You’re dribbling crap. 11 is NOT a fair deal for Stringer on it’s own and never was.
We also didn’t keep 11 so we aren’t taking an unknown, we used it to pick a up a very high quality midfielder in Smith.
You go pick 11 straight up for Stringer, you miss out on Smith and/or Saad.
1 Like
No you don’t, you still have a second round this year and next which is around the mark.
Pick 11 is gone guys.
5 Likes
I completely disagree, time will tell.
True in this case we got Smith using 11 and as I said in isolation it was a cracking trade but again my point is if we miss Stringer as a result I don’t think we have played this successfully.
You’re right, I’m wrong.
However, I can’t see why GCS would do that. They have too many 2017 and not enough 2018 picks already.
at this point stringer is an unknown too. the dogs have tried to get him up for the past 2 seasons. with inconsistent results. theres risk with either option, but flat out saying hes worth 11 is not correct.
dodoro must think we can get the trade done if hes traded out 11. im pretty sure geelong said that mcarney wanted their pick 20 for him too. we can get him for cheaper than 11. in fact we have to now.
We disagree on his current value, fair enough. Let’s just hope we get him and we can revisit this discussion in a few years when he is dominating for us.
Then you think incorrectly.
4 Likes
If we trade our 2018 first for Stringer and a 2018 second, and one of the 2018 second’s for Saad, would we really have been dissappointed by that at the start? We’d have effectively:
Paid: #11, 2018 first, 2018 third
In: Stringer, Saad, Smith, #25, 2018 second
We’d have effectively got the three players for two first to second round pick downgrades and a third rounder! I’d have been pretty happy with that. Go into 2018 with two second rounders, and have #25, #29 and #46 in this draft. And have SSS.
No chance our 2018 first comes into play.
For two reasons. We don’t want to. And secondly we’ve already traded our 2018 3rd so can’t, as per trading rules on future picks. It’s either 1st (or any of the other picks)
I don’t think fact we have two 2018 2nds matters in that regard, especially as one will go to GC anyway
I’ve said it before but I believe Stringer is worth 11.
You can throw every reason why he isn’t but if there was an open market or any competition…
But there isn’t at the moment and what we are doing is maximising our position in the trade which I also fully support.
Would be happy with that, but would prefer to trade this years second rounder for Saad and have 3 cracks in the 2nd round in a stronger draft.
Why do people keep saying this? Its patently false. The AFL clarified the rules after the Hawthorn trade last year, and its pretty much fair game as long as you don’t weaken your hand. We’ve upgraded our 3rd to a 2nd, of course we can still trade our first.
Stringer is not without risk. His last 2 years of football are not worth anywhere near pick 11. His 2015 is worth significantly more than pick 11.
Oh, hopefully we have a better result. I’m just saying I would have thought that would get it done, so as a base position its a pretty nice base position!
Hawks didn’t give up both their future 1st and future 2nd though (as a net result)
IIRC they traded their future first, received someone else’s future 2nd, then traded their own future 2nd.
So net result is they still had a 2nd rounder this year to use which just went out for Impey
I don’t think we can trade our future 1st now without getting someone else future 3rd back since we already gave ours to GWS.
None of this comes into play until 2019. And even then its a “guide” that the AFL can grant exceptions for.
1 Like
We switched our future third for a future second, our current position is stronger than it was before the trade. Even if we apply the rule strictly, the trade only has to involve bringing in a future third and it’s all rosy.
No, it is the limits on 2 first picks every 4 years that applies from 2019.
1 Like
Is it? How do we know?