Recommitted Josh Dunkley [contracted and staying at the Western Bulldogs]

[Lore]

2020 discussion here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-requested-a-trade-to-essendon.1250264/unread

*2021 discussion here*

 

[owen87]

Every chance this is just another dodo error to add to his long list of errors.

I haven't seen too many Essendon supporters upset that he didn't offer what the Bulldogs asked.

Any complaints have been that it got to the point that Dunkley (his manager at least) came out and requested a trade yet it didn't get done.

Though given recent years have seen a number of these events happening - Gibbs, Papley, Daniher spring to mind - it might be something we see an increasing amount of.

 

[Bulldogs85]

I get the sense the Bulldogs simply weren't going to trade Dunkley unless an irresponsible offer landed at the feet.

Don't know why people are still so upset by it, it's the nature of professional sport.

you will find a lot of us bulldogs supporters are over the moon that we kept Dunkley. Let’s hope he is happy next year and signs a extension

 

[Hoges64]

Shiel & Neale were both still under contract, and had more proven history than Dunkley. The offer was quite a reasonable one given on form Neale & Shiel were more valuable players yet Dunkley attracted a trade offer on par with those two, and that Dunkley appeared to have been pushed out of the middle by other players.

The anomaly is the first time in history NGA player in JUH, meaning the clubs weren't dealing in the same currency.



A number of people really are. You may not be one of them, but there's plenty still posting about it that get quite worked up.

Both may have been under contract but both were actively looking to move clubs and both were in THE LAST YEAR of their contracts, at which point they would have hit free agency, so that dilutes trade value. The only real reason Dunkley "nominated" in the end is because of the wheelbarrow of cash Dodo threw at him (which we can't blame either party for...)

And I and others have mentioned multiple times why Dunkley "appeared to have been pushed out of the middle".

So again, the anomaly is NOT the NGA, but contract / free agency status and actively looking to move clubs.

 

[owen87]

So again, the anomaly is NOT the NGA, but contract / free agency status and actively looking to move clubs.

Ok. If you don't think the NGA player likely to go at Pick 1 was any influence then there's not much else I can say.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

The only real reason Dunkley "nominated" in the end is because of the wheelbarrow of cash Dodo threw at him (which we can't blame either party for...)

It’s not really a wheelbarrow full of cash. 650-700k is market value for a starting midfielder rotation.

 

[Hoges64]

Ok. If you don't think the NGA player likely to go at Pick 1 was any influence then there's not much else I can say.

It's a factor, but nowhere near as big as you think. We'd have still requested "two good firsts" regardless of JUH.

It’s not really a wheelbarrow full of cash. 650-700k is market value for a starting midfielder rotation.

It's a wheelbarrow of cash compared to what he's on right now.

 

[owen87]

It's a factor, but nowhere near as big as you think. We'd have still requested "two good firsts" regardless of JUH.

I think it would have drastically shifted the likelihood of it getting done personally.

They may still have simply refused to trade Dunkley regardless.

 

[Virgin Dog]

I guess offering the same currency as what Dylan Shiel or Lachie Neale was traded for isn't serious.

Makes sense.

Shiel was not worth anywhere near the price paid for him, and even then Dodo didn't offer as much for Dunkley.

Neale was traded with 30 for 6 + 19. That's significantly more than the offer for Dunkley. And Neale only had 1 year left on his contract, was free agent the following year (which Dunkley wasn't), and hadn't necessarily proven to be any better at the point of being traded.

Dodo himself said he wouldn't have accepted the offer he made, so saying it wasn't a serious offer is not exactly a controversial statement to make.

 

[owen87]

That's significantly more than the offer for Dunkley.

even then Dodo didn't offer as much for Dunkley.

Untrue. Work out the value of all three reported trades and you get the approximate equivalent of ~ Pick 3. Of course, the Dunkley trade suggestions are only reported so we don't know whether there was additional components.

Dodo himself said he wouldn't have accepted the offer he made, so saying it wasn't a serious offer is not exactly a controversial statement to make.

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I think with some creativity we could have managed the trade. Trade future first pick for Dunkley during trade period and then live trade on the night trade our two first rounders for that future pick + third rounder after the bid for JUH. Requires an element of trust that might not exist between the clubs or trust the AFL to let it pass.

 

[owen87]

I think with some creativity we could have managed the trade. Trade future first pick for Dunkley during trade period and then live trade on the night trade our two first rounders for that future pick + third rounder after the bid for JUH. Requires an element of trust that might not exist between the clubs or trust the AFL to let it pass.

Didn't they ban trading out & in the same selection in the same year after Sydney did it a few years back?

 

[Virgin Dog]

Untrue. Work out the value of all three reported trades and you get the approximate equivalent of ~ Pick 3. Of course, the Dunkley trade suggestions are only reported so we don't know whether there was additional components.



This doesn't mean what you think it means.

Our collection of 2nd and 3rd rounders used to match JUH were worth more than Pick 2 according to the draft points, doesn't mean it's the same value. Two 1st rounders for Neale/Shiel and 2nd is clearly a better valuation than 1st and 2nd for Dunkley, especially considering the 1st needed to be moved on which would've devalued it even further. The offer for Dunkley was awful

 

[Virgin Dog]

Didn't they ban trading out & in the same selection in the same year after Sydney did it a few years back?

They only banned live trading back and forth. If the first trade happened prior to draft, then traded back during the draft, it would've been within the rules.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

They only banned live trading back and forth. If the first trade happened prior to draft, then traded back during the draft, it would've been within the rules.

That’s my understanding as well.

“A club may not trade away a selection with another club for a later selection, use that later selection to counter a bid on one of their Academy players and then once that player is secured, trade in a selection with that same club to receive a higher selection in the national draft order,” an AFL spokesperson confirmed to foxfooty.com.au.

That’s the only quote I’ve found about the rule but what later is is unclear in relation to future picks in the same round.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

I get the sense the Bulldogs simply weren't going to trade Dunkley unless an irresponsible offer landed at the feet.

Don't know why people are still so upset by it, it's the nature of professional sport.

Another club in the same situation, I would venture any other club, would have sat down and assessed the options before getting a player to nominate them. If you can't get the trade done this year, for whatever reason, then you park it in your back pocket for next year. You then spend that year shoring up the relationship with the player and working the angles to nail down something acceptable as a trade. This would be happening all the time. We all know "club X is into player Y big time" sort of news that quite often doesn't happen for a year or two.

This appears to have gone further for some reason and hung Dunkley out to dry while Dodoro puts up an offer that he admitted he wouldn't have taken. A couple of options why that has happened:
1. Essendon put up unders in the vague hope that the Bulldogs might just decide to get rid of a disloyal player for peanuts... yeah, right.
2. Dodoro's ego.
3. ... I can't think of any others, can you?

Anyway, this thread is to discuss Dunkley's potential worth in trade, not to engage with the Dodoro fanboys. I just think that Essendon have blown their chance to get Dunkley.

 

[boncer34]

Another club in the same situation, I would venture any other club, would have sat down and assessed the options before getting a player to nominate them. If you can't get the trade done this year, for whatever reason, then you park it in your back pocket for next year. You then spend that year shoring up the relationship with the player and working the angles to nail down something acceptable as a trade. This would be happening all the time. We all know "club X is into player Y big time" sort of news that quite often doesn't happen for a year or two.

This appears to have gone further for some reason and hung Dunkley out to dry while Dodoro puts up an offer that he admitted he wouldn't have taken. A couple of options why that has happened:
1. Essendon put up unders in the vague hope that the Bulldogs might just decide to get rid of a disloyal player for peanuts... yeah, right.
2. Dodoro's ego.
3. ... I can't think of any others, can you?

Anyway, this thread is to discuss Dunkley's potential worth in trade, not to engage with the Dodoro fanboys. I just think that Essendon have blown their chance to get Dunkley.

Adelaide, Sydney, Carlton.

All have made plays at players, all have failed to go and get the trade done.

So can we say any other club but those 3?

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Adelaide, Sydney, Carlton.

All have made plays at players, all have failed to go and get the trade done.

So can we say any other club but those 3?

Different circumstances - those players publicly "wanted out". Essendon has just flagged to the rest of the competition that Dunkley is very gettable.

 

[owen87]

Different circumstances - those players publicly "wanted out". Essendon has just flagged to the rest of the competition that Dunkley is very gettable.

It's only different to you because Essendon though.

Just another poster who wants to go on and on about Dodoro it seems, whilst pretending otherwise.

 

[boncer34]

Different circumstances - those players publicly "wanted out". Essendon has just flagged to the rest of the competition that Dunkley is very gettable.

Oh ok.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

It's only different to you because Essendon though.

Just another poster who wants to go on and on about Dodoro it seems, whilst pretending otherwise.

Merely pointing out that Essendon is likely off Dunkley's radar now, because they burnt him... then the Dodo fanboys run in to tell us to leave him alone. Anyway, quite right old boy, discuss Dunkley's trade value.

 

[owen87]

Merely pointing out that Essendon is likely off Dunkley's radar now, because they burnt him... then the Dodo fanboys run in to tell us to leave him alone. Anyway, quite right old boy, discuss Dunkley's trade value.

You're assuming he's burnt because the trade didn't get done, yet that also assumes Essendon were the ones who told his management to come out and publicly request a trade.

Essendon offered trade value similar to what Shiel & Neale were both traded for under contract, I doubt his management are sitting there thinking they didn't put forward a reasonable offer.

So I'd say Dunkley's value is around that mark.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Oh ok.

If you can't see the difference between a player wanting out, wanting "to go home", etc. and a club having to scramble to try and make that happen, and Essendon talking Dunkley into requesting a trade out of the blue without having the currency, or will, to get it done, then there's little hope for you.

 

[TheGrizz]

It's just logical though, isn't it? Bombres got Josh Dunkley to nominate them, putting himself out there publicly and having to answer questions about why he wanted to leave the Doggies. Which led to more questions... "So, what's actually wrong with the culture then?"... and made him look either a bit precious, or like a mercenary. Then Essendon just left him hanging without even a serious offer for the Dogs to consider.

Burning Bridges 101 with Professor Dodoro - This subject introduces students to the fundamentals of the burning of bridges, using a problem-based learning approach that focuses on extensive use of examples from practice and detailed case studies. Three essential themes are used to cover the course material: overview of appropriate structural forms for bridge burning; fuel load and burn rate analysis models/methods for designing burning and quantifying structural behaviour; and state-of-the-art technologies in bridge burning and destruction. The course material has been developed jointly by specialist bridge burners from the Centre for Destroyed Infrastructure.
In addition, students will discover three tried and true methods to thoroughly burn your bridges:
1. The "bend them over when you don't have to sell" approach that allows you to hold assets even though they really want to leave.
2. The "two firsts for a fringe".
3. The "get them to nominate us, then offer their club peanuts".

Wow, that post must have used a lot of triggered effort. Kudos.

Shame it doesnt at all answer my question at all.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

You're assuming he's burnt because the trade didn't get done, yet that also assumes Essendon were the ones who told his management to come out and publicly request a trade.

Essendon offered trade value similar to what Shiel & Neale were both traded for under contract, I doubt his management are sitting there thinking they didn't put forward a reasonable offer.

So I'd say Dunkley's value is around that mark.

Its a reasonable assumption to make that Essendon conspired with his management to orchestrate the ham-fisted media campaign designed to burn his bridges at the Dogs. One that included but was not restricted to his cringe inducing airport doorstop, so as to get Dunkley to request a trade when your initial offer was turned down as inadequate.

Why would the Bulldogs care about precedence, what you, Dunkley's management or what Essendon thought was his fair value or a reasonable offer?

They were under no obligation trade Dunkley nor treat your offer fairly.

 

[owen87]

They were under no obligation trade Dunkley nor treat your offer fairly.

Right. Which is what I've been saying for weeks now.

Bulldogs didn't want to trade him, nor did they need to. So they didn't.

Why it has inspired weeks of ongoing comment since then when fundamentally they simply didn't want to trade him, so the offer was always irrelevant, is beyond me.