Strategy Should we trade Dangerfield?

[alex_is_on_fire]

Well, from a number of posters who listed to the 5AA interview tonight, he wasn't overly convincing that he would stay.


So - I decided to make a poll.

Yes

No

Votes will be made public - so * off troll *s. :-(

 

[dinger]

Not yet, no. A 5AA interview != he's up and gone. Circumstances (purchasing a whole bunch of s**t in Adelaide, leadership etc) suggests that he'll stay.

 

[FantasticShirt]

Do we really need another thread on this? lol

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Do we really need another thread on this? lol

Yes we do!!!

 

[Mattrox]

We can't trade him if he refuses to be traded under contract.

/thread

 

[mulz]

don't trade, our secret contract clause will be revealed!

 

[Hank93]

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I don't think we can drill him about his commitment until we complete all our off field tasks (CEO/Senior Assistant/List manager). If we don't get all those done until after October, then we've missed the trade period.

It's a very difficult question to answer.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

don't trade, our secret contract clause will be revealed!

Yep - The secret deal is.......he gets a life time supply of Michael Winslow DVD's.

 

[Damp Squarie]

I would only trade if we got a Key Backman at around 25 years of age [established] and someone else like Sloane who puts the
"P" in pace.
Its a YES from me

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Only if he admits he will leave at the end of 2015.

Otherwise I'm against trading him. He's our best contested player.

 

[Scorpus]

If I understand the free agency system correctly, Dangerfield will be a restricted free agent next year. So doesn't that mean we can match any offer thrown to him, and then we'd have to organize a trade to get him to his club of choice?

So on that knowledge and assuming we have a lot of cap space to re-sign Danger, we don't need to trade him this year. We could, theoretically, trade him next year to a club like Melbourne who could throw up a huge offer and have draft picks to satisfy us.

After all the bullshit of losing players over the past few years it's time to punish players who decide to leave us for greener pastures through FA.

Danger gets a massive offer from Geelong and decides to leave? Let's match it, trade him to Melbourne or GWS, get some sweet picks and tell him to * off.

If he's willing to stay, I'll happily keep him. But make sure he signs a lengthy contract.

 

[MyLittleSloaney]

If I understand the free agency system correctly, Dangerfield will be a restricted free agent next year. So doesn't that mean we can match any offer thrown to him, and then we'd have to organize a trade to get him to his club of choice?

So on that knowledge and assuming we have a lot of cap space to re-sign Danger, we don't need to trade him this year. We could, theoretically, trade him next year to a club like Melbourne who could throw up a huge offer and have draft picks to satisfy us

That is correct.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

If I understand the free agency system correctly, Dangerfield will be a restricted free agent next year. So doesn't that mean we can match any offer thrown to him, and then we'd have to organize a trade to get him to his club of choice?

So on that knowledge and assuming we have a lot of cap space to re-sign Danger, we don't need to trade him this year. We could, theoretically, trade him next year to a club like Melbourne who could throw up a huge offer and have draft picks to satisfy us

I was under the impression the compensation picks given for Danger would be significantly less than what we would get if he we're traded this year.

 

[CubaCrow]

If I understand the free agency system correctly, Dangerfield will be a restricted free agent next year. So doesn't that mean we can match any offer thrown to him, and then we'd have to organize a trade to get him to his club of choice?

So on that knowledge and assuming we have a lot of cap space to re-sign Danger, we don't need to trade him this year. We could, theoretically, trade him next year to a club like Melbourne who could throw up a huge offer and have draft picks to satisfy us

This

 

[Scorpus]

I was under the impression that the compensation picks given for Danger would be significantly less than what we would get if he we're traded this year.

Yes but I'm not even talking about compensation picks. I'm talking about trading him to a club through the exchange of decent picks because we matched the offer put in front of him.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I was under the impression that the compensation picks given for Danger would be significantly less than what we would get if he we're traded this year.

That's if we decide not to contest the offer given to him.

 

[Scorpus]

Eg:

1. Dangerfield decides to explore free agency
2. Geelong offers a lot of money
3. We match this offer from Geelong
4. At this point he's staying at Adelaide but clearly still wants to leave
5. Put him on the trade market
6. Melbourne says we have lots of cash to contract Danger and high picks to get the trade done
7. Maybe some other clubs do the same, so there's a trade war
8. We choose the best trade deal. Done! We have nice picks and Danger leaves

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Cheers. I still don't really grasp all the intricacies of trade week.

In that case, I'd have to say hell no to trading Danger.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Eg:

• Dangerfield decides to explore free agency
• Geelong offers a lot of money
• We match this offer from Geelong
• At this point he's staying at Adelaide but clearly still wants to leave
• Put him on the trade market
• Melbourne says we have lots of cash to contract Danger and high picks to get the trade done
• Maybe some other clubs do the same, so there's a trade war
• We choose the best trade deal. Done! We have nice picks and Danger leaves

Danger says no
Danger nominates for the PSD
We lose a second player for nothing in 4 years
Awesome.

 

[Crow-eater]

Eg:

• Dangerfield decides to explore free agency
• Geelong offers a lot of money
• We match this offer from Geelong
• At this point he's staying at Adelaide but clearly still wants to leave
• Put him on the trade market
• Melbourne says we have lots of cash to contract Danger and high picks to get the trade done
• Maybe some other clubs do the same, so there's a trade war
• We choose the best trade deal. Done! We have nice picks and Danger leaves

Except for the really important fact that Danger needs to agree to any trade deal. We can't just ship him off to the highest bidder, he needs to want to go there.

 

[MRB37]

Danger says no
Danger nominates for the PSD
We lose a second player for nothing in 4 years
Awesome.

Well, wouldn't we likely have a PSD pick before Geelong? Just draft him again.

 

[Scorpus]

Danger says no
Danger nominates for the PSD
We lose a second player for nothing in 4 years
Awesome.

Theoretically he could still be picked up by a lower club through the PSD who have enough money to match his offer.

He could say 'yes' to Geelong, but Melbourne could have enough for his contract and draft him through the PSD before Geelong can snag him.

Of course this does nothing for our compensation but it would royally screw him around

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Well, wouldn't we likely have a PSD pick before Geelong? Just draft him again.

Theoretically he could still be picked up by a lower club through the PSD who have enough money to match his offer.

He could say 'yes' to Geelong, but Melbourne could have enough for his contract and draft him through the PSD before Geelong can snag him.

Of course this does nothing for our compensation but it would royally screw him around

Kurt Tippett argument.

 

[yeewww]

Eg:

• Dangerfield decides to explore free agency
• Geelong offers a lot of money
• We match this offer from Geelong
• At this point he's staying at Adelaide but clearly still wants to leave
• Put him on the trade market
• Melbourne says we have lots of cash to contract Danger and high picks to get the trade done
• Maybe some other clubs do the same, so there's a trade war
• We choose the best trade deal. Done! We have nice picks and Danger leaves

ok don't want to turn you off this idea.

Geelong offer 1.2 mil over 5 yrs
adelaide match it
then on trade but best offer is only 1 mil over 5 years.
adelaide decide to keep and paying the 1.2 mil, with a player that obviously don't want to be there, would you be happy.
or adelaide trade for the 1mil over 5 years but stuck paying the 200k of the contract to make up difference.

teams will offer more during free agency as they don't need to give up anything else, once they have to start giving up draft picks that gets waged into his price. Imagine paying 1.2 mil plus first 2 round picks that would cripple a team trying to get him.

 

[Scorpus]

Kurt Tippett argument.

That's an interesting one, probably eventuated as it did because Sydney offered more cash than any other club could. I wonder what happens when two clubs offer the same amount of money...