Aaron Naughton

[BoBo 2,061]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

I assume you are suggesting we can't afford naughton?

We would have had to pay Jackson close to 750 to keep him i would have thought, so we have that money and 600k for Grundy is peanuts, so that's not an issue either. If Tomlinson went to the dogs, for example, that's 600k out the door for starters.  

I'm assuming an advantage of having four long term contracts in Salem, Gus, Tracc and Oliver is that it creates opportunities for some creative accounting in terms of  balancing the books. For example they might have paid a big chunk up front so they had space nect year (for example to pay Jackson).  

 

Fair points.

Naughton coming to Melbourne for $750,000 would be an absurd STEAL though. He could easily demand $900,000+ To the highest bidder. 
 

Tomlinson is on $500,000 for us, bringing him into the dogs… whilst losing Naughton? For the same price? Tomlinson is also contracted with us until the end of 2024.

Grundy is *apparently* going to have $300,000 of his remaining contract a year paid by the pies, which has 1-2 more years I think? Don’t see things squaring up financially real quick. 

If Naughton was so premiership hungry and ok with earning a lot less than he’s worth, then I guess I could see it happening. But his worth seems untenable for us if he wants money anywhere near his worth.  
 

I mean hey, if the doggies want to do it and Naughton is willing to break contract and be on the same money, then great!  I just don’t see how it could happen without all the chips falling our way and the doggies being willing to lose their 2nd (arguably most important?) player.

[Palace Dees 1,995]

1 minute ago, BDA said:

That's a big question

I'd like to know if God exists

He did last year, not sure about the weekend past though.....🤔

[The Jackson FIX 2,288]

2 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

Dees
In: Naughton
Out: Jackson, 3rd-4th rounder 

Dogs
In: Lobb, Tomlinson 
Out: Naughton, 3rd-4th rounder 

Freo
In: Jackson
Out: Lobb, x2 top 10 picks 

Freo send Lobb, and two top 10 picks to dogs > Dees send Tommo+salary dump to Dogs, Jackson to Freo

Naughton is a bit more than Jacko on the market due to his age bracket, playing history and current contract. Giving them Tomlinson on the cheap could benefit both teams if it made the deal happen. 

This is basically saying Lobb & Naughton are of equal trade value? Would’ve thought that is quite the distance from reality…

[Demons11 6,404]

5 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

This is basically saying Lobb & Naughton are of equal trade value? Would’ve thought that is quite the distance from reality…

You’ve got that right!

[Demonland 64,782]

22 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

He's pretty good on a lead, and one out...

But can take a mark, outnumbered, deep in the pocket, with the ball kicked on his head? 🤷‍♂️

In answer to your first sentence will not need this at the Dees.

In answer to your second sentence he will be perfect for the Dees.

[chook fowler 18,217]

24 minutes ago, BDA said:

That's a big question

I'd like to know if God exists

I do.

[deanox 8,568]

5 hours ago, A F said:

...

Would all parties be satisfied with the following:

Bulldogs give up Naughton. Bulldogs receive Lobb, a top 10 pick (via Melbourne) and Tomlinson.

Melbourne gives up Jackson, Tomlinson & a top 10 pick. Melbourne receives Henry and Naughton. 

Fremantle gives up Lobb, Henry & a top 10 pick. Fremantle receives Jackson.

...

I think if you add a second pick back to the dees from the dogs, or an upgrade of 2nd round picks, it balances it a bit I think?

But honestly, I think every club is reasonably happy with some small variation of this. 

 

Except Freo who claim they won't lose Lobb, but in reality trading "a 30 year old who wants to leave, a young fringe player (albeit higher potential and young) and a top 10 pick" is a good deal for Jackson.

 

 

[Ethan Tremblay 28,358]

Almost two weeks ago I posted the below.. What else does #ETtheTradeWhisperer know? #ETdoesItAgain. #HowDoesHeDoIt? #EquationsAreBetterThanRiddles. #TheOGtradebreaker. 
 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Ethan Tremblay

[Binmans PA 26,019]

Just waiting for GNF to come in here and claim chook's info from a few weeks/months back as his own again. Come on down, mate.

[MrFreeze 1,368]

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

This is basically saying Lobb & Naughton are of equal trade value? Would’ve thought that is quite the distance from reality…

I think I confused myself trying to calculate draft values 

Edit: I should've stated the top 10 picks go to dogs so it's 

Dees

In: Naughton

Out: Jackson, 3rd-4th rounder 

Dogs

In: Lobb, Tomlinson, x2 top 10

Out: Naughton, 3rd-4th rounder 

Freo

In: Jackson

Out: Lobb, x2 top 10 picks 

Edited September 26, 2022 by MrFreeze

[Binmans PA 26,019]

26 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

I think I confused myself trying to calculate draft values 

Edit: I should've stated the top 10 picks go to dogs so it's 

Dees

In: Naughton

Out: Jackson, 3rd-4th rounder 

Dogs

In: Lobb, Tomlinson, x2 top 10

Out: Naughton, 3rd-4th rounder 

Freo

In: Jackson

Out: Lobb, x2 top 10 picks 

I reckon that's too slanted in the Bulldogs' favour. One first rounder is surely enough. Two seems excessive.

Edited September 26, 2022 by A F

[Gawndy the Great 7,324]

2 hours ago, binman said:

I assume you are suggesting we can't afford naughton?

We would have had to pay Jackson close to 750 to keep him i would have thought, so we have that money and 600k for Grundy is peanuts, so that's not an issue either. If Tomlinson went to the dogs, for example, that's 600k out the door for starters.  

I'm assuming an advantage of having four long term contracts in Salem, Gus, Tracc and Oliver is that it creates opportunities for some creative accounting in terms of  balancing the books. For example they might have paid a big chunk up front so they had space nect year (for example to pay Jackson).  

 

Don’t forget the additional $$ we need to keep Kozzy the year after next. 
 

Still think we can do it as the retirees and list changes next year plus the increase in cap can probably make it possible 

[Deemac 125]

I read this whole thread just to be sure your all full of it

[adonski 9,141]

Why is there a Naughton thread

[Palace Dees 1,995]

29 minutes ago, adonski said:

Why is there a Naughton thread

[MrFreeze 1,368]

1 hour ago, A F said:

I reckon that's too slanted in the Bulldogs' favour. One first rounder is surely enough. Two seems excessive.

For a superstar kpf currently on a 5 year deal? 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,024]

9 hours ago, Action Jackson said:

Great idea..... I guess Astronaught could be one of them

Shame Daniel Cross isn't around the club anymore. Could've gone with Naughts 'n' Crosses 

[Clayton van Oliver 1,665]

3 hours ago, adonski said:

Why is there a Naughton thread

Why naught?

[1964_2 2,357]

Well done to this thread. Naughts to Dees just got mentioned on SEN. Albeit, it was a listener text saying they heard we are into him (one of you guys?)

Keep pushing until Tom Browne runs with it. 

 

[djr 1,067]

9 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

I think I confused myself trying to calculate draft values 

Edit: I should've stated the top 10 picks go to dogs so it's 

Dees

In: Naughton

Out: Jackson, 3rd-4th rounder 

Dogs

In: Lobb, Tomlinson, x2 top 10

Out: Naughton, 3rd-4th rounder 

Freo

In: Jackson

Out: Lobb, x2 top 10 picks 

So what do we give Collingwood for Grundy? Your scenario suggests we have nothing left in the cupboard.

[djr 1,067]

10 hours ago, A F said:

Just waiting for GNF to come in here and claim chook's info from a few weeks/months back as his own again. Come on down, mate.

Give it a rest mate. You tell this "joke" time and time again. It's boring. I would put you on ignore but I do like some of your stuff.

[Binmans PA 26,019]

14 minutes ago, djr said:

Give it a rest mate. You tell this "joke" time and time again. It's boring. I would put you on ignore but I do like some of your stuff.

I think I've told it twice, but time and time and again.

[ArtificialWisdom 3,848]

11 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

I think I confused myself trying to calculate draft values 

Edit: I should've stated the top 10 picks go to dogs so it's 

Dees

In: Naughton

Out: Jackson, 3rd-4th rounder 

Dogs

In: Lobb, Tomlinson, x2 top 10

Out: Naughton, 3rd-4th rounder 

Freo

In: Jackson

Out: Lobb, x2 top 10 picks 

I can only assume that for this to happen. You're planning on spiking Peter Bell's drink before he walks into the negotiation room then making the decision on his behalf. They don't want to give up Lobb, but you've basically asked them to pay massive overs for Jackson and give Lobb away for free. Even if the two 3rd/4th rounders that have vanished into thin air and up at Fremantle, that's still a horrible deal for them. 

For what it's worth I think most of us assume this is between a 0 and 0.0001% chance of happening....buuuuut in the interest of fun my mega trade hypothetical would be something like

Melbourne sends Jackson to Freo along with Tomlinson and pick 32 to the Dogs

Freo send pick 13 and Lobb to the Dogs 

And the Dogs send Naughton to Melbourne 

---------

Dogs IN Lobb, Tomlinson, 13, 32 OUT Naughton

The Dogs get 2 ready made but old players to help at both ends of the ground and a high end draft talent (with their own pick 11 could on trade that and 13 into the top 10) but lose their best forward. They still probably consider this a net loss... Despite the ins

Freo IN Jackson OUT: Lobb, 13

Freo get Jackson without giving up 2 firsts or finding a top 10 pick and give away a guy that want to keep but who also doesn't want to be there. They'd likely consider this a break even but the rest of the footy world would think it's a win. 

Melb IN Naughton OUT Jackson, Tomlinson and 32.

Melbourne get their man but pay thought the nose for him. But frankly to pull a contracted superstar from another team expecting to contend would be win in itself.

Anyways that was a fun waste of time

[Kent 2,581]

9 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I can only assume that for this to happen. You're planning on spiking Peter Bell's drink before he walks into the negotiation room then making the decision on his behalf. They don't want to give up Lobb, but you've basically asked them to pay massive overs for Jackson and give Lobb away for free. Even if the two 3rd/4th rounders that have vanished into thin air and up at Fremantle, that's still a horrible deal for them. 

For what it's worth I think most of us assume this is between a 0 and 0.0001% chance of happening....buuuuut in the interest of fun my mega trade hypothetical would be something like

Melbourne sends Jackson to Freo along with Tomlinson and pick 32 to the Dogs

Freo send pick 13 and Lobb to the Dogs 

And the Dogs send Naughton to Melbourne 

---------

Dogs IN Lobb, Tomlinson, 13, 32 OUT Naughton

The Dogs get 2 ready made but old players to help at both ends of the ground and a high end draft talent (with their own pick 11 could on trade that and 13 into the top 10) but lose their best forward. They still probably consider this a net loss... Despite the ins

Freo IN Jackson OUT: Lobb, 13

Freo get Jackson without giving up 2 firsts or finding a top 10 pick and give away a guy that want to keep but who also doesn't want to be there. They'd likely consider this a break even but the rest of the footy world would think it's a win. 

Melb IN Naughton OUT Jackson, Tomlinson and 32.

Melbourne get their man but pay thought the nose for him. But frankly to pull a contracted superstar from another team expecting to contend would be win in itself.

Anyways that was a fun waste of time

Yes it was

 

[layzie 28,708]

Conjecture