Jake Stringer

[Surfer Dee 210]

Hogan, weid, watts, garlett, petracca, Stringer.

 

not saying we will or should get him, but there's worse things in the world than that forward line.

Would back Bmac to know if it's wise to chase him, and get him focused if we do.

 

[DaveyDee 421]

40 minutes ago, Akum said:

My mail is that it's targeted at their western suburbs fan base. They're giving them the message that their internal rumblings in the latter part of the season are all traced to one source, which they're now dealing with. Just like they did the last time something similar happened.

Reading between the lines, the club could have been a bit concerned by certain journos pushing that Stringer is just the tip of the iceberg. Their message is, in effect, that Stringer is the iceberg.

This, by the way, is without knowing anything about what Stringer is supposed to have done. But whatever is was, it apparently had a really corrosive effect.

What Stringer "done" is common knowledge, he is human after all. Letting your personal life effect your working life is a common day occurrence. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by DaveyDee

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

I trust BMac either way. 

Interesting.

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

What Stringer "done" is common knowledge, he is human after all. Letting your personal life effect your working life is a common day occurrence. 

Maybe. My understanding is that it's a lot more corrosive and widespread than just a simple misdemeanour. Again, nothing specific, just an overall impression.

[Redleg 40,792]

Good players aren't pushed out of clubs unless there is a good reason.

Bevo of all Coaches, is the protector of his men, yet he has clearly lost it with Jake.

If you read some of the comments of his team mates, they have as well.

He is obviously a big problem.

We don't need more big problems.

[DaveyDee 421]

12 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Good players aren't pushed out of clubs unless there is a good reason.

Bevo of all Coaches, is the protector of his men, yet he has clearly lost it with Jake.

If you read some of the comments of his team mates, they have as well.

He is obviously a big problem.

We don't need more big problems.

Occasionally you have to be prepared to back yourself. Kid has done nothing more than what thousands of kids do on a daily basis - except he is an AFL footballer. Again - Occasionally you have to be prepared to back yourself. 

[What 18,810]

Get him in, and sign Lumumba on for an extra season as his mentor.

[daisycutter 29,600]

16 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Get him in, and sign Lumumba on for an extra season as his mentor.

all he needs is meditation therapy. worked a treat for martin. get roosy's missus onto it.

[SaberFang 7,151]

We should probably learn from mistakes of the past and give this one a miss. Remember Mitch Clark?

[Bandwagner 24]

Mitch Clark was leading the Coleman is the sh***iest team to ever take the (any) park until he injured his foot.

He had depression issues following (probably stemming) that and as we've seen with Trenners, foot injuries are career killers.

Pretty glad we took a chance on Garlett.

Dogs will want our first round and probably more so really its whether people who would have pretty good info think he's worth that to us.

[PaulRB 6,328]

While Stringer on his game is very talented, with Hannan, Petracca and others roaming forward, with a lot of development in them, it's not a pressing need. Unless they (and Stringer) are being prepped for more midfield time...

A new start in a fresh environment, offers the chance at redemption and he's a talented player.

[daisycutter 29,600]

14 minutes ago, Bandwagner said:

Mitch Clark was leading the Coleman is the sh***iest team to ever take the (any) park until he injured his foot.

He had depression issues following (probably stemming) that and as we've seen with Trenners, foot injuries are career killers.

Pretty glad we took a chance on Garlett.

Dogs will want our first round and probably more so really its whether people who would have pretty good info think he's worth that to us.

stringer will go for a pick in the 20's (assuming no player trade). 

[Bandwagner 24]

He'd be a steal at that for whoever takes him.

Not doubting you at all but he was pick 5 before becoming AA and winning a premiership. The Dogs must be definitely keen to clear him out for that.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

stringer will go for a pick in the 20's (assuming no player trade). 

He'll go for more than that.  Reckon pick 11 from the Bombers will get it done.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Why ?  He's only worth what  he's worth at a SALE price. He's been ushered out the door.

I think DC is closer and even then  I wouldnt be surprised if he effectively goes for less.

His Lockers's probably already painted over !!

[Moonshadow 17,673]

Time to enact the No DH policy at MFC.

Pass

[hardtack 10,511]

42 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Time to enact the No DH policy at MFC.

Pass

I'm interested in knowing exactly what it is he is supposed to have done (or not done) that has earned him the d-head epithet?  I get the feeling that whoever gets him will indeed get a very very good player; this is because I feel his poor performances at the Doggies are down to the breakdown of the relationship between him and his coaches (and possibly players?).

Edited September 15, 2017 by hardtack

[Redleg 40,792]

42 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Time to enact the No DH policy at MFC.

Pass

It is already in place.

[daisycutter 29,600]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

He'll go for more than that.  Reckon pick 11 from the Bombers will get it done.

obviously pick 11 would get him but the bombers are notoriously tough negotiators and will try and get him cheaper. additionally stringer has (reportedly) said he wants to go to the cats which will have a big bearing if true. cats won't have a high pick especially if they get ablett. finally it's obvious that dogs regard him as toxic (for whatever reason) and have shown their hand early, so it's pretty sure he'll go and dogs will have reduced bargaining power

i don't doubt stringer has talent (aa 2 years ago) but his form has been down for 2 years now plus he's developed a bad behavioural rep. he carries a high risk factor and consequently he should go for unders

[Lord Travis 10,692]

29 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It is already in place.

Is it? How come we had multiple players break team rules and go drinking mid season and subsequently get banned from an AFL call up?  Should all of Kennedy, JKH, Kent and Spencer be moved on then? Do we move Bernie and Salem on for getting suspended multiple times this year also? Do we move Bugg on for all his ridiculous shenanigans this year where he became the very definition of a [censored]? 
The club talks the talk with a no [censored] policy, but doesn't walk the walk yet IMO.

Stringer would be a good pick up at the right price. Would not pay pick 10 for him as the Dogs don't hold much leverage by announcing they want to trade him due to attitude problems. If we could get him for a second round pick or a second round pick and a depth player like Kent or Harmes type then I'd do the deal and back the club to snap him into shape.

[ignition. 1,463]

As much as I like Watts as a person, he's teased us far too much.

He came back from the last off-season underdone, and as time goes on I don't think he'll ever get to a point where he'll consistently tear games apart. 

Stringer, on the other hand, has all the attributes to do so. Granted, I don't know the extent of his off field problems, but if our coaching group genuinely believe they can get the best out of him, I say go for it.

A direct swap between Watts and Stringer should be sufficient (maybe an exchange of later picks would be required). 

A fresh start for both may be all they need.

[What 18,810]

3 minutes ago, ignition. said:

 

He came back from the last off-season underdone, and as time goes on I don't think he'll ever get to a point where he'll consistently tear games apart. 

 

 

That dream is long in the past.  He will be 27 at the start of next season... hes never looked like being a consistent matchwinner, not even close.

His 2016 season was solid, but overrated.  It just looked really good as he has been terrible for so long.

Trade him.

 

[Akum 2,660]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

obviously pick 11 would get him but the bombers are notoriously tough negotiators and will try and get him cheaper. additionally stringer has (reportedly) said he wants to go to the cats which will have a big bearing if true. cats won't have a high pick especially if they get ablett. finally it's obvious that dogs regard him as toxic (for whatever reason) and have shown their hand early, so it's pretty sure he'll go and dogs will have reduced bargaining power

i don't doubt stringer has talent (aa 2 years ago) but his form has been down for 2 years now plus he's developed a bad behavioural rep. he carries a high risk factor and consequently he should go for unders

I don't think the Dogs will push their luck too far with the deal. But the buyer will be buying his future not his past, and usually in these circumstances, a player who has gained a bad rep does tend to pull their head in at a second club. And if the second club believe they can keep them under a tight rein, his future value as a player could make him a bargain even at pick 11.

Trouble is, I've heard that whatever the problem is, it had built up over a while, not just the one incident. The fact that his form has been ordinary, as you say, for quite a while tends to back this up. So while I think WE should steer clear, he remains an attractive lowish buy for someone willing to take him on.

It probably depends on whether more than one club is interested. If they can't set up an auction, the Dogs may well have to settle for a fair bit less.

[DaveyDee 421]

7 minutes ago, Akum said:

It probably depends on whether more than one club is interested. If they can't set up an auction, the Dogs may well have to settle for a fair bit less.

Dogs want him out, there will be no auction apart from in the media. I'm very confident we are in this up to our eye balls. 

[binman 42,540]

Just now, DaveyDee said:

Dogs want him out, there will be no auction apart from in the media. I'm very confident we are in this up to our eye balls. 

I'm not. Not a chance in hell we are interested. Roos, Goody and PJ are all about building the right culture. As if we want a player who has threatened the culture of a premiership winning side.

Maybe a club like the Swans or hawks whose culture is long established and rock solid might consider taking the risk (or some boneheaded club who is desperate) but not a club like us whose culture in the formative stage.