Stringer Trade Worth

[GVGjr]

The ‘and change’ is shorthand for and something or someone else.

My view is Dodoro would back us into folding at 19 plus a player. While they plunder the trade period.

This is why Ive been saying for a week take him off the table. Our focus needs to be on other things.

Plough just proposed something similar to yours. He's obviously reading the works of the real list manager
He suggested that Essendon trade picks 11 and 28 to GC for picks 19, 22 and Saad.
Essendon would then ship off picks 19 for Stringer and 22 for Smith.

I think Essendon would need to send a player like Francis to GC to make it work though

[GVGjr]

Wrong thread possibly - but is anyone else annoyed that Essendon appear to be a "destination club" with the likes of Saad, Smith and Stringer wanting to be traded there whilst we couldn't attract anyone after a Premiership last year and still seem to be struggling this season?

Annoyed that we haven't been after Saad and will be annoyed if Hawthorn win Impey's services over us.

What are we doing and why can't we attract talent without overpaying? The odd few like Trengove excluded.

It's perplexing. Something doesn't add up

[Rocket Science]

It's perplexing. Something doesn't add up

Might it suggest something about our playing group and cliques therein?

Who the hell wouldn't want to play for Bevo and alongside the Bont?

[Ozza]

It can only be salary cap cheating. It's not possible.

None of Saad, Smith or Stringer would be on huge money. I doubt it would be too big an issue. I don't think any Essendon players are on mega-money. They even secured Daniher for around $700K.

[LongWait]

It's perplexing. Something doesn't add up

Money talks. Essendon probably has a large amount of uncommitted cash to splash. It may have as much as three quarters of the collective bargaining agreement Cap increase not tied up in automatic contract increases (so say $1.5M) plus Watson's salary (reported to be a $900k final year of a back ended contract) giving them a war chest of $2.4M. They can't spend all of it on new players, as they will have some current players whose 2018 will be more than their 2017 but there could easily be $1.5M or more uncommitted money there.

[Bulldog4life]

Someone just text into Sen saying they just chatted to Jake and no way is he coming back to the dogs, anonymous but was pretty solid about it.
Just after both commentators said they thought he would stay.

I take callers in to SEN, especially anonymous ones, with the biggest grain of salt I can find.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Money talks. Essendon probably has a large amount of uncommitted cash to splash. It may have as much as three quarters of the collective bargaining agreement Cap increase not tied up in automatic contract increases (so say $1.5M) plus Watson's salary (reported to be a $900k final year of a back ended contract) giving them a war chest of $2.4M. They can't spend all of it on new players, as they will have some current players whose 2018 will be more than their 2017 but there could easily be $1.5M or more uncommitted money there.

We should have plenty of money ourselves given the retirements of Boyd and Murphy, the money 'leftover' from trying to attain Hurley (800K?) plus Stringer's salary, but we haven't even been in the conversation for a player like Saad who is exactly the type of player that we need.

This is a crucial trade/draft period for us. We didn't capitalise on last year's success in any capacity and appear to be falling behind others at an alarming rate. If we buckle to Essendon and accept anything less than Pick 11, then I want questions to be asked and jobs to be challenged.

[jeemak]

We should have plenty of money ourselves given the retirements of Boyd and Murphy, the money 'leftover' from trying to attain Hurley (800K?) plus Stringer's salary, but we haven't even been in the conversation for a player like Saad who is exactly the type of player that we need.

This is a crucial trade/draft period for us. We didn't capitalise on last year's success in any capacity and appear to be falling behind others at an alarming rate. If we buckle to Essendon and accept anything less than Pick 11, then I want questions to be asked and jobs to be challenged.

I think we're overly bullish about our list, the development it has in front of it and what it can achieve. Such a mindset would result in us not pursuing opportunities with the zeal others might. On the one hand we won a premiership largely with what we have (now minus Hamling and Boyd), on the other we're seeing teams around us develop while we've regressed. We are seemingly taking steps to resolve the loss of Hamling - a year too late - and it will be interesting to see what else we do given we've probably got Boyd covered.

It's a massive roll of the dice play, if it backfires we'll look pretty silly.

I agree with you that anything less than pick 11 for Stringer should be rejected. Sure, everything's negotiable, but with a second rounder tabled we'd want to get an exceptionally good sweetener to accompany it. I'm not sure EFC have anything we would consider.

[Topdog]

Plough just proposed something similar to yours. He's obviously reading the works of the real list manager
He suggested that Essendon trade picks 11 and 28 to GC for picks 19, 22 and Saad.
Essendon would then ship off picks 19 for Stringer and 22 for Smith.

I think Essendon would need to send a player like Francis to GC to make it work though

Wait doesn't that value Saad at nothing at all?

[bulldogtragic]

I think we're overly bullish about our list, the development it has in front of it and what it can achieve. Such a mindset would result in us not pursuing opportunities with the zeal others might. On the one hand we won a premiership largely with what we have (now minus Hamling and Boyd), on the other we're seeing teams around us develop while we've regressed. We are seemingly taking steps to resolve the loss of Hamling - a year too late - and it will be interesting to see what else we do given we've probably got Boyd covered.

It's a massive roll of the dice play, if it backfires we'll look pretty silly.

I agree with you that anything less than pick 11 for Stringer should be rejected. Sure, everything's negotiable, but with a second rounder tabled we'd want to get an exceptionally good sweetener to accompany it. I'm not sure EFC have anything we would consider.

I checked out last years second rounders on their list (talented, possibly gettable, fans wouldn’t miss as didn’t see much of them), Ridley was taken just after English. Then Begley later on in the second round. Would come down to Dalrymples assessment of either. The sweetener would want to be sweet to consider less than 11.

[GVGjr]

Wait doesn't that value Saad at nothing at all?

Essendon would be giving up 2006 points, GC 1893 valuing Saad at 113 points. Despite the sensitivities of getting him back to Victoria he is a contracted player so there needs to be a bit of a premium paid. Essendon need to give a player to GC perhaps Francis

[Topdog]

Essendon would be giving up 2006 points, GC 1893 valuing Saad at 113 points. Despite the sensitivities of getting him back to Victoria he is a contracted player so there needs to be a bit of a premium paid. Essendon need to give a player to GC perhaps Francis

Yep which is equal to pick 62. Would want to be one heck of a sweetener, Francis wouldn't be enough IMO

[GVGjr]

Yep which is equal to pick 62. Would want to be one heck of a sweetener, Francis wouldn't be enough IMO

The way I look at it is Francis might play 8 senior games with Essendon but Saad would play 20 for Essendon. Francis would probably play 12 to 15 games for GC. I think you're right but in the scheme of proposed trades at least GC aren't getting ripped that much in this scenario

[always right]

Might it suggest something about our playing group and cliques therein?

Who the hell wouldn't want to play for Bevo and alongside the Bont?

I think it says more about most players wanting g to go to big clubs and play in front of big crowds.

[Sedat]

Money talks. Essendon probably has a large amount of uncommitted cash to splash. It may have as much as three quarters of the collective bargaining agreement Cap increase not tied up in automatic contract increases (so say $1.5M) plus Watson's salary (reported to be a $900k final year of a back ended contract) giving them a war chest of $2.4M. They can't spend all of it on new players, as they will have some current players whose 2018 will be more than their 2017 but there could easily be $1.5M or more uncommitted money there.

Plus all the player wages not actually in the cap and instead in the 'players compensation' column