Recruiting Trade & Free Agency V

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Guys just curious as to who you rate as a better player and if you only got 1 who would you of preferred knowing all the going ons. Stringer or Smith?

Smith.

Stringer would be nice to have, but Smith fills a much greater need for us. And comes with way less risk and baggage than Stringer.

Add in the way the Bulldogs have acted, and doing the deal with GWS or GC first was always the preferred option for me. Footscray can make do with picking up the scraps of whatever is left at the end as far as I'm concerned, if and when the trade for Jake occurs.
 
Personal opinion, Stringer is probably the more exciting player but Smith is the safer bet.

The deal we got for Smith (two secound rounders and a decent player) is too hard to ignore.

I agree think you done really well in the Smith deal. Surprised GWS accepted it but well done to dodo and the bombers. As a bulldog supporter will be interesting to see what hapens with Stringer now. We have said all along has to be earlyish 1st round so will be interesting to see if we cave in. Can't see us accepting your 2nd plus GWS 2ns next year. If they win the flag (decent chance) its pick 36. Also don't see us accepting 17 if you get from Richmond as we would of accepted 11 & 39 for Stringer & 26.
Will be interesting to see how it plays out and if we give in or if we really are happy for Stringer to stay next year as has been stated (not sure i believe it)
Anyway thanks for all your honest replies and good luck for the rest of the trade period. Definitely well ahead so far.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Because we've traded our future third, I believe we are guaranteed to keep our future first now.

Rules state that if you trade future first, you can't trade any other future picks. Assume that works in reverse as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Would our 2 future 2018 2nd round picks get the dogs West under father son and still allow them to keep their 2018 first round pick (for their situation that is effectively a 2018 first rounder) , pick 24 for Saad

Yep, 24 for Saad is also an improvement on 29 already offered. It also leave a bit for the Dogs for Stringer.
 
I'd have taken Smith purely because he guarantees that Colyer won't get a game, for 11 and that second rounder, this draft is really weak, we also got a second in next year's draft.
 
Because we've traded our future third, I believe we are guaranteed to keep our future first now.

Rules state that if you trade future first, you can't trade any other future picks. Assume that works in reverse as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pretty sure it's only if you trade your first rounder?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yeah if you trade your 2018 first, you can't trade any other future picks. Kind of defeats the point if you can trade the other future picks first and then trade your 2018 first after?

Haha sounds like a Dodoro loophole?
 
Haha sounds like a Dodoro loophole?

Did think that since he seemed so keen to keep the 2018 first he'd offload a 2018 2nd or 3rd reasonably early to lock it in.

Of course, with the AFL the goalposts can always move ala the JOM deal last year. I seem to remember they traded a future 2nd rounder having already traded their future first.
 
lol that means you won
We won. Glorious day to be a bomber supporter. After all the saga bullshit we all went through, it's good to see we have come out of that with a strong supporter base, great young list, one of the best facilities in the league and now attracting players.

#WellplayedJmac
 
The midfield next season will be very interesting, if you include Mcrgrath, Smith, Saad and give Begley and Kobe some games, parish and bird.
 
Because we've traded our future third, I believe we are guaranteed to keep our future first now.

Rules state that if you trade future first, you can't trade any other future picks. Assume that works in reverse as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like to know the answer to this too. But I think we still could trade a future first because we traded a future second back in (for the future third)?

ie: if you trade a future first out but trade one back in you could still trade your future second and third.

Nonetheless interesting if there is a loophole or not which lets you trade out your future second/third initially before trading out a future first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top