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

[Jhye Clark 13]

I can't see LH, SS or ZS in our best 22.
Only PD would make the cut.

You'll come around. I remember many here were ropeable we traded to pick up Stanley, now every best 22 for 2016 has Stanley in the side.

 

[rooie]

Besides WC I can't think of another club that has had any decent compo from a star player.

is that because frawley wasn't a star?

 

[MattyB_76]

i think however the afl will still need to estimate their likely cost to you when working out your ability to pay danger. so you can't say they are all on minimum wage on their next contract if their existing one is 350k.

Yep fair point, but I wouldn't want to make a living on what the AFL 'might' do.

Just out of interest, these are the guys currently unsigned:

Matthew Wright - 94 games
Sam Kerridge - 27 games
Matt Crouch - 25 games
Sam Shaw - 24 games
Mitchell Grigg - 20 games
Cameron Ellis-Yolmen - 12 games
Rory Atkins - 8 games
Keenan Ramsey - 0 games
Hardly worth a mint, but you could hazard a guess they'd each be on $200k or less. Maybe Wright's on more like $300-$350k.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

If you were a crow, would you prefer pick 14 or NOTHING????????????

Well I seen a few of them suggest that they'd cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Besides WC I can't think of another club that has had any decent compo from a star player.

Nor can I evolutionbaby + I remember Geelong supporters not only being disappointed with our GAJ compensation, but being furious + feeling deceived.

 

[pussygalore]

I think that thread might have another 900+ pages and even more arguments than this one!

I might kick It off to see what people are thinking.

 

[Biscut]

Well I seen a few of them suggest that they'd cut off their nose to spite their face.

No way does that happen. If they did then I would say they are a totally incompetent group and are in the wrong industry.

 

[catempire]

Currently contracted players, and recently uncontracted players can re-sign and adjust contracts at any time of the year. I would expect that we have intentionally held off contracts with the 8 or so players, just so we have the ability to match any large offer you may make. With the full intention of trading Danger to you, and never having to pay it. Once trade week is done, the 8 or so guys will be signed up, and we'll have the money we would have used for Danger for other players.

It's purely a ploy to have the space if you offer a large $$ figure.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

No way does that happen. If they did then I would say they are a totally incompetent group and are in the wrong industry.

You could almost say that now with the number of key departures over the years.

 

[evolutionbaby]

is that because frawley wasn't a star?

We are talking about the Dees here. They have wasted more draft picks than I've had Mexicana pizzas....and that's a few!

 

[catempire]

I just look at the Hawthorn model with Burgoyne. He has cut up so many sides with rebound. Someone will have to address this.

Agree that someone will. I wouldn't move Hawkins to full back to plug a hole there though. Same principle.

 

[catempire]

Say whatever you like, considering it is part of the rules and what the AFL said they consider, I'd trust that over your "vibe".

Point to the rule then.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Agree that someone will. I wouldn't move Hawkins to full back to plug a hole there though. Same principle.

Plug a hole? He'd plug the entire square.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

After Saturday my thoughts towards this have changed completely. I keep asking myself what would the Squawks do if it was them in our shoes? Answer: Get every deal done for the absolute minimum. That can be filed under " Never give a sucker an even break".

+ keep tightening the thumb screws until they crack!

 

[evolutionbaby]

+ keep tightening the thumb screws until they crack!

The make up is still on and "I'm feelin' mean!" Just hope our key negotiators have theirs on as well.

 

[OzeSparky]

Yep fair point, but I wouldn't want to make a living on what the AFL 'might' do.

Just out of interest, these are the guys currently unsigned:

Matthew Wright - 94 games
Sam Kerridge - 27 games
Matt Crouch - 25 games
Sam Shaw - 24 games
Mitchell Grigg - 20 games
Cameron Ellis-Yolmen - 12 games
Rory Atkins - 8 games
Keenan Ramsey - 0 games
Hardly worth a mint, but you could hazard a guess they'd each be on $200k or less. Maybe Wright's on more like $300-$350k.

Mitch Grigg unsigned I thought he went alright.

 

[Seeds]

There is NO way in hell the crows will force Danger into the draft if we hold pick 3. If they did that they will lose Danger for NOTHING, nada zilch zippo, a big fat 0. If they do not match they will get a compo pick from the AFL which will be pick 14.

If you were a crow, would you prefer pick 14 or NOTHING????????????

We are not going to do a deal to get pick 3 in the draft. The cost of getting pick 3 would be no less than what the crows want for danger so it's pointless so can we stop talking about it?

 

[catempire]

We are not going to do a deal to get pick 3 in the draft. The cost of getting pick 3 would be no less than what the crows want for danger so it's pointless so can we stop talking about it?

Assuming it's no less then you would do it. Because as has been explained, once you have pick 3 Crows are mad to match and you get Dangerfield for free and get to use 3 in the draft.

 

[Seeds]

Besides WC I can't think of another club that has had any decent compo from a star player.

Melbourne pick 3 for Frawley.

 

[Seeds]

Assuming it's no less then you would do it. Because as has been explained, once you have pick 3 Crows are mad to match and you get Dangerfield for free and get to use 3 in the draft.

Fair enough.

 

[catempire]

Hey FredLeDeux, remember some time ago how we were talking about onus of proof in the conduct prejudicial scenario (initial 2 year contract then extending afterwards)?

Check out this doozie of an AFL rule:

29.17 Onus of Proof ​

A person charged by the General Counsel shall bear the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct was not engaged in.​

The small window of opportunity that I thought existed just slammed shut!

 

[evolutionbaby]

Melbourne pick 3 for Frawley.

Should mercy rules really count?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Hey FredLeDeux, remember some time ago how we were talking about onus of proof in the conduct prejudicial scenario (initial 2 year contract then extending afterwards)?

Check out this doozie of an AFL rule:

29.17 Onus of Proof ​

A person charged by the General Counsel shall bear the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct was not engaged in.​

The small window of opportunity that I thought existed just slammed shut!

I like that one.

 

[catempire]

I like that one.

Who says the AFL is a law unto itself, eh?

 

[Turbocat]

One eyed Adelaide fans – “We need 2 first round draft picks and a player or straight to the draft. I’m happy to lose 14 to send a message”
One eyed Geelong fans – “We will just refuse to trade and he’ll go into the draft. No-one else will pick him up and we’ll get him for free.”
Chris Scott - “The most important step is the players nominating Geelong as their club of choice and then generally the two clubs need to do a deal. But if recent history is any guide, even if clubs seem a fair way away early on in the piece, and that is not my understanding in this situation, the deals are still done.”
I stand by my post. A deal will get done. It will be unders but more than pick 14. Geelong will be happy to give up something to get him and avoid the draft lottery but I highly doubt it will be 2 first rounders and a decent player. Adelaide might be willing to roll the dice and risk losing 14 but they won’t be willing to roll the dice and walk away from a sensible offer like pick 9 and a pick/player/ or combo.

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.