Traded #25: Jake Stringer - 📦 Traded to GWS for Pick #53 - 16/10

[Lore]

Contract Status: Out of contract 2024
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 19, Harlequin

 

[Call Me Cake]

You can understand why a player of his age wants more than 1. It's hard to make plans especially at the stage he's at in life if he doesn't know where he'll be paid. Factor in being over 30 and more prone to injuries, I get it.

However there's definitely an element of not backing yourself in here and if I was another club I'd only offer him a year with triggers for a 2nd as well, unless I was right in a flag window and more set up to absorb down year for a potential match winner.

 

[ant555]

He was a good bloke for a couple of seasons. Hasn't taken a flame thrower to anyone that I've heard about for nearly 8 years.

And then he finds religion and look what happens

 

[Runk]

There's clearly a fair bit to it all and stuff we just won't be privy to. I would loved to have been a fly on the wall at his exit interview that said.

Him wanting out is fine to me. Hope GWS take him.

 

[bombreys]

How does that fit with him being a good mate of Merrets? Maybe Merrett just try’s to be the glue that keeps outliers in the group, I don’t know.
Got to say though that I’ve been impressed how much stringer has toed the line over the years. I thought he would be toxic but there hasn’t been talk of that as far as I know. All in all it seems strange how acrimonious this has become given he was a couple of straight kicks away from dragging us into the finals. Now it seems everyone has to have a scape goat and the “shit bloke” becomes a target.
Unless there is actual toxic stuff behind the scenes then I think we are mad to let him go. **** the forward line structure, you don’t discard top line talent that has no trade value.

Ummm

 

[ant555]

There's clearly a fair bit to it all and stuff we just won't be privy to. I would loved to have been a fly on the wall at his exit interview that said.

Him wanting out is fine to me. Hope GWS take him.

I think they have decided that the future set up is not going to have Stringer and Langford in the same side.

 

[Pweter]

Cal saying Stringer to GWS should/will get done, then goes on to say they'll put forward a later pick suggesting pick 56.

Am I that far removed from what constitutes a decent trade to think 56 is significant unders or does the fact we don't want to pay him what he thinks he deserves (but the Giants do) reduce our trade hand?

 

[katana]

Cal saying Stringer to GWS should/will get done, then goes on to say they'll put forward a later pick suggesting pick 56.

Am I that far removed from what constitutes a decent trade to think 56 is significant unders or does the fact we don't want to pay him what he thinks he deserves (but the Giants do) reduce our trade hand?

it's not just that we don't seem to want to him, it's that no one in the comp seems to want him.

 

[Colonial]

Does the fact we don't want to pay him what he thinks he deserves (but the Giants do) reduce our trade hand?

Wasn’t dollars but length supposedly.

 

[Pweter]

it's not just that we don't seem to want to him, it's that no one in the comp seems to want him.

I wonder if we gambled and lost, thinking that there'd be more suitors therefore get a better return.

 

[Bjchan13]

Cal saying Stringer to GWS should/will get done, then goes on to say they'll put forward a later pick suggesting pick 56.

Am I that far removed from what constitutes a decent trade to think 56 is significant unders or does the fact we don't want to pay him what he thinks he deserves (but the Giants do) reduce our trade hand?

The pick matters so they'll haggle a bit but not hugely significant. We'll be trying to work Stone into it, and they also have interest in Shiel. So if Shiel/Stringer not directly linked there should be a bit of give and take

 

[Bjchan13]

I wonder if we gambled and lost, thinking that there'd be more suitors therefore get a better return.

No, we have realised how unbalanced our forward line is and need to reset it. He is genuinely free to find himself a new home and we'll wish him all the best

 

[Call Me Cake]

56 is unders and I'd say no.

There is more to gain in holding Stringer to the year and having him work to impress either us or a future club (with the worst case scenario being depth in the 2's) compared to #56.

He's under contract, we have the upper hand here. The onus is on other clubs to offer something proper, not on us. We can just do nothing and go on as normal.

 

[katana]

I wonder if we gambled and lost, thinking that there'd be more suitors therefore get a better return.

nah it's he who has gambled here, it was leaked a month ago that he has 'played his last game for essendon', he can hardly go back on that. then he's gone out and realised there's only one club in the comp with any interest

 

[Bjchan13]

56 is unders and I'd say no.

There is more to gain in holding Stringer to the year and having him work to impress either us or a future club (with the worst case scenario being depth in the 2's) compared to #56.

He's under contract, we have the upper hand here. The onus is on other clubs to offer something proper, not on us. We can just do nothing and go on as normal.

End of the day if he has been offered 2 years elsewhere after we've told him to look around we have to let him go. There is no hard stance to be taken. Deal in good faith

 

[boncer34]

56 is unders and I'd say no.

There is more to gain in holding Stringer to the year and having him work to impress either us or a future club (with the worst case scenario being depth in the 2's) compared to #56.

He's under contract, we have the upper hand here. The onus is on other clubs to offer something proper, not on us. We can just do nothing and go on as normal.

Nope.

 

[Call Me Cake]

End of the day if he has been offered 2 years elsewhere after we've told him to look around we have to let him go. There is no hard stance to be taken. Deal in good faith

Firstly it's never been confirmed from the club that we have told him to look around "at any cost". That was some narrative that everyone's just run with as fact. Secondly, the club has a duty to look after itself and we know Stringer will want to fight for another year in 2025 regardless if it's from us or somewhere else.

We lose nothing in remaining at the status quo (which hasn't been confirmed but based on a balance of probabilities is the most likely outcome) and tbh Stringer signed the deal in the past for a reason, he's mature enough to get on with it. 56 is unders and something better should be brought up.

 

[Bjchan13]

Firstly it's never been confirmed from the club that we have told him to look around, and more importantly, at any cost. The club has a duty to look after itself and we know Stringer will want to fight for another year next year regardless if it's with us or somewhere else.

We lose nothing in remaining at the status quo (which hasn't been confirmed but based on a balance of probabilities is the most likely outcome) and tbh Stringer signed the deal in the past for a reason, he's mature enough to get on with it.

Its widely accepted we denied an early contract extension and that he is free to try and find 2 years elsewhere. We have of course left the door open for him to see his contract out and fight for another year if he wanted. We have also left ourselves some room to deal in good faith. Ive got no doubt stringer could play with us next year (he is still training at the hanger). We are not forced to accept pick 56 but we will be reasonable with negotiations, especially when targeting Stone and Kako points. And also their interest in Shiel adds another element.

 

[TheFrenchCut]

56 is unders and I'd say no.

There is more to gain in holding Stringer to the year and having him work to impress either us or a future club (with the worst case scenario being depth in the 2's) compared to #56.

He's under contract, we have the upper hand here. The onus is on other clubs to offer something proper, not on us. We can just do nothing and go on as normal.

I don't see it this way at all. The club doesn't want him and hasn't really hidden that. GWS is the only team that has strongly considered taking him off our hands.

Realistically we can't ask for much because we don't want him.

 

[eth-dog]

I don't see it this way at all. The club doesn't want him and hasn't really hidden that. GWS is the only team that has strongly considered taking him off our hands.

Realistically we can't ask for much because we don't want him.

It's really somewhere between the two. We're not pushing him out, we're just sticking to the original contract and if he wants more he's free to get it elsewhere

 

[Old Campaigner]

We told him we weren't prepared to offer a contract extension at the present time but we wouldn't stand in the way of him leaving for a longer contract elsewhere if a fair trade can be arranged. He's not being forced out, and we have the option of holding him to his contract if no one comes up with a suitable trade offer.

If we really don't want him on the list and the above tactic didn't see him get traded somewhere we still have the option of just delisting him and paying out his contract after the trade period (and someone can get him as a delisted free agent). But you don't want to do that first or clubs will just wait for the delisting rather than stump up picks for a trade

 

[Zach Package]

Kane Cornes thinking we have played this well is almost the only Rorschach test you need to confirm we haven’t.

Hard to stomach for me that he’s such a negative asset on and off field that we’d be prepared to off load him for nothing. Doesn’t really compute.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Kane Cornes thinking we have played this well is almost the only Rorschach test you need to confirm we haven’t.

Hard to stomach for me that he’s such a negative asset on and off field that we’d be prepared to off load him for nothing. Doesn’t really compute.

It might be Cornes' broken clock moment.

I wouldn't have thought we're tripping over ourselves to offload him for nothing though, based on what we've seen so far.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Been reported we’re not even budging on the $400k next season. Clearly want him out. Won’t be part of our next flag so let’s sort out what we have left up forward.

 

[MiguelM]

At the end of the day he won't be part of the rebuild so could be a win/win. Yes, the 42 goals were important but he also had many games/periods where he couldn't get near it or impact the contest and get the ball to ground, so is not giving off many goals either.

At GWS, he might win them a flag, who knows. They are firmly in the window and would free up Green more.

IMO, we need to re-jig the forward line anyway and let Caddy shine. I think he will go to GWS.

 

[Bjchan13]

Kane Cornes thinking we have played this well is almost the only Rorschach test you need to confirm we haven’t.

Hard to stomach for me that he’s such a negative asset on and off field that we’d be prepared to off load him for nothing. Doesn’t really compute.

Did we offload him for nothing?