort of 'mental illness problem', asks for a trade to Geelong so he can be closer to home. - we state that we'll try to make it happen and Geelong says they're happy to take him.
BUT
He wants to keep his 800k salary from a contract he wants to void and Geelong tells us to pay a portion of it
Or Geelong will give us a pick virtually worth nothing for him, and pay his 800k salary.

Surely what Geelong agree to pay him has nothing to do with us.
If Steven wants his 800k then he should stay and honour his contract.
If he wants to play at Geelong then he should accept the salary they're prepared to pay him.
He wants to break his contract with us but expects us to honour the payment side of the broken contract?

If we were trying to move him on I could understand him expecting us to pay, BUT we did nothing wrong in this situation.
BUT
Steven is the one driving this - he's the one who wants to go.
Why are we being held up for ransom?

Understand your frustration about how little we're going to get for Jack, agree he's worth more than 33 and we should not be paying any of his salary if he wants to go to Geelong and continue his career.

I do though have an issue with your language around his 'mental health problem'. You cast it as though it's somehow doubtful or invalid or not a reasonable excuse for not being able to perform. Unfortunately this kind of commentary around mental health is still well entrenched in our culture, especially amongst men, who paradoxically are the ones requiring the most help. 6 men a day in Australia kill themselves. Mental illness is just that. An illness. People who are incapacitated by mental illness require support and care, just like people with physical illnesses. What they don't need is the continuation of being stigmatised by having the validity of their being unwell cast into doubt.

100% spot on.

With recent events... I really don’t know how these types of views exist, let along get written on paper.

[freely]

Trouble is, he wants to go to Geelong so if he goes there, he'll probably play well; he doesn't want to stay with us so if he stays, he'll probably play badly (if at all). Also, he wants to go to Geelong more than they want to take him - so we've got no bargaining power in selling him but no incentive to keep him. A conundrum!

[Mr Magic]

I unreservedly apologise for any offence caused by my use of parenthesis around the words mental illness problem.
I was not attempting to belittle mental illness at all - I was just unsure how to best describe his condition we all know very little about.

[st.byron]

I unreservedly apologise for any offence caused by my use of parenthesis around the words mental illness problem.
I was not attempting to belittle mental illness at all - I was just unsure how to best describe his condition we all know very little about.

Well said. Cheers.

[st.byron]

Cats now have 24 and 37. Media commentary is that 37 will snare Stuv. Would still like it to be 24 and Stuv is worth that if he has a few years of high quality left in him.

[barks4eva]

" With the Saints now expecting to receive a second-round selection, it is understood both parties are on the same page in the Saints paying a portion of his wage for 2020."

Supposedly pick 33

Watch him tear us a new A-hole in 2020 while we pay for the privilege.

Why on earth are we even entertaining paying his wage ?

In what universe does it make any sense at all that St.kilda should be paying part of his salary?

He wants to leave and break a contract.
Geelong want him.
At the very least St.kilda should receive a second round selection. AT THE VERY LEAST!

To then go and pay part of his salary.
This is completely mind blowing.
If this is actually true, the St.kilda football department should all resign en masse.

Imagine St.kilda paying part of Steven's salary when he plays against St.kilda.
How does this make any sense at all.

Steven is the one wanting to break his contract, not vice versa.

Do those on training wheels running the football department need to be reminded of this fact?

Hopefully this is just nonsense some incompetent journalists have made up.

If this is true and the St.kilda football department are agreeing to pay part of his new contract at Geelong then this is truly disgraceful and an inditement on their total incompetence.

As if signing Mckenzie for three years was not evidence enough.

If this ridiculous nonsense happens, I will NOT being paying for a membership for as long as St.kilda pays money for Steven to play for Geelong.

GET REAL

[st.byron]

This from the AFL Trade Hub this arvo :

Steven Wells : "ON STEVEN: "We met with St Kilda again today. Under the right circumstances, we'd be happy to take Jack at Geelong. But we might not be able to get the right deal there..."

also this

WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO A DEAL
Will four-time St Kilda best and fairest Jack Steven make it to Geelong? It doesn't sound like Cats list boss Stephen Wells is confident. One Saints fan suggested the club could hold onto Steven, build his fitness over the summer and then demand a bit more in exchange during the unconfirmed pre-season trade period."

[desertsaint]

So, have I got this correct?
Steven signs a 4 year contract with a salary in the last year of 800k
At the end of year 2 he states he wants to go live near Geelong and asks to be traded to Geelong
We say no - you're playing for us
He gets some sort of ''mental illness problem' and hardly plays for us but receives his 800k salary
At the end of year 3 he once again, whilst suffering some sort of 'mental illness problem', asks for a trade to Geelong so he can be closer to home. - we state that we'll try to make it happen and Geelong says they're happy to take him.
BUT
He wants to keep his 800k salary from a contract he wants to void and Geelong tells us to pay a portion of it
Or Geelong will give us a pick virtually worth nothing for him, and pay his 800k salary.

Surely what Geelong agree to pay him has nothing to do with us.
If Steven wants his 800k then he should stay and honour his contract.
If he wants to play at Geelong then he should accept the salary they're prepared to pay him.
He wants to break his contract with us but expects us to honour the payment side of the broken contract?

If we were trying to move him on I could understand him expecting us to pay, BUT we did nothing wrong in this situation.
BUT
Steven is the one driving this - he's the one who wants to go.
Why are we being held up for ransom?

Understand your frustration about how little we're going to get for Jack, agree he's worth more than 33 and we should not be paying any of his salary if he wants to go to Geelong and continue his career.

I do though have an issue with your language around his 'mental health problem'. You cast it as though it's somehow doubtful or invalid or not a reasonable excuse for not being able to perform. Unfortunately this kind of commentary around mental health is still well entrenched in our culture, especially amongst men, who paradoxically are the ones requiring the most help. 6 men a day in Australia kill themselves. Mental illness is just that. An illness. People who are incapacitated by mental illness require support and care, just like people with physical illnesses. What they don't need is the continuation of being stigmatised by having the validity of their being unwell cast into doubt.

100% spot on.

With recent events... I really don’t know how these types of views exist, let along get written on paper.

see this is the problem with our modern preoccupation with signalling politically correct terminology.
mr magic asks a very valid question, and the only replies are ones ignoring the question to focus on correcting his use of terminology regarding a secondary factor based purely on their interpretation of the meaning behind his chosen term. most would see he simply chose a general label for steven's mental issues as it wasn't central to the argument at all.
meanwhile the question itself remains unanswered and forgotten.
and you see this continually all through political and social life. can people please use a bit of common sense and not take the base position that assumes other people are out to offend.
and if you want to educate or simply virtue signal, save it for obvious discriminatory intent.