Recommitted Josh Dunkley [OOC 2022, requested a trade to Essendon, didn't get there]

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
17,145
26,092
AFL Club
Essendon
There is some criticism of Dodoro, but the defence of his trading this year and last is strident, and it's not one or two isolated examples.


Again, refer previous comments about Dodoro not valuing his own deal as enough.
There is pleeenty of criticism for Dodoro regarding Daniher. Many believed we should have traded Daniher last year instead of holding onto him. Plenty of criticism for the Shiel trade. Most Essendon fans also believed he unnecessarily made the Fantasia trade complicated.

I don’t have any problems with his conduct regarding the Dunkley trade though except for the length it took to come up with his offer. The final offer of pick 8 and a future second is more than enough. The 3-way trade for Treloar and Dunkley was also enough. Bulldogs just weren’t interested which is fair enough.

You’re misinterpreting Dodoro’s statement. Saying he wouldn’t do the deal if he was Bulldogs doesn’t mean he believes that’s what Dunkley is worth. It means he understands why Bulldogs didn’t trade Dunkley and would do the same for a player like him. A classic case of a player being worth more to a club than the open market considering Dunkley only has 3 quarters of one season last year to even justify a first rounder. There’s a reason why we targeted Dunkley over an Oliver type because he should realistically be cheaper than Oliver. Someone that’s pushed out of the midfield loses value.

Don’t think Dodoro or anyone expected the price to be 2 top 10 picks, which is what a contracted Oliver costs. We offered as high as we could and moved on from it. No issues there. All of Essendon, Bulldogs and Dunkley parted in an amicable way.
 
So you're aware that they wanted a future first but are discounting it coz you "think."

Cool. Good thread bump.
We wanted the future first because we considered it more valuable than a pick that would get sucked up in a JUH bid this year, or extra work for us in on-trading it for a different club's future first. A deal involving 8 and 9 was clearly possible with that framework, and would have gotten done.
 
We never asked for a future, we asked for ‘2 good firsts.’
Yeah ok. The message from the vast majority of Dogs posters including those with "inside info" is that firsts this year are/were useless to them and the future was the only thing with value of interest to them.

But now it's "nah we'd have taken 2 first from this year."

Cool.
 
We wanted the future first because we considered it more valuable than a pick that would get sucked up in a JUH bid this year, or extra work for us in on-trading it for a different club's future first. A deal involving 8 and 9 was clearly possible with that framework, and would have gotten done.
Yeah ok. The message from the vast majority of Dogs posters including those with "inside info" is that firsts this year are/were useless to them and the future was the only thing with value of interest to them.

But now it's "nah we'd have taken 2 first from this year."

Cool.
 
Yeah ok. The message from the vast majority of Dogs posters including those with "inside info" is that firsts this year are/were useless to them and the future was the only thing with value of interest to them.

But now it's "nah we'd have taken 2 first from this year."

Cool.
Bottom line is dodo didn’t want to give away 2 firsts regardless so a deal was never going to get done unless he did
 
Cool. Irrelevant to your original bump but sure.
Not really - point is dodo chose not to give away 2 firsts ie(Cox and Perkins) for Dunkley

Now dogs would have done something different with those picks like trade them into 2021 etc but from an essendon perspective dodo chose the above over Dunkley hence the comparison
 
Not really point is he chose not to give away 2 firsts ie(Cox and Perkins) for Dunkley

Now dogs would have done something different with those picks like trade them into 2021 etc but from an essendon perspective dodo chose the above over Dunkley hence the comparison
Yes it is. If you bump a thread going "it's either Dunkley or Cox and Perkins" I'm allowed to correct you.

It was Dunkley or Cox/Perkins and a top 5 pick.
 
Yes it is. If you bump a thread going "it's either Dunkley or Cox and Perkins" I'm allowed to correct you.

It was Dunkley or Cox/Perkins and a top 5 pick.
Semantics

point is dodo values 2 firsts more than Dunkley now to put names to those firsts it’s easier to just say cox and Perkins vs Dunkley

As those were the players you picked with the picks that could have secured dunkley
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
17,145
26,092
AFL Club
Essendon
6 and 7 would have got the job done

dodo being dodo only wanted to give up one first rounder and change
No it wouldn't considering JUH was bid on with pick 1. It would have wiped pick 6 completely and pushed pick 7 back.

Dogs wanted a future first to go with one of our top 10 picks so you are incorrect. It's only one of Cox/Perkins/Reid + our first next year.
 
No it wouldn't considering JUH was bid on with pick 1. It would have wiped pick 6 completely and pushed pick 7 back.

Dogs wanted a future first to go with one of our top 10 picks so you are incorrect. It's only one of Cox/Perkins/Reid + our first next year.
they would have flipped 6 and 7 with clubs for 2021 picks

the fact that dodo refused to even put 2 first rounders on the table shut anything down be it 2020 or 2021 picks
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
17,145
26,092
AFL Club
Essendon
they would have flipped 6 and 7 with clubs for 2021 picks
Shoulda woulda coulda.

They wanted our future first (probably because we're going to be s**t next year). They were offered Collingwood's future first in a 3-way deal and they rejected that.

So no. It isn't Cox and Perkins for Dunkley. That's simply incorrect. It's one of the 3 we picked + our future first.
 
Shoulda woulda coulda.

They wanted our future first (probably because we're going to be sh*t next year). They were offered Collingwood's future first in a 3-way deal and they rejected that.

So no. It isn't Cox and Perkins for Dunkley. That's simply incorrect. It's one of the 3 we picked + our future first.
alright sure lets bump this in a year then the comparison is cox (seeing as you picked him first) and whoever you take next year with your first vs dunkley
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
17,145
26,092
AFL Club
Essendon
alright sure lets bump this in a year then the comparison is cox (seeing as you picked him first) and whoever you take next year with your first vs dunkley
That's more accurate, though we actually offered Bulldogs pick 7 and our future second which is Perkins. Can make an argument for us to have traded any one of those picks along with our future first. It's why I said Cox/Perkins/Reid because it's not clear which one we would have traded.

Who really cares anyway? Dunkley is a Bulldogs player and will be a good player for them. We have 3 talented players and a likely top 5 pick in a strong draft next year.
 
That's more accurate, though we actually offered Bulldogs pick 7 and our future second which is Perkins. Can make an argument for us to have traded any one of those picks along with our future first. It's why I said Cox/Perkins/Reid because it's not clear which one we would have traded.

Who really cares anyway? Dunkley is a Bulldogs player and will be a good player for them. We have 3 talented players and a likely top 5 pick in a strong draft next year.
same as any big trade or non trade to compare for years to come - and in this case putting dodo under the spotlight with his decade plus long record which has contributed to no finals wins for his team
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,024
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Incorrect.

You are correct. We were never going to accept 2 firsts this year. Would have been a massive waste unless we had an eye on an A grader. It was always one this year and one next with the one this year to be used on a player or to turn it into another first next year.
 
Shoulda woulda coulda.

They wanted our future first (probably because we're going to be sh*t next year). They were offered Collingwood's future first in a 3-way deal and they rejected that.

So no. It isn't Cox and Perkins for Dunkley. That's simply incorrect. It's one of the 3 we picked + our future first.

Nowhere was it actually proven that we wanted anything but "two good firsts". They weren't specified whether they were this years or nexts, hell they weren't even specified that they HAD to be yours. You're only going off assumptions, same as everyone else.

If I was a gambling man I'd say 7&8 probably would have got it done, IF they were dealt in enough time for us to actually do anything with them re: shuffling them to next year, but seeing as Dodo sat on this deal for 2.5 days without even moving from one first rounder (that he didn't even have yet!) to his bullshit final offer of 7 and 2021 second, nothing could have been done in that time even if he did offer them.

And as for the 3-way deal, given how our deal with the Pies ended up, you can see exactly why Power didn't accept an offer devised by Guy and Dodo to get max value for an "unwanted" player that eventually got traded for half that, and skin us on value for a contracted and wanted gun player.
 
Back