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

[Lana]

Tom Boyd..

He has a manager who is great at bending clubs over

 

[strauchnyy]

Deal is done, is somewhat fair. It falls into the category of what Adelaide supporters will think is not enough and what geelong supporters will think is too much.

But why, and in what logic is there giving anything more than pick 9??

The worst case scenario is using 9 on him in the national draft. He will get to our pick as no other team will waste a top 8 pick on a player that does not want to be there.

This is why a cent over pick 9 is overpaying. I see no logic whatsoever to give more.

You seem to have inside info that we roll over and give more just to be nice. Why would we give more and in doing so, compromise our currency and ability on deals to get Henderson and smith in?

 

[vinum coupe]

Tom Boyd..

Not over 25, doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[Turbocat]

Tom Boyd..

yep... probably a gamble of epic proportions ... but atm its not hurting them. When they start leaking players.. he better be kicking goals.

 

[Turbocat]

Not over 25, doesn't meet the criteria.

Has to be over 25 and in the best 15 ? The AFL sure can set up some criteria

 

[vinum coupe]

Has to be over 25 and in the best 15 ? The AFL sure can set up some criteria

Yeah effectively. Well really 25 is the only time Rfa kicks in.

So he has to be in top 5% of players over 25.
And I haven't looked again, but I think Fred is wrong. Compo is based on the new $ offer

 

[Turbocat]

and vinum coupe .... can someone explain to me how its now about Father Sons on that Crows thread... I knew I should not even have bothered.

 

[00VicWard001]

In that scenario it's more the fact that rather than trading 2 x 1st rounders for just Danger, we are receiving pick 3 which will force you guys to match, meaning we get Danger for free + we get to use the pick 3 in the draft.

Correction, having pick 3 forces Adelaide to NOT match, therefore they get the compo pick, because they know that if they matched, we would pick him up with pick 3 in the draft and they would get nothing.

 

[Turbocat]

Yeah effectively. Well really 25 is the only time Rfa kicks in.

So he has to be in top 5% of players over 25.
And I haven't looked again, but I think Fred is wrong. Compo is based on the new $ offer

well he will do that easily... highest paid over 25.... he would come in and be #1 at geelong ..even if its just by a dollar.

 

[vinum coupe]

I shouldn't have either.
Someone said wells and cook are masters.

Someone then said, no they're not. It's just because of father son.
I felt a need to clarify.

 

[vinum coupe]

well he will do that easily... highest paid over 25.... he would come in and be #1 at geelong ..even if its just by a dollar.

For the league. Not team

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yeah effectively. Well really 25 is the only time Rfa kicks in.

So he has to be in top 5% of players over 25.
And I haven't looked again, but I think Fred is wrong. Compo is based on the new $ offer

No, I was correct, I said the RFA Offer has to put him in the top 5%, ie the top 15 players.

 

[sharks33]

But why, and in what logic is there giving anything more than pick 9??

The worst case scenario is using 9 on him in the national draft. He will get to our pick as no other team will waste a top 8 pick on a player that does not want to be there.

This is why a cent over pick 9 is overpaying. I see no logic whatsoever to give more.

You seem to have inside info that we roll over and give more just to be nice. Why would we give more and in doing so, compromise our currency and ability on deals to get Henderson and smith in?

Can't answer why, Id just be guessing.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Has to be over 25 and in the best 15 ? The AFL sure can set up some criteria

and bend it to suit

 

[vinum coupe]

No, I was correct, I said the RFA Offer has to put him in the top 5%, ie the top 15 players.

Oh. You said 'this year'

No probs

 

[Turbocat]

For the league. Not team

yeah I know ..perhaps I should have said that..its sound like just Geelong.

 

[MoggsCreek]

Joel posted this yesterday, with a hint of another special guest to be announced next week...

It just has to be Dangerfield, right? The timing is too perfect

 

[vinum coupe]

Joel posted this yesterday, with a hint of another special guest to be announced next week...

It just has to be Dangerfield, right? The timing is too perfect

Gee Bartel is no runner. Lol

 

[Pure_Ownage]

See this is what I don't get. You're saying to want Dangerfield for free, and are willing to trade 2 x 1st rounders, and maybe a 2nd or 3rd for Smith and #3. You then use #3 to get Danger (assuming we match, and this is after we can accept compo).

You could just trade those 2 x 1st rounders to Adelaide, use the 2nd or 3rd on Smith, and you're in exactly the same position.

Why would Geelong, who've had a great relationship with us in the past choose to be hard asses just to screw us over?

Couple of points.

1. Rules don't allow what you are suggesting, if we trade our 2016 2nd for Smith (our 2015 2nd is already committed to Henderson) we cant under the rules trade our 2016 1st as well. So Geelong can legitimately say to Adelaide the best they will offer now is 9 and a fringe player and that is absolutely it, and Adelaide can accept it or cut their nose off and spite their face. It's not so much a case of Geelong not wanting to offer 2 firsts as not being able to. I feel sorry for you guys because the free agency rules are in my opinion rubbish but thats not our problem and we hold all the leverage here.

2. Obviously if trading for pick 3 produces a worse outcome for Geelong than trading with Adelaide then it's no sense. Under what I suggested Geelong trades 2 first rounders for Danger and another player, whereas under yours we trade 2 first rounders plus other picks for 2nd player, which is a worse outcome (never mind under the rules we can't do that, again afl's fault).

3. Trading for pick 3 is worth it because it a) basically guarantees we can get Dangerfield in the ND if Adelaide forces him there and b) if they are sensible and take compo we get to pick up a player at pick 3 and we may not have a pick that early again for 10 or 15 years. To put it into perspective Geelong have not had a top 5 pick for about that long. The possibility of getting b) is worth the risk of such a trade in my opinion.

That said I think Geelong will still try and trade with Adelaide for the merit of being a good club. But what so many players nominating us this trade period changes it is means we wont be willing to wait the whole trade period for Adelaide to do brinkmanship and stuff our other deals. We will have a first and final offer on the table for Adelaide quite quickly and will give them a short time to accept it, they can either do that or he can go to the draft.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It's simply not necessary to get so cute, because the chances of missing out on him in the National Draft this year are infinitesimal, for the reasons I explained earlier.

They are very small, however the threat that we can do something like trade for #3 is a good counter to Adelaide trying to threaten us to trade 2 first rounders under the idea of the 1 % chance someone else might take him in the draft. It's all about strengthening our hand.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Id assume that we neither side want to go down with the boat saying its the other guys fault the boat is leaking. Pure's idea was to try and be civil for a start... but after that if you are not even close to where we need to be ..obviously it would be time to up our leverage.

Best oucome for mine...is probably you take the comp , we do some side deal , pick swap ..and its as close to both of us winning as its going to get.

But if the Crows board continue to say 2 R1's.plus a player x.... why not trade our 2 R1's for P3 and Smith... we are at least a ruckman better off th. At that stage , thru gritted teeth.... Id say you don't match..take the comp... and then we use p3 in the draft. and AFC could hardly blame Geelong when we tried to deal first

This whole post is pretty much exactly what I was getting at, but you explained it better than I did Turbocat

 

[Jazz71286]

Deal is done, is somewhat fair. It falls into the category of what Adelaide supporters will think is not enough and what geelong supporters will think is too much.

Be careful not to go too far out on a limb there.

 

[sharks33]

Be careful not to go too far out on a limb there.

I know it sounds indistinct, but thats what it is. Geelong supporters think anything more than our first pick is too much, adelaide think they should get two first rounders and a good young player.

 

[Jazz71286]

I know it sounds indistinct, but thats what it is. Geelong supporters think anything more than our first pick is too much, adelaide think they should get two first rounders and a good young player.

Don't mind me, I'm just busting your balls

 

[MattyB_76]

I know it sounds indistinct, but thats what it is. Geelong supporters think anything more than our first pick is too much, adelaide think they should get two first rounders and a good young player.

So can we split the difference? 2 x 1st rounders, OR 1 x 1st rounder and a good young player?

I think you'll find most of us would 'accept' that. We'll never be happy (you guys know how it feels), but we'll feel like at least you used a bit of lube.