Danger Zone

[Theseventhhamster]

I've just been assuming we are in the game because we will offer 25-50% more than a good team can afford.

 

[RandB]

The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.

I listened to it and wasn't left with a categorical impression either way. Maybe I read it wrong but Mohoney sort of hovered around it without clearly confirming 2&3 were on offer - might have to listen again.

I agree though about the shaking the tree. Dangerfield himself is the biggest factor of all here. I just don't see him wanting to go to Melbourne. Adelaide potentially between a rock and a hard place if he's scouting options for next year. They desperately want him to stay but in order to guarantee a best possible outcome they would have to convince him about going to us - you wouldn't read about it.

 

[Demon 16]

Maybe he just wants a bigger house or tv or something.

Or a caravan!

 

[Demon 16]

The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.

Exactly this. Well said.

 

[Bluelegs]

If it's true that Dangerfield met with Geelong and Adelaide still refuse to consider our offer than that club is in more trouble than I thought.

 

[Bluelegs]

The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.

We're not ****ing around and I love it.

 

[IanW]

We're not ******* around and I love it.

Likewise.

Just the offer will probably shake out a Tyson deal, as clubs and agents go 'Shit. They are walking the walk'.

 

[ponsdale]

I listened to it and wasn't left with a categorical impression either way. Maybe I read it wrong but Mohoney sort of hovered around it without clearly confirming 2&3 were on offer - might have to listen again.

I agree though about the shaking the tree. Dangerfield himself is the biggest factor of all here. I just don't see him wanting to go to Melbourne. Adelaide potentially between a rock and a hard place if he's scouting options for next year. They desperately want him to stay but in order to guarantee a best possible outcome they would have to convince him about going to us - you wouldn't read about it.

AFL Website seems pretty confident that 2&3 is currently on offer.

Melbourne's football operations manager Josh Mahoney told NAB AFL Trade Radio the Demons would be prepared to package up the high-end picks in this year's draft to help secure the superstar.

 

[RandB]

AFL Website seems pretty confident that 2&3 is currently on offer.

Apparently offerred and rejected (in principle)

Adelaide says no to Melbourne’s offer to poach star midfielder Patrick Dangerfield

The circumstances aren't there for a trade which is why I find this whole 2&3 stuff ridiculous. For as long as Adelaide are under the impression they can keep him nothing will be good enough as an offer - he is untouchable.

As the article suggests, if Danger requests a trade then it's a whole new ball game and 2&3 is overs. If Danger is open to coming to MFC then we don't need to spill our guts with 2&3 we just have to offer the Crows the best offer out of his destination clubs.

Dangerfield will decide if Adelaide trade or not, not us and our exorbitant offer to pry him away from them.

The only reason I can think of why the club would offer 2&3 straight off the bat is so that Adelaide have a word with him and direct him towards us vs the other clubs in the event he wants to walk.

 

[pjfairbairn]

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but any thoughts to the idea we are shaking the tree so that Adelaide put all their eggs in the Danger basket & then having a genuine crack at either Sloane or Tex?

 

[ponsdale]

The only reason I can think of why the club would offer 2&3 straight off the bat is so that Adelaide have a word with him and direct him towards us vs the other clubs in the event he wants to walk.

It's certainly going to shake a few trees!

Personally, I'm torn between thinking it is overs (commits too many recruiting resources for one player) and then thinking that we need to do it (genuine marketable talent). But it appears that MFC have a clear strategy with making the offer so public now and before we are even sure that we have pick 3. It's a bold call. And I'm all for those.

 

[Jiska]

It's certainly going to shake a few trees!

Personally, I'm torn between thinking it is overs (commits too many recruiting resources for one player) and then thinking that we need to do it (genuine marketable talent). But it appears that MFC have a clear strategy with making the offer so public now and before we are even sure that we have pick 3. It's a bold call. And I'm all for those.

I don't have a problem with it. I would prefer pick 2 and then a second round draft pick though - I feel that's more than adequate - but landing Dangerfield over another Trengrove/Scully or Sylvia/McLean possible combination would be a massive win in my books.

I still think the forward line is our major problem.

 

[RandB]

I still think the forward line is our major problem.

We definitely need to get another genuine tall target to help Hogan out. Pedo and Dawes are third tall types who have to play above themselves.

It's why I suggested packaging Jenkins with Dangerfield if we were to cough up 2&3. Especially if they are into Cameron.

 

[Dez!]

We definitely need to get another genuine tall target to help Hogan out. Pedo and Dawes are third tall types who have to play above themselves.

It's why I suggested packaging Jenkins with Dangerfield if we were to cough up 2&3. Especially if they are into Cameron.

Adelaide wouldn't give up Jenkins though and they aren't getting Cameron just like we aren't getting Dangerfield.

 

[RandB]

Adelaide wouldn't give up Jenkins though and they aren't getting Cameron just like we aren't getting Dangerfield.

Jenkins had a good year filling in for Tex but he isn't untradeable. Certainly worth enquiring about. As far as who will or won't go where we honestly have no idea until after trade week and FA. I have my doubts about Dangerfield as well but setting anything in stone at this point is just guessing tbh. Could end up right, could end up wrong.

 

[Topkent]

I don't have a problem with it. I would prefer pick 2 and then a second round draft pick though - I feel that's more than adequate - but landing Dangerfield over another Trengrove/Scully or Sylvia/McLean possible combination would be a massive win in my books.

I still think the forward line is our major problem.

Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean shit because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times

 

[Tulip]

Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean shit because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times

Practically though, with our midfield being this bad, we need the kind of forwardline that will make the most of its chances.

 

[Topkent]

Practically though, with our midfield being this bad, we need the kind of forwardline that will make the most of its chances.

Our forward line was one of the most effective in the AFL in either 2011/12 ... Didnt help us much

 

[Dez!]

Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean shit because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times

Forward line comes after midfield, our backline is good enough for now to focus on forward line problems.

 

[Tulip]

Our forward line was one of the most effective in the AFL in either 2011/12 ... Didnt help us much

It did in 2011, we were pretty good.

 

[stabler]

Anyone else see Collingwood as a threat in this planned Dangerfield coup?

I mean if Beams goes, they'll have the cap space and two first round picks to use, not to mention a whole bunch of S.A talent they can throw in as steak knives.

I'd rather see Danger stay in Adelaide than watch him go round in the black + white.

 

[Topkent]

It did in 2011, we were pretty good.

No we werent, we smashed up some interstate sides who werent that good and got smashed by everyone else

Also im fairly sure we were in the top few in 2012 for scoring from entries, we were shithouse

 

[Topkent]

Forward line comes after midfield, our backline is good enough for now to focus on forward line problems.

Well the backline will be an extension of the midfield, We are ok for 'defending' but we need guys who can use the footy rotating through the backline

Those issues need to be addressed before the forward line

 

[Dez!]

Anyone else see Collingwood as a threat in this planned Dangerfield coup?

I mean if Beams goes, they'll have the cap space and two first round picks to use, not to mention a whole bunch of S.A talent they can throw in as steak knives.

I'd rather see Danger stay in Adelaide than watch him go round in the black + white.

They don't have two first round picks, #8 is going to Darcy Moore as a F/S.

Well the backline will be an extension of the midfield, We are ok for 'defending' but we need guys who can use the footy rotating through the backline

Those issues need to be addressed before the forward line

It's the other way round, the midfield is an extension of the back line when they drop back.

We aren't winning games without kicking goals, when you averaging like 60 points are game this is a far larger problem.

 

[Bluelegs]

We'll have to force Collingwood's hand in the Darcy Moore nomination