aker for pick 34....you are f#$kin kidding me.

tom9779 · Post by **tom9779** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:02 pm

the bulldogs have pulled off the trade of the decade with that.

akermanis has at least 2 years as a TOP afl midfielder forward.

70% of the top 34 picks in this years draft will be lucky to be that.

i mean if tarrant is worth pick 8 and medhurst???

why on earth could we not have come up with a better deal to get aker???.....

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:09 pm

Yes, Bulldogs 'won' this trade week by far by getting Aker for pick 34 and McDougall for a low pick.

But the reason why we didn't get Aker and the Bulldogs got him cheap is because he didn't want to go to us. Bulldogs are a possible top 4 side next year, we ain't. Simple, and that's the end of the story. Thank f*** we don't have to hear about him again......for a while, anyway.

Crowny · Post by **Crowny** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:10 pm

And the Bulldogs were prepared to pay 100% of his salary which would have provided relief for Brisbane.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:11 pm

Crowny wrote:And the Bulldogs were prepared to pay 100% of his salary which would have provided relief for Brisbane.

That too.

robrulz5 · Post by **robrulz5** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:12 pm

The Bulldogs have done very well there. Aker will help them get closer to a Premiership.

tom9779 · Post by **tom9779** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:14 pm

still weak.

i am sick of hearing our coach sprout off about getting the best available player...moving heaven and earth......

we only missed aker because we only offered him 2 years....the dogs gave him 3.

i don't know how or why we wouldn't match that.
we gave campo 2 years and he was washed up at carlton.....

i hope to god the reason we didnt do much in trading is because we have got a deal happening for the PSD, and we are confident of finding 6 great new talents in the draft this year.

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:56 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
Crowny wrote:And the Bulldogs were prepared to pay 100% of his salary which would have provided relief for Brisbane.
That too.

Given Brisbane's tight salary restrictions that would appear to be the big issue in the deal.

Tamworth Bomber · Post by **Tamworth Bomber** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:00 pm

They got him for a steal, even with all of Aker's crap

Post by **Jazz_84** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:23 pm

we couldn't offer aker 3 years with out sitting down and try to explain it to Lucas and co

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:30 pm

We do not need more old recruits. This year was a catastrophuck, so develop younger players.

With Lloyd back next year, getting close to the top 8 is very possible even without Aker or another reject.

antcl · Post by **antcl** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:22 pm

For the record, I was against getting Aka.

If I'd known he was available for pick #36 (pretty much) I would have been all over him!

Marillion · Post by **Marillion** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:18 pm

Just because Aker has a big mouth Brisbane didn't want him! The guy was and STILL is a game winner,look at the last game(round 15,16 i think) he played for the Lions,he killed it! Western Bulldogs,what a bargin!!!!!......

Mrs Mercuri · Post by **Mrs Mercuri** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:11 pm

Brissy must have been very keen to offload him for anything the Doggies had to offer... the Dogs have fared very weel out of trade week as have the Dockers... will they be the best teams of 2007... probably!