Speculation Jake Stringer

[HirdsTheWord]

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, wanting your club to hold a player to less than he's worth, but also thinking he's worth more than pick 32.

I think keeping someone around who doesn't want to be there is a dangerous move, particularly when it's someone as previously indisciplined as Stringer. What's to stop him taking a weekly sh*t on the CEOs desk if he's held to his contract?

you know he signed the contract with this trigger clause in it yeah? it's almost like it was agreed too?

If he wants a longer deal, we have told him to go get one and we will make it happen. Doesn't mean he walks just walks for free rofl.

Do you often sign contracts for the fun of it thinking that what you sign doesn't actually mean anything? If i was your boss id just pay you half of what you agreed to, doesn't seem to matter in your eyes.

 

[adammania9]

Just a AFL thing this mentality. Many people in many walks of life relocate families for jobs and dont have the ability to earn 500k+ as a result

They just need to suck it up and deal with it is the reality.

How many people relocate away from their children, as opposed to moving the children with them? (Stringer can not)

And if you have two offers for the same job in two different cities. One being where you are, and another being elsewhere where you’ll be away from family, what % of people are moving away?

 

[Vindicater]

Lmao this going be a good melt when he goes for stuff all.

Reckon it will be either 32 or a future second.

 

[hawksalltheway]

Reckon it will be either 32 or a future second.

wow - you would take that and run!

 

[Wild Bill]

We rate him enough to see potential if he can back up his most recent performance. His inability to back up a good performance stretches longer than 7 years. Multiple times we have repaid the faith only for him to stink it up. Therefore our hesitance to extend comes from a place of knowledge but also because we're not doing anything but allowing the status quo to play out as he agreed to (that being the current 1 year).

Your entire logic rests on the idea that a current contract should be broken and it should become more than 1, which in turn also means he's worth more than 32. You're doing this chicken or the egg scenario without realizing that you're contradicting your own self by trying to prove that we're the ones with a cognitive dissonance when Collingwood is the outside variable to a status quo, not us.

32 and a F2 to get the ball rolling is reasonable considering it's in the middle of what was given for Schultz and how much less Schultz has provided.

Schultz was 25 not 30 with a poor work ethic. I think you're in for a shock when it is all done.

 

[Wild Bill]

Reckon it will be either 32 or a future second.

Now that seems correct weight.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Schultz was 25 not 30 with a poor work ethic. I think you're in for a shock when it is all done.

I didn't say exactly the same trade I said somewhere in the middle. Schultz has never kicked over 40 and if Collingwood thinks he's got poor work ethic then the Pies wouldn't be offering more years than us.

You're contradicting yourself to suit a narrative. Either he's worth more years and thus a proper offer to break the already existing contract or he isn't. It's the Pies that are the outside variable here, not us. We don't have to do anything.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Pick 32 is fine. Would do that trade today.

Especially in this draft, which everyone you listen to (including the likes of Kinnear Beatson) says bats extremely deep. They reckon picks in the 40’s could be like picks in the 20’s or 30’s in recent years, so a pick like 32 could be like a pick in the low 20’s the last year or two.

For a 30yo guy who’s got just a $400K contract for next year and his club don’t want to give him an extra year, with reportedly very few clubs interested, you’d probably be doing well to even get that.

 

[aussierulesrules]

The value of a 23 year old Stringer and a 30 year old Stringer is similar?

That is some wishful thinking.

Delusional is what it is. And he reckons that would only “get them talking”!

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Your logic doesn't add up.

You criticize us for holding him to a contract he already agreed to,

I didn't, actually. If your club wants to hold him to a contract, they're entitled to do so, they should just know the risks to their reputation and club culture.

because you think he's worth more years,

I didn't say that.

then you claim he isn't worth more than 32.

If your club won't give him the deal he's seeking, they clearly don't think much of him. Why should they then ask for a pick any higher than that?

If Collingwood wants to alter our first premise then the onus is on them to make it happen, not us. Keeping Stringer for a year on 400k is of no risk to us.

So you don't think there's any risk to club culture keeping someone who has already said he's played his last game there? If so, I'm glad you're not running my club.

Firstly there's no source that has confirmed that he's disgruntled with the environment itself. His main aim is to secure a multiple year deal.

Do you think those are two entirely unrelated things? I'd grow to hate a place if I felt I was being underpaid or undervalued.

Thus his best course of action would be to perform well in 2025 to either gain said deal from us or have clubs offering said deals post-2025.

Or, Essendon could just deal in good faith for a player who wants out. After all, Essendon has benefited multiple times in the past by acquiring players who wanted out from other clubs. Driving a hard bargain on every deal is a great way to make yourself hated amongst player managers and other clubs. That can easily come back to bite the club in future, as managers might instruct their players to sign shorter deals at Essendon because they may not have their exit requests honoured, and other clubs will not be inclined to deal reasonably with a club that hasn't been reasonable with them. And it isn't reasonable to ask for serious value for a player the club didn't think was worth all that much.

Doing a "weekly sh!t" would hurt his image and do more harm to that than good, and he's 30 not 14.

We're talking about Jake Stringer here. I used a comical example but there's a lot of harm that a player can do to a club culture if he's angry at the club.

you know he signed the contract with this trigger clause in it yeah? it's almost like it was agreed too?

I didn't dispute that. It was stupid of Stringer to sign the deal. Do you disagree that it's less than he's worth?

If he wants a longer deal, we have told him to go get one and we will make it happen. Doesn't mean he walks just walks for free rofl.

Who said he'd walk for free? I certainly didn't.

Do you often sign contracts for the fun of it thinking that what you sign doesn't actually mean anything?

No, but I also don't keep people around who clearly don't want to be there. I either compromise on their demands or let them go somewhere else more suited to them.

If i was your boss id just pay you half of what you agreed to, doesn't seem to matter in your eyes.

Perhaps someone in this world understands how you got all that out of me saying Stringer isn't being paid what he's worth, but I don't.

 

[jakson68]

I didn't say exactly the same trade I said somewhere in the middle. Schultz has never kicked over 40 and if Collingwood thinks he's got poor work ethic then the Pies wouldn't be offering more years than us.

You're contradicting yourself to suit a narrative. Either he's worth more years and thus a proper offer to break the already existing contract or he isn't. It's the Pies that are the outside variable here, not us. We don't have to do anything.

And that right there is why your team has been so poor for so long. Poor attitude!
You would rather keep a 30yo player who is not happy, than release him and move on to better things.
You do have to do something, you have to get better, if you hope to play finals again one day.

Dodo tried to "win" every trade for many years, how has that gone for you?

Time to grow up, either up his offer (because as you said, he kicked over 40 goals) or let him go.
Holding a disgruntles player isn't conducive to team success.

 

[cAsEy_18]

And that right there is why your team has been so poor for so long. Poor attitude!
You would rather keep a 30yo player who is not happy, than release him and move on to better things.
You do have to do something, you have to get better, if you hope to play finals again one day.

Dodo tried to "win" every trade for many years, how has that gone for you?

Time to grow up, either up his offer (because as you said, he kicked over 40 goals) or let him go.
Holding a disgruntles player isn't conducive to team success.

This sort of statement is as outdated as how long we've sucked for... which is a long time.

 

[BEEG]

Plenty of clubs could use a 42 goal forward.

Anyone wonder why he only has 2 people offering up 2 year deals?

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

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.

He's free to a good home like material. Essendon don't look to keen to keep him.
Personally I don't want him but if Essendon and Collingwood come to an agreement the draft capital won't be big.

 

[Vindicater]

wow - you would take that and run!

Yep. Would be happy with either

 

[cAsEy_18]

Plenty of clubs could use a 42 goal forward.

Anyone wonder why he only has 2 people offering up 2 year deals?

Have you made a phone call to the other 16?

 

[faible]

Especially in this draft, which everyone you listen to (including the likes of Kinnear Beatson) says bats extremely deep. They reckon picks in the 40’s could be like picks in the 20’s or 30’s in recent years, so a pick like 32 could be like a pick in the low 20’s the last year or two.

For a 30yo guy who’s got just a $400K contract for next year and his club don’t want to give him an extra year, with reportedly very few clubs interested, you’d probably be doing well to even get that.

We've likely got an academy kid needing to be bid matched in the mid-late first round (Kako) which would eat up a couple of 2nds.

I assume they'll either chase a future pick, tie it in to a player trade (e.g. something like Noble to GCS, Rosas to EFC, Stringer to COLL) or look to bundle some picks and get higher in to the first round.

I think Stringer will be a useful player wherever he lands, he's just not a great fit for where our list is at right now (or where it will be in a couple of years time) so if he can find a good deal with another club it probably works for everyone.

 

[Cam Payne]

When The Package arrives does someone need to sign for it or will it just get dropped at the door with a photo for evidence?

 

[Foxx]

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

Degoey, Hoskin-Elliot and Elliot.

I think Sydney are the better fit between those two clubs.

 

[Amen Corner]

Two second round picks is fantasy stuff. I don’t think he will be traded for a bag of stale chicken twisties either, he’s contracted for another season. One pick in the 30’s (given academy & FS bids, those picks will drift out) will get the deal done.

 

[DERO]

He and De Goey will make a formidable duo, both on and off the park.

What is he worth eth-dog ?

 

[DERO]

Plenty of clubs could use a 42 goal forward.

Anyone wonder why he only has 2 people offering up 2 year deals?

1 is enough.

 

[Ambrosia]

Haven’t read the past few pages but if Collingwood have offered Stringer a better contract Essendon won’t get much at the trade table

 

[eth-dog]

He and De Goey will make a formidable duo, both on and off the park.

What is he worth eth-dog ?

F2?

 

[DERO]

F2?

Wouldn't mind a 2 this year.