Stringer Trade Worth

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The whole trading thing aside, Stringer is overrated.

Consistently fails on the big stage and in tight contests. The only 2 he has played well was v Hawks in the SF and v Port at AO.

He has huge flaws in his game and whilst he still has great ability, his refusal to do the basics well will see him struggle against top sides in big games. Little things like keeping the ball in front of you, taking body contact, applying defensive pressure, providing space/direction for others etc.

He'll have his moments, he'll dominate some woeful clubs like Gold Coast and kick 6, but when the whips are cracking and bodies are left and right Jake will always be found wanting.

[bornadog]

Every problem is fixable, at least at the start. Not saying it's a guarantee, but it's a chance.

I'm sure you, like everyone else here, thought even with everything we already knew that he was worth a top ten pick, and would have scoffed at the suggestion that Essendon would get him for two mediocre 2nd round picks.

They got him for well under value, and it's ok to concede that. It doesn't mean we lost. And as for waiting to see how he turns out for them, well regardless it's a good trade.

They got a player that has the ability to be a top 20 player in the league, and even if he doesn't improve on his last two years of form at all will probably still manage 30-40 goals in their attacking lineup. And they got that by trading away two picks that each have less than a 50-50 shot of being anything more than fringe players. Of course it's a good trade.

Besides, the "we will just have to wait and see" approach is hardly going to be in an article ranking trades that happened last month, and is usually only muttered by supporters who think they've gotten the raw end of the deal, at least on face value, and are just hoping the cards fall their way.

My point is they only got him for those picks because we turned it into 16 plus Schache. If we didn’t get those then it wouldn’t happen

[jeemak]

My my point is they only got him for those picks because we turned it into 16 plus Schache. If we didn’t get those then it wouldn’t happen

That's the unknown.

The company line is we would have kept him could we not turn the EFC picks into something. I think they probably called our bluff and we were incredibly grateful the situation Brisbane were in.

[Hotdog60]

Let's just hope at the end of the Home and Away the Bumbers have Jake on a tally of 35 goals and we have Schache on a tally of 70.
We can make the call then.

[MrMahatma]

[QUOTE=bornadog;586919]

At the luncheon I attended the other day, a supporter asked Susan Alberti what went wrong in 2017, she put the sole blame on him.


So Stringer made Libba come back out of shape?

[Sedat]

You're all missing the point here - Essendon ALWAYS wins trade week. Please stick to the AFL narrative

[comrade]

Not to mention the goal of getting someone we considered to be poison out of our club.

Journalists and commentators don't earn their money by taking a reasoned approach to these discussions, and like a lot of supporters, look at individual trades in isolation from the bigger club objective.

We'll see if indeed it's as good a trade after some water goes under the bridge. I was talking to an Essendon supporter on the weekend and it was clear that he thought Stringer was going to be completely amazing for them. I asked about the rumours and stated facts surrounding his poor behaviour, and he didn't think it was an issue as long as he makes their team better. I asked about Stringer's inability to cope with body contact unless he instigates it and he didn't think that was an issue either. Nor was the fact he hasn't improved at all in the basics such as ball handling and kicking, or in his defensive acts.

As far as he could tell, having Stringer around was all upside. They really can drink the Kool-Aid those EFC supporters.

Yep, the best thing about our Jake Stringer trade is Jake Stringer is no longer at the club. That's a massive win for us.

[comrade]

Because they got their target for much less than the other club wanted and much less than what he's worth. That's excellent trading.

If we had've traded Nathan Hrovat last year for pick 11 that would've been a ripper trade on our behalf, even if we used pick 11 on a dud.

So if Stringer is a catalyst for the Essendon playing list imploding, it's still a good trade because they only used 2x 2nd rounders. The reason his value was so low is because no one else wanted him, due to his off field issues.

[Bulldog Joe]

So if Stringer is a catalyst for the Essendon playing list imploding, it's still a good trade because they only used 2x 2nd rounders. The reason his value was so low is because no one else wanted him, due to his off field issues.

On face value Stringer was a good trade for Essendon, as the consensus (on WOOF) was that he was worth a top 10 pick.

That means Essendon are currently ahead in that trade and if it leads to a flag for them it will be a massive win.

However, there is potential for it to be a disaster if Stringer destabilises their playing list, as he was apparently doing to ours.

Only time will provide the answer.

[comrade]

On face value Stringer was a good trade for Essendon, as the consensus (on WOOF) was that he was worth a top 10 pick.

That means Essendon are currently ahead in that trade and if it leads to a flag for them it will be a massive win.

However, there is potential for it to be a disaster if Stringer destabilises their playing list, as he was apparently doing to ours.

Only time will provide the answer.

The consensus on WOOF means nothing.

The market proves the player's worth at the time of trade. In Stringer's case - most likely due to his off field issues and maybe his on field form - only Essendon were seriously interested.

All this thread proves - and I am 100% guilty myself - is that prior to trade week, we were biased in our opinions on his value, because we were (irrationally) hoping the club would get a deal that was over market value.

There is a reason it didn't turn out like that.

[Rocco Jones]

People too often see trades as purely win or lose.

If Stringer is destructive at Essendon, I do not see us automatically winning the trade via them 'losing'. What Stringer does from now really shouldn't effect how much we 'win' the trade. It is all about how our culture is improved from him leaving and the pieces we got from the trade.

Stinger continuing to be a douche vs our 'party boy' group not really improving/Schache/draftees not adding value= lose/lose.

Stringer returning to form and taking his second chance vs Libba and co. getting the message/Schache turning into a star= win/win.

[Rocco Jones]

Practically speaking, if Stringer is as bad as an influence as it seems, delisting him would have been a 'win'.

[Twodogs]

Because they got their target for much less than the other club wanted and much less than what he's worth. That's excellent trading.

If we had've traded Nathan Hrovat last year for pick 11 that would've been a ripper trade on our behalf, even if we used pick 11 on a dud.

I wonder if it would be possible to go back and rate every trade win/lose/draw and try and figure out if trades where clubs get multiple picks for a player come out on top.

[bornadog]

So Stringer made Libba come back out of shape?

[Rocco Jones]

I get Stringer is apparently a bad egg but really hope he isn't seen as the guy making other players doing things. There is something called self control and it's problematic to believe ridding the club of Stringer will automatically make Libba and co. ok again.