Strategy Should we trade Dangerfield?

[JPetro83]

This is Ablett and Buddy all over again. if he hasnt signed by round8-10 he is goneski!

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

No one is saying we should trade him for the sake of the exercise, just that if the club thinks there is a good possibility he will leave then they need to do what they need to do to get the highest possible payment for him. If that means they trade him early to avoid loosing out next year then do it.
Simple question to you. Would you rather trade Danger now for something like pick 2 and 3 or pick 4 and Aish, or lose him to FA next year for pick 14 or so?

Except that is a false choice

Even if we think he wants to leave - for which there is no evidence whatsoever:

Door #1) Trade him for say pick 4 and Aish. The Melbourne trade is a non-starter because he would never go there. Hell, I doubt he'd want to go to Collingwood either.
Door #2) Get another 12 months of Dangerfield. Have 12 months to convince him to re-sign. If he doesn't, match the offer. If he still wants to leave, negotiate a trade of something like...pick 4 and Aish.

There is absolutely no upside to trading him now. None. Under any scenario.

We can't "lose" him to free agency unless we don't match any offer he gets, which we will. So stop saying that.

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

Logically 3 options:

1. Re-signs at end of 2015
2. Trade for a bounty
3. Leaves as a free agent for a draft pick between 7-13.

Honestly - nobody knows what the exact chance he is of staying, but I would wager the club would have a decent idea after discussing with his manager.

They need to do whatever it takes to avoid #3.

Except #3 can't happen because he is restricted.

 

[AFC979810]

Except #3 can't happen because he is restricted.

How many restricted free agents have had a large restricted free agent offer and had that $ matched by the original club?

 

[mickfaxis]

This is Ablett and Buddy all over again. if he hasnt signed by round8-10 he is goneski!

Cloke and Boak waited until the season ended, and Gibbs signed in Rnd 15.

 

[mickfaxis]

Logically 3 options:


3. Leaves as a free agent for a draft pick between 7-13.

#3.

If he looks like he's going midway through next season, we tank, finish bottom 3 and then we'll get 2 Top 5 picks for him.
Not so bad after all!

 

[Bacon8]

How many restricted free agents have had a large restricted free agent offer and had that $ matched by the original club?

What is large?

Higgins might be matched by Bulldogs. Not in the same ballpark as Danger, but 400k a season is decent.

 

[Golumless]

Except #3 can't happen because he is restricted.

History states we won't match the offer.

At that point, we also bring PSD into play which means we'll probably come out with just a first round pick, maybe second if the other team decide to be absolute campaigners about it.

 

[Golumless]

If he looks like he's going midway through next season, we tank, finish bottom 3 and then we'll get 2 Top 5 picks for him.
Not so bad after all!

Cheeky... Whilst i am against tanking, that's definitely thinking outside of the box.

 

[mickfaxis]

Cheeky... Whilst i am against tanking, that's definitely thinking outside of the box.

Paul Roos might be moaning about FA's going to the best clubs, but if the Dees get compo pick 3 for Frawley (as well as the number 2 they have) that's a better outcome for them long term than if they held onto him!

 

[Crouch#44]

With a new CEO & new senior Coach will the crows want media scrutiny over a star players contract?

Either way they will get scrutiny media!
If he walks it will be damaging, if we get a trade for some gold in return it's a risk worth taking for the clubs fresh direction

 

[crowsup]

No, Bacon8 is correct - they also got another pick (45) as well but that was the gist of it.

It was a three-way deal including GWS as well.

Yes, they got pick 45, but they gave away pick 34 as well as pick 14. So, no matter how one looks at it, they gave away pick 14 and 34 and got picks 21,22 and 45 and they gave away pick 22 to Brisbane for Polec.

 

[Niximus]

Yes, they got pick 45, but they gave away pick 34 as well as pick 14. So, no matter how one looks at it, they gave away pick 14 and 34 and got picks 21,22 and 45 and they gave away pick 22 to Brisbane for Polec.

No...

Brisbane
Out
Jared Polec
Pick 29
Pick 45
In
Pick 22
Pick 34
Pick 48

GWS
Out
Pick 21
Pick 22
Pick 48
In
Pick 14
Pick 29

Port
Out
Pick 14
Pick 34
In
Jared Polec
Pick 21
Pick 45

22 went from GWS to Brisbane in a 3-way trade, it never went to Port. Pick 48 followed the same path as pick 22, using your logic, you could equally say that Port got 21, 45 & 48 and passed 48 onto Brisbane for Polec.

 

[mickfaxis]

Except that is a false choice

Even if we think he wants to leave - for which there is no evidence whatsoever:

Door #1) Trade him for say pick 4 and Aish. The Melbourne trade is a non-starter because he would never go there. Hell, I doubt he'd want to go to Collingwood either.
Door #2) Get another 12 months of Dangerfield. Have 12 months to convince him to re-sign. If he doesn't, match the offer. If he still wants to leave, negotiate a trade of something like...pick 4 and Aish.

There is absolutely no upside to trading him now. None. Under any scenario.

We can't "lose" him to free agency unless we don't match any offer he gets, which we will. So stop saying that.

In the short history of free agency, has any club ever matched an offer to keep a player?

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

History states we won't match the offer.

At that point, we also bring PSD into play which means we'll probably come out with just a first round pick, maybe second if the other team decide to be absolute campaigners about it.

Nonsense, of course we'd match it. He's our best player. Then if he still wants to leave the entire competition needs to come up with a suitable trade.

Second rounder?! Come off it. Even in that scenario we would get a high first round pick and a first team player.

Not to mention an extra year of Dangerfield.

And the chance to re-sign him.

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

In the short history of free agency, has any club ever matched an offer to keep a player?

In the short history of free agency, have any of them been worth matching? Clearly in matching an offer we would either keep him or get more than free agency compensation.

 

[fabs33]

How many restricted free agents have had a large restricted free agent offer and had that $ matched by the original club?

I suspect that's because by the time the free agency period starts player's managers have gone back and forth enough times between clubs to know what the final offers are. That said free agency hasn't been around for long and you know what they say: "there's always a first time for everything".

 

[Golumless]

Nonsense, of course we'd match it. He's our best player. Then if he still wants to leave the entire competition needs to come up with a suitable trade.

Second rounder?! Come off it. Even in that scenario we would get a high first round pick and a first team player.

Not to mention an extra year of Dangerfield.

And the chance to re-sign him.

We won't match, Hawks didn't with Buddy and your a fool to think Danger won't get an offer akin to that.

Second PSD comes into play, we are at the mercy of the trader, because of that threat that if we don't play ball, we lose him for nothing. It's quite a real threat, so there won't be any magical first pick + player deal for him. Best we'll do is second + player (Tippett) or first rounder... and even then, 9/10 of the time it's better to just take the FA pick as it'll most likely be higher up on the order.

 

[Sanders]

Except #3 can't happen because he is restricted.

I've told you a couple of times and so have others. Please put on your listening helmet and stop repeating nonsense

If danger has a deal matched he just stops being a FA, he becomes an uncontracted player

There is no compensation for an uncontracted player. Trade him if you can, and why would he agree if you pissed him off by matching. Or he walks to the psd with a big price on his head, and we get nothing for him

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

We won't match, Hawks didn't with Buddy and your a fool to think Danger won't get an offer akin to that.

Second PSD comes into play, we are at the mercy of the trader, because of that threat that if we don't play ball, we lose him for nothing. It's quite a real threat, so there won't be any magical first pick + player deal for him. Best we'll do is second + player (Tippett) or first rounder... and even then, 9/10 of the time it's better to just take the FA pick as it'll most likely be higher up on the order.

Hawthorn didn't need Franklin as much as we need Dangerfield, he is also younger. Plus the Hawks presumably COULDN'T match the offer due to lack of cap space. So yes we would match a $1m / year offer, no question.

Assuming he wanted to go to a Victorian club there are loads to choose from, we would easily be able to leverage better than a second rounder. Look at what West Coast got for Judd as an example. Dangerfield hasn't achieved what Judd had at that point but he will be similarly sought after.

Anyway, this is all moot as the #1 option has to be to back ourselves to re-sign him.

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

I've told you a couple of times and so have others. Please put on your listening helmet and stop repeating nonsense

If danger has a deal matched he just stops being a FA, he becomes an uncontracted player

There is no compensation for an uncontracted player. Trade him if you can, and why would he agree if you pissed him off by matching. Or he walks to the psd with a big price on his head, and we get nothing for him

You really think Dangerfield would pull a Tippett?

And you really can't see how an uncontracted player would attract a better return haul than a FREE AGENT?

 

[Golumless]

Hawthorn didn't need Franklin as much as we need Dangerfield, he is also younger. Plus the Hawks presumably COULDN'T match the offer due to lack of cap space. So yes we would match a $1m / year offer, no question.

Assuming he wanted to go to a Victorian club there are loads to choose from, we would easily be able to leverage better than a second rounder. Look at what West Coast got for Judd as an example. Dangerfield hasn't achieved what Judd had at that point but he will be similarly sought after.

Anyway, this is all moot as the #1 option has to be to back ourselves to re-sign him.

Who said we're going to be able to match? Simply put, it isn't worth matching the offer as you'll get less in the trade.

You won't, Player has to accept the deal... It's up to Dangerfield to sign on it and state he is happy, it's like once a player nominates every other club is out of the running. Might be 10 Victorian teams, but second he says, i want to go to Hawthorn, guess what, only team we are dealing with is... Hawthorn.

You cannot trade a player without him agreeing to it.

 

[Smokeless Wardance]

Who said we're going to be able to match? Simply put, it isn't worth matching the offer as you'll get less in the trade.

You won't, Player has to accept the deal... It's up to Dangerfield to sign on it and state he is happy, it's like once a player nominates every other club is out of the running. Might be 10 Victorian teams, but second he says, i want to go to Hawthorn, guess what, only team we are dealing with is... Hawthorn.

You cannot trade a player without him agreeing to it.

I understand how the trade system works, as nonsensical as it is. However, except on Big Footy, those trades are never as lopsided in favour of the nominated club as everyone seems to think.

Again, did Carlton say to Carlton "we'll give you a 2nd rounder for Judd, deal with it"?

Even Port have offered a first round pick for Ryder FFS who has basically been told the AFLPA will support him in ripping up his contract

 

[weekend at bernies]

If you around touching people, you'll end up in trouble.

only if you get caught

 

[Sanders]

Hawthorn didn't need Franklin as much as we need Dangerfield, he is also younger. Plus the Hawks presumably COULDN'T match the offer due to lack of cap space. So yes we would match a $1m / year offer, no question.

The Hawks had the cap space, they chose not to match

You really think Dangerfield would pull a Tippett?

And you really can't see how an uncontracted player would attract a better return haul than a FREE AGENT?

It's like you are trying not to hear.

This is not about opinion it's about what the system is.