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

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

I think that Clarkson saw it coming and expiated it to the fullest. Knowing that our rucks were limited, Clarko ( if that is the reference point) deliberately played Hill there and got exactly what he wanted - knowing that Hill would kill Blitz on speed but that overall Blitz would keep going all day.

The ploy worked and Hill burned him up.

Go Catters

We'll just leave it there Daz, back to Danger and how he'll be a cat 2016.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Saw Paddy walking around Glenelg Beach yesterday with Tom Lynch. Had to stop myself from yelling out to him to come home.

Are you from SA too, mate?

 

[Swarles Barkley]

Are you from SA too, mate?

Nah Strangled Cat, I went over with some mates for the Test Match and due to the rescheduling had a spare day. Lovely part of the world.

 

[thegerman]

Saw Paddy walking around Glenelg Beach yesterday with Tom Lynch. Had to stop myself from yelling out to him to come home.

I just send him tweets now and again of him in geelong colours.

 

[The rabbi]

I just send him tweets now and again of him in geelong colours.

I think that will work about as well as the photoshops of Frawley in Geelong colours late last year.

 

[Two Planks]

A bit of useless information from an official at the AFL.

There have been 28 examples of players earning over a million dollars in a particular season. 0 of them have played in a premiership that year.

He also told me that cats and hawks wouldn't be that stupid (his words, not mine) to pay overs for Dangerfield and that there is no way Paddy would go to saints or demons for even 2 million per season. He thinks Dangerfield is $1.10 to stay at crows. Pies would be the only "big" club in Victoria that could pay Dangerfield big money.

 

[Vdubs]

When you win POTY it's great contributions to discussion like this that I'll remember fondly.

Ditto.

 

[catempire]

Ditto.

Can be taken a number of ways. Want to elaborate?

 

[Vdubs]

Can be taken a number of ways. Want to elaborate?

When it became clear you were about to be POTY, (weeks ago) although I have always rated your posts a lot, and have said that before, it has made many of us more aware that your contributions to debates are spot-on. Never any malice, factual, balanced.
I thought "ditto" was unusually brief for me.
Only positive comments here CE.

 

[Turbocat]

A bit of useless information from an official at the AFL.

There have been 28 examples of players earning over a million dollars in a particular season. 0 of them have played in a premiership that year.

He also told me that cats and hawks wouldn't be that stupid (his words, not mine) to pay overs for Dangerfield and that there is no way Paddy would go to saints or demons for even 2 million per season. He thinks Dangerfield is $1.10 to stay at crows. Pies would be the only "big" club in Victoria that could pay Dangerfield big money.

so no one has earned 1m in the same year as winning a flag... only a matter of time before that changes. As far as overs , goes the system is what it is. Players that change clubs earn more.

 

[Two Planks]

so no one has earned 1m in the same year as winning a flag... only a matter of time before that changes. As far as overs , goes the system is what it is. Players that change clubs earn more.

So far Sydney has lost Mumford, Malceski and COLA due to getting Franklin. Then every player coming out of contract will want more. It's no fluke that cats and hawks have win 6 of 8 flags and dont pay extremely high wages to its stars. Pies have not been the same club since they paid Cloke top dollar.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

What I'd be interested in is what would be considered overs for Dangerfield, or what would be considered as his market value?

 

[Two Planks]

What I'd be interested in is what would be considered overs for Dangerfield, or what would be considered as his market value?

At geelong he Is worth slightly less than Selwood and Hawkins. Whatever Taylor is on would be about right. If he was to be the highest paid player at the club it would be overs.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

So far Sydney has lost Mumford, Malceski and COLA due to getting Franklin. Then every player coming out of contract will want more. It's no fluke that cats and hawks have win 6 of 8 flags and dont pay extremely high wages to its stars. Pies have not been the same club since they paid Cloke top dollar.

Malceski didn't get forced out due to Franklin , he chose to go to GC for a 3 year deal, be a development coach and probably more then he would have got at Sydney, he could have stayed if he wanted to.

Also Pies have been s**t not because of Clokes contract, because they have turned over so many players. I would wager they have done almost as many as us if not more from 2011.

 

[FredLeDeux]

What I'd be interested in is what would be considered overs for Dangerfield, or what would be considered as his market value?

We'll find out his mv pretty soon. Of course, that may also be overs.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

At geelong he Is worth slightly less than Selwood and Hawkins. Whatever Taylor is on would be about right. If he was to be the highest paid player at the club it would be overs.

Yeah I understand what you're saying but I was asking more about what his market value would be in a broader sense, as far as the whole competition goes. I doubt that we'll be going to his manager and offering 600k per year, which is what Taylor is reportedly on so what I'm interested in is how far the club will be willing to go in order to get his signature.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

Yeah I understand what you're saying but I was asking more about what his market value would be in a broader sense, as far as the whole competition goes. I doubt that we'll be going to his manager and offering 600k per year, which is what Taylor is reportedly on so what I'm interested in is how far the club will be willing to go in order to get his signature.

Rumors are we preparing a big deal, at least a large amount upfront to stop Crows matching it. Then less over the rest of the contract.

If he leaves crows, can see it on about 900K- $1 mill a year.

 

[cats_09]

Rumors are we preparing a big deal, at least a large amount upfront to stop Crows matching it. Then less over the rest of the contract.

If he leaves crows, can see it on about 900K- $1 mill a year.

I thought someone (apologies to the poster) mentioned & showed where in free agency rules, the original team doesn't have to match a free agency offer year for year, just the total offer and they can then stagger the amount how they wish over the duration of the contract. So us offering Dangerfield a $5million, 5 year contract split as y1 - $2million, y2 - $1.2million, y3,4 & 5 - $600k, doesn't have to be matched by the Crows in that structure, just matched overall where they will pay $5million over 5 years in their own structure.

One way that could take the Crows out of the equation of matching the offer would be something like only a 2 year deal worth $3 or $3.5 million, and have it written into Dangerfield's contract a clause for extension by X years - in those X years we then reduce his pay but don't have it as part of the original deal where the Crows have the ability to match the amount over a longer time contract.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

I thought someone (apologies to the poster) mentioned & showed where in free agency rules, the original team doesn't have to match a free agency offer year for year, just the total offer and they can then stagger the amount how they wish over the duration of the contract. So us offering Dangerfield a $5million, 5 year contract split as y1 - $2million, y2 - $1.2million, y3,4 & 5 - $600k, doesn't have to be matched by the Crows in that structure, just matched overall where they will pay $5million over 5 years in their own structure.

One way that could take the Crows out of the equation of matching the offer would be something like only a 2 year deal worth $3 or $3.5 million, and have it written into Dangerfield's contract a clause for extension by X years - in those X years we then reduce his pay but don't have it as part of the original deal where the Crows have the ability to match the amount over a longer time contract.

Not sure of the specifics mate, just what I've heard.

Of course a lot will depend on how much we have to pay Hawkins and Motlop as well.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I thought someone (apologies to the poster) mentioned & showed where in free agency rules, the original team doesn't have to match a free agency offer year for year, just the total offer and they can then stagger the amount how they wish over the duration of the contract. So us offering Dangerfield a $5million, 5 year contract split as y1 - $2million, y2 - $1.2million, y3,4 & 5 - $600k, doesn't have to be matched by the Crows in that structure, just matched overall where they will pay $5million over 5 years in their own structure.

One way that could take the Crows out of the equation of matching the offer would be something like only a 2 year deal worth $3 or $3.5 million, and have it written into Dangerfield's contract a clause for extension by X years - in those X years we then reduce his pay but don't have it as part of the original deal where the Crows have the ability to match the amount over a longer time contract.

It's my understanding that they do have to match the specific year by year offer and the term, but that for salary cap purposes only they can then spread the total payments out over the whole term of the contract in order to bring themselves under the salary cap for each year of the contract term.

 

[cats_09]

I know this is a bit long, but this is from The Age in Oct 2012 and seems to one of the simpler explanations of free agency (the examples help):

MATCHING OFFERS:
* In general terms, a contract offer is matched if the football payments and ASAs (additional services agreements) are equivalent under the offer and the contract proposed of his current Club.

* In order to qualify as a matching offer, the player’s existing club must make an offer on the same terms as the new offer tabled by the player in respect of the following matters: 1) contract length; 2) base payments; 3) total match payments; 4) total ASA payments; 5) total performance incentives based on AFL awards or honours, club best-and-fairest finish or games played (not including finals). Any incentives for team performance are not required to be matched. A player may not table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length.

* For salary cap purposes, actual payments made to players by either club (being new or existing) may be allocated evenly over the contract length. For example, if a player is offered a three-year deal for base payments of $400,000, $100,000 and $100,000, and ASA payments of $40,000, $10,000, $10,000, the club that matches these payments may allocate $200,000 per year under the TPP limit and $20,000 per year under the ASA limit.

* If a club has elected to allocate payments evenly over the contract length and the contract to be matched contains an asymmetrical bonus or match payment structure, actual non-guaranteed payments made shall be allocated evenly over the remainder of the contract length. For example, if a player is offered a three-year deal with $10,000 match payments in year one, but zero match payments in years two and three, any match payments paid to the player in year one may be allocated evenly across all three years of the contract for salary cap purposes.

If I'm understanding the 3rd point correctly, if Adelaide chooses to match our potential offer for Dangerfield, they can structure the payments to suit their salary cap needs. Maybe our best bet is to follow the last part of the 2nd point - A player may not table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length; so it doesn't say a restricted free agent can't be offered a year deal, so can we use that as a loop hole and offer Dangerfield a 1 year deal which Adelaide then don't even have the option to match, and during early 2016 we then extend Dangerfield's contract by 4/5 years?

 

[manboob]

I think that will work about as well as the photoshops of Frawley in Geelong colours late last year.

My Mitchie Clark avatar worked though Rabbi!

 

[manboob]

If I'm understanding the 3rd point correctly, if Adelaide chooses to match our potential offer for Dangerfield, they can structure the payments to suit their salary cap needs. Maybe our best bet is to follow the last part of the 2nd point - A player may not table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length; so it doesn't say a restricted free agent can't be offered a year deal, so can we use that as a loop hole and offer Dangerfield a 1 year deal which Adelaide then don't even have the option to match, and during early 2016 we then extend Dangerfield's contract by 4/5 years?

Rumors are we preparing a big deal, at least a large amount upfront to stop Crows matching it. Then less over the rest of the contract.

If he leaves crows, can see it on about 900K- $1 mill a year.

I'm all about paying 5% under this year. Then 5% over the cap next year.

That gives us 1 million dollars.

Then throw in a retirement or two and it could be a big fish we dangle in front of him.

-All things being equal I think that's another reason the club chose to move on that bunch of guys who would have been on 200K (Hunt, Brown etc) it allows us some cash to pay overs to Selwood, Taylor, Bartel etc this year then "underpay" them next when it's Paddy Cake time.

-We are lucky that the veterans allowance is in place until 2017 too gives us another 118K on SJ and Co.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I know this is a bit long, but this is from The Age in Oct 2012 and seems to one of the simpler explanations of free agency (the examples help):



If I'm understanding the 3rd point correctly, if Adelaide chooses to match our potential offer for Dangerfield, they can structure the payments to suit their salary cap needs. Maybe our best bet is to follow the last part of the 2nd point - A player may not table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length; so it doesn't say a restricted free agent can't be offered a year deal, so can we use that as a loop hole and offer Dangerfield a 1 year deal which Adelaide then don't even have the option to match, and during early 2016 we then extend Dangerfield's contract by 4/5 years?

Although that short explanation doesn't say so, I'm prepared to bet that the way it works is that a potential RFA can't transfer unless and until he tables an offer to be matched, and that the offer tabled must be for at least 2 years.
I also forgot to mention that we too could take advantage of the right to spread out the total payments for salary cap calculation purposes if that worked better for us and (we guesstimate) worse for Adelaide.

 

[card20]

Just want Hawk and Mots to sign on dotted line Paddy D can have whats left.Look after them first.