Opinion Dangerfield compo - putting this issue to bed for good

Remove this Banner Ad

119others

The Crows are coming
Apr 19, 2018
2,146
2,860
AFL Club
Adelaide
I have just seen Sanders telling someone to count the 3 first rounders Cats gave to GWS for JC (ie bagging the Crows again over Danger). Now can’t find his post - perhaps he has pulled another one of his posts after realising he has left himself exposed here. Personally so sick to death focussing on something from 7 years ago and living in the past. It reminds me of some of my rellies and friends in Adelaide failing to be able to “move on” - something coincidentally I have never found living in many other places but that seems to occur with regular occurrence on this forum.

I would love to see Sanders and his wannabe cronies let this one go and hopefully the following can put it to bed - for good.

Now unless my after work cocktails (wouldn’t rule it out) are seriously impacting here - in which case I will certainly claim lack of capacity - the Crows got HIGHER value for Danger than GWS did for Cameron. Do the sums on the AFL draft calculator. We got 9 and 28. GWS got 13, 15 and 20 but gave up 24 and 27. And if anything earlier picks are relatively undervalued in many peoples eyes in reality.

Will very patiently await your response here Colonel :) and please don’t ignore being found out like you were a few days ago by not responding and just hoping things go away.

cats gave the equivalent of pick 7 for Cameron (13, 15, 20 out and 24 and 27 back in along with Jezza)

cats gave the equivalent of pick 4 for Danger (9 and 28)

SO WE GOT MORE FOR DANGER THAN GWS DID FOR CAMERON!!!!!!!!!! Well strike me pink. Who would have thought.

Your argument and constant criticism here along with your wannabe cronies has been completely and utterly debunked. Furthermore there is no doubt in recent years that HIGHER COMPENSATION is being received for players leaving even further adding to the Crows case here. And as we all realise we were the first club to force compensation for a free agent. Would I have liked 2 first rounders from Cats? Of course. Did we do as well as GWS did - bloody oath based on the numbers.

A genuine request to please respond Samders, STO and other cronies. It’s the manly thing to do.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Smart Fella

Debutant
Jul 4, 2022
106
115
AFL Club
Adelaide
I have just seen Sanders telling someone to count the 3 first rounders Cats gave to GWS for JC (ie bagging the Crows again over Danger). Now can’t find his post - perhaps he has pulled another one of his posts after realising he has left himself exposed here. Personally so sick to death focussing on something from 7 years ago and living in the past. It reminds me of some of my rellies and friends in Adelaide failing to be able to “move on” - something coincidentally I have never found living in many other places but that seems to occur with regular occurrence on this forum.

I would love to see Sanders and his wannabe cronies let this one go and hopefully the following can put it to bed - for good.

Now unless my after work cocktails (wouldn’t rule it out) are seriously impacting here - in which case I will certainly claim lack of capacity - the Crows got HIGHER value for Danger than GWS did for Cameron. Do the sums on the AFL draft calculator. We got 9 and 28. GWS got 13, 15 and 20 but gave up 24 and 27. And if anything earlier picks are relatively undervalued in many peoples eyes in reality.

Will very patiently await your response here Colonel :) and please don’t ignore being found out like you were a few days ago by not responding and just hoping things go away.

cats gave the equivalent of pick 7 for Cameron (13, 15, 20 out and 24 and 27 back in along with Jezza)

cats gave the equivalent of pick 4 for Danger (9 and 28)

SO WE GOT MORE FOR DANGER THAN GWS DID FOR CAMERON!!!!!!!!!! Well strike me pink. Who would have thought.

Your argument and constant criticism here along with your wannabe cronies has been completely and utterly debunked. Furthermore there is no doubt in recent years that HIGHER COMPENSATION is being received for players leaving even further adding to the Crows case here. And as we all realise we were the first club to force compensation for a free agent. Would I have liked 2 first rounders from Cats? Of course. Did we do as well as GWS did - bloody oath based on the numbers.

A genuine request to please respond Samders, STO and other cronies. It’s the manly thing to do.
I wasn't on BF when the Danger trade happened so I've got a few credits from not posting on the original thread

I'm fairly certain the GWS picks to Geelong were 32 and 35. If going off that calculator, the orange team received a pick 3 equiv but after NGA, FS etc it was a pick 5 equivalent.

I think Geelong did well in both trades. A trade like two Cats first rounders (1 future) for a Crows second future pick and Danger I would have been happy with. But Cats wouldn't because they wanted the future first for Henderson, that's where Crows list management should have held firm.

So that would have been 9 and 17 for 38 and Danger. Equivalent of pick 5 but access to higher top end talent. Pick 17 was Jarrod Berry. We got Gallucci and Poholke.

On CPH1903 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jan 31, 2009
34,630
45,824
New Highton
AFL Club
Adelaide
If we had received two firsts, as we should have..

We would have either traded Galluci pick and 2016 Danger pick for Gibbs and gone better in 2017 than we did..

Or kept the pick and have Jarrod Berry instead.
 
May 29, 2011
24,933
38,738
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt
PreciousSafeFeline-size_restricted.gif
 
Sep 3, 2018
4,176
5,449
AFL Club
Adelaide
Losing a player of Dangerfields quality is always going to be a loss - and I think we have done better in a number of trades since (Lever, McGovern,Cameron)

At the end of the day we need to build a better club so players of this quality don’t leave. Outside of GWS and GC not many top 8 players at a club move - we would arguably be the next worst for that

But clubs - including us - do seem to make things easier for Geelong. I think Geelong are also very clever at identifying the value deals and focusing on them. If they get pick 7 (after being gifted pick 11 two years ago) for essentially nothing then the competition deserves what it gets. Yes we traded poorly for Danger, but have a look at what Carlton, GC and West Coast have given the Cats over the past 7 years


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

119others

The Crows are coming
Apr 19, 2018
2,146
2,860
AFL Club
Adelaide
LOL at people who think pick value charts are real.
A simple question for a smart man coming up here STO.

Did we, or did we not, receive better compensation for Danger than GWS did for Cameron?

Very simple question and will respectfully await your response.
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,125
89,018
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
A simple question for a smart man coming up here STO.

Did we, or did we not, receive better compensation for Danger than GWS did for Cameron?

Very simple question and will respectfully await your response.
We did not receive adequate compensation for danger.
We got reamed.
Nothing else matters.
 

119others

The Crows are coming
Apr 19, 2018
2,146
2,860
AFL Club
Adelaide
We did not receive adequate compensation for danger.
We got reamed.
Nothing else matters.
OK thanks - certainly wrong context but I dont disagree that we should have got more.

Was actually hoping Sanders would step up here after his posts in recent days but seems strange anyone can rationally argue that Crows got shafted RELATIVE to GWS which for anyone reading the thread content is the basis of the thread.

However I am also not naive enough to understand deflections now being rolled out to avoid answering the simple question so its probably officially now a useless thread as Sanders, STO and mates wont actually address the substance of the matter raised
 
Making a thread where you try to pretend that pick value points are real and carry an objective value (leaving aside that picks do not even have a consistent market value across drafts) is about as strong a self own as could exist and you're asking me to do more? Have some dignity man.

Become capable of producing substance and I'll address it.
 
Back