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

[Lore]

2021 discussion: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/josh-dunkley-ooc-2022-2021-thread.1252259/

*2020 discussion stays here*

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

So you're aware that they wanted a future first but are discounting it coz you "think."

Cool.

We never asked for a future, we asked for ‘2 good firsts.’

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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.

 

[boncer34]

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.

 

[boncer34]

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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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

 

[boncer34]

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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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

 

[boncer34]

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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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

 

[boncer34]

Semantics

Incorrect

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

Yes he does, so do I. It's not easier, its wrong.

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

Incorrect.

 

[the Ziebull]

Incorrect

Yes he does, so do I. It's not easier, its wrong.

Incorrect.

6 and 7 would have got the job done

dodo being dodo only wanted to give up one first rounder and change

 

[boncer34]

6 and 7 would have got the job done

Incorrect.

 

[the Ziebull]

Incorrect.

Nope

 

[boncer34]

Nope

Yep. Nice try though.

 

[JayJ20]

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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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]

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 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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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]

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.

 

[the Ziebull]

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

 

[JayJ20]

same as any big trade or non trade - 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

Alright. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. Can't say I share the same enthusiasm for something so trivial.

 

[the Ziebull]

Alright. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. Can't say I share the same enthusiasm for something so trivial.

thats fair winning finals would be trivial for your supporters i guess

insert 2014 north v dons elimination final

 

[adogsfan5]

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.

 

[boncer34]

Northernsoul74 I can only imagine your laugh reacting because you can't believe I have to explain that future picks were what the Dogs wanted and 2 firsts this year wouldn't have got it done.

 

[Hoges64]

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.