Stringer Trade Worth

[soupman]

I had an argument (on Twitter) with Rohan Connolly an Essendon supporter on exactly this. He was rating the best trades and said Essendon's trade was one of the best for the trade period. I argued you need to look at the reason why we traded 25 and 30 and the final outcome as you point out. His argument was, well I am looking at it from Essendon's point of view. I said we never would have done that trade if it wasn't for the end outcome.

Tbf I'm with him. They got an absolute steal. Luckily for us, we got Schache as a steal also, so overall our trade works out well.

[bornadog]

Tbf I'm with him. They got an absolute steal. Luckily for us, we got Schache as a steal also, so overall our trade works out well.

You are missing the point, you can't look at a trade in isolation.

[ledge]

Essendon supporter looking at it from Essendons point of view kind of defeats the article.
Every club says they did the best but in reality no one knows until the players get on the park for a couple of years.
Like the Griffen / Boyd trade , we were hammered for that but the end result has proved we won that trade easily.
Would like the journos to admit they were wrong but it will never happen, Because when they get it wrong they move into another story

[jeemak]

I had an argument (on Twitter) with Rohan Connolly an Essendon supporter on exactly this. He was rating the best trades and said Essendon's trade was one of the best for the trade period. I argued you need to look at the reason why we traded 25 and 30 and the final outcome as you point out. His argument was, well I am looking at it from Essendon's point of view. I said we never would have done that trade if it wasn't for the end outcome.

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.

[ledge]

Let's wait and see what's better, the players we traded in for him and his career from now.

[soupman]

You are missing the point, you can't look at a trade in isolation.

But isn't that the point of ranking/rating the trades, to judge each in isolation?

If he was assessing it club by club then his Western Bulldogs assessment should read "Did well to turn Stringer and picks into Shcache and picks", if he is judging it on individual trades it'll read "Two mediocre second round picks for an AA 22 year old with fixable off field issues".

Fwiw it was a great trade from them, and everyone here should agree because we all thought/think he was worth a top 10 pick. And you can't claim off field issues affect the price we supporters put on him because we knew all of them aside from his shithouse taste in tatts before we all decided he was worth that top 10 pick.

Luckily the club has recovered and managed to turn what we could get for him into something quite decent in return.

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

[LostDoggy]

But isn't that the point of ranking/rating the trades, to judge each in isolation?

If he was assessing it club by club then his Western Bulldogs assessment should read "Did well to turn Stringer and picks into Shcache and picks", if he is judging it on individual trades it'll read "Two mediocre second round picks for an AA 22 year old with fixable off field issues".

Fwiw it was a great trade from them, and everyone here should agree because we all thought/think he was worth a top 10 pick. And you can't claim off field issues affect the price we supporters put on him because we knew all of them aside from his shithouse taste in tatts before we all decided he was worth that top 10 pick.

Luckily the club has recovered and managed to turn what we could get for him into something quite decent in return.

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

Even if we look at the trade in isolation, it's too early to call it a great trade by Essendon. On hs best form, of course it is, but he has been off his best form for quite a long time. He clearly has personal issues which have impacted his capacity and team morale. We have decided his negatives outweigh his potential and taken him to market, most clubs havve chosen not to take any interest. If EFC have failed to do a thorough due diligence and Stringer is degenerative, then they have clearly paid massive overs.

[bulldogtragic]

Perhaps a chess anology should be adopted. In the words of Training Day's Detective Alonso Harris, 'the shit's chess, it ain't checkers'. You can give up your bishop or knight, and that's bad. However, if giving it up opens up a move on the opposing queen, then it's great a move. You only know the value of the move as things unfold. Clearly our club was happy to dangle out a (theoretical) key piece, which was taken off the board. However, we used that sacrifice to move on a key piece of an opponent (#2 draft KPF) and improve a rook-ie. Both things happened can be both good to the clubs, or both bad, I don't see it in a myopic winning or losing party to the trade. Certainly before both clubs have seen their new recruits for an extended part of the season. What we did do was wash the infection off our chess board, an important part of the move.

[bornadog]

with fixable off field issues".

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

Fixable is debatable. The club tried for almost two years, but it didn't happen. He has major off field issues which will be hard to fix.

On field - as others have said, he has not captured the AA form for some time now. Besides the off field issues, perhaps he has been worked out by the opposition and he has no solution.

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.

As for a ripper trade, well time will tell how he goes - you can't say it is a ripper trade yet.

PS: Once players leave the club, I don't give two hoots about them and don't wish them well - couldn't give a stuff.

[Webby]

But isn't that the point of ranking/rating the trades, to judge each in isolation?

If he was assessing it club by club then his Western Bulldogs assessment should read "Did well to turn Stringer and picks into Shcache and picks", if he is judging it on individual trades it'll read "Two mediocre second round picks for an AA 22 year old with fixable off field issues".

Fwiw it was a great trade from them, and everyone here should agree because we all thought/think he was worth a top 10 pick. And you can't claim off field issues affect the price we supporters put on him because we knew all of them aside from his shithouse taste in tatts before we all decided he was worth that top 10 pick.

Luckily the club has recovered and managed to turn what we could get for him into something quite decent in return.

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

I agree with this. I thought he was worth a top tenner. We turned it around by rolling up into Schache.
I do hope Stringer ends up back in the Bendigo league within three years.. Just being honest..

[merantau]

PS: Once players leave the club, I don't give two hoots about them and don't wish them well - couldn't give a stuff.

I'm with you 100% on this Bad. I only care that they play very badly against us or, play a role in defeating a team we need to lose. Other than that I couldn't care less and in Stringer's I care less than less. He had the world at his feet and trashed it.

[Twodogs]

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. [B]They really can drink the Kool-Aid those EFC supporters.[/B

Of course they do, they aren't Essendon supporters because they love footy or Essendon. They are Essendon supporters because they want to be the first nong head to break into Watch the Bombers Fly Up on the train on the way back to Mulgrave or Coldstream or Carnegie. They know nothing about football outside of what Rohan Connelly or Patrick Smith tell them to think.

But isn't that the point of ranking/rating the trades, to judge each in isolation?

If he was assessing it club by club then his Western Bulldogs assessment should read "Did well to turn Stringer and picks into Shcache and picks", if he is judging it on individual trades it'll read "Two mediocre second round picks for an AA 22 year old with fixable off field issues".

Fwiw it was a great trade from them, and everyone here should agree because we all thought/think he was worth a top 10 pick. And you can't claim off field issues affect the price we supporters put on him because we knew all of them aside from his shithouse taste in tatts before we all decided he was worth that top 10 pick.

Luckily the club has recovered and managed to turn what we could get for him into something quite decent in return.

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can it be a ripper trade if it doesn't work out?

[soupman]

Fixable is debatable. The club tried for almost two years, but it didn't happen. He has major off field issues which will be hard to fix.

On field - as others have said, he has not captured the AA form for some time now. Besides the off field issues, perhaps he has been worked out by the opposition and he has no solution.

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.

As for a ripper trade, well time will tell how he goes - you can't say it is a ripper trade yet.

PS: Once players leave the club, I don't give two hoots about them and don't wish them well - couldn't give a stuff.

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.

[jeemak]

But isn't that the point of ranking/rating the trades, to judge each in isolation?

If he was assessing it club by club then his Western Bulldogs assessment should read "Did well to turn Stringer and picks into Shcache and picks", if he is judging it on individual trades it'll read "Two mediocre second round picks for an AA 22 year old with fixable off field issues".

Fwiw it was a great trade from them, and everyone here should agree because we all thought/think he was worth a top 10 pick. And you can't claim off field issues affect the price we supporters put on him because we knew all of them aside from his shithouse taste in tatts before we all decided he was worth that top 10 pick.

Luckily the club has recovered and managed to turn what we could get for him into something quite decent in return.

It's still a ripper trade for Essendon, even if it doesn't work out. At least based on risk vs reward. Of course we won't know the true value of it for years, but on face value it's a great trade by the Bombers.

I definitely understand this point of view and it being a great trade for EFC also doesn't mean it was a loss for us (which isn't how I'm saying you believe it to be). Many think trade period is an adversarial exercise clubs engage in, the media reports it as such - but it really isn't.

[soupman]

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can it be a ripper trade if it doesn't work out?

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.