Traded Jake Stringer [traded to Essendon]

[eth-dog]

I didn't think those rules mattered yet? Wasn't there a delay in bringing them in?

That was the 2 firsts every 4 years only I thought.

Do you really believe the AFL would hold Essendon to that, given they've still got a future second round pick? C'mon this is the AFL we are talking about. Rules ain't rules.

Essendon will be using that rule as a reason why not to. It was never going to be our future first, this rule just confirms it.

 

[LittleG]

Well given we just traded out a future second, future first officially can't be traded.

They allowed Hawks to do so last year.

Again, arbitration won't care. His contract will value him at least at a first rounder.

Jake will be staying at dogs.

 

[DapperDon]

One, two, Dodo's coming for you.

Three, four, Better brace your door

Five, six, grab a late round pick.

Seven, eight, just give up your Jake

Nine, ten, Never piss off Dodo again....

 

[eth-dog]

We have GWS 2018 2nd rd pick so can still trade first on that rule.

We traded out our future 3rd though, which cancels it out.

 

[the PILL]

BRWB is fit... Cops a few combo's then comes right back swinging haymakers with pretty stong pseudo logic...

I'm actually in the let him stay camp but this thread delivers...

 

[boncer34]

We traded out our future 3rd though, which cancels it out.

So the Dogs can throw us back their future 3rd.

Stringer + 37 for pick 18.

Sounds fair.

 

[LittleG]

We traded out our future 3rd though, which cancels it out.

IF dogs trade you a future third, there IS no problems.

 

[eth-dog]

They allowed Hawks to do so last year.

Again, arbitration won't care. His contract will value him at least at a first rounder.

Jake will be staying at dogs.

Are you seriously that daft?

We have traded out a future third as well. Whilst we had a future first and 2 future seconds it was a possibility but since we've now only got a future first and second but no third it can't happen.

 

[DapperJong]

My friend make no mistake 2012 has been on speed dial for your club since then , what makes you think it's not going to be going fwd?

No one has seen the last of the cluster ###k !!

Yeah, Hawks could 3 peat again and you'd probably still wanna talk about it.

 

[LittleG]

So the Dogs can throw us back their future 3rd.

Stringer + 37 for pick 18.

Sounds fair.

It won't be those numbers but it is the fairest trade you guys have come up with.

 

[DapperJong]

They allowed Hawks to do so last year.

Again, arbitration won't care. His contract will value him at least at a first rounder.

Jake will be staying at dogs.

haha

 

[Jobe Watson]

Why a future first can be on the table? There is no reason for it not to be. It's what the dogs would want from the trade.
Two second round picks are useless for the dogs this year. They have limited list spots and won't use them.

Our 2018 1st is likely to end up around the pick 18 mark anyway.

Might as well take the two 2nds.

 

[reload141]

Well now that the Saad deal is done we officially cannot trade our 1st round pick next year, so 2 2nd's it is for Stringer.

 

[LittleG]

After potential compo picks and everything, our 2018 1st is likely to end up around the pick 20 mark anyway.

Might as well take the two 2nds.

We won't use the two second rounders this year.

Future first is where it's at.

 

[chef]

Our 2018 1st is likely to end up around the pick 18 mark anyway.

Might as well take the two 2nds.

Would you rather give up 2 2nds or your future 1st?

Edit. Your future first is off the table now.

 

[boncer34]

It won't be those numbers but it is the fairest trade you guys have come up with.

True.

With compo picks it'll probably be 19/20 for Jake + 39

 

[Dave]

If the dogs are only taking two live picks to the draft, can they package their second and 25 and 30 from us, for an early to mid teens pick?

Surely someone would jump at that...

If they were only taking 2 live picks then surely there'd have been no reason not to trade pick 26 as part of the initial deal, after all it wasn't going to be used in that scenario.

 

[Dave]

No.

Do I believe he's worth pick 11 + 45/50ish if 2 2nd rounders come with him?

Absolutely.

Every day and twice on Sundays. Why risk stuffing up 2 trades (Smith & Saad) to get 1 (Stringer) done, particularly when his club is being hard to deal with?

 

[yodellinhank]

Future first.

IF they dogs were desperate to get rid of Jake, they would have asked for arbitration to get the future first on the table.

My bet, either the future first IS on the table or Jake is staying.

I think the next step is meditation, not arbitration. And i think in order to trade our future first we technically need to bring in a future 3rd and not trade our future 2nd for saad, which would seem more certain to happen.

 

[DapperDon]

Told you not to waste time Doggies, now you have no choice of 2nds.

Looks like you'll be getting the shit ones

 

[eth-dog]

Yep. I don't get that. Someone disagrees with me so I'll call him names, why bother.

It's not the disagreement, i's the fact he can't get it in his head that Essendon has refused to entertain anything to do with their future first and thinks that it will happen anyway.

 

[LittleG]

I think the next step is meditation, not arbitration. And i think in order to trade our future first we technically need to bring in a future 3rd and not trade our future 2nd for saad, which would seem more certain to happen.

Sure call it mediation. Trading out all other assets doesn't mean he becomes cheaper.

 

[STPer18]

Two down, one to go. Dodds turning his attention solely to the Bulldogs now.

"25 or 30, not both"​

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Two down, one to go. Dodds turning his attention solely to the Bulldogs now.

"25 or 30, not both"​

Get that man another jacket

 

[yodellinhank]

Sure call it mediation. Trading out all other assets doesn't mean he becomes cheaper.

Call it what it is. If you do not understand the difference then you don't understand the definition of the word "arbitration" that you've been throwing around.