List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

[manboob]

By the sounds of it too we have a lot of fingers in a few boys er I mean pies... need to settle expectations down a bit amongst potential recruits. That said things are going to get cray cray if we add Lewy to Danger, Scooter and potentially Hendo... it could be a vastly different looking and exciting team next year... or not.

 

[Turbocat]

Interesting comment by the coach in his presser today in response to a question re Mots that all players have to fit into the payment model as it's proven to be such a successful formula. That includes any players coming to the club. Great to hear!

and in ideal world I think here is lot to be said and admired about the slightly socialistic model..... but can it work in a RFA world? I maintain te opinion that RFA is flawed , it was put in to accommodate clubs fears when FA was introduced. I agree with dazbroncos , that RFA works in a matching type climate where its a Bird situation... Id love to stay but I cant knock it back. So match the bid and get SC relief.
The player should be up in arms about the R FA , it discriminates against players just because they are "well paid" , not to mention that the way a contract is structured can make you a RFA or UFA as Frawley was.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Im not 100% up with the new draft trading picks rules.

And im sure this has been thought of…. or maybe not….

AFC match RFA offer and try to force trade. GFC don't budge and AFC can't get deal done for trade. PD ends up in PSD.

GFC turns to team X at top of PSD list and says we will trade you our 2017 RD 1 pick for the rights to the #1 PSD spot and we take PD.

PD gets what he (hypothetically) wants. AFC get bupkis for being stubborn and trying to keep a player that ( hypothetically) has expressed interest to leave.

Club X at top of PSD gets a free hit for moving over and we get PD for our Rd 1 2017 pick.

Im sure its not possible but if it is…….

GO Catters

From memory you can't trade PSD picks

 

[Turbocat]

Im not 100% up with the new draft trading picks rules.

And im sure this has been thought of…. or maybe not….

AFC match RFA offer and try to force trade. GFC don't budge and AFC can't get deal done for trade. PD ends up in PSD.

GFC turns to team X at top of PSD list and says we will trade you our 2017 RD 1 pick for the rights to the #1 PSD spot and we take PD.

PD gets what he (hypothetically) wants. AFC get bupkis for being stubborn and trying to keep a player that ( hypothetically) has expressed interest to leave.

Club X at top of PSD gets a free hit for moving over and we get PD for our Rd 1 2017 pick.

Im sure its not possible but if it is…….

GO Catters

Currently there seems to be some sort of unwritten rule that players get to where they want to get. Is that why Ball was not drafted till 30?

But players don't always get to their preferred destination with ease . When Burgoyne was trying to get to the Hawks , an agreement struggled to be made... in situations like that , there is some sort of round table negotiation. I wonder if Geelong put it to the AFL , that IF no agreement can be made after a significant period of debate , that approval can be made to trade a PSD... just having that ability would probably ensure the trade happens.
Big scheme of things the real issue is FA is FA... if its in then there should be no RFA. If the AFL want to change to Fair trade , the difference may be the receiving club will get a "nominated value" pick be instead of the AFL giving them a pick. My guess would be a Fair trade player will be treated like a FatherSon/Northern Acc kids... goes into the draft till a clubs nominate the pick they should use... then they get that pick. 1 pick only.

But Future picks has changed it now so who know where it ends up.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

By the sounds of it too we have a lot of fingers in a few boys er I mean pies... need to settle expectations down a bit amongst potential recruits. That said things are going to get cray cray if we add Lewy to Danger, Scooter and potentially Hendo... it could be a vastly different looking and exciting team next year... or not.

Personally would be surprised if we landed 1 of them, let alone all. But would change us from missing out on the 8 possibly this year, to a sneaky flag chance next year should all stay fit (yeah right)

 

[manboob]

Personally would be surprised if we landed 1 of them, let alone all. But would change us from missing out on the 8 possibly this year, to a sneaky flag chance next year should all stay fit (yeah right)

I'm under zero illusions (it's all about the bants remember).

 

[catempire]

I'm under zero illusions (it's all about the bants remember).

I'm all about the bants, bout the bants, no treble.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Personally would be surprised if we landed 1 of them, let alone all. But would change us from missing out on the 8 possibly this year, to a sneaky flag chance next year should all stay fit (yeah right)

Yeah, I'm doubtful about our chances of getting in the top talent that has been suggested. The attitude that the club will hit the draft hard is concerning, because they may wind up having to go for several second-choice options, paying overs in the process (as they did with Stanley). Now that future picks can be traded, the club has the capacity to trade in even more injury-prone players in a single trade period, and the future could be thrown away pretty easily to do so. Could be a Crazy Vossy-type scenario.

 

[Mahlepi]

and in ideal world I think here is lot to be said and admired about the slightly socialistic model..... but can it work in a RFA world? I maintain te opinion that RFA is flawed , it was put in to accommodate clubs fears when FA was introduced. I agree with dazbroncos , that RFA works in a matching type climate where its a Bird situation... Id love to stay but I cant knock it back. So match the bid and get SC relief.
The player should be up in arms about the R FA , it discriminates against players just because they are "well paid" , not to mention that the way a contract is structured can make you a RFA or UFA as Frawley was.

the issue with rfa is there should be a loss of pick for the receiving team, ie hawks gets frawley they lose their first round pick
the free hit is the issue

 

[Mahlepi]

Yeah, I'm doubtful about our chances of getting in the top talent that has been suggested. The attitude that the club will hit the draft hard is concerning, because they may wind up having to go for several second-choice options, paying overs in the process (as they did with Stanley). Now that future picks can be traded, the club has the capacity to trade in even more injury-prone players in a single trade period, and the future could be thrown away pretty easily to do so. Could be a Crazy Vossy-type scenario.

selw and danger are done
henderson wants a change not excessive cash
they are landing players who fir the geelong way

will be an interesting year next year if we keep a menzel, vardy fit

 

[Biggy_Boy]

selw and danger are done
henderson wants a change not excessive cash
they are landing players who fir the geelong way

will be an interesting year next year if we keep a menzel, vardy fit

Even if they want to come, how are those deals getting done? Chris Scott recently spoke about how they're not compromising their payment model for anyone, so that would indicate to me that they're not going to offer Dangerfield so much cash that Adelaide can't match. As an RFA, that means we'd need to trade something pretty substantial for him. Selwood and Henderson are the same. Do we have enough capital to trade away to land them?

 

[Turbocat]

the issue with rfa is there should be a loss of pick for the receiving team, ie hawks gets frawley they lose their first round pick
the free hit is the issue

No , thats not an RFA issue...thats a FA issue. Frawley was a UFA. the same issue applies.

 

[MotlopMagic]

It seems as though we're being linked with every RFA/FA this year. Not sure I'm as keen as others.
Dangerfield - Yes
Leuenberger - No
Henderson - No
Selwood - No

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[catempire]

No deals are done. There might be positive signs, even handshakes. But nothing is done.

We hold our breath until trade deadline.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Even if they want to come, how are those deals getting done? Chris Scott recently spoke about how they're not compromising their payment model for anyone, so that would indicate to me that they're not going to offer Dangerfield so much cash that Adelaide can't match. As an RFA, that means we'd need to trade something pretty substantial for him. Selwood and Henderson are the same. Do we have enough capital to trade away to land them?

Selwood A) won't cost the earth monetary wise and B) is being pushed closer and closer to the eagles fringes because of their good midfield and lastly C) is a RFA and even if they match he shouldn't cost the earth.

 

[Mahlepi]

No deals are done. There might be positive signs, even handshakes. But nothing is done.

We hold our breath until trade deadline.

yup
ok chief, no deals are done
but people are selling houses etc in anticipation of their new home

 

[Mahlepi]

Selwood A) won't cost the earth monetary wise and B) is being pushed closer and closer to the eagles fringes because of their good midfield and lastly C) is a RFA.

he is a good get, our midfield is s**t, and he adds to it day one

 

[OzeSparky]

It seems as though we're being linked with every RFA/FA this year. Not sure I'm as keen as others.
Dangerfield - Yes
Leuenberger - No
Henderson - No
Selwood - No

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

Why you think this way?

ill go
Dangerfield yes
Selwood yes (need mids and he is a good mid)
LEunberger yes (if can stay fit, obvious we need a number 1 ruck)
Henderson notsure (im undecided on him)

 

[Art Vandelay_]

he is a good get, our midfield is s**t, and he adds to it day one

Oh I agree I'm just pointing out why he's probably the most gettable for us.

 

[Mahlepi]

Oh I agree I'm just pointing out why he's probably the most gettable for us.

yeah, there are some on here who over rate our mids
we lack depth and quality

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Even if they want to come, how are those deals getting done? Chris Scott recently spoke about how they're not compromising their payment model for anyone, so that would indicate to me that they're not going to offer Dangerfield so much cash that Adelaide can't match. As an RFA, that means we'd need to trade something pretty substantial for him. Selwood and Henderson are the same. Do we have enough capital to trade away to land them?

CS is saying that for the supporters,so they have confidence we wont offer any crazy franklin type deals.the reality is they wont offer danger 600k and have to trade 2 first rounders when they can offer 900k per year and not have to trade anything.

As far as the other two scooter is on the edge of their side so i dont see them wanting to match any decent compo pick,and carlton wants to trade out players for picks.

 

[Turbocat]

Even if they want to come, how are those deals getting done? Chris Scott recently spoke about how they're not compromising their payment model for anyone, so that would indicate to me that they're not going to offer Dangerfield so much cash that Adelaide can't match. As an RFA, that means we'd need to trade something pretty substantial for him. Selwood and Henderson are the same. Do we have enough capital to trade away to land them?

The talk about tiers..and Danger seems to me that it almost locks in a matched offer. We know thats some of the Crows thread is down the Yellow brick road but its clear that the feedback from an unmatched offer would be huge for the Crows. An unmatched offer that is a moderate amount ... be thermonuclear.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Im not 100% up with the new draft trading picks rules.

And im sure this has been thought of…. or maybe not….

AFC match RFA offer and try to force trade. GFC don't budge and AFC can't get deal done for trade. PD ends up in PSD.

GFC turns to team X at top of PSD list and says we will trade you our 2017 RD 1 pick for the rights to the #1 PSD spot and we take PD.

PD gets what he (hypothetically) wants. AFC get bupkis for being stubborn and trying to keep a player that ( hypothetically) has expressed interest to leave.

Club X at top of PSD gets a free hit for moving over and we get PD for our Rd 1 2017 pick.

Im sure its not possible but if it is…….

GO Catters

You cant trade PSD picks although you can do side deals to ask a club to pass in psd.from memory with the judd deal wc did a side trade with richmond on the understanding they would take him in the psd,so you can leverage deals the other way on that,so long as they are not illegal

 

[Mahlepi]

The talk about tiers..and Danger seems to me that it almost locks in a matched offer. We know thats some of the Crows thread is down the Yellow brick road but its clear that the feedback from an unmatched offer would be huge for the Crows. An unmatched offer that is a moderate amount ... be thermonuclear.

no, as danger will say that he wants to go home etc,
it will be totally unsportmanlike and vindictive, and not great for the afl
the afl will intervene

there will not be a trade

 

[MotlopMagic]

Why you think this way?

ill go
Dangerfield yes
Selwood yes (need mids and he is a good mid)
LEunberger yes (if can stay fit, obvious we need a number 1 ruck)
Henderson notsure (im undecided on him)

Selwood - B grader (at best)
Leuenberger - Injury prone
Henderson - Don't rate

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk