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

[vinum coupe]

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.

That's exactly what will happen if you can match.

 

[Warnez]

The crows board is such a pick me up

 

[David the Cat]

That's exactly what will happen if you can match.

I'd be amazed if we gave 2 first rounders...absolutely no chance of that IMO

 

[geelong_crazy26]

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.

Very doubtful that you will get anything more than our 1st round pick .Perhaps a player outside our best 22 , that's it .

The reality is that although you cant be 100% sure , its more than likely that if Dangerfield went into the draft he would get too Geelong .Stephen Wells just said in an interview that players usually get through to the club of their choice . Its very unlikely a club would pick up a player with a top 10 draft pick who is adamant he doesn't want to be their and is going to leave at the end of the year.

The whole purpose of what Geelong is trying to do over the off season is pick up enough talent to go back into the top 4 .If we have to give up too much to get these players than its not worth it .We are using Adelaide as a feeder club .

 

[Catatonic Shock]

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.

We haven't had a top 5 pick since we got pick 1 in 1990 as compo, and got Steven Hooper.
Last time we earned a top 5? No idea. Maybe never?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

We haven't had a top 5 pick since we got pick 1 in 1990 as compo, and got Steven Hooper.
Last time we earned a top 5? No idea. Maybe never?

And if you go through our list, it shows.

 

[Ashb23]

The problem with them not matching is, according to the trades proposed, they are worse off.

I would think for them not to match, the side trade would have to be 9 for their second rounder and a player. Perhaps even their 3rd/4th rounder as well. Otherwise, they are better off matching and just trading for 9.

 

[catempire]

The problem with them not matching is, according to the trades proposed, they are worse off.

I would think for them not to match, the side trade would have to be 9 for their second rounder and a player. Perhaps even their 3rd/4th rounder as well. Otherwise, they are better off matching and just trading for 9.

Agree there would have to be a side trade for no match. But it couldn't be a one sided deal. It's tricky.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I'll explain what I meant.

1. It would be the National Draft, not the PSD.
2. The club drafting him would have to use its highly-valued pick between 1 and 8.
3. Unless he nominates his football payments, after he is drafted, he can insist on a 1-year contract.
4. He can insist on top dollar. If he doesn't like the club's offer, he has the right to arbitration. If he doesn't like the arbitrator's decision, he has the right to take it to the Appeals Board.
5. By the end of the season, the new CBA will be negotiated and in force.
6. Among the things the AFLPA have asked for in their 70-page submission are
- a reduction of Unrestricted Free Agency to 8 years, and
- portability of accrued Free Agency rights, ie they continue after a player changes clubs,
- no compo.
7. PD will be out of contract and have 9 years of service on the clock.
8. If the first 2 claims by the AFLPA get up (and you'd reckon they have to be a pretty good chance), PD will be an Unrestricted Free Agent and can go where he likes. If the third gets up, the club gets nothing for its high Rd 1 draft pick.

These are huge risks for a club to take.

OK Ive mulled this one over.

Potability of free agency rights is the interesting bit. I just cant see how if Danger got drafted this year and changed clubs how he could still maintain free agency status this time next year. That bit doesnt really make sense.

 

[Hello Kitty]

More than P14...9 is more...5 spots more but thats hardly worth it. To match to gain 5 spots and totally flush an extra pick is troppo.

The only way I see the Crows getting anywhere near reasonable compo...is NOT to match , and then do so legit side deal..that then gives you 9...as it seems getting a pick inside 10 would give the club a look of a win... . But how doe it happen... pick a number its been explored endlessly.. but its just insane to knock back the comp. P14 may be low compared to your mental wants ..but it was not that long ago that the 1st round went into the 20's. We have had years of our 1st pick being at 15ish . It can deliver a good kid and a pick in that range just flushed makes no sense to me.

If you go to the draft .. with 9,13 and 14... at least you can say its a legit chance to rebuild...and you will not get 9 (our lowest pick in 10 years) with a player ... without something coming back our way.

So I guess id ask... if you lost a player like Crouch (is he going?.. and if you are going to lose him anyway?) and/or a R2 pick... does the 9 , 13 and 14 give you enough "face".

And yes both sides can sound irrational.. not much sense both taking a dive over the cliff just to ensure the other side has pain. Im sure Geelong will be willing trade...to a point. They have Henderson and Smith in the sights... requests for 2 R1's... is just an invitation to go close to the edge of the cliff. We will have a line and my guess is thats over it. R1 and a player? We are down so many in number , it would be interesting who that would be , and how much we would want back.

That's a fantastic post TC! Good sense there. I especially like your using 'troppo'! Haven't heard it used in yonks + just love it! Look out, I'll be going troppo using it

People need to remember that this is huge business now + all over-spending is frowned on by any business' board. To me the Crows matching Geelong is purely sour grapes + I think it's petty. Dangerfield has devoted himself to the Crows, wants to marry + the happy couple have chosen to live on the Surfcoast to be with family. He's not chasing huge $$$, nor looking for a new challenge at a marquee club, he + Mardi simply want to go home. On the bright side, it just shows what a hugely valuable player Dangerfield is to the Crows. Is their sour grapes caused by concern following Phil Walsh's murder? Some insecurity about the future? In my experience the tragedy of death usually puts things into perspective + one recognises what is most important in life. Just let him come home + be gracious about it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

OK Ive mulled this one over.

Potability of free agency rights is the interesting bit. I just cant see how if Danger got drafted this year and changed clubs how he could still maintain free agency status this time next year. That bit doesnt really make sense.

It depends upon what is negotiated and agreed between AFL and AFLPA and, of course, how it applies to players who have already exercised FA rights before it comes into force.
Personally, I think they'll find it difficult to logically and morally separate (say) 9-year players into 2 separate categories simply on the basis of when they first exercised their rights.
However, the real point is the risk a drafting club would be taking with its high-order pick in getting an unhappy player and not knowing whether it could get anything back for its high pick at the end of the year. It might be a justified risk for a one-year shot at the premiership, but the bottom 8 clubs are simply not in that situation.

 

[Hello Kitty]

What if Joel Selwoods annual wage is somewhat not as inflated as the industry might expect, with some of what he'd rightly be worth flowing down to his brothers contract


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no idea. All I can say is that is if Selwood is as tough as he is when he plays, then he'd be a good contract negotiator While Geelong has a reputation of being a bit parsimonious, they'd ensure our captain was happy.

 

[CoachEmUpChucky]

Danger is apparently back in Moggs Creek according to Ch. 9 tonight. Rather convenient timing, wouldn't you think, so close to the start of the FA/Trade period? A short little trip up the GOR for his first press conference as a Cat.

Quick trip into Melbourne and quietly sneak in for a look at the Carji tonight

 

[Wood_Duck]

It depends upon what is negotiated and agreed between AFL and AFLPA and, of course, how it applies to players who have already exercised FA rights before it comes into force.
Personally, I think they'll find it difficult to logically and morally separate (say) 9-year players into 2 separate categories simply on the basis of when they first exercised their rights.
However, the real point is the risk a drafting club would be taking with its high-order pick in getting an unhappy player and not knowing whether it could get anything back for its high pick at the end of the year. It might be a justified risk for a one-year shot at the premiership, but the bottom 8 clubs are simply not in that situation.

But isn't the whole premise of FA continuous service at one club?

 

[Hello Kitty]

To some degree... he is at the whims of a silly club... If a club is really silly and wants throw away a chance a top 10 kid for 1 year with Danger..then its dangerous.. especially when FA doesn't carry over. But due to some clubs need picks for the Academy kids , and the real early picks being potential franchise players.. its probably only one or two clubs that would potentially take him.

Like who? + do they realise that Rooke is currently developing a new enforcer, who will take those clubs' best players out, in a 'Hodge way' with no MRP repercussions, don't they?

 

[Turbo911]

How about crows don't match and we trade 9 for M Crouch and a small sweetener? Does M Crouch want out as he hasn't yet inked a new deal?

 

[FredLeDeux]

But isn't the whole premise of FA continuous service at one club?

The premise of FA is that the player has borne his share of the "equalisation" burden and is now entitled to the same rights as every other adult worker - to work where he wants, for whom he likes, and at market value wages.
The present structure says it only applies to service at one club.
The AFLPA submission makes the obvious point that that restriction makes no logical sense and should be removed. I personally think that's unanswerable, but there will be horse-trading in which the AFL will try to preserve as many restrictions as possible.

 

[Hello Kitty]

If Paddy went into the draft he'd make his price so high that no other club would touch him. So we get him anyway.

BlakeyNoFlakey to the Geelong negotiations team!

 

[dazbroncos]

Mods. Just that little bit better than all of us

Had never looked at it that way, but now that you mention it….

CE, where did you put the keys to the executive bathroom?

Go Catters

 

[FredLeDeux]

Had never looked at it that way, but now that you mention it….

CE, where did you put the keys to the executive bathroom?

Go Catters

Same place as always, in the Liquor Cabinet.

 

[Ashb23]

But why would he want to stay when he wants to move home? He would live in a different state just to spite the crows? That's not going to happen.

Yeah, I get that. My point is all these people saying we can match because we haven't signed x,y,z players. Well that's all good, but it's a dangerous game for Adelaide to be playing, that's all I meant by the comment

 

[Ashb23]

Agree there would have to be a side trade for no match. But it couldn't be a one sided deal. It's tricky.

Exactly. Well, it can be slightly one sided, but not too much. I think pick 9 for adelaide's second and fourth rounder plus mistery uncomtracted player (who I hear we rate REALLY highly *wink, wink*) might get through. That way they have 3 top 20 picks, so should be more so satisfied.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Exactly. Well, it can be slightly one sided, but not too much. I think pick 9 for adelaide's second and fourth rounder plus mistery uncomtracted player (who I hear we rate REALLY highly *wink, wink*) might get through. That way they have 3 top 20 picks, so should be more so satisfied.

The biggest problem I forsee is the AFL pricking there ears up the minute pick 9 gets mentioned between Adelaide and Geelong. Is been pointed out a number of times that accepting the compo pick must be done in isolation to any other trades. What other possible basis could there be for Geelong to offload pick 9 to the Crows?

 

[catempire]

The biggest problem I forsee is the AFL pricking there ears up the minute pick 9 gets mentioned between Adelaide and Geelong. Is been pointed out a number of times that accepting the compo pick must be done in isolation to any other trades. What other possible basis could there be for Geelong to offload pick 9 to the Crows?

The case Geelong would have to make is needing quantity of picks over quality due to the large number of list spots we have open.

Also, timing of the deal would be interesting. Execute the side deal first? That might help make the case it is separate because Crows can say "we haven't seen the RFA offer yet" and Cats can say "we haven't lodged the offer yet and don't know what Crows will do".

Still, I'm not sure if this will all go down. I still think a straight swap might be cleaner and easier for all concerned.

 

[johnnyscarecrow]

Adelaide are not going to match. That's an idea floated by the media and given credence by people who think that it would be in the best interests of the club. The Adelaide Football club didn't actually rule it in, without ruling it out. but it would be illogical and destructive for them.

Adelaide will take the compensation pick and then arrange (if it hasn't been done already, and I'll bet it has been) a side deal that will give them 9. We might just get 14 but they end up with two good first round picks and maybe some other pick a bit later. Good deal given the circumstances. A player will not be part of the deal. There is some heart in football clubs and hey will try to smooth the way for PD to go home to Mogg's Creek.

There! I've had my say!