Oppo Camp Dangerfield's Gone (Zero tolerance to trolling) - READ THREAD LINKED IN OP BEFORE POSTING

[SA_Stazza]

It's better than some of the other suggestions that have been floated.

But I don't think redden is worth pick 9 assuming that is what we are forgoing to get him. And if he is worth pick 9 then danger is worth a lot more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like it, and essentially we're not exactly forgoing pick 9 to get Redden - we're forgoing Dangerfield (who was leaving anyway) and our late second round pick 33 to give us two picks inside the first round (20 is end of first round after the AFL hand out the Leuenberger compo - unless he meant their 2nd rounder which is likely to be 22 after compo, in either case it's basically still within firing range of a good solid prospect and very close to 1st round), plus getting Redden (easily worth pick 12-15 in this draft) and Aish (worth somewhere in that vicinity if not more) for picks we never had in the first place.

Conversely, we take Brisbane out of the equation and we end up with something like pick 9, pick 28 and Geelong's 2016 2nd rounder for Danger, which would you prefer in that scenario?

 

[Golumless]

So hypothetically if one proposed the following:

Geelong sends its first round draft pick #9 + its second round draft pick this year #28* and its second round draft pick next year, its third round draft pick #46* plus Jarrad Jansen to Brisbane. Brisbane sends Aish and Redden, its second round draft pick #20* plus its fourth round draft pick #56 to Adelaide as well as on-trading pick #46 from Geelong. Adelaide sends Dangerfield, its second round draft pick #33*, its third round draft pick #51* and on-trades Brisbane's fourth rounder to Geelong.

*denotes picks before adjusted for Free Agency compensation

In summary:

Brisbane

IN: Pick #9, pick #28, 2016 second round draft pick (Geelong) and Jarrad Jansen.

OUT: Aish, Redden, pick #20, pick #56

Adelaide

IN: Aish, Redden, pick #20 and pick #46

OUT: Dangerfield, pick #33, pick #51

Geelong

IN: Dangerfield, pick #33, pick #51, pick #56

OUT: Pick #9, pick #28, pick #46, 2016 second round draft pick and Jarrad Jansen.

How would that deal sit?

On a scale of esctatic to angry, i'd be probably be slightly disappointed

 

[Jarman3]

Two words : Frank Costa

He will be at Geelong next year of that I have absolutely no doubt.

Does Frank have first pick in the preseason draft?

 

[1970crow]

It's funny how many Geelong supporters want us to do an illegal deal. I bet when they heard we had broken the law for agreeing to send KT home for unders, those same people wanted us Hanged, drawn and quartered.

Quite a few of them were taken in by a muppet in their board saying they knew as fact that we couldn't match because of a side deal from our last contract. But we were fully audited was a response, verbal was his response and many of their posters remained on board.

They're a strange bunch over there. Couple of good blokes/chicks, but it's frustrating because so many still can't comprehend the restricted part of Patty's free agency. Then there's the blokes that reckon it's a cultural mistake to try and get 2 first rounders in this deal rather than a single compo pick. Cause Tex and Sloaney would really want the club to roll over in favour of departing players and their new clubs and get eff all in return, weakening the club that they're pouring their energy into. No player would want to come to the Crows if we negotiate the trade of an uncontracted player. I've given up going over there and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

 

[MRB37]

I appreciate the intent, but the AFL shouldn't be back dooring you an asset for the sole purpose of trading it. If we wanted to try and trade for Bennell, why can't the AFL give us another first rounder to use?

It's like fining someone, and then giving them the cash to pay the fine (or sending them to France to study); it's a joke.

It's only reasonable for Geelong fans because in that scenario, rather than giving up 2 picks themselves, they just downgrade their own pick 5-6 places. They're basically giving up nothing for Dangerfield while we just get a single draft pick out of it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yeah, spent 5 nights/days down there. Good base to travel Southern Italy.

Great weather, til left Thurs AM it was raining.

Have been lucky with warm weather with a late Summer.

Loved Napoli and Isle of Capri. 'Twas very hot though when we were there - my feet kept getting burned through my shoes!

 

[Sanders]

Ok Patrick Dangerfiedl is a two faced liar according to yourself, dont believe a word the man utters because he talks out of his arse, is that what you feel. Or will you say he is saying it to hide and run for cover because he cant stand up and be a man and take responsibility?

You're developing a nasty habit of pretending people said things they didn't

That danger quote in now way says what you claimed. Danger does not demand that we be adequate compensates, he doesn't say anything at all. It's a bland nothing statement: I hope both sides are treated fairly in no way suggests he gives a flying fig either way.

As much as anything he's saying it's nothing to do with me and we'll see what happens

 

[Sanders]

PAF is right in what he says here ... we all know that the Hawks couldn't match, and if Geelong did the same as Sydney we would be in the same boat.

Once and for all can we stop with this Hawks couldn't match nonsense

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-08/buddy-becomes-a-swan

They could and chose not too. Rightly it seems

 

[baldandbroke]

Once and for all can we stop with this Hawks couldn't match nonsense

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-08/buddy-becomes-a-swan

They could and chose not too. Rightly it seems

I meant couldn't match in terms of what it would do to their club. It would have been a crazy decision.

Couldn't as in - I couldn't support Port Power in a Grand Final.

 

[Strangled Cat]

I like it, and essentially we're not exactly forgoing pick 9 to get Redden - we're forgoing Dangerfield (who was leaving anyway) and our late second round pick 33 to give us two picks inside the first round (20 is end of first round after the AFL hand out the Leuenberger compo - unless he meant their 2nd rounder which is likely to be 22 after compo, in either case it's basically still within firing range of a good solid prospect and very close to 1st round), plus getting Redden (easily worth pick 12-15 in this draft) and Aish (worth somewhere in that vicinity if not more) for picks we never had in the first place.

Conversely, we take Brisbane out of the equation and we end up with something like pick 9, pick 28 and Geelong's 2016 2nd rounder for Danger, which would you prefer in that scenario?

That is exactly what I meant, hence the asterisk next to all of the picks which were numbers derived prior to any FA compensation adjustment.

 

[marty36]

You're developing a nasty habit of pretending people said things they didn't

That danger quote in now way says what you claimed. Danger does not demand that we be adequate compensates, he doesn't say anything at all. It's a bland nothing statement: I hope both sides are treated fairly in no way suggests he gives a flying fig either way.

As much as anything he's saying it's nothing to do with me and we'll see what happens

Please show me where I said he demanded anything.

I think you are the one making up BS or maybe post where I said this

It's very easy to accuse someone of something but not back it up

It appears you might do this often

 

[1970crow]

You're developing a nasty habit of pretending people said things they didn't

That danger quote in now way says what you claimed. Danger does not demand that we be adequate compensates, he doesn't say anything at all. It's a bland nothing statement: I hope both sides are treated fairly in no way suggests he gives a flying fig either way.

As much as anything he's saying it's nothing to do with me and we'll see what happens

I've posted this many times. He couldn't give 2 shits what we get or what Geelong gives up. He just wants to get to Geelong under the deal they have offerred him. His only involvement will be that he might demand that Geelong get it done because he refuses to take the risk of playing funny buggers in a draft. He has no input into the attitude that we take into the negotiations, presuming there are some.

 

[Sanders]

I meant couldn't match in terms of what it would do to their club. It would have been a crazy decision.

Couldn't as in - I couldn't support Port Power in a Grand Final.

Couldn't in good conscience then

A decision hindsight is treating very well

 

[Sanders]

Please show me where I said he demanded anything.

I think you are the one making up BS or maybe post where I said this

It's very easy to accuse someone of something but not back it up

It appears you might do this often

I Marty your record speaks for itself

And you know what it say: hahahaha

 

[marty36]

You're developing a nasty habit of pretending people said things they didn't

That danger quote in now way says what you claimed. Danger does not demand that we be adequate compensates, he doesn't say anything at all. It's a bland nothing statement: I hope both sides are treated fairly in no way suggests he gives a flying fig either way.

As much as anything he's saying it's nothing to do with me and we'll see what happens

And that's nice you have an opinion on fairly meaning you couldn't give a toss. If I say I want something to be treated fairly I mean it, not a throw away line and considering he has the whole of South Australia listening I doubt he puts things out there without thinking.

So when says he wants his kids to be treated fairly, or he wants a fair say in how the alma is run. Are you saying he doesn't mean that. I think I'm starting to see your logic, not!

 

[marty36]

I Marty your record speaks for itself

And you know what it say: hahahaha

Oh so that's a no you can't find it but want to throw mud! They are right what they say about you!

 

[Strangled Cat]

On a scale of esctatic to angry, i'd be probably be slightly disappointed

I'd say that's the definition of having reached common ground.

 

[1970crow]

Once and for all can we stop with this Hawks couldn't match nonsense

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-08/buddy-becomes-a-swan

They could and chose not too. Rightly it seems

Could is a misleading term. They chose not to due to the length of the deal, no different to if Geelong were to offer Patty 10 years at $800k. We could match it, but no one but the Swans has a player locked into their salary cap structure for 2023. If I was to hear that we matched a 10 year deal for a Patty, I'd post something like, "you can't go around awarding 10 year contracts to blokes in their mid 20's". Obviously I understand that clubs can, but the context of the use of the word isn't its strict literal meaning. You're promoting Dmac after that performance, you can't be serious selectors. Oh, but they can.

 

[1970crow]

I'd say that's the definition of having reached common ground.

I think the key for your blokes is getting over the initial exuberance and expectation of getting him free as a restricted FA. Once the realisation sets in, as it has with many, that the R in front of FA has a real meaning and that we're not ruining our culture and being Krunts for the sake of it by excercising our rights, then many of your supporters will be able to enjoy getting Danger at a huge discount in trade and sal cap value. There's really not any common ground, we're going to lose out, nothing is more certain and you bastards are going to win. Just by not as much as originally forecasted.

 

[Strangled Cat]

I think the key for your blokes is getting over the initial exuberance and expectation of getting him free as a restricted FA. Once the realisation sets in, as it has with many, that the R in front of FA has a real meaning and that we're not ruining our culture and being Krunts for the sake of it by excercising our rights, then many of your supporters will be able to enjoy getting Danger at a huge discount in trade and sal cap value. There's really not any common ground, we're going to lose out, nothing is more certain and you bastards are going to win. Just by not as much as originally forecasted.

That is a fair enough comment, and if your club matches and if for argument's sake my proposal were to go through exactly as how I have stated, then Geelong will be the winners. Brisbane possibly lose out the most, but once again they don't have a great deal of leverage either, because of two players that want to leave.

Still, pick #9 a second rounder next year and an emerging mid who WANTS to play for them is probably slightly unders for what they lose, but not unreasonable given everything. They got Christensen for unders, after all. So what goes around should eventually come around.

Getting Aish, Redden, a very early second rounder and a bunch of pick upgrades for the loss of Danger and a late second rounder would probably still seem unders to some, but even when you remove RFA from the equation altogether, under normal trade circumstances the club losing the player often takes a slight hit. While probably still not perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than pick #14 on its own.

 

[Mego Red]

So hypothetically if one proposed the following:

Geelong sends its first round draft pick #9 + its second round draft pick this year #28* and its second round draft pick next year, its third round draft pick #46* plus Jarrad Jansen to Brisbane. Brisbane sends Aish and Redden, its second round draft pick #20* plus its fourth round draft pick #56 to Adelaide as well as on-trading pick #46 from Geelong. Adelaide sends Dangerfield, its second round draft pick #33*, its third round draft pick #51* and on-trades Brisbane's fourth rounder to Geelong.

*denotes picks before adjusted for Free Agency compensation

In summary:

Brisbane

IN: Pick #9, pick #28, 2016 second round draft pick (Geelong) and Jarrad Jansen.

OUT: Aish, Redden, pick #20, pick #56

Adelaide

IN: Aish, Redden, pick #20 and pick #46

OUT: Dangerfield, pick #33, pick #51

Geelong

IN: Dangerfield, pick #33, pick #51, pick #56

OUT: Pick #9, pick #28, pick #46, 2016 second round draft pick and Jarrad Jansen.

How would that deal sit?

Complicated, but not bad.

Any version where we keep 33? Feels a tiny bit light for us and perhaps a bit good for Geelong, as you're getting Danger for a first, a second and a zero gamer, which seems a bit too good to be true.

 

[footy4ever]

You're developing a nasty habit of pretending people said things they didn't

That danger quote in now way says what you claimed. Danger does not demand that we be adequate compensates, he doesn't say anything at all. It's a bland nothing statement: I hope both sides are treated fairly in no way suggests he gives a flying fig either way.

As much as anything he's saying it's nothing to do with me and we'll see what happens

He's had a lot of practice with those kind of statements.

 

[Mego Red]

Not even going to read your proposal because I need to say - how fricken good is that airport, beers are exxxcy but what an airport, could stay there for days, especially before flying into Jakarta!

edit: don't mind your propasal but for gods sake get off here and have a walk around that showground!

Best duty free in the world. 1l gin was $18 when I was there a week or so ago.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Complicated, but not bad.

Any version where we keep 33? Feels a tiny bit light for us and perhaps a bit good for Geelong, as you're getting Danger for a first, a second and a zero gamer, which seems a bit too good to be true.

Haha I like your style. But no. While it's not Adelaide's problem that Geelong is up to its eyeballs in other players, Geelong will try it's absolute best to keep a second rounder at the very least to bundle with Josh Walker for a trade with Carlton for Lachie Henderson.

If you forget what Geelong lose and focus on what Adelaide gain, my guess is that Fagan would take it in a heartbeat over compo, while Brisbane have litttle choice with two SA players wanting to go home plus wanting to secure a mid who actually wants to play for them.

 

[Mego Red]

My beer cost me appox $18, including tax in the cactus bar, so lets say I sipped it slowly for that price. Singapore Airport isn't cheap for alcohol!

In the last 24 hours, I have taken a train from Sorento -> Napoli -> Rome Central -> Rome Airport, flown Rome ->Frankfurt -> Singapore & now waiting on my Adelaide flight, so have had enough of walking for now

I spent $35 having a Singapore Sling at Raffles (yes, I know, what a dumb tourist thing to do), so I feel you pain.

Of course, beers at their 7/11 are $2.80 so depends where you buy ...