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

[dazbroncos]

No , thats not an RFA issue...thats a FA issue. Frawley was a UFA. the same issue applies.

The NFL has a system for RFA that seems to work. A RFA player can be signed away to a rival club for a set cost related to the size of the contract that the RFA is offered.
EG
Demaryius Thomas is a top 3 Wide Receiver in the league. 4 straight Pro Bowl selection and over 1400 yard and 10 TD 3 years running. Freak. Tall fast and fit. Top of his game.

He was at final year of 4 year rookie deal and thus a RFA. He could stay with Denver ( current team) and get Franchsie tag ( basically a one yr deal at rate of average of top 10 players at his postion) which was 12.8 million. Or he could sign the long term deal offered by DEnver for 5 years 70 million. The RFA option to be signed away from Denver would have had to have been a greater contract offer from rival team but that rival team would also give up Rd1 and Rd3 pick as set by league. That is kind of the comp set by the AFL as RFA comp - although in the NFL system that Rd1 and RD3 is more valuable than the AFL Pick after the teams existing pick. And the NFL RFA picks is tied to where the rival team finishes that year. (reverse ladder order basically)

Not saying it would work well but just an illustration.

Go Catters

 

[thegerman]

If we end up trading our 'future' first round draft pick as well as our 2015 first round draft pick to Adelaide in order to secure Danger after they match, you'll know that the timing of this introduction of trading future picks is no coincidence.

Perhaps a name change to cynical strangled cat is on the cards?

 

[Iron]

Now should 'we' post this on the crows board like they do ours?

It's already on our board. We take AFL site journalists very seriously and are now quite nervous. If Nick Bowen thinks he's gone, he's gone.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Perhaps a name change to cynical strangled cat is on the cards?

Anyone who liked my post can also add cynical next to their name, too! Six likes in less than an hour suggests I'm on to something, though!

 

[FredLeDeux]

It's already on our board. We take AFL site journalists very seriously and are now quite nervous. If Nick Bowen thinks he's gone, he's gone.

So, all we need to do to close the Adelaide Board thread on this is to get Ricciuto to say he's gone. On the AFL site.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Anyone who liked my post can also add cynical next to their name, too! Six likes in less than an hour suggests I'm on to something, though!

No, I liked it for another reason, summed up by Robert Duvall:

"I love the smell of a conspiracy theory in the morning."​

 

[Strangled Cat]

No, I liked it for another reason, summed up by Robert Duvall:

"I love the smell of a conspiracy theory in the morning."​

So, you're saying that I wasn't actually being cynical when I dreamt up this "conspiracy theory"?

 

[thegerman]

So, you're saying that I wasn't actually being cynical when I dreamt up this "conspiracy theory"?

Ooh conspiracy theory strangled cat.....now that has a ring to it

 

[Strangled Cat]

Ooh conspiracy theory strangled cat.....now that has a ring to it

Too many words, I might "strangle" on them. CTSC might work though! I've been debating a name change for a while. Hmmm...

 

[Stan The Caddy]

If we end up trading our 'future' first round draft pick as well as our 2015 first round draft pick to Adelaide in order to secure Danger after they match, you'll know that the timing of this introduction of trading future picks is no coincidence.

Another thing worth mentioning is there has been some talk that the AFL will introduce the ability for a club to trade future draft picks as soon as the end of 2015. If this does happen and Adelaide decided to match our offer it would make it alot easier to get a deal done.

At the end of the day if Dangerfield decides that he wants to come to Geelong it will happen one way or another and just like the Lions with the Beams deal we won't be trading away any of our star players.

SC, this is an old post of mine from back in January so to be fair it has been on the AFL's agenda for quite some time. It should have happened long before now TBH but as usual the AFL have been a bit slow in changing with the modern landscape of professional sport.

I might just be naive but I think that this rule was going to be brought in regardless of whether Danger was a FA or not. I still think that it is unlikely that the AFC will match any offer but it does add another layer to the discussion of whether they should decide to match any offer or not.

 

[Strangled Cat]

SC, this is an old post of mine from back in January so to be fair it has been on the AFL's agenda for quite some time. It should have happened long before now TBH but as usual the AFL have been a bit slow in changing with the modern landscape of professional sport.

I might just be naive but I think that this rule was going to be brought in regardless of whether Danger was a FA or not. I still think that it is unlikely that the AFC will match any offer but it does add another layer to the discussion of whether they should decide to match any offer or not.

Well done! For me, it feels like it's been hastily introduced. It's almost like they were going to introduce it next year, but fast-tracked it for one reason or another. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone behind the scenes including the AFL already know what Dangerfield is doing, and negotiations have reached an impasse regarding Adelaide, RFA and the AFL.

Perhaps Adelaide and the AFL agreed to terms that they'd introduce future trading a year earlier than intended, that way there's no fallout from Adelaide digging in their heals and blocking Danger from moving. The AFL then saves face by not having to offer Adelaide a second compensation pick after they throw their arms in the air in dismay, and they can further weaken Geelong by ensuring that we don't just give up one first rounder for Danger, but we give up two of them. The last thing the AFL want after all, is a dominant Geelong once again.

 

[Cattergirl]

Why were Hawthorn so keen to see the trading of future draft picks be bought in this year? So they could snare a big fish? Terry Wallace on SEN saying that it greatly assists Hawthorn to go after Danger or perhaps Treloar

 

[MotleyLemon]

I was pretty sure it was mainly the northern clubs who wanted future draft picks to be tradeable this year, so as they had greater flexibility with how to draft their academy kids and such?

 

[Cattergirl]

I was pretty sure it was mainly the northern clubs who wanted future draft picks to be tradeable this year, so as they had greater flexibility with how to draft their academy kids and such?

It was initially, but then the Hawthorn (& possibly some other clubs) for it to happen for all clubs

 

[Lana]

It would be interesting to see if a team trades a first round pick in a current year for another teams future first round pick. Or if teams swap future picks of the same round

 

[Hood007]

there was also a brilliant Buddy Franklin one but that appears to be gone

This one?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

This one?

Hahaha. Quick check, yep thought it oogac brilliance written all over it

 

[catempire]

Well done! For me, it feels like it's been hastily introduced. It's almost like they were going to introduce it next year, but fast-tracked it for one reason or another. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone behind the scenes including the AFL already know what Dangerfield is doing, and negotiations have reached an impasse regarding Adelaide, RFA and the AFL.

Perhaps Adelaide and the AFL agreed to terms that they'd introduce future trading a year earlier than intended, that way there's no fallout from Adelaide digging in their heals and blocking Danger from moving. The AFL then saves face by not having to offer Adelaide a second compensation pick after they throw their arms in the air in dismay, and they can further weaken Geelong by ensuring that we don't just give up one first rounder for Danger, but we give up two of them. The last thing the AFL want after all, is a dominant Geelong once again.

That's quite the conspiracy theory SC!

I will be extraordinarily surprised if Geelong gives up two first rounders for Dangerfield. They will navigate the rough course through the drafts to avoid it.

 

[Hood007]

Hahaha. Quick check, yep thought it oogac brilliance written all over it

I laughed HARD the first time I watched it.

 

[00VicWard001]

Hahaha. Quick check, yep thought it oogac brilliance written all over it

The Bryce Gibbs Deliverance one was spectacular.

 

[Willo_]

I laughed HARD the first time I watched it.

I laugh hard every time I watch it... the beauty of an oogac vid is the more you watch, the more little hidden gems you find

 

[Boxhead_31]

I laugh hard every time I watch it... the beauty of an oogac vid is the more you watch, the more little hidden gems you find

I've seen this one so many times but still find something new in every viewing

 

[catempire]

This one?

Tears. So good.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

That's quite the conspiracy theory SC!

I will be extraordinarily surprised if Geelong gives up two first rounders for Dangerfield. They will navigate the rough course through the drafts to avoid it.

I dont think we will trade 2 first rounders for a guy we dont have to trade for,but it opens up possibilities. E.g. as part of any side trade the crows might try and trade their first or second rounder this year for geelong's first or second rounder next year,as some clubs perceive this draft to be weak.

 

[TheJimmyCartel]

Selwood - B grader (at best)
Leuenberger - Injury prone
Henderson - Don't rate

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

Is that 'B' for B&F Winner at best?