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

Remove this Banner Ad

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,852
19,395
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
I can't be bothered looking for it, but Dodoro confirmed what Bulldogs wanted. Essendon wanted to give 7 and a future second. Bulldogs wanted the future first instead of the future second. That's why the deal fell through.

7 & 8 is still ridiculously overs and there's no way Dunkley is worth that, but saying it was two of Cox, Perkins and Reid for Dunkley is inaccurate, even if all three become stars and Dunkley doesn't.

It's one of those 3 and our future first. I'm really not going to go into circles about this. It's done.
 

Northernsoul74

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2016
8,398
11,540
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yeah, you did. You wanted pick 8 + our future 1st. Dodoro confirmed this.
So isn’t everyone agreeing with the North poster? His point was Essendon weren’t willing to part with any combination of 2 good firsts despite having 3 this year and 1 next. The only way to currently objectively judge is 2 of those players vs Dunkley. No one knows where Essendon finish next year but there are some very average teams around that bottom half.
We wanted next years first once it dragged into the second week and you were still offering just 8, we were running out of time to do much with this years firsts.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Northernsoul74

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2016
8,398
11,540
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I can't be bothered looking for it, but Dodoro confirmed what Bulldogs wanted. Essendon wanted to give 7 and a future second. Bulldogs wanted the future first instead of the future second. That's why the deal fell through.

7 & 8 is still ridiculously overs and there's no way Dunkley is worth that, but saying it was two of Cox, Perkins and Reid for Dunkley is inaccurate, even if all three become stars and Dunkley doesn't.

It's one of those 3 and our future first. I'm really not going to go into circles about this. It's done.
Yep because 7 and a future second isn’t 2 good firsts which was the price. It could never have happened and I have no idea why it’s still being discussed. I might thread ban myself.
 

Lore

Moderator ❀
Dec 14, 2015
21,649
27,507
AFL Club
Essendon
Yep because 7 and a future second isn’t 2 good firsts which was the price. It could never have happened and I have no idea why it’s still being discussed. I might thread ban myself.
At the start of trade period your list manager told radio that the price was two good firsts, and then refused to comment on what the actual deal was after the trade period was done.

According to Essendon’s list manager, yours told Essendon your final ask was their future first round pick as part of the deal, which they weren’t willing to part with.

Iirc the “ITKs” were saying Collingwood’s future first wasn’t good enough, which is why you wanted to separate the deal from Treloar, and that any firsts this year weren’t acceptable.
 
Last edited:

Bulldogs85

Club Legend
Sep 25, 2016
1,372
2,309
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yep because 7 and a future second isn’t 2 good firsts which was the price. It could never have happened and I have no idea why it’s still being discussed. I might thread ban myself.
seems only Essendon supporters still want to discuss a Trade that was never going to happen. Over the moon that Sam power said two first rounders is the price and stuck to it
 

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Jul 11, 2005
49,335
54,045
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
seems only Essendon supporters still want to discuss a Trade that was never going to happen. Over the moon that Sam power said two first rounders is the price and stuck to it
Thread was bumped by a North poster.
 

Boyd oh Boyd

Premium Platinum
Nov 29, 2018
1,121
2,019
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
At the start of trade period your list manager told radio that the price was two good firsts, and then refused to comment on what the actual deal was after the trade period was done.

According to Essendon’s list manager, yours told Essendon your final ask was their future first round pick as part of the deal, which they weren’t willing to part with.

Iirc the “ITKs” were saying Collingwood’s future first wasn’t good enough, which is why you wanted to separate the deal from Treloar, and that any firsts this year weren’t acceptable.
We wanted to seperate from the 3-way deal because we could get Treloar done for much cheaper.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad