What’s the latest on Jack Steven?

[Myron Gaines]

desertsaint, brilliant post.

[DownAtTheJunction]

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.

Exactly what many people believe.
Clearly we do need to be respectful of a person's well-being, but equally we must respect the value of free speech.

[Rubyjo]

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.

Once people like Byron tell us what we can think and say we are being controlled by a basically social justice left wing agenda.. Dangerous territory.. The left bleeds tolerance so how about tolerance for a different view.. Oh no.. Of course not..you can't say anything we disagree with.. Dangerous territory to be pc social justice warrior

[st.byron]

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.

Once people like Byron tell us what we can think and say we are being controlled by a basically social justice left wing agenda.. Dangerous territory.. The left bleeds tolerance so how about tolerance for a different view.. Oh no.. Of course not..you can't say anything we disagree with.. Dangerous territory to be pc social justice warrior

I went back and read Mr.Magic's post again after reading your comments and I still think it's reasonable to question his use of language.

It's not about 'signalling politically correct terminology'. It's about sensitivity to demographics within the population that are struggling and that feel stigmatised. It's very new territory for blokes to come out publicly about mental health issues. If you reckon being sensitive to that is some sort of 'social justice left wing agenda' then in my view, that's simply a lack of sensitivity or possibly ignorance of the scope of the issue. Pretty stereotypical Rubyjo that you're turning this issue into fodder for political polemics.

I didn't assume Mr. Magic was out to offend. I simply read his comments as insensitive. There are people who might think that's a load of softc*** crap and that would be, in my view, part of the problem.

[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.

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.

Exactly what many people believe.
Clearly we do need to be respectful of a person's well-being, but equally we must respect the value of free speech.

Yep I agree with that. Free speech is essential. Magic had the right to post what he did, I had the right to respond, as does everyone else. For all of the people jumping onto the 'political correctness' wagon in defence of Mr. Magic, I note that he was not the least upset by my response. Anyways....this could easily spin off into another debate and it's already off topic.

[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.

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.

Keep telling yourself that.

[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.

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.

Exactly what many people believe.
Clearly we do need to be respectful of a person's well-being, but equally we must respect the value of free speech.

Yep I agree with that. Free speech is essential. Magic had the right to post what he did, I had the right to respond, as does everyone else. For all of the people jumping onto the 'political correctness' wagon in defence of Mr. Magic, I note that he was not the least upset by my response. Anyways....this could easily spin off into another debate and it's already off topic.

Good response.

[B.M]

We need more quoting in this thread!

[Scollop]

Now Brian Cook is in the media today claiming that Geelong don't want to part with one of their picks in the 20's or 30's.

So if I was St Kilda, I'd stand firm and tell Geelong to shove it.

If Jack wants to play footy with them in 2020 then they need to stump up or Jack can either sit out a year or play with us for the duration of his current contract

[stkfc1]

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.

Once people like Byron tell us what we can think and say we are being controlled by a basically social justice left wing agenda.. Dangerous territory.. The left bleeds tolerance so how about tolerance for a different view.. Oh no.. Of course not..you can't say anything we disagree with.. Dangerous territory to be pc social justice warrior

The left are only tolerable if its their point of view otherwise they'll label you with every "phobe" "ist" and "ism" they can throw at you to shut down any intellectual debate. Ask the American Democrats how thats working out for them.

Back on track for topic

As for Geelong not wanting to stump up an earlier pick and wanting us to pay some of his salary. Tell em their dreamin. Its all hot wind coming from them. They'll come to the party.

[ace]

Now Brian Cook is in the media today claiming that Geelong don't want to part with one of their picks in the 20's or 30's.

So if I was St Kilda, I'd stand firm and tell Geelong to shove it.

If Jack wants to play footy with them in 2020 then they need to stump up or Jack can either sit out a year or play with us for the duration of his current contract

Geelong 's only pick beyond the 30s is pick 93.
A pick that will never get used by any club.
So Brain Cook thinks St Klda should hand over a contacted player Jack Steven for free and maybe pay a heavy part of his salary as well.
ASADA needs to give Cook a drugs test.

[Scollop]

Geelong CEO and all representatives of Geelong FC are publicly declaring they'll do what's best for their club

The Saints CEO and coaches and footy managers must have the Saints interests as a priority.

Everything StKFC does from here on in should be for the long term benefit of the club and if that means that a player or an official is unhappy or it effects their career or their ability to keep their job, then so be it

Let me just clarify that. Jack wants to leave. If he wants to stay, we'll do everything we can to support him so he can play at his best

[ace]

Geelong presently has these picks in the 2019 draft picks 14, 17, 24, 36, 37, 93
Geelong still retain for 2020, WC round 1, Ge round 1, Ge round 2, Ge round 4, Ge round 5

[SaintPav]

Geelong have no sense of fairness. They are being very opportunistic here. I hope we tell them to get stuffed.

[Ghost Like]

Geelong will not use those draft picks in the draft as such, they will want to combine a couple for a lower pick. They will part with the others.

Geelong have shown they don't have a lot of faith in some of their kids, they throw all their time in to their older brigade because they see them as the now. G. Ablett cannot run a full match in the midfield, let alone a season. Selwood fast going the same way. Hawkins & Taylor have one more roll of the dice. These players & the Geelong F.C. need a player like Steven. Especially if they land one for a pick in the 30's and part of that season is paid by his previous club.

Jack can play with us for one more season & then go wherever he likes. I am not sure Ablett, Selwood, Hawkins and Taylor will be around...Geelong need him in 2020.

[ace]

Maybe if Geelong would give a list of their list cloggers they would like St kilda to choose from.

[evertonfc]

Both clubs have to do what it right for themselves. That's what it's all about at this time of year.

FWIW, Jack Steven has not requested a trade - he has simply asked about the possibility.

A 4-time B&F winner, who still loves St Kilda...I'm not convinced this can't be resolved with a bit of work regarding Jack's family. I'd love to see him stay, get fit and back to his best. It's a chance I'm willing to take.

Likewise, if Geelong offer a really fair deal, we should consider it.

But you don't rush champions out the door. And Jack is exactly that. Stay firm, Saints.

[ace]

Geelong will not use those draft picks in the draft as such, they will want to combine a couple for a lower pick. They will part with the others.

Geelong have shown they don't have a lot of faith in some of their kids, they throw all their time in to their older brigade because they see them as the now. G. Ablett cannot run a full match in the midfield, let alone a season. Selwood fast going the same way. Hawkins & Taylor have one more roll of the dice. These players & the Geelong F.C. need a player like Steven. Especially if they land one for a pick in the 30's and part of that season is paid by his previous club.

Jack can play with us for one more season & then go wherever he likes. I am not sure Ablett, Selwood, Hawkins and Taylor will be around...Geelong need him in 2020.

14 = 1,161 points
17 = 1,025 points
24 = 785 points
36 = 502 points
37 = 483 points
Total = 3,956 points
Maybe they could bundle picks 14, 17, 36 and 37 (3,171 pointS) to Gold Coast in return for pick1 (3,000 points) and give St Kilda pick 24 for Steven.
They could go home early on draft night.

[skeptic]

Geelong will not use those draft picks in the draft as such, they will want to combine a couple for a lower pick. They will part with the others.

Geelong have shown they don't have a lot of faith in some of their kids, they throw all their time in to their older brigade because they see them as the now. G. Ablett cannot run a full match in the midfield, let alone a season. Selwood fast going the same way. Hawkins & Taylor have one more roll of the dice. These players & the Geelong F.C. need a player like Steven. Especially if they land one for a pick in the 30's and part of that season is paid by his previous club.

Jack can play with us for one more season & then go wherever he likes. I am not sure Ablett, Selwood, Hawkins and Taylor will be around...Geelong need him in 2020.

Exactly...
He is worth a hell of a lot more to them now because he could well be the difference btw a flag or not.

[saintsRrising]

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.

Has Steven, his manager, St Kilda or GFC stated or inferred that his new contract at Geelong will be at $800K per year?

Personally I doubt it would be.

Whatever the new contract salary is does not mean that Geelong cannot offer us:
- a lower draft pick where we agree to pay some of his salary for one year
- a higher draft pick where we pay no salary.


Players have often swapped clubs where the old club agrees to pay some of the salary at the new club. It is all just part of the bartering process and is one option available as part of the trade deal.

[ace]

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.

Has Steven, his manager, St Kilda or GFC stated or inferred that his new contract at Geelong will be at $800K per year?

Personally I doubt it would be.

Whatever the new contract salary is does not mean that Geelong cannot offer us:
- a lower draft pick where we agree to pay some of his salary for one year
- a higher draft pick where we pay no salary.


Players have often swapped clubs where the old club agrees to pay some of the salary at the new club. It is all just part of the bartering process and is one option available as part of the trade deal.

It is part of the dishonesty of the AFL.
It allows a contender club with no salary cap space to sell a draft pick or higher draft pick in return for increased salary cap.

[BackFromUSA]

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.

I heard that call!

[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.

I heard that call!

LOL...hello mate. Sam McClure thought a pick in the 50s was fair. That’s bollocks I reckon.

[degruch]

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.

I heard that call!

LOL...hello mate. Sam McClure thought a pick in the 50s was fair. That’s bollocks I reckon.

Trade Radio now talking him up a little more, I think any concept that he was going to sail over to the Cats for nothing has long gone. If nothing, today's pick swap seems to have made a few media types sit up and take the club's trading position a bit more seriously.

[Goose is king]

Has Jack said he is willing to play for us next year or would he retire?