Traded Josh Dunkley - [Traded with F3 (Melb), F3 to Brisbane for #21, F1, F2, F4 (Geel)]

[Lore]

If you don't have the self-discipline not to attack other posters and derail the thread with crap every other time you post, thread bans will be applied.

Mods are not here to babysit.

Reporting bad posts instead of replying to them would also be extremely helpful if you wish to continue posting here.

 

[Sentinel]

Yeh we have great recruiters.

Do I need to post on the selections in the 30’s and 40’s in the history of the draft compared to first rounders to prove a point?

Are you more likely to get a gun with first rounders or picks in the 30’s and 40’s? Answer me that.

You have made your point. Keeping second rounders is worth losing Dunkley for nothing.

For every Dunkley there is 20 Cedric Cox’s

Now you're shifting the goalposts. The point you were trying to make wasn't a comparison between 1st rounders and 2nd rounders. It was that 2nd round picks aren't worth anything anyway (so the Dogs should just hand them over) - it's blatantly untrue.

 

[weltschmerz]

Losing him for nothing is a worse result.

Should have traded him two years ago.

Losing him for nothing means your lot don't get him and at this point I'm more than happy with that.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Losing him for nothing means your lot don't get him and at this point I'm more than happy with that.

Geez the saltiness is real.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Geez the saltiness is real.

Is that it? You literally have nothing left.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Dogs demanding two firsts like they did against Essendon and people say Essendon are hard to deal with lols

Good luck Brisbane

 

[adogsfan5]

Dogs demanding two firsts like they did against Essendon

Good luck Brisbane

Is that when you offered us a first in a year that would have been eaten up by the Jamarra bid? And then your fans all got upset because we couldn’t trade that on for another player?
Good times.

 

[iameviljez]

Losing him for nothing is a worse result.

Should have traded him two years ago.

Derrrrrr nothing is worse than something in a material sense, but that would also apply if you offered a future third rounder for him or nothing.

Basically put, the ultimate power that a side has in negotiations is the ability to walk away from a deal. If the Dogs do not walk away from this crap Dunkley deal, then the threat of walking away loses all credibility in future, and they will get absolutely stuffed over in any future negotiations with uncontracted players.

Don't forget that Brisbane and the Dogs have good lists at a similar age profile. They'll be fighting for the same flag. If Dunkley walks through the draft or the PSD, he will not make it all the way to Brisbane. The Dogs won't want to strengthen a rival contender for inadequate return.

 

[catman2006]

Geez North could end up with Dunkley and 4x 1st rd picks if they play their cards well would be the mother of all trade drat periods for a team.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Dogs demanding two firsts like they did against Essendon and people say Essendon are hard to deal with lols

Good luck Brisbane

2 likely very late firsts.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Dogs demanding two firsts like they did against Essendon and people say Essendon are hard to deal with lols

Good luck Brisbane

Just copied what GWS got for a lesser player in Taranto.

 

[iameviljez]

Dogs demanding two firsts like they did against Essendon and people say Essendon are hard to deal with lols

Good luck Brisbane

Essendon were hard to deal with - they pulled their Dunkley deal in the dying hours of Trade Week and gave no thought to how they might actually get the deal done for a contracted player.

Dogs are demanding two end-of-round firsts in this one, by the way. Hardly over the top for their reigning B&F winner.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Derrrrrr nothing is worse than something in a material sense, but that would also apply if you offered a future third rounder for him or nothing.

Basically put, the ultimate power that a side has in negotiations is the ability to walk away from a deal. If the Dogs do not walk away from this crap Dunkley deal, then the threat of walking away loses all credibility in future, and they will get absolutely stuffed over in any future negotiations with uncontracted players.

Don't forget that Brisbane and the Dogs have good lists at a similar age profile. They'll be fighting for the same flag. If Dunkley walks through the draft or the PSD, he will not make it all the way to Brisbane. The Dogs won't want to strengthen a rival contender for inadequate return.

Can paint it any which way you want. It’s a bad result for a team that supposedly should be in their window still.

The next team will be more likely to call your bluff because you aren’t going to always forego deals to keep losing players for nothing.

 

[iameviljez]

Can paint it any which way you want. It’s a bad result for a team that supposedly should be in their window still.

The next team will be more likely to call your bluff because you aren’t going to always forego deals to keep losing players for nothing.

It's a bad result either way. But I'd argue it's a worse result to cave in and lose your bargaining power in future negotiations.

The Lions should not have committed to taking Dunkley without shipping out a half-decent player in return.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Is that it? You literally have nothing left.

I’ve said all I’ve had to.

And yes, that’s all it comes down to now. In direct response to that post that’s all I have to add

 

[Lach72]

If our deal falls over for Luke Jackson

9

Luke Jackson

Age

23

Ht

199cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.3

2star

K

3.3

1star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

3star

G

0.3

3star

D

8.3

2star

K

3.3

1star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

2star

G

0.3

3star

D

8.3

3star

K

3.3

2star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.0

3star

G

0.3

3star

, I'd give ya Lobb and 13 for Dunkley

 

[Foxman98]

If our deal falls over for Luke Jackson, I'd give ya Lobb and 13 for Dunkley

Yeah we want 2 firsts

 

[catman2006]

If our deal falls over for Luke Jackson, I'd give ya Lobb and 13 for Dunkley

terrible deal Lobb worth pick 30 actually make it pick 35 you lose 5 spots for the colour of his hair

 

[adogsfan5]

If our deal falls over for Luke Jackson, I'd give ya Lobb and 13 for Dunkley

Welcome. Do you have nice beaches for him?

 

[RoyBoy17]

It's a bad result either way. But I'd argue it's a worse result to cave in and lose your bargaining power in future negotiations.

The Lions should not have committed to taking Dunkley without shipping out a half-decent player in return.

But they don’t have bargaining power. Isn’t that clear.

When a player is out of contract he’s not playing for you anymore. We aren’t the ones losing a player for nothing. They are. What leverage is there when he nominates a team. It obviously didn’t do them any good sticking to their guns two years ago when essendon came knocking!

So this crap of refusing to accept unders because of the look is actually rubbish.

 

[iameviljez]

If our deal falls over for Luke Jackson, I'd give ya Lobb and 13 for Dunkley

That would probably just need something like p40 Dogs' way to balance it up.

But doesn't Dunkley have family in Queensland or something?

 

[iameviljez]

But they don’t have bargaining power. Isn’t that clear.

When a player is out of contract he’s not playing for you anymore. We aren’t the ones losing a player for nothing. They are. What leverage is there when he nominates a team. It obviously didn’t do them any good sticking to their guns two years ago when essendon came knocking!

So this crap of refusing to accept unders because of the look is actually rubbish.

They do have bargaining power in both this trade and in future trades: either pay us a fair price, or you don't get the player.

No, they don't have the bargaining power of keeping the player - but they do have the power of denying a move to the target club. That's still power.

Brisbane also have an issue if they don't land Dunkley - other players will be reluctant to nominate them.

 

[Foxman98]

But they don’t have bargaining power. Isn’t that clear.

When a player is out of contract he’s not playing for you anymore. We aren’t the ones losing a player for nothing. They are. What leverage is there when he nominates a team. It obviously didn’t do them any good sticking to their guns two years ago when essendon came knocking!

So this crap of refusing to accept unders because of the look is actually rubbish.

You don't have any either thats the point we either get nothing and he goes to a crap team and doesn't impact us next year or we get shite he goes to a competitor and is the reason they beat us why would we take the crap then

 

[Foxman98]

They do have bargaining power in both this trade and in future trades: either pay us a fair price, or you don't get the player.

No, they don't have the bargaining power of keeping the player - but they do have the power of denying a move to the target club. That's still power.

Brisbane also have an issue if they don't land Dunkley - other players will be reluctant to nominate them.

How many players have nominated Essendon since his last request?

 

[Lach72]

Welcome. Do you have nice beaches for him?

plenty

 

[Dom PC]

Considering how fair the Bulldogs were with the Alex Keith and Josh Bruce

17

Josh Bruce

Age

32

Ht

198cm

Wt

97kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.2

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

4.6

3star

M

4.5

4star

T

2.1

4star

MG

90.4

1star

D

8.9

2star

K

3.5

1star

HB

5.4

3star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.3

2star

MG

90.4

2star

D

11.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.8

3star

trades, I think it's only fair the Lions use the exact same tactic no?

Laughable to think Doggies fans expect their club to give up getting something like a 1st rd pick and a 2nd rd pick just so Dunkley goes through the PSD.