Traded Jake Stringer [traded to Essendon]

[Bunk Moreland]

With the Caddy trade, your mob even went as far as pick 19 + Hooker at one stage. At the time maybe it didn't seem like much, but the Suns passed on a AA CHB and then accepted a mid first round pick that we received as Ablett compensation the very next year.

I couldn't believe how that all played out. Essendon kept upping and upping their offer for weeks and eventually got to our first rounder plus Hooker. All GC kept saying was "he's not up for trade. End of story".

The Friday of trade period they lob and say "you can have him for 19 + Hurley" - our brightest young gun who'd just signed a long term deal.

The media and BF response?

"Essendon, impossible to deal with at trade table."

 

[essendon]

He is so over rated for what he has actually produced so far.
He has 1 AA year.
Every other year has been average.
He only averages 13 touches a game.

Handy in any teams forward setup and only 23.... many good players at 23 don't have AA.....far from overrated

 

[go you pups]

Dogs trade 11+9 for Jake Lever.

I'd be expecting Adelaide's late first rounder back if that was what was required for Lever

Lever is uncontracted, it's ridiculous how the deals of say Treloar and JOM have pushed up the price on uncontracted players

 

[JuniorWatch]

With the Caddy trade, your mob even went as far as pick 19 + Hooker at one stage. At the time maybe it didn't seem like much, but the Suns passed on a AA CHB and then accepted a mid first round pick that we received as Ablett compensation the very next year.

We really don't deserve Hookers loyalty.
Tried to send him to West Coast for 2 second rounders.
Tried to steak knives him over to Gold Coast for a B grade mid.

That said if he doesn't lose the man-bun in the next 3 weeks, he's off to Freo for Balic.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Gold Coast are campaigners at the trade table

If Gil on 360 tonight is anything to go by then we'll crack that tough nut.

To me it is no coincidence that clubs that trade fairly, even slightly unders, have achieved success recently (Hawks, Swans, Cats) whilst those that hard ball like the Dons and Suns (under Cochrane) don't have the same fortunes.

 

[SherbertLemon]

Stringer for Travis Colyer and a swap of third rounders

 

[go you pups]

If Gil on 360 tonight is anything to go by then we'll crack that tough nut.

To me it is no coincidence that clubs that trade fairly, even slightly unders, have achieved success recently (Hawks, Swans, Cats) whilst those that hard ball like the Dons and Suns (under Cochrane) don't have the same fortunes.

I don't think you trade fairly at times, you bend other clubs to get trades on your own terms, normally involving uncontracted players from struggling teams, or players who come from the surf coast region with the "go home" factor.

You have history of tapping players up months in advance, whether you get them or not is another story.

What would you have given Port Adelaide for Boak had Boak nominated you lot? No doubt you targeted him, trying to use Port Adelaide's massive instability in your favour with the club reeling after a horrendous season, culminating in the sacking of their coach and unfortunate death of a player. Then you went after Frawley when Melbourne were a rabble too, though you didn't land him.

I'm not a fan of the way your club deals, regularly preying on other clubs or players instabilities/vulnerabilities hoping to get quality players on the cheap and I hope we do not send Jake your way.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I don't think you trade fairly at times, you bend other clubs to get trades on your own terms, normally involving uncontracted players from struggling teams, or players who come from the surf coast region with the "go home" factor.

You have history of tapping players up months in advance, whether you get them or not is another story.

What would you have given Port Adelaide for Boak had Boak nominated you lot? No doubt you targeted him, trying to use Port Adelaide's massive instability in your favour with the club reeling after a horrendous season, culminating in the sacking of their coach and unfortunate death of a player. Then you went after Frawley when Melbourne were a rabble too, though you didn't land him.

I'm not a fan of the way your club deals, regularly preying on other clubs or players instabilities/vulnerabilities hoping to get quality players on the cheap and I hope we do not send Jake your way.

Wake up and get with reality. Every club does that, SA clubs are preying on Dan Menzel's insecurities over contract length to induce him to leave.
Tapping up months in advance, again wake up and get with reality, are you naive to think McCartney only starts chasing players in October. Players are tapped up by all clubs.

As for Boak and Frawley, clubs up the top seek wantaway players from bottom sides, well, get better and it won't happen. How many Dees do you reckon clubs will poach now. Not many as that stench of death dissipated. Do you seriously expect clubs to sit back in a dog eat dog world and say "awww they're having a hard time, let's leave their players alone".

We trade fairly nearly all the time, if players are uncontracted that lowers their worth thus creating a new valuation of fair price, did we complain when that saw us get unders from trading Christensen. No. Grow up pups, this is the business we're in, sooking about being hard done by is something the plucky underdogs from the Footscray are good at.

Now, as for Stringer to stay on topic, you're just not wanting him to come here as you could get better elsewhere. Stringer has more leverage here than a contracted player should merely as he knows the Dogs want rid.

 

[wa don]

3 Trades in to the Bombers pre drugs from 04-12. Ah but it's all Sheedy's fault who finished in 07.

Dodoro may be a good drafter but it's delusional thinking he's a good trader in of talent.

but hey carry on thinking you will get Stringer when Dodoro has rarely, if ever, traded in elite talent before.

It'll definitely happen this year m8. Of course it will.

Think you should just be worried about your club surviving and trying to make a profit, proven that you fluked a flag

 

[manboob]

I'm not a fan of the way your club deals, regularly preying on other clubs or players instabilities/vulnerabilities hoping to get quality players on the cheap and I hope we do not send Jake your way.

Gonna get him for a pick after 20 and you're going to like it. Your media team/coach/whoever has done a pretty bad job of it. Isolated the player and said that he will never play for you again (in so many words). The ball is entirely in Stringer's court now. He's not going to care one iota that Essendon or whoever will pony up a better deal for the Dogs. "Poorly managed" by your lot is an understatement.

 

[go you pups]

Wake up and get with reality. Every club does that, SA clubs are preying on Dan Menzel's insecurities over contract length to induce him to leave.

He's had 4 knee recos, he's worth 2/5ths of **** all, sure by all means he should leave if he gets an extra year from one of them, but I do not see any long-term value he'll give to someone except yours. Poor example.

Your club did good by him standing by him through his numerous setbacks, but it is clear he is struggling this year with the physical demands, perhaps just getting back to playing regular footy as he did last year was his mountain to climb and there may not be much more left in the tank as he achieved that goal.

Tapping up months in advance, again wake up and get with reality, are you naive to think McCartney only starts chasing players in October. Players are tapped up by all clubs.

So why is someone like Henderson allowed to walk out on Carlton and pack his bags like a month before the season ends?

A clear case of tapping up and having a players head turned here, yet isn't there supposed to be restrictions on approaches to players during the season and what not?

As for Boak and Frawley, clubs up the top seek wantaway players from bottom sides, well, get better and it won't happen. How many Dees do you reckon clubs will poach now. Not many as that stench of death dissipated. Do you seriously expect clubs to sit back in a dog eat dog world and say "awww they're having a hard time, let's leave their players alone".

Once upon a time you had to give a little to get back, classic example was Ottens, you traded Moloney to make it happen, Melbourne and Geelong benefitted from that deal, Richmond got the picks it wanted for Ottens but blew them on duds.

That is the way it should be, but now is not the case with the introduction of free agency and future pick trading, thus improving the historically weak trading hands given to successful clubs.

Keeping strong clubs strong, yay, what's the point of the draft and regeneration through the draft now.

We trade fairly nearly all the time

No you don't

if players are uncontracted that lowers their worth thus creating a new valuation of fair price

This should be the case, but GWS and GC have recently blown this theory out of the water on Treloar and JOM, would've been great if Hawthorn had of just taken the risk and took him at the draft, like the Luke Ball scenario.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Lever.

did we complain when that saw us get unders from trading Christensen.

LOLOLOLOL.

You won that deal by a mile, he's barely played for Brisbane having broken down a few times, he's nothing more than a vanilla half forward which you got pick 21 for, you ended up pissing that pick away on Stanley though.

No. Grow up pups, this is the business we're in, sooking about being hard done by is something the plucky underdogs from the Footscray are good at.

Nice melt but I don't think it is good for the game to see the continued strengthening of one club by a club/coach who clearly doesn't rate the draft anymore, but gets decent established talent on the cheap through various means of manipulation, but also had two massive leg ups from the AFL with the introduction of future pick trading and free agency.

Hit the draft, regenerate and gain some credibility again, like you did during your 07-11 period.

Now, as for Stringer to stay on topic, you're just not wanting him to come here as you could get better elsewhere. Stringer has more leverage here than a contracted player should merely as he knows the Dogs want rid.

I don't want him to go there for two reasons

Yes we can get a better deal elsewhere and most importantly, why should we strengthen a rival on the cheap giving them a free shot at staying up the ladder a few more years.

If the Dogs had some sense they'd push him to North or Carlton, but if that is not possible then Essendon, St Kilda and Richmond should be next up.


But still, what your lot are doing is disgusting at devaluing tradition of this game, it's Australia, not America, we are not advanced enough commercially to deal with mass recruiting changes, most clubs are underresourced to deal with a system like this put in place, it will not work and only the better resourced clubs will prosper in it.

Far too much power is given to players and their managers now and the same old clubs get bent over in the process (thus impacting fans also) while the same old clubs continue to profit, if the AFL wants to continue with this system but also values equality then clubs should have the power to trade players without player consent.

 

[go you pups]

Gonna get him for a pick after 20 and you're going to like it. Your media team/coach/whoever has done a pretty bad job of it. Isolated the player and said that he will never play for you again (in so many words). The ball is entirely in Stringer's court now. He's not going to care one iota that Essendon or whoever will pony up a better deal for the Dogs. "Poorly managed" by your lot is an understatement.

This assessment is so bad, inaccurate and something I'd expect from an Essendon supporter to say, but to be fair with them most are being reasonable with the pick 11 talk.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So why is someone like Henderson allowed to walk out on Carlton and pack his bags like a month before the season ends?

A clear case of tapping up and having a players head turned here, yet isn't there supposed to be restrictions on approaches to players during the season and what not?

They chose to not play him, not us. Many clubs don't make that decision and keep playing them despite this. Buddy was tapped up a year prior, and despite bogus revelations about an end of season Hamilton Island epiphany so was Ablett. Neither sat out matches, the worst that either club did was denying Ablett a richly deserved B&F in 2010.

Once upon a time you had to give a little to get back, classic example was Ottens, you traded Moloney to make it happen, Melbourne and Geelong benefitted that deal, Richmond got the picks it wanted for Ottens but blew them on duds.

That is the way it should be, but now is not the case with the introduction of free agency and future pick trading, thus improving the historically weak trading hands given to successful clubs.

Keeping strong clubs strong, yay, what's the point of the draft and regeneration through the draft now.

That's hardly our fault. We're just playing within the rules that the governing body sets out. Nothing untoward there.
Free Agency does help clubs at the top more, the time restriction does protect clubs from losing their prime youth players however.

It works both ways though, lower table finishes fetch better compensation. Franklin fetched pick 19 from memory. Frawley was pick 3. You tell me which is worth more, but alas there's a benefit for finishing lower

No you don't

Yet here I am being told by Biggy_Boy for the last couple of years that we get reamed at the trade table. Examples please to prove your point.
Can't think of players we've recently acquired for gross unders, and even if we did, clubs we deal with don't have to agree.

This should be the case, but GWS and GC have recently blown this theory out of the water on Treloar and JOM, would've been great if Hawthorn had of just taken the risk and took him at the draft, like the Luke Ball scenario.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Lever.

So where are the big bad boys here?

Lever will get a kings ransom, and suspect it'll largely go towards Gibbs, who in turn replace him with Rockliff, who in turn get another top pick compensation (pick 2) for their rebuild. Everyone is happy. A club looking to contend gets Lever, a club looking to contend gets Gibbs, a club losing Gibbs doesn't weaken their side, and a club rebuilding gets a great reward for losing a player that won't be in their next finals side.

LOLOLOLOL.

You won that deal by a mile, he's barely played for Brisbane having broken down a few times, he's nothing more than a vanilla half forward which you got pick 21 for, you ended up pissing that pick away on Stanley though.

and had he been contracted we'd have received more, but we did not complain.

Nice melt but I don't think it is good for the game to see the continued strengthening of one club by a club/coach who clearly doesn't rate the draft anymore, but gets decent established talent on the cheap through various means of manipulation, but also had two massive leg ups from the AFL with the introduction of future pick trading and free agency.

Hit the draft, regenerate and gain some credibility again, like you did during your 07-11 period.

Why? Carlton, Dees, Brisbane, St.Kilda in particular have hit the draft for season after season after season and where has it got them. Barely any finals and many wasted years. Look what astute trading mixed with drafting has netted. Flags for Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong in abundance. This notion that you MUST go back and rebuild like everyone else is folly, we've made finals 19/28 AFL seasons, 13 PF's and 7 Grand Finals and haven't hit bottom 4 in any of those seasons. Last being in 1986. Where in the rule book does it say you HAVE to have your time in the doldrems after an arbitrarily defined period of high performance. Clubs that achieve success strive for more, it's what creates successful clubs and cultures. They don't sit back and accept a period of mediocrity to achieve success the way fans (of other clubs wanting their time in the sun) expect them to. Bottoming out and hitting the draft should be the last resort, mine hasn't reached that point.

You say doesn't rate the draft yet have selected 24 players in the last 3 seasons alone, we just prefer to trade our top end commodities, which given Wells reaches in the first round anyway is probably more wise. Every club has draft selections in every draft, draft selections they can and do use in whichever manner they see fit. What is exactly wrong with us using the mechanisms the AFL sets out to do exactly that. No rule breaking, no immoral practices. Just straight up abiding by the constraints set in place.

How can you say leg up when it is something all 18 clubs have access to. A leg up is an advantage in a situation or over another person. Not exactly the case when all 18 clubs get it. A leg up is Sydney and Qld clubs getting an academy. Not future trading.

I don't want him to go there for two reasons

Yes we can get a better deal elsewhere and most importantly, why should we strengthen a rival on the cheap giving them a free shot at staying up the ladder a few more years.

If the Dogs had some sense they'd push him to North or Carlton, but if that is not possible then Essendon, St Kilda and Richmond should be next up.

and what if the following scenario unfolds.

WB: Jake, we think you staying here is untenable, we want to trade you
JS: I'm happy here, I want to stay.
WB: Well we've accepted pick 11 from Essendon and St.Kilda have offered pick 7, which we're also happy with.
JS: I'm happy here, I wish to see out my contract
WB: Well we won't play you next year
JS: Well I want to stay but I'm happy to move to Geelong.
WB: ??????

See, if the perception is true and the hierarchy at the Dogs are hellbent that he leaves, then you'll send him to a club(s) that he agrees to go to, now given the players North have failed to lure I doubt he'd go there. Now, what I don't know is if we are a club he prefers or a club he merely is interested in. If we don't get him then I suspect we will get Devon Smith, but I suspect we'll be bad guys to pursue that trade to? or is targeting an OOC player from the Giants held to a different rule, just asking as you're making the rules, etiquette's and good sportsman conduct code here...

But still, what your lot are doing is disgusting at devaluing tradition of this game, it's Australia, not America, we are not advanced enough commercially to deal with mass recruiting changes, most clubs are underresourced to deal with a system like this put in place, it will not work and only the better resourced clubs will prosper in it.

Far too much power is given to players and their managers now and the same old clubs get bent over in the process (thus impacting fans also) while the same old clubs continue to profit, if the AFL wants to continue with this system but also values equality then clubs should have the power to trade players without player consent.

Again, we're merely abiding by the rules and parameters the AFL set, which I might add 17 other clubs are welcome and able to do as well.
If anyone is "devaluing tradition of this game" it is AFL house with all their changes, many of which inspired by American sports.

So again, don't sit here and paint my club as the bad guys for adhering to the rules of the land. Go talk to the law makers instead.
you're more than capable of doing so as well, you're not being forbidden from conducting business in any manner that we are. This merely comes across as sour grapes because we're more attractive a destination.

 

[Tbonefreo]

And at the time I believe the media still gave Essendon the 'hard to deal with' label saying we weren't offering enough...

Yeah IIRC that was the line trotted out. Hindsight etc.

 

[MisterMarcus]

I don't think you trade fairly at times, you bend other clubs to get trades on your own terms, normally involving uncontracted players from struggling teams, or players who come from the surf coast region with the "go home" factor.

You have history of tapping players up months in advance, whether you get them or not is another story.

What would you have given Port Adelaide for Boak had Boak nominated you lot? No doubt you targeted him, trying to use Port Adelaide's massive instability in your favour with the club reeling after a horrendous season, culminating in the sacking of their coach and unfortunate death of a player. Then you went after Frawley when Melbourne were a rabble too, though you didn't land him.

I'm not a fan of the way your club deals, regularly preying on other clubs or players instabilities/vulnerabilities hoping to get quality players on the cheap and I hope we do not send Jake your way.

As i said above, we've also been willing to trade out our own players for unders, if that's what's needed to get the deal done. But it evens out.....we probably let Caddy go for unders, but we brought Tuohy in for unders. We moved on the type of player we probably had an excess of, to allow us to trade in a type of player we needed.

We've also been extremely willing help our "fringe 22" players move on for more opportunities. We let Vardy and Kersten go for virtually nothing, the year before we got ride of Jansen and Walker for a single 3rd/4th rounder, and let Stevie J go for a token 'nothing' pick

 

[Wild Bill]

Every single year: next year's draft is a super year. Pick 10 next year will have pick 3 talent.

The very next year: this year's draft is weak. Pick 10 is actually closer to pick 20 in a standard draft.

Rinse and repeat.

That's not true. Have you seen Rankine, King & Lukisos play? They would go top 5 this year as under age. I will be amazed if bottom 6 teams trade next years 1st.

 

[hotkorma]

Is it confirmed Stringer was a north supporter as a kid and is dying to join the team he grew up supporting?

 

[ManOfClay]

I love the "you'll accept xx and be happy with it" crowd.

This isn't some out of contract bum who might go to the psd.

 

[tesla1962]

I love the "you'll accept xx and be happy with it" crowd.

This isn't some out of contract bum who might go to the psd.

No but the way your club has hung him out to dry has driven his value down significantly. Pretty big **** up by the dogs IMO.

 

[Login]

Geelong met with him yesterday and by all reports, that's his preferred destination.
Not a bad get for pick 20.

 

[ManOfClay]

No but the way your club has hung him out to dry has driven his value down significantly. Pretty big **** up by the dogs IMO.

Say that all you want but he's still contracted and the club has said he won't be traded if we don't get fair compensation

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

That's not true. Have you seen Rankine, King & Lukisos play? They would go top 5 this year as under age. I will be amazed if bottom 6 teams trade next years 1st.

Seen all three. Seen King just the once, but Rankine and Lukosius, I've seen them live on at least four occasions as I work directly within a SANFL club. Rankine will slide next year. I like him, but he's almost a clone of James Aish at the same age, but with a better handball, but poorer pace. His last game for the Bloods was excellent, but he also had some poor games throughout the year against kids his own age, like many of these prospects do, we just remember the highlights. I haven't seen enough of King to make an informed judgement, but while Lukosius has looked good at times, he's also been very well held. In the QF, his only two goals, both came from very soft free-kicks in the goal square, one of which which was a third man up hold in the marking contest, and the other was due to a kick out infringement. He was held all game, to zero direct goals by a 180cm makeshift full back who hadn't played full back all year. Now that's not a slight on Lukosius who's achieved great things at his age, it's more to the point that we look at underage players with Rose coloured glasses on but judge 18 year olds to a much higher standard. Fogarty was injured throughout the year, and has fallen out of the top 8 in most phantoms, even though he was a clear #1 at this stage last year based on his underage form.

Same thing will happen next year mate. There will be a new crop of underage players who will play well in the National Championships, and might play a couple of senior games at the end of the year. But then, come 2019, bigfooty will tell us it's a weak draft but the 2020 group could be the best since 2001...

 

[Yoda_]

Would trade 2017 second rounder + 2018 second rounder for Stringer.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Geelong met with him yesterday and by all reports, that's his preferred destination.
Not a bad get for pick 20.

Confirmed again on SEN this morning. He wants to get to Geelong.

Will pick 20 get it done, and where does this now leave giblet jnr?

Will that catters trade in to next seasons superdraft?

 

[Login]

Say that all you want but he's still contracted and the club has said he won't be traded if we don't get fair compensation

You guys put him on the trade table, he wanted to stay.
He is now pissed off and there is very little chance he will play for the club again.
You will not get fair compo for him.