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

[FredLeDeux]

Our offer isn't in though. How can the afl even provide advice?

We tell them what it's going to be.

 

[Reg Hickey]

Ok. I'm officially confused.

Instead of a second rounder for smith, we lose a round 1 pick.
Which we can't trade.

But end up with pick 3 that can be traded for danger?

No, with pick 3 we force the Crows to send Danger into the draft, having eliminated the possibility of Melbourne or Essendon taking him ahead of us.

If they match, we refuse to deal and take him in the draft. If they blink and don't match, we have a huge pick to use on a top line kid.

 

[TheJimmyCartel]

And what will you trade with GC for #3 and Smith? #9 and some "magical Geelong player" who isn't untouchable, but good enough to make up the difference in picks?

Why? Smith could barely even get a game at GC this year, a bottom 3 club. His value is a second rounder at best given that...

 

[Eudes]

And what will you trade with GC for #3 and Smith? #9 and some "magical Geelong player" who isn't untouchable, but good enough to make up the difference in picks?

U mad? U seem mad?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Duck. I'll ask you. Geelong has just committed a future pick for smith.

How would this affect any danger trade?
Ie you can't do 2 future trades correct!

You can do two future trades in the one year. Just not if you use your R1. They've repeated it a few times today on trade radio, infomercial style. I.e if we trade our R2 2016 for Smith we cannot trade the R1 2016 but we can trade the R3 onwards.

NVM Fred is too quick

 

[FredLeDeux]

You can do two future trades in the one year. Just not if you use your R1. They've repeated it a few times today on trade radio, infomercial style. I.e if we trade our R2 2016 for Smith we cannot trade the R1 2016 but we can trade the R3 onwards.

NVM Fred is too quick

And PO spelled it out better than both of us, anyway.

 

[evolutionbaby]

Assuming that Selwood, Danger, Smith & Henderson come onboard is it too left or right of centre to look at the option of playing Motlop at half back? To me speed from the back half to capitalise on turnovers is becoming increasingly important.

 

[rooie]

wait, so instead of giving them round 2 next year for smith we.....

give GC pick 9 and next years first.(and maybe something extra if needed like later picks to sweeten)
GC give us smith and this years pick 3.

we then tell Adelaide we wont trade for him.

Adelaide can either take the compo at 14 or let him go for free into the draft.

we then get him at 3 as no one would waste a top 2 pick on a guy who will sign for 1 year.

Therefore, adelaide would be mad to match as they get nothing so accept the pick 14.

we then have smith, pick 3, danger, but no first round next year, we do however still have our round 2 from next year.
Our round 2 from this year goes with walker for henderson. Scooter for free.

is that it?

So Geelong;

Out: pick 9, walker, 2015 2nd round, 2016 first round, plus some sweetener to get the GC deal done if required such as some thirds or something.
In: pick 3, danger, scooter, henderson, smith.

So we effectively get the third best in the 15 draft plus those 4 guys all for our 2016 first round pick?

seems far fetched but i like it.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I did actually consider it early today, but then decided I couldn't be bothered posting on bigfooty on my Samsung 8.4 throughout the trade period.

I have an IPhone 9

I may take them on

 

[ChappyUK]

So now Smith has said yes for a supposedly future 2nd Rounder. Andrew Mackay has said there is no indication that we wont be able to get a deal done foe Henderson and they want a 1st Rounder.

There's not going to be much left for Adelaide. Are we gambling on them not matching?

 

[Lana]

If you trade next year's 2nd you cant trade next year's first and vice versa.

As I stated I reckon we will try to trade for pick 3 with GC now. Really snooker Adelaide.

I'm sure we could even trigger that restriction with a third rounder, I wonder if we could trigger it by trading a our 6th round pick in the 2016 draft.

Turn our pick 9 into Henderson and Smith, and suddenly that compensation pick doesn't look so bad

 

[catempire]

Sigh.
Figured I was clear enough first time around...
Your list is your list, regardless of who is out of contract or not.
THEY ALL COUNT.

No need for the 'tude.

As for the shouty bit, they don't necessarily all count. Adelaide has to demonstrate they can match. They can demonstrate that by saying "if Danger stays we will delist all of these guys".

 

[Whiskers]

So now Smith has said yes for a supposedly future 2nd Rounder. Andrew Mackay has said there is no indication that we wont be able to get a deal done foe Henderson and they want a 1st Rounder.

There's not going to be much left for Adelaide. Are we gambling on them not matching?

Yep, crows won't match imo

 

[catempire]

Assuming that Selwood, Danger, Smith & Henderson come onboard is it too left or right of centre to look at the option of playing Motlop at half back? To me speed from the back half to capitalise on turnovers is becoming increasingly important.

Too important as a goalkicker. Motlop will be huge in 2016 being free of attention he got this year.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

No need for the 'tude.

As for the shouty bit, they don't necessarily all count. Adelaide has to demonstrate they can match. They can demonstrate that by saying "if Danger stays we will delist all of these guys".

Except, as I've said and the AFL have stated, it does not matter.
What is their list is their list, regardless of what they may or may not do afterwards.
If they want to ensure they have that cap space on the proviso they delist those players, then for the AFL to agree they would actually have to have been delisted.
On the list is, funnily enough, on the list.

 

[evolutionbaby]

Too important as a goalkicker. Motlop will be huge in 2016 being free of attention he got this year.

Backs: Lonergan, Taylor, Henderson, Kolo, Enright, Mackie, Thurlow, Bartel?, Bews. Except for the latter where is the speed? Danger, a fit Menzel, a fit Duncan and an improving Guthrie/Cookatoo might have the goal kicking covered.

 

[CatTricks]

Too important as a goalkicker. Motlop will be huge in 2016 being free of attention he got this year.

Agree. Lang off the HBF for mine

 

[cats_09]

Rather play Murdoch off the halfback line - let him use his speed and break the lines.

 

[evolutionbaby]

Agree. Lang off the HBF for mine

Hadn't thought of him. Would be worried about physical strength and disposal under pressure.

 

[catempire]

Except, as I've said and the AFL have stated, it does not matter.
What is their list is their list, regardless of what they may or may not do afterwards.
If they want to ensure they have that cap space on the proviso they delist those players, then for the AFL to agree they would actually have to have been delisted.
On the list is, funnily enough, on the list.

Vacuous post is, funnily enough, vacuous.

 

[catempire]

Backs: Lonergan, Taylor, Henderson, Kolo, Enright, Mackie, Thurlow, Bartel?, Bews. Except for the latter where is the speed? Danger, a fit Menzel, a fit Duncan and an improving Guthrie/Cookatoo might have the goal kicking covered.

None of them are a patch on Motlop as a goalkicker. I don't know who provides the pace back but I'm certain it's not Motlop.

 

[MattyB_76]

U mad? U seem mad?

Not mad, just confused. I don't see how you it is even possible. You (this board) have earmarked all decent picks in 2015 and 2016 for other players (or can't trade 1st in 2016 because traded 2nd), except #9. And all your players with any sort of currency are untouchable.

It still makes sense that you guys offer #9 and nothing more, but I just fail to see how you can trade up to #3.

 

[Nest of Cats]

Not mad, just confused. I don't see how you it is even possible. You (this board) have earmarked all decent picks in 2015 and 2016 for other players (or can't trade 1st in 2016 because traded 2nd), except #9. And all your players with any sort of currency are untouchable.

It still makes sense that you guys offer #9 and nothing more, but I just fail to see how you can trade up to #3.

OUT pick 9, Rd 1 2016
IN Smith, Pick 3

 

[cats_09]

Not mad, just confused. I don't see how you it is even possible. You (this board) have earmarked all decent picks in 2015 and 2016 for other players (or can't trade 1st in 2016 because traded 2nd), except #9. And all your players with any sort of currency are untouchable.

It still makes sense that you guys offer #9 and nothing more, but I just fail to see how you can trade up to #3.

AFL rules regarding the trading of future picks say, that if you trade next years 1st rnd pick you are unable to trade any other picks for next year. But if you keep next years 1st rnd pick, you can trade picks from any other rounds.

That is why, if we are trading next years 2nd Rnd pick to GC for Smith, we then can't trade next years 1st rnd pick.

As for our players with currency being untouchable - our players who have currency have all re-signed because they want to stay at Geelong and play for Geelong. If they were open for a trade and looking at other options, they wouldn't have re-signed; hence why our players with currency are untouchable.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

The bitterness of the crows supporters are astounding, Connors saying he advises the crows just take the compo for Paddy, The crows supporter go on to claim Paddy is worth more than the compo Geelong got for Ablett Jnr .......

Well, we didn't get a fabulous compo pic for GAJ, did we? + that's one of the reasons I'm sick of Geelong being so affable + then getting screwed