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

[Willo_]

Pickers ..the guy who manages Buddy?

Thats why I said I don't know his source here (in this case)

 

[Turbocat]

I'm hearing hannebury is going to North next year

Unless we are interested or it will affect us getting Danger , Im not sure the relevance of that being in this thread.

 

[Mahlepi]

Unless we are interested or it will affect us getting Danger , Im not sure the relevance of that being in this thread.

it indicates that there will be a fair bit of movement which affects the danger

 

[Turbocat]

it indicates that there will be a fair bit of movement which affects the danger

Stretching it I think. At the most , if they go for DH , they will not have the money for Danger so they are ruled out.

 

[dazbroncos]

Saw that...but guys like him annoy me. He would know less about the mechanics of FA bidding and matching etc than half the posters on this board. Might be worth to see what our friends over at Crow-Call-ville think of his call.

If I was smart enough to insert a mushroom cloud from a nuke I would….

but as in not, i'll give you this…..

Boom…. woooosh….. crackle…. burn……

You get the idea….

Go Catters

 

[Strangled Cat]

Hutchy just said on Footy Classified that Danger will be at Geelong next year and to take it to the bank



So there goes that idea then

I've been telling my wife over summer that Danger is leaving Adelaide for Geelong at the end of the season. She doesn't follow any media/forum stuff, she just watches the games and as such she's not really up to date with all of the happenings in the footy world. She'd brushed aside a lot of what I'd been telling her by saying "yeah right, as if Paddy's going anywhere!".

Well, it just so happened that last night she was within an earshot of the TV when Hutchy said what he did. I turned to her and said "I don't need to say anything, do I?". She got all snarky and said "whatever, he's just one player, there'll be others, if he doesn't want to be here then he can go!".

Danger is also her favourite player, so yeah... it'll be interesting what happens.

 

[dazbroncos]

I've been telling my wife over summer that Danger is leaving Adelaide for Geelong at the end of the season. She doesn't follow any media/forum stuff, she just watches the games and as such she's not really up to date with all of the happenings in the footy world. She'd brushed aside a lot of what I'd been telling her by saying "yeah right, as if Paddy's going anywhere!".

Well, it just so happened that last night she was within an earshot of the TV when Hutchy said what he did. I turned to her and said "I don't need to say anything, do I?". She got all snarky and said "whatever, he's just one player, there'll be others, if he doesn't want to be here then he can go!".

Danger is also her favourite player, so yeah... it'll be interesting what happens.

careful or it'll be the couch for you!!!!

Go Catters

 

[Cataholic]

I've been telling my wife over summer that Danger is leaving Adelaide for Geelong at the end of the season. She doesn't follow any media/forum stuff, she just watches the games and as such she's not really up to date with all of the happenings in the footy world. She'd brushed aside a lot of what I'd been telling her by saying "yeah right, as if Paddy's going anywhere!".

Well, it just so happened that last night she was within an earshot of the TV when Hutchy said what he did. I turned to her and said "I don't need to say anything, do I?". She got all snarky and said "whatever, he's just one player, there'll be others, if he doesn't want to be here then he can go!".

Danger is also her favourite player, so yeah... it'll be interesting what happens.

Your wife sounds as emotionally invested and one-eyed with the Crows as my girlfriend is with her team.

There's no logical reasoning to be had with her, and she exudes all the rabid characteristics. Footy in our house is a very touchy subject.

If you haven't already guessed, she supports the Dawks....fanatically

 

[Grimoz]

Now that Sam Mitchell has signed on at the Hawks for next year i hope that decreases there available salary cap for next year a bit, you would have to think he would be on pretty decent money being the champion that he is. To see the Hawks get any player of substance especially PD next year will be too much to take as it seems to happen year in year out. I just hope we haven't gone too early like we did with Frawley and it all works in our favor and the Hawks stay the hell away!!!!

 

[Mego Red]

Now you have gone way over 20% , that you stipulated. Will not happen. There can only be one major loser in this.
Pay you less than he is worth? We dont want to pay you anything he is a FA. Its not about worth. If Managers had there way there would be no at all and FA at 6 years. Good luck with keeping Vic kids then.

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

 

[Lana]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

That is what free agency is, Adelaide doesn't have a say in the matter. Sure they can match it, but they won't, they can't risk him walking to the PSD and getting nothing. Geelong doesn't give Adelaide anything. They aren't a stakeholder in this deal.

 

[cats_09]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

Seems a bit of an overreaction.

Dangerfield is a FA - so why would we want to pay anything for him in terms of a trade when we have no need to do so?

When other teams have signed free agents, Swans with Buddy, Hawks with Frawley or us with Rivers, did any of those teams decide to make subsequent trades to the FA deals to "compensate" the original club who lost someone? Sure we gave Melbourne Byrnes & Gillies as FA, but many would say we still won out of those 2 leaving also.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

You're starting to become really desperate now Kristof!

 

[dazbroncos]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

We have the chance to get him for exactly that. FREE.
16 other clubs would lick their lips. And several are. Apparently, through geography, we are in the box seat.

If you want to trade sure.
We'll give you our Rd2 pick and you give us PD.

Or you want Rd1 and Rd2. And the dreams of getting NC5 as part for forcing a PD trade are that. Dreams.


Go Catters

 

[Strangled Cat]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

There's a reason why it's called Free Agency and not Cheap Agency.

 

[Mego Red]

We have the chance to get him for exactly that. FREE.
16 other clubs would lick their lips. And several are. Apparently, through geography, we are in the box seat.

If you want to trade sure.
We'll give you our Rd2 pick and you give us PD.

Or you want Rd1 and Rd2.

Go Catters

We want your second round pick in a secondary trade in order to release him as a free agent. And we want the free agency compo.

It's interesting. You won't get him if we match, another club will; or he'll choose to stay.

For one, I'd be happy to see him in the PSD. Losing one pick is minor in comparison with reversing the perception that interstate clubs are feeder clubs.

It will also be interesting to see whether Patrick is prepared to burn the bridges on his way out, or whether he is going to want to maintain his professional reputation and help make sure all sides are satisfied.

 

[dazbroncos]

We want your second round pick in a secondary trade in order to release him as a free agent. And we want the free agency compo.

It's interesting. You won't get him if we match, another club will, or he'll choose to stay.

For one, I'd be happy to see him in the PSD. Losing one pick is minor in comparison with reversing the perception that interstate clubs are feeder clubs.

Never called any interstate club a feeder club. Sorry if thats the way you feel.

IMO, we can make an offer that will keep the RFA match outside your SC limits.

In the event that fails. and you force the trade. I would give you our Rd 2 pick to "release him" as FA. Im pretty sure thats collusion and the aFL would s**t can both clubs as well.

Go Catters

 

[Go Hoops]

Don't be so gullible mate. It was PR talk. Open your eyes!

Gave me a hearty laugh Stanley.

There's absolutely nothing to be gained by the skipper making such an unequivocal misleading comment. And it's out of character for him to do so on club matters.

There's not a scintilla of evidence from a reliable club source of any plan to offer Danger overs. Merely the idle thoughts of a few campaigners here and in the wider commentariat who see some odd merit in overturning a defined pay structure that has stood us in such good stead for so long. With all the possible downside ramifications.

It would be an utter disgrace if Danger got more than Selwood, Hawkins, Taylor. In the unlikely event of that occurring the club would lose many members in my view starting with 3 from my family.

 

[catempire]

It would be an utter disgrace if Danger got more than Selwood, Hawkins, Taylor. In the unlikely event of that occurring the club would lose many members in my view starting with 3 from my family.

You going to audit the books to find out before you make a decision?

 

[catempire]

We want your second round pick in a secondary trade in order to release him as a free agent. And we want the free agency compo.

It's interesting. You won't get him if we match, another club will; or he'll choose to stay.

For one, I'd be happy to see him in the PSD. Losing one pick is minor in comparison with reversing the perception that interstate clubs are feeder clubs.

It will also be interesting to see whether Patrick is prepared to burn the bridges on his way out, or whether he is going to want to maintain his professional reputation and help make sure all sides are satisfied.

It's just not going to happen. Incentives are aligned to get PD to his club of choice, if he decides to leave. You may be willing to see him in the PSD but I'd like to wager that Adelaide isn't.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

I'm not sure why Adelaide supporters are so adamant that Dangerfield arriving at Geelong will come via a trade which involves a high profile player or a high draft pick... it simply won't.

 

[Turbocat]

Wow.

So you're unprepared to give up the equivalent of a second round pick to get Patrick Dangerfield.

So, unless he's free, you don't want him? Is that your recruiting policy going forward! Free or eff off!

Geelong mostly has a reputation of being very fair as traders. I'm interested as to why you would cut your nose off to spite your face in this instance.

Is it that you have your heart set on getting a top five player for nothing? And you're unprepared to have him if it can't be free?

Lets start with FA. We did not invent it , the club has stated they are not in favour of it but as it in we must use it. And the club that gets the player pays nothing. Is it right.? No , not imo , but thats the system. FA , whether you think is fair or not , there is no framework to add to the comp..so its just a theoretical discussion.

You have stated you would try to come up with a way to get an extra 20%. Id say for 20% , if that got the deal done we would do it. But what is 20% of an R1 pick , not an R2 pick. Its not so much what I would I trade it for Danger , its what you said you were after... 20%.

Id say Hartman for a nothing pick would be close to 20%. Not as if he is a player that has not debuted. Yes he could nothing , just like 1/2 of the kids picked from 30 on are. But he has shown he can do it at the level. If it was 24 months ago I might agree with you , but now he is player who is worth the risk.

Id trade perhaps two better know players for 1 better known and a late pick to give you 20%. Perhaps Murdoch and GHS for Kerridge and a pick ..or something like that may be do able. depend on the pick I guess to give us the 20%.

I may even give a R2 or and R3 pick for an an unknown kid if we rated him. You have a Rookie ..Kelly for eg> Any good. I have no idea.

...but to to trade our R2 for your R3 (which Id say gives you 20%) , and then trade GHS for Lyons another 20%... got a feeling your 20% and mine is different and so we will probably not get an agreement.

 

[Turbocat]

We want your second round pick in a secondary trade in order to release him as a free agent. And we want the free agency compo.

It's interesting. You won't get him if we match, another club will; or he'll choose to stay.

For one, I'd be happy to see him in the PSD. Losing one pick is minor in comparison with reversing the perception that interstate clubs are feeder clubs.

It will also be interesting to see whether Patrick is prepared to burn the bridges on his way out, or whether he is going to want to maintain his professional reputation and help make sure all sides are satisfied.

This burning bridges stuff..... will it be that when a club gets no comp. Thats what many want FA to be. Any player choosing FA would then as far your concerned be burning past relationships.

IF you are willing to give up P8 to P14 because you don't get P8 to P14 and P26 to P32. Frankly that would be insane , imo. Talk about burning down the house.
Imagine it was 12 months ago and because you don't get a player like Patrick McKenna or Dan Howe , you miss on getting a Peter Wright , a Nakia Coackatoo or a Lockie Weller.
And thats if you use it. You may have other goals in mind.

 

[Jon Douglas]

GFC will go for Danger as a FA and no players or picks attached.

As I understand all we need to do is out bid them (assuming he wants to leave) - although it maybe a costly thing to do. I think it will be closer to 1 mill a year than 1.25 mill - but it will be a 5 year contract.

The question is can we afford Danger ?

Well say we lose Enright, Kelly, Hmac and Rivers - all possible retirees and the most likely to do so. What do we save then ? Well all of them will be $100,000 than they are really paid by being on the veterans list (as I understand it). Then you have to bring in players from the latest ND - then pay for any free agent deals - and pay for any other new contracts involving Geelong players.

My guess then is that if have 4 retirees (those mentioned previously) that would save you maybe 2 mill a season - minus the $400,000 (veterans) and then you add in 3 new ND picks at say $100,000 a season - and that leaves around 1.3 mill. Then you need resign some players and that will cost money.

So we maybe able to afford 1 mill a year for Danger and not a lot more unless we do some radical surgery to the list.

So 5 years at 1 mill seem around the likely mark to me. then it will depend on Danger whether he wants to come anyway and then on whether the Crows offer 1.1 mill over 5 years. I think the Crows might offer 1.1 mill if they think Danger really wants to stay.

So we should also target Stevens from the Saints. Right age and good skill set for what we want. No Danger but a very good player. In a good team he could be a serious asset.

My guess is that Saints will want to keep him - but perhaps a 5 year $550-600,000 deal may get it done for the Cats. Clearly we can afford that - and we cannot afford to go into 2016 without a better midfield. We have to get better ASAP and FA and swapping of players is the quickest remedy.

 

[wcadams88]

GFC will go for Danger as a FA and no players or picks attached.

As I understand all we need to do is out bid them (assuming he wants to leave) - although it maybe a costly thing to do. I think it will be closer to 1 mill a year than 1.25 mill - but it will be a 5 year contract.

The question is can we afford Danger ?

Well say we lose Enright, Kelly, Hmac and Rivers - all possible retirees and the most likely to do so. What do we save then ? Well all of them will be $100,000 than they are really paid by being on the veterans list (as I understand it). Then you have to bring in players from the latest ND - then pay for any free agent deals - and pay for any other new contracts involving Geelong players.

My guess then is that if have 4 retirees (those mentioned previously) that would save you maybe 2 mill a season - minus the $400,000 (veterans) and then you add in 3 new ND picks at say $100,000 a season - and that leaves around 1.3 mill. Then you need resign some players and that will cost money.

So we maybe able to afford 1 mill a year for Danger and not a lot more unless we do some radical surgery to the list.

So 5 years at 1 mill seem around the likely mark to me. then it will depend on Danger whether he wants to come anyway and then on whether the Crows offer 1.1 mill over 5 years. I think the Crows might offer 1.1 mill if they think Danger really wants to stay.

So we should also target Stevens from the Saints. Right age and good skill set for what we want. No Danger but a very good player. In a good team he could be a serious asset.

My guess is that Saints will want to keep him - but perhaps a 5 year $550-600,000 deal may get it done for the Cats. Clearly we can afford that - and we cannot afford to go into 2016 without a better midfield. We have to get better ASAP and FA and swapping of players is the quickest remedy.

"Steven" has signed for 5 years already.