BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,697
- 38,740
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
They don't want him and have said they won't offer another deal.
Surely you let the bloke explore options.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Traded Jake Stringer - the package rerouted to Western Sydney (for pick 53)
- Thread starter eth-dog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They don't want him and have said they won't offer another deal.
Surely you let the bloke explore options.
He wanted a trigger in his contract, which he's met.
They're not obliged to offer him another contract after that.
They can keep him, or let him explore his options if they want, yes.
But he can't feel aggrieved if he's made to fulfill the contract he signed.
- Jul 18, 2011
- 4,120
- 3,078
- AFL Club
- Essendon
They have said to him to explore his options if he wants a better contract deal.
Otherwise he can stay.
What's the problem? That you have to trade for him?
Last edited:
Gonna have to find me a quote from Essendon on that one, please.
Problem is Collingwood have nothing to give.
- Jul 18, 2011
- 4,120
- 3,078
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Pick 32?
For a 42 goal forward who's still contracted? If a club wants him badly enough then they've gotta pony up a bit more than that.
- Jul 18, 2011
- 4,120
- 3,078
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Didn't you tell me in the other thread he's an injury prone 31 year old who has only kicked 40 goals once or twice in the last 8 years or something along those lines?
He'll be massive for Collingwood with their functional system, but we won't get more than pick 32 imo.
Last edited:
It was in regards to justifying holding firm on the 1 year deal or offering more. That possible good year is there regardless at no risk to us.
If Collingwood want that year to take place at their club, then they've gotta offer more than that. They just don't have anything unless they either upgrade their picks to a better one or add in a player.
Last edited:
BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,697
- 38,740
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
I'm not sure he will cost much.
Yeah I don't think Collingwood not having a lot to give will be a factor.
At the same time, I think he could be very good for Collingwood. In the right mix of a forward line, he's still absolutely a matchwinner. We just don't have that right mix.
At the same time, I think he could be very good for Collingwood. In the right mix of a forward line, he's still absolutely a matchwinner. We just don't have that right mix.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Uh no. They said they won't extend him beyond 2025 now.
This time next year who know what he'll be offered.
- Jul 18, 2011
- 4,120
- 3,078
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I hope we get overs, because I'm tired of getting unders for players due to having no trade leverage.
Yet you want to offer him more than 1 year.
So this cognitive dissonance with the motive of wanting to pay less is a bit of an insult tbh. Based on what was given for Schultz and what he produced it should be more in the middle.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 7,975
- 18,685
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Nothing should be based on what was given for Schultz. That trade was egregious.
You say that now but at the time Collingwood didn't see themselves slipping. The same mindset they're approaching with now.
If they're going for Stringer then they see themselves as contending, and if they see themselves as contending then they don't see their future picks as worth much again. Time to pony up.
BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,697
- 38,740
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
Bombers are setting the price on this one.
30 won't get another contract and told to explore options.
Tom Mitchell price is about right.
You set the precedent on Schultz, not us. Should be more in the middle. And, it's you that wants him for more than 1 year, not us.
So are like 50% of your list, and you want to give him multiple years. So clearly it isn't an issue for you. Can't factor that in to lower your offer.
Has a contract, and would get more if he can do well in 2025. As it stands keeping him to 1 year for the 400k for that possibility is of no risk to us.
Allegedly and if the price is right.
Having been burned by Stringer into giving him multiple contracts based on false dawns in the past we have earned the right to hold him to his 1 year contract in order to get something reasonable back.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,942
- 91,612
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Pick 32 is fine. Would do that trade today.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
They'd bite Collingwood's hand off
- Sep 25, 2013
- 3,456
- 4,356
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
Purely in terms of fit and role, I think Sydney would be the best fit I can think of.
Give them the chance to play one fewer tall forward and replace them with a hybrid like Stringer. Can also take his turn through the middle obviously which is a bonus.
Can't see Sydney having the cap space to satisfy Stringer, especially considering he'd have to move states
Give them the chance to play one fewer tall forward and replace them with a hybrid like Stringer. Can also take his turn through the middle obviously which is a bonus.
Can't see Sydney having the cap space to satisfy Stringer, especially considering he'd have to move states
32 and a future 2nd would get us talking. We'll throw in a few Zinger Boxes the other way.
BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,697
- 38,740
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
Guess we will see what you guys get...
- Mar 19, 2020
- 16,306
- 46,003
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Actually think Collingwood is a terrible match for him. Think he will collide with Jamie Elliot a bit in wanting to play the same role. Feels like another one who should put on some big boy pants and move interstate. Sydney or GWS is his best place to be. Probably GWS
