One can imagine the mood at Bulldog HQ would’ve been pretty bleak on Thursday morning when news came through that Essendon had traded pick 11 to the GWS Giants as part of a larger deal that saw Devon Smith become a Bomber.
The Western Bulldogs have taken a firm stance in the media ever since it became clear that Jake Stringer’s preferred destination in a trade was Essendon – pick 11, flat, or no dice.
Essendon have rejected that demand emphatically by trading the pick away. The Bulldogs will now have to either accept something below their asking price, or keep Stringer around for 2018 and let a growing headache fester into a chronic migraine.
From their first confirmation that Stringer was on the trade table the Bulldogs have said that for a deal to be done, it has to work for them – otherwise they will hold him to his contract, which expires at the end of 2018.
However, there are plenty who are taking that statement about as seriously as an exhausted parent’s threat to turn the car around and cancel family vacation – back to Winnipeg. I’m one of them.
It has been a pretty public falling out between the Bulldogs and Stringer. For the sake of not becoming a gossip column we won’t go into the details of what has been alleged and printed about his behaviour outside football, but safe to say it’s not savoury.
Further to that, if what has been said about his teammates taking issue with that behaviour is true, it seems extremely unlikely that Stringer could be retained at the Bulldogs in 2018 in any kind of harmonious way.
The far more likely scenario if the Bulldogs hold Stringer to his contract is that his presence either drives the wedge deeper into what may already be a fractured culture, or worse still sits on the sidelines for 12 months.
Neither of those paths would do anything to increase his value ahead of presumably a second attempt to trade him at the end of 2018, and there would no longer be the threat of holding him to his contract to use as a bargaining chip then.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
The alternative, then, is to find some new way of doing a deal to move him on in this trade period, but it is almost certainly going to be for much less than they expected.
Stringer and his manager don’t seem to have completely ruled out the possibility of a trade to Geelong, and in terms of getting the highest pick possible, a swap for the Cats’ pick 20 is probably more likely.
Essendon now hold picks 24 and 29 though, as well as both their own and GWS’ second-round picks in 2018.
Perhaps the Bulldogs would be willing to accept some combination of this, or perhaps either they or Essendon can finagle a two-for-one deal with Brisbane or Richmond to move the pick up higher in the order.
Brisbane have picks 18 and 19 at current, Richmond picks 15 and 17. Both have players who will be bid on in the draft his year – the Lions have academy member Connor Ballenden, Richmond have father-son Patrick Naish.
Trading one of their picks for the combination of two second-rounders possibly makes it easier for those clubs to match those bids when they come, depending on where they think they’ll fall – so that’s an avenue that at the very least should be considered.
The Bulldogs could demand Essendon’s 2018 first-round pick if they want to stick to that pricetag, but I suspect you’ll see Satan’s Daily News print record snowfall in hell before that happens.
Even the best case scenario for the Bulldogs in this is pick 17 which, regardless of what you think of his recent form, training standards or non-footy behaviour is a farcically poor return for a player of Jake Stringer’s remarkable natural talent.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
If there’s any possible way for the Bulldogs to salvage his career at their club then they must surely consider it. It’s the only possible path to a win for them in what has become a lose-lose situation.
But, their decision to push him out suggests things are already too far gone.
Unfortunately for the Bulldogs, the fundamental truth of trade period is this: you don’t win or lose it at the trade table, the game is already over by then. You win or lose when a player decides to stay or leave – doing the trade afterwards is more like negotiating a peace treaty.
When you push a player out of your own accord, you’ve pretty much shot yourself in the foot, forfeited the war before it even began. The damage is done – the only question that remains is how big the hospital bill is going to be.
Kevo
Roar Rookie
Might be a quick read.....
Don Freo
Guest
If I was a player earning $Hundreds of K per year, I'd by rethinking who I would like to be representing me.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Haha, yeah it's pretty clear that Connors is getting frustrated and using the media to ramp-up pressure on the Doggies. He comes across as a real deuchebag. Everyone's just postulating - Connors trying to represent his client by sooking, Essendon claiming today the Doggies rejected pick 11 (omitting to mention the Doggie's were prepared to accept a straight swap, but they actually wanted Stringer and pick 27 in return), the Doggies saying maybe Jake stays at the kennel in 2018 - seems to me that Essendon and Connors are the ones acting like amateurs, but they'll probably still succeed in getting him for peanuts. Clubs will be reluctant to deal with them next year though.
Gecko
Guest
Oh yes, I forgot about that!
Don Freo
Guest
As if a bloke with a gambling problem can afford to stay overseas.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
That's an interesting angle to present, given that the system allows clubs to put contracted players up for trade negotiations. Paul Connors does seem like he's throwing a bit of a tanty, threatening for Jake to stay overseas and not play at all. First the bloke doesn't ask the Doggies basic questions (such as, "what do you want in exchange for Stringer?") and then thinks it's perfectly reasonable to try and help Essendon screw the Doggies, without having done the due diligence of whether Essendon had the capacity to trade for him (and two others simultaneously) in the first place. He seems very incompetent to me and now wants to spin it as all the Doggies fault that a deal can't be done, rather than acknowledge fault on all sides, including his own. All parties (Doggies, Stringer, Connors and Essendon) are looking poor out of this.
Stephen
Guest
It does seem ironic that reports out tonight are claiming the Jake Stringer camp are assessing their options in relation to workplace bullying following the nature of recent events at the Bulldogs. The irony is that the Bulldogs President - Mr Gordon is the principal of Slater & Gordon - a legal specialist in such cases.
Aransan
Guest
Matty, Co oney retired at the end of 2016, another link is through Crameri and that connection is even older. Those ties won't be an issue. Perhaps Stringer's problem was partly to do with the fact that he had to be managed at all, he has to learn to take responsibility for his own actions. It is not the role of players managers to babysit their clients.
Cat
Roar Guru
Still can’t see it helping GC. Cats won’t be trading a first round pick for Ablett.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
You're very defensive about this on another thread too, Cat. You shouldn't be. It's not Geelong's fault. My comment is more about the BS associated with the free agency compensation system. It's supposedly all formula based and yet we get odd exceptions like the Motlop and Frawley ones where the results manufactured by the AFL are inconsistent from others. I think it's sneaky interference by the AFL to help battling clubs. Geelong benefit, but the AFL's primary objective is to help Gold Coast.
Stephen
Guest
True. When the initial bust-up between club and player occurred five weeks ago neither party were cast in a particularly good light. Or as Adam Cooney put it - The Bulldogs have shot themselves in the foot. But since then, all I have heard from the Bulldogs is - there is every chance the player will be required to fulfil his contract in 2018. Is that an appropriate message to be sending continually to fans, members and sponsors - if the reality of that occurring is slim at best? It's easy for all of us to forget that each AFL club is owned by it's members and supported by the AFL - to varying degrees as required. Clubs are not owned by shareholders, presidents, partnerships, wealthy individuals, governments, past players, celebrities etc. They are owned by the members. The wages and salaries of all club employees is therefore paid by revenue generated from fans, members and sponsors. The AFL is owned by you/me and 24 million other Australians. In short, the game is owned by club members and the general public. Owners don't like being told fibs or continually feeling played. Senior management within clubs and AFL head quarters, should be reminded from time-to-time, who the owners are and how they should be treated accordingly. Apologies for the rant.
Cat
Roar Guru
That’s got to be the lamest tin foil hat sook I’ve ever seen on this website in a long time.
Stephen
Guest
True. The initial reaction following the blow-up with Stringer five weeks ago certainly didn't paint either party in a very good light. Or as Adam Cooney put it - 'the Bulldogs shot themselves in the foot'. But everyday since then, we've heard nothing but - there is every chance the player will remain at the club in 2018. That's absolutely fair enough. But if the chances of that becoming a reality are slim at best, is that an appropriate way to communicate with hundreds and thousands of fans, members and sponsors? It's easy for us all to forget, AFL clubs are owned by the members. Owned! Not owned by shareholders, President's, partnerships, wealthy individuals, celebrities, past players etc. And the wages and salaries of all staff (including List Manager's) are paid by the revenue generated from fans, members, sponsors and owners. The AFL is owned by you/me and 24 million other Australians. I think sometimes this reality gets a little lost in the football bubble and spin doctoring. Owners don't like being told fibs or feeling continually played.
Mattyb
Guest
Aransan,Abby is actually also apart of the Essendon 'family' due to her close relations with the Cooneys,another reason I can't see Essendon being a really good fit. Either way,I'd say stringer seriously needs new management.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
LOL. Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with Collingwood supporters.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Ok thanks ... not so good then.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Plus, nobody else is crazy enough to want him.
Cat
Roar Guru
But the Bulldogs didn't adopt a stance to maximise value, in fact it can easily be argued they did the exact opposite. Their public stance has diminished Stringers value.
Stephen
Guest
Don Freo, You seem to have a balanced and insightful position on the Western Bulldogs. Whilst I fully respect all clubs have the right to adopt a public stance via the media to maximize their returns during trade/draft periods. My question - is there a responsibility to not play with the emotions of fans, members, sponsors etc. by taking a public stance that is most unlikely to eventuate?
Cat
Roar Guru
Even if Ablett is the only in, it doesn't prove it is because of TPP. It's rumored Ablett has agreed to take $300k/yr for a 2 year deal when the trade finally goes through. If true his cap hit is small. Personally I think Watts is the fall back plan. Cats don't want to commit to him while Stringer is in play and are willing to miss out on him while waiting for the Stringer scenario to play out one way or another. Watts and Stringer has never even been a consideration. At most Cats will bring in 2 players, at worst 1.