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.

 

[RoyBoy17]

How is future first + 21 “well unders”, compared to….literally nothing?

bulldog logic, got to love it

 

[Hoges64]

bulldog logic, got to love it

Brisbane logic is not seeing that's not even remotely the point.

 

[scoman]

Given the stalemate maybe we should bring Dunkley home.

You should be able to convince him to play for the 250k left in your salary cap I guess.

In unrelated news next year from Geelong, Josh and his lovely start building a 3 million dollar property .

 

[iameviljez]

It points terms, this gives them an upgrade from 1,634 to 3,657 for an extra 2,023, which is the equivalent of pick 4.

You'd much rather sacrifice R2, R3 and R4 picks for points than valuable top-ten picks.

 

[Obeanie1]

Opposition teams preaching to Brisbane about how to go about trading fairly (no indication they are not regardless) - cute

Where were you all when we were getting repeatedly targeted and savaged during this period? Yeo, Docherty, Polec etc?

Yeo left because of being low balled $$ And not by much either.

So let's not rewrite history to suit agendas.

21 and a F1st isn't a reasonable offer. It's a take it or f** *.

Lions have made a commitment to Dunkley I'm sure didn't include walking to the PSD. So time to pony up, get more picks for players and offer something reasonable.

 

[iameviljez]

You should be able to convince him to play for the 250k left in your salary cap I guess.

In unrelated news next year from Geelong, Josh and his lovely start building a 3 million dollar property .

Not sure Simonds do three million dollar homes

 

[The 747]

You should be able to convince him to play for the 250k left in your salary cap I guess.

In unrelated news next year from Geelong, Josh and his lovely start building a 3 million dollar property .

Not about the salary cap, it's about human rights and player welfare mate. Brisbane are putting the kid through trauma here.

 

[adogsfan5]

How is future first + 21 “well unders”, compared to….literally nothing?

That’s not your offer right now though.
Good lord.

 

[iameviljez]

21 and a F1st isn't a reasonable offer. It's a take it or f** *.

IMO the taste test for whether a deal for an uncontracted player is reasonable, is whether you could swap it for a good enough pick for a decent chance of getting that player through the draft.

21 and a late Future 1st will in no universe be enough to get Dunkley to fall to you in the draft. Not a hope.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Brisbane logic is not seeing that's not even remotely the point.

We can't see the point, losing him for nothing to send some sort of a 'message' is just dumb. Clubs couldn't care less. You really think Carlton or Essendon in future are going to think 'ooo let's not mess with the doggies'.

As I've said we offered the two first rounders. It was rejected and us moving on with other deals has caught you off guard.

If the deal doesn't go through and you lose him for nothing then the big loser is the dogs. We keep our draft hand next year intact and easily match bids this year. We also have obligations to father sons. We can't let things drag out until the last minute.

 

[MarcLocksCrustySock]

Suns and Swans list management teams watching all this unfold like...

 

[weltschmerz]

We can't see the point, losing him for nothing to send some sort of a 'message' is just dumb. Clubs couldn't care less. You really think Carlton or Essendon in future are going to think 'ooo let's not mess with the doggies'.

As I've said we offered the two first rounders. It was rejected and us moving on with other deals has caught you off guard.

If the deal doesn't go through and you lose him for nothing then the big loser is the dogs. We keep our draft hand next year intact and easily match bids this year. We also have obligations to father sons. We can't let things drag out until the last minute.

You're weirdly obsessed with "we offered two firsts" with no concept that you were asking for far too much in return. Brisbane's offer was not reasonable and it was rejected. Your whingeing isn't going to change that.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Yeo left because of being low balled $$ And not by much either.

So let's not rewrite history to suit agendas.

21 and a F1st isn't a reasonable offer. It's a take it or f** *.

Lions have made a commitment to Dunkley I'm sure didn't include walking to the PSD. So time to pony up, get more picks for players and offer something reasonable.

So offering two first rounders isn't ponying up? We don't have to pony up, he's out of contract. If they want to lose him to someone else for nothing that's on them.

 

[Warwick]

Yeo left because of being low balled $$ And not by much either.

So let's not rewrite history to suit agendas.

21 and a F1st isn't a reasonable offer. It's a take it or f** *.

Lions have made a commitment to Dunkley I'm sure didn't include walking to the PSD. So time to pony up, get more picks for players and offer something reasonable.

Dev doesn't want to leave champ.

 

[Dazb86]

Dunkley must hate Sam Power

Sam Power

Age

41

Ht

190cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

7.8

3star

HB

6.9

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

7.8

2star

K

3.8

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.6

4star

and the Dogs

 

[mattsmob]

Our trade negotations started with "we believe Josh to be worth two mid-first rounders, but realise Brisbane have limited assets due to Father-Son picks, so we'll begrudgingly settle for your two late first-rounders."

You know, sensibly, and not insultingly.

Great, and as you’re aware we needed more point so we’ve traded 15 down to 21 in order to acquire more points. So rather than two late firsts we have a first and an early second plus the ability to upgrade later picks.
All well and good to talk a big game but at the end of the day pick 12-18 and 21 is better than nothing and everyone knows it.

 

[Sentinel]

You're weirdly obsessed with "we offered two firsts" with no concept that you were asking for far too much in return. Brisbane's offer was not reasonable and it was rejected. Your whingeing isn't going to change that.

Imagine what he thought when he saw Brisbane give that pick 15 away to GWS for nothing!

 

[Dangerousfield]

As an independent observer, when I heard Dunkley nominate Brisbane, I thought they couldn't possibly get it done while also getting Ashcroft and Fletcher.

So here we are half way though trade period and no one including Brisbane has any clue how this can get done.

Dogs supporters are rightly pointing out that you don't get Dunkley for peanuts. Some Brisbane supporters stupidly think they can.

The only asset Brisbane have left is a future first, likely to be 15-18. No way can they find another good first rounder.

Dunkley will be a NO DEAL to Brisbane who bit off way more than they could chew.

 

[Warwick]

As an independent observer, when I heard Dunkley nominate Brisbane, I thought they couldn't possibly get it done while also getting Ashcroft and Fletcher.

So here we are half way though trade period and no one including Brisbane has any clue how this can get done.

Dogs supporters are rightly pointing out that you don't get Dunkley for peanuts. Some Brisbane supporters stupidly think they can.

The only asset Brisbane have left is a future first, likely to be 15-18. No way can they find another good first rounder.

Dunkley will be a NO DEAL to Brisbane who bit off way more than they could chew.

Exactly.

 

[RoyBoy17]

You're weirdly obsessed with "we offered two firsts" with no concept that you were asking for far too much in return. Brisbane's offer was not reasonable and it was rejected. Your whingeing isn't going to change that.

It's just a fact. So you're happy to have nothing instead of what was offered for an out of contract player?

I personally think that top 20 picks are quality selections but obviously they are not valued above mid to late second round selections.

 

[Nathan Barley]

As an independent observer, when I heard Dunkley nominate Brisbane, I thought they couldn't possibly get it done while also getting Ashcroft and Fletcher.

So here we are half way though trade period and no one including Brisbane has any clue how this can get done.

Dogs supporters are rightly pointing out that you don't get Dunkley for peanuts. Some Brisbane supporters stupidly think they can.

The only asset Brisbane have left is a future first, likely to be 15-18. No way can they find another good first rounder.

Dunkley will be a NO DEAL to Brisbane who bit off way more than they could chew.

Do you remember when you guys traded Dangerfield for way unders because that was all Geelong had?

 

[Doggies7]

So offering two first rounders isn't ponying up? We don't have to pony up, he's out of contract. If they want to lose him to someone else for nothing that's on them.

Hahaha. Wow you really keep going around and around in circles missing the point, posting the wrong information (Lions didn't just offer two firsts, they asked for a bunch of picks back also therefore heavily negating the value of the return the Dogs were getting). You do have to pony up as he is out of contract, but not a free agent. The only way you can get him is through trade and the dogs have requested fair value for him, two mid to late firsts is not unreasonable as seen by the Taranto trade just days prior as well as common sense.

There is a reason that 90% of opposition posters here are agreeing that the Lions are being unreasonable and going back and forth with you correcting you on your posts. But i'm sure you'll miss the point on this one also and come back with another incorrect reply, so i'm already disappointed in myself that I replied...

 

[Kickit2brown]

With 2 first round picks off the table is it time for the Lions and Dogs to look for player alternatives?

I reckon a package that included Darcy Fort

32

Darcy Fort

Age

31

Ht

204cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.6

2star

K

5.8

2star

HB

2.9

3star

M

1.9

2star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.8

4star

D

9.2

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

3.2

2star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.8

3star

G

0.2

3star

D

7.6

2star

K

5.4

2star

HB

2.2

2star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.2

3star

G

1.2

4star

and Mathieson could be quite attractive for the Dogs?

Gives them a much needed depth ruckman if English was to go down and then Mathieson should be able to squeeze into their starting midfield with Dunkley gone. So something like Lions future first + Mathieson + Fort for Dunkley and maybe pick 39 back?

 

[doggies ftw]

Isn’t it telling to you Brisbane nuffs that not a single opposition supporter on this thread thinks your offer is enough. Not once have I seen such one sided discussion on this board.

Surely that’s telling? Nup? Okay play on

 

[weltschmerz]

With 2 first round picks off the table is it time for the Lions and Dogs to look for player alternatives?

I reckon a package that included Darcy Fort and Mathieson could be quite attractive for the Dogs?

Gives them a much needed depth ruckman if English was to go down and then Mathieson should be able to squeeze into their starting midfield with Dunkley gone. So something like Lions future first + Mathieson + Fort for Dunkley and maybe pick 39 back?

With Treloar playing half-back, West playing forward, and McLean coming back from injury, I don't think another mid's going to be fitting into our side.