Jack Steven ... 58 :(

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
skeptic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 17048
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
Has thanked: 3664 times
Been thanked: 2927 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829450Post skeptic »

Sanctorum wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:30pm I wouldn't get too worked up about receiving Pick 58 for Jack Steven. Fact is that he has had major mental health issues that have prevented him from playing a lot of games this year, and gauged on the games he played when he did come back in he did not look to be at peak fitness.

Having requested a trade to Geelong post 2017 it seems to me that he is most unlikely to have great desire to continue to play for the Saints in 2020 and could well continue to suffer further ill health.

Pick 58 to me reflects reasonable value based on Jack's most recent form and his age - if moving to Geelong aids his recovery we should all wish him well!
Don’t agree personally.

Guy has been a consistently elite player over many years.

Had one down year in the context of his troubles but was playing by the end of the year and is not coming off a major physical injury that requires rehab/impacts performance

Is absolutely primed for a big pre-season and to get right back to where he was.

Much better prospect than say Hannebery was when we traded for him.

IMO if this trade goes for p58... it’s the bargain of the trade period and absolute idiocy on our account.

Cannot trade an elite player for 58... no one else would do this


User avatar
IluvHarvey
SS Life Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: Fri 06 Jun 2008 4:51pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 257 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829459Post IluvHarvey »

skeptic wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:46pm
Sanctorum wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:30pm I wouldn't get too worked up about receiving Pick 58 for Jack Steven. Fact is that he has had major mental health issues that have prevented him from playing a lot of games this year, and gauged on the games he played when he did come back in he did not look to be at peak fitness.

Having requested a trade to Geelong post 2017 it seems to me that he is most unlikely to have great desire to continue to play for the Saints in 2020 and could well continue to suffer further ill health.

Pick 58 to me reflects reasonable value based on Jack's most recent form and his age - if moving to Geelong aids his recovery we should all wish him well!
Don’t agree personally.

Guy has been a consistently elite player over many years.

Had one down year in the context of his troubles but was playing by the end of the year and is not coming off a major physical injury that requires rehab/impacts performance

Is absolutely primed for a big pre-season and to get right back to where he was.

Much better prospect than say Hannebery was when we traded for him.

IMO if this trade goes for p58... it’s the bargain of the trade period and absolute idiocy on our account.

Cannot trade an elite player for 58... no one else would do this
Tom Scully? GWS did it last year


"It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress."
User avatar
skeptic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 17048
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
Has thanked: 3664 times
Been thanked: 2927 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829461Post skeptic »

IluvHarvey wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 4:02pm
skeptic wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:46pm
Sanctorum wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:30pm I wouldn't get too worked up about receiving Pick 58 for Jack Steven. Fact is that he has had major mental health issues that have prevented him from playing a lot of games this year, and gauged on the games he played when he did come back in he did not look to be at peak fitness.

Having requested a trade to Geelong post 2017 it seems to me that he is most unlikely to have great desire to continue to play for the Saints in 2020 and could well continue to suffer further ill health.

Pick 58 to me reflects reasonable value based on Jack's most recent form and his age - if moving to Geelong aids his recovery we should all wish him well!
Don’t agree personally.

Guy has been a consistently elite player over many years.

Had one down year in the context of his troubles but was playing by the end of the year and is not coming off a major physical injury that requires rehab/impacts performance

Is absolutely primed for a big pre-season and to get right back to where he was.

Much better prospect than say Hannebery was when we traded for him.

IMO if this trade goes for p58... it’s the bargain of the trade period and absolute idiocy on our account.

Cannot trade an elite player for 58... no one else would do this
Tom Scully? GWS did it last year
Forgive me if I’m mistaken but wasn’t the common concern that Scully’s body was stuffed?


goods
Club Player
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun 24 May 2009 7:37pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829463Post goods »

Jack can suck it up! His wife left him he went on a bender gave up on footy came back and now he wants to move up the road to Geelong. Keep him


User avatar
barneyboyz
Club Player
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu 08 Mar 2007 10:13pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829464Post barneyboyz »

skeptic wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 4:05pm
IluvHarvey wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 4:02pm
skeptic wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:46pm
Sanctorum wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 3:30pm I wouldn't get too worked up about receiving Pick 58 for Jack Steven. Fact is that he has had major mental health issues that have prevented him from playing a lot of games this year, and gauged on the games he played when he did come back in he did not look to be at peak fitness.

Having requested a trade to Geelong post 2017 it seems to me that he is most unlikely to have great desire to continue to play for the Saints in 2020 and could well continue to suffer further ill health.

Pick 58 to me reflects reasonable value based on Jack's most recent form and his age - if moving to Geelong aids his recovery we should all wish him well!
Don’t agree personally.

Guy has been a consistently elite player over many years.

Had one down year in the context of his troubles but was playing by the end of the year and is not coming off a major physical injury that requires rehab/impacts performance

Is absolutely primed for a big pre-season and to get right back to where he was.

Much better prospect than say Hannebery was when we traded for him.

IMO if this trade goes for p58... it’s the bargain of the trade period and absolute idiocy on our account.

Cannot trade an elite player for 58... no one else would do this
Tom Scully? GWS did it last year
Forgive me if I’m mistaken but wasn’t the common concern that Scully’s body was stuffed?
And GWS put a big heap of pressure on him the season prior to play injured

That is ITK (I know a family member)


St. Kilda Football Club. Going strong, since 1960 :wink:
Zed
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:59pm
Location: by the seaside..
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829467Post Zed »

58.
I feel sick.


“If you want the rainbow you gotta put up with rain” Dolly Parton
User avatar
ace
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10799
Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 837 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829472Post ace »

Geelong know Steven is out of contract end of next year.
If he were to remain at St Kilda next year he can walk as a free agent at the end of year.
All St Kilda has to sell is one year of Jack Steven not the rest of his playing career.
Geelong has salary cap issues so wants St Kilda to contribute to their salary cap.

So Geelong say we will only pay you for one year of Jack Steven playing.
We need to say to Geelong we can trade him for nothing, just take him but then you can't afford his salary.
You want us to pay part of his salary you have to pay us in draft picks.


The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.

If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
User avatar
shrodes
SS Life Member
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 2:34pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 793 times
Been thanked: 438 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829477Post shrodes »



repta
Club Player
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu 06 Dec 2007 3:14pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829491Post repta »

four time best and fairest. is worth Pick 58 ?

you have got to be kidding.

We would be better off paying his transport costs backwards and forwards from Lorne twice a week.


User avatar
Joffa Burns
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7081
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
Has thanked: 1871 times
Been thanked: 1570 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829498Post Joffa Burns »

Given what we reportedly have offered Hill & Hannebery, we may need to offload Steven to fit them into the salary cap.

No idea, just a suggestion that might explain the poor return.


Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
User avatar
The Fireman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 13329
Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1966 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829501Post The Fireman »

Joffa Burns wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:33pm Given what we reportedly have offered Hill & Hannebery, we may need to offload Steven to fit them into the salary cap.

No idea, just a suggestion that might explain the poor return.
there is offload and there is charity but I see your point. My dislike for Geelong has grown somewhat but hey would we do the same ?


BarryGrogan
Club Player
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat 06 Apr 2019 10:34am
Has thanked: 278 times
Been thanked: 321 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829505Post BarryGrogan »

He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.


User avatar
Enrico_Misso
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 11662
Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
Has thanked: 315 times
Been thanked: 720 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829537Post Enrico_Misso »

I'd sooner get nothing than appease him and improve The Handbaggers list.


The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules. 
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
B.M
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2718 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829546Post B.M »

It’s not about Jack being insulted?!

It’s about the club being insulted by the notion a FOUR time b&f player is going for effectively nothing... AND we are paying half his salary

That is a f***ing JOKE!!!!!


B.M
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2718 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829547Post B.M »

Good deal?!

Pick 58 for a guy who has been the best player at the club this decade... in what world is that a good deal

It’s f***ing embarrassing


B.M
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2718 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829548Post B.M »

Why don’t we pay some of Tom Hawkins salary for some more good will


Brunswicksainter
Club Player
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon 15 May 2017 7:18pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829549Post Brunswicksainter »

BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Historically the benefit given by pick 58, is only marginally better than getting nothing. When you factor in the fact we probably wouldn't have to had pay out any % of his contract if he terminated it, we are actually losing out quite significantly from this exchange, especially if the reports are true about us paying a portion of his salary.

Also factor in the fact that after pick 19, the correlation between successful player outcomes and draft position becomes weakened significantly. If you actually go back and look at the stats, this deal is up there with the worst of them.


BarryGrogan
Club Player
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat 06 Apr 2019 10:34am
Has thanked: 278 times
Been thanked: 321 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829552Post BarryGrogan »

Brunswicksainter wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:53pm
BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Historically the benefit given by pick 58, is only marginally better than getting nothing. When you factor in the fact we probably wouldn't have to had pay out any % of his contract if he terminated it, we are actually losing out quite significantly from this exchange, especially if the reports are true about us paying a portion of his salary.

Also factor in the fact that after pick 19, the correlation between successful player outcomes and draft position becomes weakened significantly. If you actually go back and look at the stats, this deal is up there with the worst of them.
You missed the point.

It was zilch, or pick 58.

We took 58. Good deal.


Brunswicksainter
Club Player
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon 15 May 2017 7:18pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829553Post Brunswicksainter »

BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:56pm
Brunswicksainter wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:53pm
BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Historically the benefit given by pick 58, is only marginally better than getting nothing. When you factor in the fact we probably wouldn't have to had pay out any % of his contract if he terminated it, we are actually losing out quite significantly from this exchange, especially if the reports are true about us paying a portion of his salary.

Also factor in the fact that after pick 19, the correlation between successful player outcomes and draft position becomes weakened significantly. If you actually go back and look at the stats, this deal is up there with the worst of them.
You missed the point.

It was zilch, or pick 58.

We took 58. Good deal.
That is my point, nothing in this context is better than pick 58.


Toy Saint
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed 19 Aug 2009 10:32pm
Location: Del Mar, California
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 237 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829556Post Toy Saint »

BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Do we have to pay his salary if he retires?

Really, some of these contracts should be challenged in a court.


Toy Saint
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed 19 Aug 2009 10:32pm
Location: Del Mar, California
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 237 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829557Post Toy Saint »

BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Do we have to pay his salary if he retires?

Really, some of these contracts should be challenged in a court.


B.M
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2718 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829561Post B.M »

He could honour his 800K contract he was happy to sign. Or quit and go to Geelong on their contract?

What we owed him, we gave him last season... a long lay off whilst still earning 17k per week to look after his mental health... no problem with that
I do have a problem giving away a contracted player for next to nothing as good will!
The club is a business and should look after its members first. That means being as ruthless as need be to become successful.
Not rolling over and taking it in the ****
Pardon the pun!


User avatar
The Fireman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 13329
Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1966 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829562Post The Fireman »

it must give members the s***s knowing that their hard earned will be going to a Cats player next year.


chook23
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7394
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829563Post chook23 »

BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Good deal for us.......rubbish


saint4life
realdeal
Club Player
Posts: 857
Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2004 5:44pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Jack Steven ... 58 :(

Post: # 1829568Post realdeal »

Brunswicksainter wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:59pm
BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:56pm
Brunswicksainter wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 6:53pm
BarryGrogan wrote: Tue 15 Oct 2019 5:46pm He was retired if he didn't go to Geelong.

We either got nuthin' or pick 58.

Good deal for us.

Time will tell if it's good for Geelong.
Historically the benefit given by pick 58, is only marginally better than getting nothing. When you factor in the fact we probably wouldn't have to had pay out any % of his contract if he terminated it, we are actually losing out quite significantly from this exchange, especially if the reports are true about us paying a portion of his salary.

Also factor in the fact that after pick 19, the correlation between successful player outcomes and draft position becomes weakened significantly. If you actually go back and look at the stats, this deal is up there with the worst of them.
You missed the point.

It was zilch, or pick 58.

We took 58. Good deal.
That is my point, nothing in this context is better than pick 58.
Geelong shouldnt have it both ways tho.. if they only give us pick 58 for a 4 time b&f who basically won a game off his own boot whilst obviously non match fit against freo, then surely we dont pay some of his contract as well!!

Its crazy.


Post Reply