Traded Jake Stringer [traded to Essendon]

[Rookie]

In theory, what more are the Dogs hoping to get from Essendon?

Picks 25, 30 and what?

GWS future second for our future third or Freo's future 4th?

Same scenario but future 3rd for our future 4th?

Small upgrades, few hundred extra points for 2018 bids.

Can see us asking for something like that.

HOWEVER and this hasn't got a heap of airtime, I suspect we will have more interest in the GWS future second than 30 if we don't find out elusive upgrade this year.

25 + GWS future 2nd + 3rd/4th future upgrade?

Not sure how we use 30 unless we on-trade it.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

In theory, what more are the Dogs hoping to get from Essendon?

Picks 25, 30 and what?

Problem is that have no space for 2 picks ie they have no value. We want to offer Crameri and Honeychurch spots which probably can't so we don't really need 2 young players. So any picks we have need to be valuable ie first rounders or 2018 picks. That's why we were after your 2018 first in exchange for a number of picks.

My ideal trade would be a couple of first or second rounders together to get one low pick therefore giving us more list spaces. Much prefer anything but two picks- obviously would need to be a first rounder for the guy that has been our leading goal kicker.

Actually my favoured option would be to trade him next year - problem is that the leadership group have basically giving up on him as he does not listen to anyone.

 

[Great8]

GWS future second for our future third or Freo's future 4th?

Same scenario but future 3rd for our future 4th?

Small upgrades, few hundred extra points for 2018 bids.

Can see us asking for something like that.

HOWEVER and this hasn't got a heap of airtime, I suspect we will have more interest in the GWS future second than 30 if we don't find out elusive upgrade this year.

25 + GWS future 2nd + 3rd/4th future upgrade?

Not sure how we use 30 unless we on-trade it.

We don’t have a future 3rd anymore.
25 + GWS future 2nd is the best we have

 

[Sweet Jesus]

GWS future second for our future third or Freo's future 4th?

Same scenario but future 3rd for our future 4th?

Small upgrades, few hundred extra points for 2018 bids.

Can see us asking for something like that.

HOWEVER and this hasn't got a heap of airtime, I suspect we will have more interest in the GWS future second than 30 if we don't find out elusive upgrade this year.

25 + GWS future 2nd + 3rd/4th future upgrade?

Not sure how we use 30 unless we on-trade it.

So it's stalled based on exchanges of picks 40+?

It's a long way off the top 10 demands.

 

[HirdyLannister]

There is one of four outcomes
1) dogs fold and accept 25 and 30.
2) dogs use Sydney(14) or Carlton(16) for a pick upgrade to get into first round and save face.
3) dogs get 25 and Essendon 2nd 2018.
4) Another club takes Jake and risks a first round which would be unlikely because the next best offer so far has been Geelong with pick 20.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Problem is that have no space for 2 picks ie they have no value. We want to offer Crameri and Honeychurch spots which probably can't so we don't really need 2 young players. So any picks we have need to be valuable ie first rounders or 2018 picks. That's why we were after your 2018 first in exchange for a number of picks.

My ideal trade would be a couple of first or second rounders together to get one low pick therefore giving us more list spaces. Much prefer anything but two picks- obviously would need to be a first rounder for the guy that has been our leading goal kicker.

Actually my favoured option would be to trade him next year - problem is that the leadership group have basically giving up on him as he does not listen to anyone.

Why did the Dogs choose to make it public?

Everything can be traced back to that initial miscalculation.

If they'd been more discreet and just inquired about other clubs' first-rounders, while having separate quiet discussions with Stringer, they might have got that early pick. Going public torpedoed everything.

 

[Bald]

The decision to do it all so publicly is the issue. What possible benefit was there in being so open about the intent to trade Stringer?

It devalued the player and made it trickier to take him back in the event no one paid the asking price. Who thought it was a smart way to play it?

These guys get paid to manage situations like this. It's what they do for a living.

Who really made it public though? As far as I'm aware it was a private conversation. The media then made it public. What were we supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and pretend we'd done nothing wrong? We aren't James Hird.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...g/news-story/42a23daa1b9379c7658bee4634a6ee29

Jake Stringer’s trade to Essendon still in limbo as Western Bulldogs, West Coast hit snag

JAY CLARK, Herald Sun
an hour ago
Subscriber only

ESSENDON’S trade period has been labelled a huge success regardless of whether the Bombers are able to secure exiled Western Bulldog Jake Stringer.

Former Bombers’ chairman Paul Little said the addition of speedster Adam Saad and GWS goal kicker Devon Smith would help lift the club to the “next level” in 2018, only one year after Essendon finished last for the first time in its history.

But the Stringer deal remained in limbo on Wednesday after talks between the Western Bulldogs and West Coast about a complicated pick swap hit an 11th-hour snag.

Essendon has offered picks No.25 and No.30 to the Dogs for Stringer and has ruled its future first-round pick in next year’s draft off-limits.

The Dogs wanted to on-trade selections No.9, No.25 and No.30 in return for the Eagles’ pick No.13, and shuffle selections in next year’s draft.

The move would have helped the Dogs essentially secure pick No.13 in return for Stringer but the two clubs remained apart in their negotiations on Wednesday night.

Stringer, 23, does not want to return to the Kennel and could spend next season playing for Footscray’s VFL team, if at all, if he is kept to his Western Bulldogs’ contract.

The stand-off has set the scene for a final round of tense negotiations, although sources close to Stringer were optimistic a deal would still be done.

Essendon was unwilling to relent on its offer of two second-round selections for Stringer last night.

Little, who stepped down as chairman in late 2015 amid the most turbulent period in the club’s history, said the additions of Saad and Smith had already put the Bombers’ in a strong position to continue their climb up the ladder next season.

“We have now, I think, a record membership and what appears to be a real shift in these potentially really key players wanting to be a part of the Essendon story,” Little said.

“The three recruits, if Stringer comes across or not, are all of a similar age and levels of experience and really takes the club to another level again in terms of what it can achieve in the next two or three years.

“I think Essendon supporters and members are justified in feeling excited and are enjoying the euphoria of what has been a really good year on and off the field.”

The Bombers and Port Adelaide have been widely viewed as the two biggest winners of the AFL trade period.

Little said he phoned recruiting chief Dodoro on Tuesday to congratulate the talent boss for his role helping left the club from a dark period.

“It’s been hard for Adrian during that period when we were desperately trying to not only just add some top-up players, but also stop players from leaving the fold,” he said.

“Adrian had very much a thankless task for a couple of years there.

“But he has a lot of experience and I rang him to congratulate him on what has been a huge performance on his behalf.

“We certainly agonised through a really tough two to three year period and it is appropriate now that Adrian should be getting some credit for a job that has been exceptionally well done this year.”

 

[Rookie]

The decision to do it all so publicly is the issue. What possible benefit was there in being so open about the intent to trade Stringer?

It devalued the player and made it trickier to take him back in the event no one paid the asking price. Who thought it was a smart way to play it?

These guys get paid to manage situations like this. It's what they do for a living.

While I'm awaiting the final outcome (including an ontrading of our picks so I have the full picture), these are legit questions I want answered.

Melbourne decided to get rid of Watts and they took unders and paid his salary. We decided to get rid of Stringer, taking the 11/26/47 deal quickly and moving on looks pretty reasonable in hindsight.

Your criticisms are totally valid but the comparisons to vintage Freo are ridiculous. If Dodo takes 25+30 off the table and we accept a future third rounder, a pack of twisties and Bird THEN let's go back to our drawer of classic footy metaphors and find one that's appropriate.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who really made it public though? As far as I'm aware it was a private conversation. The media then made it public. What were we supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and pretend we'd done nothing wrong? We aren't James Hird.

Someone told the media and then the Dogs made a statement essentially confirming Stringer was going. And then everything flowed from there.

Look at the way Carlton extracted a first-rounder for Chris Yarran.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Why did the Dogs choose to make it public?

Everything can be traced back to that initial miscalculation.

If they'd been more discreet and just inquired about other clubs' first-rounders, while having separate quiet discussions with Stringer, they might have got that early pick. Going public torpedoed everything.

Did we have a choice?

We didn't start the rumours, my guess is that Connors leaked it to start the bidding war.

Pretty hard to hide the fact that he was drinking mid week and losing money hand over fist gambling, everybody knew.

 

[Bald]

Someone told the media and then the Dogs made a statement essentially confirming Stringer was going. And then everything flowed from there.

Look at the way Carlton extracted a first-rounder for Chris Yarran.

Someone told the media. My guess is it would be his manager?

How is that our fault?

 

[Mutt]

In theory, what more are the Dogs hoping to get from Essendon?

Picks 25, 30 and what?

Well in theory it could be 2018 first round pick. But in the real world, we will take Essendon's current offer in my view.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

While I'm awaiting the final outcome (including an ontrading of our picks so I have the full picture), these are legit questions I want answered.

Melbourne decided to get rid of Watts and they took unders and paid his salary. We decided to get rid of Stringer, taking the 11/26/47 deal quickly and moving on looks pretty reasonable in hindsight.

Your criticisms are totally valid but the comparisons to vintage Freo are ridiculous. If Dodo takes 25+30 off the table and we accept a future third rounder, a pack of twisties and Bird THEN let's go back to our drawer of classic footy metaphors and find one that's appropriate.

It's the decision to go public that prompted the comparison. That just seems like an obvious strategic blunder. Even at the time it seemed foolhardy.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Someone told the media. My guess is it would be his manager?

How is that our fault?

There's a way to play that. You didn't need to confirm it, essentially making it the biggest trade story aside from Ablett.

 

[Rookie]

So it's stalled based on exchanges of picks 40+?

It's a long way off the top 10 demands.

I was providing a few examples of additional sweetener type things that could be added if we are hoping for more. Obviously a future first would be the thing we want, but the fact wevesprbt days trying to horsetrade 25+30 is a retry decent indication we aren't pursuing it.

 

[Mutt]

The decision to do it all so publicly is the issue. What possible benefit was there in being so open about the intent to trade Stringer?

It devalued the player and made it trickier to take him back in the event no one paid the asking price. Who thought it was a smart way to play it?

These guys get paid to manage situations like this. It's what they do for a living.

It was leaked to the media, presumably by Connors or by a club who was sounded out as to whether they'd be interested. It's not possible to keep something like this private.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did we have a choice?

We didn't start the rumours, my guess is that Connors leaked it to start the bidding war.

Pretty hard to hide the fact that he was drinking mid week and losing money hand over fist gambling, everybody knew.

It was leaked to the media, presumably by Connors or by a club who was sounded out as to whether they'd be interested. It's not possible to keep something like this private.

But you didn't need to confirm anything. That's when it got real legs.

Even in the handling of Stringer - if it was the exit interview that triggered all this - a different approach may have kept the details under wraps. Carlton managed to keep Chris Yarran's issues pretty hush hush, and got a first-rounder for their troubles.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

But you didn't need to confirm anything. That's when it got real legs.

Even in the handling of Strunger - if it was the exit interview that triggered all this - a different approach may have kept the details under wraps. Carlton managed to keep Chris Yarran's issues pretty hush hush, and got a first-rounder for their troubles.

How could we deny it? Every list manager, his agent, his friends and half the twitter sphere would know that we were lying.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

How could we deny it? Every list manager, his agent, his friends and half the twitter sphere would know that we were lying.

"We're seeking to improve our draft position but won't be commenting on individual players at this stage."

That would have been better than "yeah, we want to trade Stringer".

 

[Rookie]

It's the decision to go public that prompted the comparison. That just seems like an obvious strategic blunder. Even at the time it seemed foolhardy.

Facts are hard to establish but my reading is that the initial leaks didn't appear to come from the club - management was trying to whip up interest. His training habits and attitude to rehab were well-known and naturally came to light. We addressed the noise by affirming that yeah, we wanted to trade him. Did those comments go to far? Probably, although they weren't as final or disparaging as the media reported.

Then the tell-all interviews occurred and any additional bidders disappeared. Sad! And here we are now, with an offer valued (yeah I know the draft point calculator is shit) at around the pick we wanted. Not a great position but not Fremantle levels, even though we miscalculated.

There is one of four outcomes
1) dogs fold and accept 25 and 30.
2) dogs use Sydney(14) or Carlton(16) for a pick upgrade to get into first round and save face.
3) dogs get 25 and Essendon 2nd 2018.
4) Another club takes Jake and risks a first round which would be unlikely because the next best offer so far has been Geelong with pick 20.

I'm not J-Mac and serious deficiencies in my maths skillz have already been noted in this thread, but if we don't have an on-trade organised then list spot arithmetic will dictate option 3 over option 1.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I don't think 25 and 30 is that bad an offer, especially when it was 24 and 29 before the AFL magicked up a pick 19 for their beloved GC.
It just happens that the Dogs don't want two more second rounders due to list space, and no one wants to part with a first, even in the teens.

Perhaps the Dogs just need to look at creating that extra list space, as out of two second rounders, you can usually net a good player.

My point is that the Dogs don't need to be losers here. Take these picks to the draft and get a good player, heck maybe even two. They have created this scenario where if they don't get a first round pick they have lost. It doesn't have to be so.

 

[Rookie]

"We're seeking to improve our draft position but won't be commenting on individual players at this stage."

That would have been better than "yeah, we want to trade Stringer".

"Jake Stringer is a required player"

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I strongly disagree that sitting out next season would prevent him from ever playing AFL again; why would it? Jake hasn't had to sit out of football due to alcoholism or drug use, his off field issues have been at most a distraction for him rather than an actual physical detriment to his playing ability. They seemingly haven't stopped him from performing at AFL level due to the number of games he's played in the last few years with these issues. On top of that, he's an established player with an AA selection and would be one of the best in his age group. His accolades will always land him another gig, maybe for less pay, but there will always be another club who wants him.

There's no certainty he'll sit out but there's also not "zero chance" because he's far less dependent on the Bulldogs than you seem to imply he is. And no, Connors isn't fooling anybody because this literally came from Jake himself. This isn't some spin regardless of what you or the Dogs BigFooty Brigade wish it was; the relationship between player and club has actually deteriorated to the point where both parties have expressed that they want to divorce from one another. Whether or not it will come to that, it's clearly not going to be a healthy and happy relationship if the status quo is maintained, so best for both parties is to do the deal that's been tabled and move on.

What's probably going to happen tomorrow is the deal will be done, primarily involving our two second round picks, and all of this talk will have been for nothing. AFL clubs are far less emotive than the average BigFooty poster and players aren't held to contracts out of spite in the real world.

Two points. Stringer's issues relate to ability to combine off field responsibilities with a professional attitude to prep etc, if he sits out next year to be with family the clubs cant judge if he can manage the combined responsibilities properly which is why none would touch him. Which is why he wouldn't sit out the year. It's not about dependence on the Bulldogs it's about dependence on other clubs being interested in him.

If you think it was Stringer's idea for Connors to pretend he is going to spend 12 months overseas then you are foolish. That sort of stuff is a manager getting frustrated and thinking out loud when it's better they keep their mouth shut. Personally i am not fussed where Stringer goes i just find your logic doesn't compute from what i can see.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I don't think 25 and 30 is that bad an offer, especially when it was 24 and 29 before the AFL magicked up a pick 19 for their beloved GC.
It just happens that the Dogs don't want two more second rounders due to list space, and no one wants to part with a first, even in the teens.

Perhaps the Dogs just need to look at creating that extra list space, as out of two second rounders, you can usually net a good player.

My point is that the Dogs don't need to be losers here. Take these picks to the draft and get a good player, heck maybe even too. They have created this scenario where if they don't get a first round pick they have lost. It doesn't have to be so.

The problem at this stage of the year is clubs have most players contracted it's not that easy to free up list spots late in the piece. But you make some sense on the rest.