I don’t see us looking at free agents, we will be hitting the draft in 17.
1 Like
Apparently the rules allow you to do both.
1 Like
Yep, I really cannot see us showing interest in free agents at all.
What is happening over the next couple of years is we will be seeing our +30 yr old stars retire.
I think we will consider facilitating trades for blokes +26 years old that would like to move on.
The youngsters remaining and those locked in on long contracts will then see where they end up.
When we get into finals, then you’ll see us re-enter the free agent market to try and find that boost for a flag.
Wut??
Mark Murphy & Lindsay Thomas are both UFA’s ???
Depends how ruthless we are. If the club takes the view that the best chance of a flag is the group of players Heppel and down, then there is plenty of value with players older than Heppel. The dogs trade out Griffen at 28 to get Boyd which was way more ruthless than Essendon has ever been,
To be serious though, the Bulldogs might have something worth looking at, … and fk knows we owe them one …
3 Likes
BRING IN LIBBA AND DUSTY
2 Likes
Yeah your right I meant I believe our focus will be the draft I don’t see us going after mature players, nor drafting for players.
I’d be more interested in Dahlhaus Wallis & Roughead myself.
People should realise that not everybody is as mercenary as themselves, and plenty of players will stay at their original clubs for other reasons than money.
2 Likes
On mentioning that simpkin re-signed. there was talk further up the thread about targeting him for after his 2 years are up.
Griffen demanded a trade while under contract. It wasn’t ruthless by the dogs.
1 Like
fat chance Libba (or Wallis even) would leave the club that their fathers played for and in Libba’s case… won a premiership at.
Think your right. I’d completely forgotten that.
If that happens whoever is in charge of list strategy should be immediately fired for incompetence.
Dogs did not expect Griffen to want to up and leave. But they’d been into Boyd for ages, would have tried to trade for him but not with their captain.
In the end Dogs actually paid a fortune for Boyd, was Griffin (part of his salary also) and pick 6… and Boyd’s massive pay packet.
They won the flag and he could have been Norm smith so I guess they could say validated. His $1mil a year will never be worth it comparing against Buddy’s output however, no flag for Swans yet though with him there.
At pick 6 they were also looking at picking Peter Wright… Had Boyd deal fallen through and I expect it would have with no star player going back their way. Then Dogs would have gotten whatever GWS paid for Griffen, and a player who arguably could have provided them exactly as Boyd has for tenth of cost.
3 Likes
the Boyd deal has been validated by the Doggies winning a premiership and it was the correct deal, regardless of his future performances for the rest of his contract. There should not be any arguments about this.
They won their second premiership in history, and Boyd was probably the difference in winning both the Preliminary final and Grand Final. It looked like a shocking deal, but ended up being a master stroke to winning a premiership.
Edit: The money argument is null and void now. They paid the money and it might cause them issues in the future, but it won them a premiership so it’s justified.
5 Likes
We traded out in 2015 and 2016, so clearly we didn’t.
And I’d do it again, 1 more year.
Boyd had a good game in the GF and thats about it for his career up until now. Most of his good work in gf came in the ruck. He still struggles as a forward.
His current standing in the game is overrated.
2 Likes
Boyd will always be worth it to the dogs.
They got their first in a long long long time.
who gives a ■■■■ about the future when they’ve had a drought for that long.
2 Likes