No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[GROTTO]

I think the higher ranked the team (i.e. Hawks vs say melb) the less chance we match. What do they have to give us, IF they're willing?

Hawks say to us: we lost buddy for pick 18. **** off.

Yes the Hawks did get royally shafted, especially as their best player went to at the time to a top 4 team and a team that beat them in the 2012 GF.

However, there is also a school of thought that the Hawks play better without him and that releasing him allowed them to secure a few players and was worth the loss.

 

[Sanders]

Yes the Hawks did get royally shafted, especially as their best player went to at the time to a top 4 team and a team that beat them in the 2012 GF.

However, there is also a school of thought that the Hawks play better without him and that releasing him allowed them to secure a few players and was worth the loss.

Mate. Not being funny but that's bullshit. if you think they were happy to lose him you're crazy

 

[GROTTO]

Mate. Not being funny but that's bullshit. if you think they were happy to lose him you're crazy

No not happy, but statistically speaking they actually performed better without Buddy in the team. Their winning percentage without him in the team is higher than with him in it.

 

[GROTTO]

• In 2011 with Franklin (17 games), Hawthorn averaged 14 goals and 13.7 behinds per game (27.7 scoring shots per game);

• In 2011 without Franklin (2 games), Hawthorn averaged 20 goals, 8.5 behinds (28.5 scoring shots per game);

• In 2012 with Franklin (13 games), Hawthorn averaged 15.8 goals and 14.1 behinds per game (30.3 scoring shots per game);

• In 2012 without Franklin (6 games), Hawthorn averaged 20.8 goals and 14.7 behinds (35.5 scoring shots per game).

 

[TrainRoo32]

Mate. Not being funny but that's bullshit. if you think they were happy to lose him you're crazy

A bit different if paddy had won a couple of premierships..... Id happily drive to the Cattery!

 

[cmndstab]

I think the higher ranked the team (i.e. Hawks vs say melb) the less chance we match. What do they have to give us, IF they're willing?

Hawks say to us: we lost buddy for pick 18. **** off.

what do we do then?

All this theorising works only on the premise that his prefered club won't risk losing him. Once we match the door closes behind us, we have nowhere else to go. We can't go backwards.

Say Hawthorn then says (just like sydney did with tippett, or Hawks did we gunston) this is the pick we got (pick 20 say) Take it or we'll leave it.

We've got no leverage. Just like we didn't then.

Hell Port stole Ryder and he was contracted!!

Just playing devil's advocate here, but let's suppose we have a strong year, but Danger decides to go anyway. If we lose him in free agency, we get a compensation pick at the end of the first round.

If we match, then Hawthorn agrees to a trade, we get a pick around the end of the first round anyway. But we deprive a direct rival their first round pick.

Isn't that a better option?

 

[GROTTO]

A bit different if paddy had won a couple of premierships..... Id happily drive to the Cattery!

Good post.

Not to mention the fallout of matching Buddy's contract at the Hawks if he stayed.

Would we want to pay Danger $1.25m a year if it meant us losing say Sloane and/or Talia?

If there is a chance to secure Aish this year and get adequately compensated for Danger, we actually have the ability to come out ahead. the dream scenario would be to actually keep Danger ( at around $800k) and get Aish.

 

[Sanders]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but let's suppose we have a strong year, but Danger decides to go anyway. If we lose him in free agency, we get a compensation pick at the end of the first round.

If we match, then Hawthorn agrees to a trade, we get a pick around the end of the first round anyway. But we deprive a direct rival their first round pick.

Isn't that a better option?

If they agree to it, there's some logic there. But I'd rather have my time spent on free agency and other targets from trade week rather than locking ourselves out for a pyrhic theoretical victory.

I'd imagine in that scenario Hawks would be pretty pissed at how petty and trivial we were being.

After all, shouldnt carlton have matched betts? what then?

 

[Sanders]

• In 2011 with Franklin (17 games), Hawthorn averaged 14 goals and 13.7 behinds per game (27.7 scoring shots per game);

• In 2011 without Franklin (2 games), Hawthorn averaged 20 goals, 8.5 behinds (28.5 scoring shots per game);

• In 2012 with Franklin (13 games), Hawthorn averaged 15.8 goals and 14.1 behinds per game (30.3 scoring shots per game);

• In 2012 without Franklin (6 games), Hawthorn averaged 20.8 goals and 14.7 behinds (35.5 scoring shots per game).

Pretty meaningless sample sizes there

 

[GROTTO]

Was Nick Stevens one of the last players to be sent to the PSD?

Kudos to the Power. If IIRC, he wanted to go to the Pies and ended up at the Blues. I just wonder if Danger goes to the PSD whether a Club will want to take a player that obviously does not want to play for them.

 

[Sanders]

Was Nick Stevens one of the last players to be sent to the PSD?

Kudos to the Power. If IIRC, he wanted to go to the Pies and ended up at the Blues. I just wonder if Danger goes to the PSD whether a Club will want to take a player that obviously does not want to play for them.

John McCarthy. And stevens was a stupid decision by port that did them no good - 2003 wasn't it?

 

[GROTTO]

Pretty meaningless sample sizes there

I disagree with the 2012 data, about 25% of games.

I never said the Hawks would be happy with losing one of the great forwards of the modern era, what I am saying is that there was positives to not keeping him not just about winning games either.

 

[GROTTO]

John McCarthy. And stevens was a stupid decision by port that did them no good - 2003 wasn't it?

Disagree. The Pies were in direct competition with them at the time for a flag, so why should they greatly improve a competing side with little gain. Port would have done the deal if it a was fair one. The bottom line was that it wasnt and arguably Port won the flag in 04 so their bravado did pay off. They also got to play in the 07 GF as well. Stevens was probably the biggest loser out of all of it.

 

[Freshj]

Was Nick Stevens one of the last players to be sent to the PSD?

Kudos to the Power. If IIRC, he wanted to go to the Pies and ended up at the Blues. I just wonder if Danger goes to the PSD whether a Club will want to take a player that obviously does not want to play for them.

I agree with this, these days i cant see a club taking danger when he clearly wants to be playing elsewhere. It would be such a high profile and controversial move which i don't think would happen.

 

[GROTTO]

I agree with this, these days i cant see a club taking danger when he clearly wants to be playing elsewhere. It would be such a high profile and controversial move which i don't think would happen.

I think the big Clubs like the Pies and Blues will be in a great position to snare him, they also have the right profile and the right people in the background to be offering brown paper bags at the end of each week.

Dont rule out the Pies in this. Balme has been knee deep with the Cats prior to moving over to the Pies in acquiring Dangerfield. Its a long drive from Collingwood to Moggs ie about 90-120minutes but close enough for him to do the trek on the weekends.

 

[MRB37]

I kinda wish Dangerfield never made those 5AA comments since it's only gonna come back and bite him in the ass even worse with a fan backlash when he decides to leave.

 

[crowsup]

I agree with this, these days i cant see a club taking danger when he clearly wants to be playing elsewhere. It would be such a high profile and controversial move which i don't think would happen.

Nah! Nick wanted to play for the pies and ended up at Carlton. For Sydney to get Buddy and stop Hawthorn from sending him to the pre draft, paid an enormous amount. Hawthorn, or any other club, would not have paid that amount for anybody. If Geelong, or any other team for that matter, were to offer Patty $1.5M for 8-10 years, imo, we would be stupid to match. Any other fair and reasonable offer , we would have to match.
As far as having time to make a decision on matching any offer, I believe that there is a rule where the offer has to be on the table no more than 1.5 days into the trade period and the original club has 48 hours to decide on wether to match. to argue.
One of the reasons why Carlton did not match our offer for Betts was because they wanted to get the player from Collingwood without having to pay for it.
Now, if we are going after a free agent of near or equal value to Danger, the equation changes and we may not want to match or accept Geelong's offer.

As far as Ryder, Essendon where the winners. They would have lost him regardless. For port to get him, they had to pay their first and second picks. Port wanted him and were not prepared to let him go to court so he could become a free agent and get him for nothing(?).
So, IMV, we may not have high leverage if we match, but we sure have higher leverage than not matching.
Again I will state that, if Geelong really want Paddy, they : a) Offer him a contract we are unable or unwilling to match (in which case we help making them a little bit more vulnerable with their other players). Or b) They offer us a much better deal than compensation pick.

 

[DangerSloane]

nowhere in the article does it say that the club would regard him as gone

there skipper said at this point he is not concerned however he nominated rnd 15 as the point in time when there would start to be some concerns

He's pretty much put off contract talks hasnt he?
Out of his own mouth?

 

[DangerSloane]

And then get knicked for draft tampering.

LOL like anyone ever gets done for draft tampering.

 

[Sanders]

Disagree. The Pies were in direct competition with them at the time for a flag, so why should they greatly improve a competing side with little gain. Port would have done the deal if it a was fair one. The bottom line was that it wasnt and arguably Port won the flag in 04 so their bravado did pay off. They also got to play in the 07 GF as well. Stevens was probably the biggest loser out of all of it.

Collingwood offered their first pick and heath scotland. Wasn't a bad offer

Port were in fairy land demanding didak

 

[Tex Support]

Something that has come up a bit, and it makes me cringe everytime I read it:

Its that school of thought that if Danger leaves, and we somehow land James Aish with a big coin offer, it would be considered some sort of 'silver lining' situation.

Danger is a once in a generational type of player. A complete enigma. Aish has all the tools to become a quality AFL footballer (hopefully one day for the AFC), but he's never going to have the type of impact Patty will/does.

We match any offer IMO, especially if it means we cant pay a guy like James Aish what his manager says he's worth.

 

[Heafy83]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but let's suppose we have a strong year, but Danger decides to go anyway. If we lose him in free agency, we get a compensation pick at the end of the first round.

If we match, then Hawthorn agrees to a trade, we get a pick around the end of the first round anyway. But we deprive a direct rival their first round pick.

Isn't that a better option?

Agree with this on all fronts.

However once a player elects for Free agency, as in accepts a bid, are they still able to be traded?

 

[Cleric]

I think the higher ranked the team (i.e. Hawks vs say melb) the less chance we match. What do they have to give us, IF they're willing?

Hawks say to us: we lost buddy for pick 18. **** off.

what do we do then?

All this theorising works only on the premise that his prefered club won't risk losing him. Once we match the door closes behind us, we have nowhere else to go. We can't go backwards.

Say Hawthorn then says (just like sydney did with tippett, or Hawks did we gunston) this is the pick we got (pick 20 say) Take it or we'll leave it.

We've got no leverage. Just like we didn't then.

Hell Port stole Ryder and he was contracted!!

Its just like any trade. If they want him they will pay for him. If it was that easy PAP would have given Brisbane their fourth rounder for Polec. Yet that didnt happen. Most trades are of proper value. The AFL wont tick off Danger for pick 18 anyway.

 

[spenze]

This is a head V heart argument.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

We might have a bit of leverage here. Let's say Danger agrees terms with Geelong or Hawthorn. We match.

If he goes in the draft, surely St Kilda or Melbourne pick him up. Neither Geelong nor Hawthorn are going to be able to have danger put a number on his head that Melbourne or the Saints aren't willing and able to pay.

Without the threat of the draft being a viable one, I reckon we can afford to match an offer and force the other club to the trade table. And if nothing gets done there, Patty might think that 2 more years at the Crows, after which he can go wherever he wants as an UFA, sounds better than taking his chances in the draft.

As long as Danger doesn't nominate another interstate team it could work. However, once a player noninates a club other teams seem loathe to interfere. Tippett nominated Sydney so other teams weren't going to suddenly pick him knowing he didn't even want to be in the same state as them. It was Sydney or GWS. GWS were making plenty of rumbling about taking him but Tippett gave them the stink eye so that was that.

As Danger will definately be going to MELBOURNE however and there are so many VIC clubs that would love to have him we do have a little bit of leveridge. If the Saints announced they would take him in the PSD then that would force Geelong to be fairer in their trade. However, the elephant in the room will always be other teams knowing that there's no way we would risk losing yet another first round pick.