Still chasing Stevens - All Stevens Stuff in here Please

[Blanch]

It's against the rules. It's called rigging the draft and Stevens will be on Ports list as a deregistered player if he tried that. One more thing, who says we have $600k next year to play with?

Look, we tried and we offered more than I would have for him. Port are playing games and in the end they will come out with egg on their face. Move on, I reckon MCG will be better at 23 than Stevens anyway.

[Joel]

Can't Stevens refuse to sign a contract if he is drafted by Carlton? I think the whole thing needs to be re-assessed. Players are forced to play for clubs they do not wish to play for, the whole thing is a joke.

[bokka]

Hmm well if there was a verbal agreement or scheming beforehand then that could be seen as draft tampering I suppose ( I don't know exactly what the rules are).
but what if there wasn't? Stevens just asks everyone for a one year contract at max price - say $600,000 - there's no rule against asking Collingwood how much they'd pay for such a contract beforehand, or Collingwood offering a particular figure beforehand. If other clubs decline and Collingwood accepts the same terms, it is not draft tampering - they've had their chance - probably Stevens would have to be careful not to say to them that he only wants to play for woods and would want to leave after a year - just say "no comment" if asked. After a year a new contract is offered at much lower money and it's up to Stevens whether he accepts or not.

[Blanch]

[Lone Ranger]

When you nominate for the draft, you can name you price. Can you nominate how ong you will sign for? If you can, then there is nothing wrong with saying $700,000 for 1 year. Doubtful anyone would go for that.

We would take him with a gentlemans agreement (nothing official as it would be draft tampering) that after the one year, he would sign a 2 year deal for $250K per year.

Is there is a minimum contract length (eg 2 years) for anyone in the draft? If there is, the plan is unlikely to work.

[Buckethead]

I've changed my mind. Forget about Stevens for 2004 he's most likely going to Carlton. All this expensive 1 year contract stuff is just messy and we really have to move on. We're good enough to win a flag without him. Let's just hope we unravel a champion with picks 17 and 35.

[bokka]

I think you might have to avoid the gentemen's agreement part of it, since the AFL would see it as anything but gentlemenly - more a reascal's agreement. just do it without any verbals, and as I said Stevens could not tell other interested clubs that he intends to move to woods the year after (it would be obvious anyway) since that also could be seen as draft tampering and result in suspension or something.

Even doing it this way could be skating on thin ice, someone would be well advised to get some strictly confidential advice on this.
But I mean that would just amount to offering services at x dollars for one year contract, to all clubs with no suggestions of preference, I can't see how they could get him even though it might be strongly suspected - as clear as black and white you might say.

AS far as ethical considerations that is a bit more complicated. But I think he has done his time for the draft system (3 years was it?), playing in SA - now he has earnt the right to play where he has always wanted to.
This might be all wasted fingerskin since the AFL may have already mandated minimum 3 year contracts for drafted players (at clubs' discretion).

[TheGaffer]

Just posted on AFL website.

Reading between the lines maybe one day Stevens might wear the black and White stripes, who knows.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=124470

[labrooy]

Maybe a couple of years down the track he may play for Collingwood. However Carlton have indicated they are willing to sign Nick for 4 years at $500,000 per year, so I can't see any prospect of him joining us in the forseeable future.

[piedys]

[Morrigu]

Graeme did play for Collingwood - can't remember the year but was around Robert Hyde time Did not play enough games for father son rule to apply
Don't kid yourself - Nick told Port at the end of the season he would only agree to a trade to Collingwood or into the draft he would go - yet Port continued to try and do deals with other clubs. In desperation he and Max went to Port to AGAIN show that they were serious about his preferred club and willingness to go into the draft if the deal was not done. Choko was adamant he would not get to play in the black and white - no love lost there!!!!

Collingwood and things black and white are not at the top of the Steven's clan most favourite things at the moment ( although they are way above Port) - you can forget further deals UNLESS there is a serious change of mindset on their behalf

[mattdally]

Why cant Nick Stevens nominate for the national draft and force clubs to make a decision. I read this morning that Rawlings was looking at this option. That way it forces Carlscum to use their only pick in the National Draft to get him. They would have to decide between Stevens or the second best youngster in the comp. It could work out better if he wanted to come to us so badly.

We would only have to use pick 17 to get him if he was still available. I think he and his manager should consider it. It would be the last resort.
Looking at the draft order there arent too many that could get him before us:

1. Bulldogs - Nope - want Cooney or Rawlings (depends if he nominates)
2. Carlton - Puts pressure on them to make a decision
3. Melbourne - Salary Cap? Chance to pick him up
4. Bulldogs - Nope
5. Melbourne - Maybe
6. Essendon - Can't see them fitting him under the salary cap they have
7. Geelong - He wont go there, they want a tall anyway
8. St Kilda - Not likely
9. Kangaroos - No
10. Hawthorn - No
11. West Coast - No
12. Fremantle - No
13. Essendon - No
14. Adelaide - No
15. Port Adelaide - No
16. Sydney - No
17. Collingwood - Yes

Am I being unrealistic? There would only be 2 or 3 clubs before us that would take him in the National Draft...
Could be the only way, but Port would have to do him a favour by delisting him before November 14th.

Matty

[stoid]

Scoobydoo, that’s original where did you come up with that idea??? I’m being sarcastic, as in actual fact that was my idea!!
Can I get you for plagiarism?

My point was that if Stevens put a price on his head that no one could afford but us, since Bucks is going on the veterans list. Then great, we get him. If some other club can afford this price and chooses to pay him $800,000 for a single season, they would be crazy as they would loose him the following year. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with stating that you will sign a contract for one year and look at other options once the contract is over. Bucks did it in 1993, so Stevens could do it in 2004.

Another thing is that there are two drafts the first is for the kids and the second is the pre season draft, which is for the uncontracted players. The latter is the one Stevens and Rawlings will go into, this is the one not many clubs participate in. So don’t think that clubs will need to choose between Stevens etc. or the kids, it won’t happen.

Cheers
Stoid.

[Cam]

imagine the outcry if we signed him for $800,000 and he pops a knee in round 3.

He's a creampuff. Let him play for the Blues who will have three of them in their midfield. Talent alone doesnt get it done when it gets accountable. He is a prime example of that. Fans of his watch his finals and when it gets crucial they cringe. His volleyball hit in the 4th quarter against the Swans was as bad as Rhyce Shaws stumble. I feel embarrassed for them both.