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

Remove this Banner Ad

threenewpadlocks

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2012
11,092
14,345
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
49,335
54,045
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
49,335
54,045
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
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

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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
 

the Ziebull

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
49,335
54,045
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
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

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
49,335
54,045
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2010
21,682
17,843
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
 

adogsfan5

Club Legend
Jun 12, 2020
2,062
3,325
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
 

Hoges64

Premiership Player
May 20, 2014
3,038
3,934
Droop St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal!
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad