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

[Sanders]

Only because we have never had the courage to follow through in the past.

If we want to be taken serious as a football club we need to become comfortable in uncomfortable situations and right now, holding our nerve becomes an uncomfortable situation.

Do you also write fortune cookies?

 

[Sanders]

Nah, we were going to do the trade, then pulled it at the last minute when we realised shit was about to hit the fan.

And when we said to Sydney you gotta offer more it's starting to look suss, they told us to piss off.

 

[Sanders]

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-greatest-deal-of-all-20110523-1f0tl.html
Thought id put this here.

Not even close to the wellman, salmon, jarman trade

 

[6BTS]

Did you warn your own posters that this isn't a "Geelong List Mgt" thread?

Are you being a smart ass to one of our moderators? Where the **** do you think you are?

 

[6BTS]

Brownlow night will be interesting for the danger man as Bruce often puts people in squirmy position with his comments. Not sure how comfortable PD will be when he doesnt control the interaction.

He'll be fine, he knows how to play the media game and knows what will and won't go down well. He's got his Political Correctness down and won't skip a beat. God, that's the last thing we need, our best player, best & fairest AND Brownlow medalist walking out on us.

 

[Deaneus!]

Rockliffe would be similar to beams... Both best and fairest winners... So you would accept two first rounders, two second rounders and two players for danger?
Wow your bnf award must be prestigious

Well, we've certainly never handed it out to two players in one year.

Wasn't it a four-way tie for the 2nd bottom club?

I guess they were all equally bad.

 

[robboaustralia]

Have you seen how many people on our board think we have players called Ottens, Sloan, Riley and Mckay?

Ha Ha fair point.

 

[headache1]

Wasn't it a four-way tie for the 2nd bottom club?

I guess they were all equally bad.

Haha, it was too.

Perhaps not a bad strategy. If any of them decide they want to go via trade/FA, they can say they're B&F winners. 42 way tie for us next year?

 

[Sanders]

just posted this on the Geelong board, seeking their opinion on what they would like their club to do if we played dirty.

in this very plausible scenario, I think Geelong are better off walking away, but once you get balls deep in a deal its hard to walk away sometimes you go native and all that matters is closing the deal.

hey guys,

I don't think too many visitors from each of our boards are making too many friends on the other teams board. So I am not going to insult anyone by telling them what is going to happen, I don't know and neither do you. so lets park that for a moment.

I am very keen to get your views on how you would feel, or how you would want your club to respond to a particular turn of events.

your view is I am sure, not unreasonably, he's hit free agency why should you have to give up too much, if anything to land him. I'd feel the same way. Hell I *do* feel the same way about Bennell, he's damaged goods, can I get him cheap. we ALL feel that way.

however, the only way to guarantee you get Danger for free is to make an unmatchable offer, I am not sure you have the ability or the willingness to do that. if you do, you probably should.

assuming that you don't, then its a face off between 2 clubs trying to out bluff the other. the PSD looms otherwise, and Danger is off to Brisbane, Carlton are still on high cap and won't have the cash, and they rightly don't think they can spend their way out of the cycle they are in. this is about the most sensible thing Carlton have said in years, and I think most reasonable supporters would say they are right. Brisbane can't get anyone to stay, if ever a club was full of cash and desperation its them. Danger is off to Brisbane if he enters the draft.

If he goes in the draft that sucks for us, and is annoying for you I would imagine.

now in terms of how we avoid that, and I think Danger is very motivated to avoid that. if it comes to a PSD and brisbane pathway, I think we signs with us for 2 years. we all know what that means, but still, IF it came to that.

so, in terms of negotiating between the 2 teams, I think both teams have poison pill strategies they can deploy. So I am wondering what your feeling is towards one that we can play. Remember Danger cannot get to you without our consent, he just can't - unless you have a LOT of cap space to dedicate to him. as I say if you do, you should.

So we can refuse to deal with you at all. flat out. we can go to Hawthorn and Essendon say, and ask for their best offer. We say to them don't worry about the details, you know how these things change. But if we can persuade Danger, what have you got? So they make offers, and it doesn't really matter what that offer is. Melbourne offered picks 2 & 3 last year, and have reportedly offered $10mio over 6 years this year. there is demand out there from the non-chosen clubs.

so lets say Essendon & Hawthorn come in with these offers:
Hawks: 2 x 1sts (2015, 2016) and Isaac Smith to compensate for our lost leg speed
Essendon: 1st round 2015 + Carlisle (I know he's staying in vic, but just representing value of the offer)

now at this point, we're refusing to deal with you. and Danger is refusing to deal with us or anyone else.

We put a brisbane post cards into Danger's mail box, and ask him how he feels about that. tell him its over, we're not dealing with Geelong full stop. yes its a dick move, but one we can make. he starts to panic.

at this time, we finally come to you in the last couple of days of the trade period and offer to open discussions based on the premise we want you to match or exceed the trade offers on the table.

Danger also comes to you, and starts saying shit like "you guys gotta sort it out, I put myself on the line for you, just get it done!" etc. that sort of shit.

its pretty clear we are prepared to cut off our nose to spite our face if need be.

now at this point is my question to you: I am not interested in what you think your club would do, but rather what do you WANT them to do?

at that point would you rather:
1. they ponied up whatever was needed
2. say to Danger - look sorry we tried, but we're not gutting our list. we're out
3. sign for 2 years, and then come again as unrestricted.

as fans, if Adelaide decided to really play dirty, what do you prefer your club to do? pony up, or walk away?

I'd walk away if it were my club incidentally, and I'd walk away without any guilt. but what would you want to do?

if the boot were on the other foot, what would you want to do?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-...micable-discussions-on-dangerfield-says-scott

So to the Geelong supporters who think we should still take the compo pick and run......don't look like that's the way Wells and Hocking see it...

Mahlepi aka hutchy

Interested to know your thoughts on Scotts' comments, given it is the exact opposite of what you were claiming so vigorously & howling down anyone such as myself who said this is how it would likely pan out.

Can you now apologise that you were clearly making up shyte that Afc would not match as the cats would not pay for danger & compo would need to do...

Credibility completely shot....

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

just posted this on the Geelong board, seeking their opinion on what they would like their club to do if we played dirty.

in this very plausible scenario, I think Geelong are better off walking away, but once you get balls deep in a deal its hard to walk away sometimes you go native and all that matters is closing the deal.




if the boot were on the other foot, what would you want to do?

I agree that the cats are better off walking away as trading in a gun player for say 2 1st rounders & perhaps a fringe player is the wrong trade strategy for them as they have so many holes on their list caused by older player retirements. They should actually be doing the opposite strategy or getting free agents who you don't need to trade for!

But the cats have chased danger, promised to get him, got the community & supporters excited, so too late to back out now as they are committed.

 

[Bovo]

I agree that the cats are better off walking away as trading in a gun player for say 2 1st rounders & perhaps a fringe player is the wrong trade strategy for them as they have so many holes on their list caused by older player retirements. They should actually be doing the opposite strategy or getting free agents who you don't need to trade for!

But the cats have chased danger, promised to get him, got the community & supporters excited, so too late to back out now as they are committed.

Don't for a minute think Geelong know that one player is not greater than the club. They will do everything they can to take him, but they would not be stupid enough to steal from Peter to pay Paul. They expect to land him within a set criteria....and pride won't push them over that line....otherwise it is game over and thanks for coming.

 

[kirky]

Hi Hutchy still think there won't be a trade?

Yes, heard him on 5AA on Saturday morning. He has no idea, completely biased towards Geelong (he is a Cats fan) - "All Adelaide will get is a compo pick, if he goes into PSD no other Melbourne club we take him and Geelong get him for nothing" - Seriously, is he deluded?

 

[fpm84]

Why would we accept pick 10 (in a crappy draft), a random pick next year and some fringe player for Dangerfield?

Collingwood got pick 5 and pick 25 (in a good draft) and Jack crisp who is a superb talent for Beams when he wanted to go home, danger is much better than him.

Although for Geelong supporters it's easy to use I don't think "but he wants to go home" is a viable excuse for a lesser trade when they negotiate deals. Once we match we have the advantage.

The different was that Beams was still contracted to Collingwood for several years. So if Collingwood felt they didn't receive a fair offer they would simply refuse to trade him (there is precedence for this - Mitch Brown wanted to leave the Eagles for St Kilda two years ago but they refused to do the deal).

You always have to pay a premium for a contracted player.

Dangerfield is OOC and has made it clear he won't be signing a new deal with the Crows which makes his trade value less than Beams even though he's a far better player.

 

[Paladin]

The different was that Beams was still contracted to Collingwood for several years. So if Collingwood felt they didn't receive a fair offer they would simply refuse to trade him (there is precedence for this - Mitch Brown wanted to leave the Eagles for St Kilda two years ago but they refused to do the deal).

You always have to pay a premium for a contracted player.

Dangerfield is OOC and has made it clear he won't be signing a new deal with the Crows which makes his trade value less than Beams even though he's a far better player.

Treloar is uncontracted compare Dangers value to his.

 

[Mismatched]

The DOC role has become a all care and no responsibility type of role

I don't get the role.at all

For some I think its seen as a way to get an experienced ex-senior coach into the coaches box, without them needing to take a "lesser" assistant's role. Personally I'd prefer to see them just called "senior assistant" or "strategy coach" or the like as it undermines the authority of the senior coach. There's already enough layers these days above the senior coach, without creating a confusing sideways kind of position.

In this case it seems like perhaps the powerbrokers at Geelong are a little nervous with their slide.

 

[fpm84]

Treloar is uncontracted compare Dangers value to his.

I think Treloar and Danger's trade value is similar. A first round and second round, or potentially two firsts.

Danger the better player at the moment but Treloar has the potential to be as good. We will likely get 6-7 years from Danger, Collingwood will get 10+ from Treloar. You have to take all these things into consideration.

If Tex was on the trade table, would he get what the Bulldogs gave up for Tom Boyd (pick 6 + Ryan Griffen)? Tex clearly the better player but the Dogs paid overs because of Boyd's age and potential.

 

[Mahlepi]

Mahlepi aka hutchy

Interested to know your thoughts on Scotts' comments, given it is the exact opposite of what you were claiming so vigorously & howling down anyone such as myself who said this is how it would likely pan out.

Can you now apologise that you were clearly making up shyte that Afc would not match as the cats would not pay for danger & compo would need to do...

Credibility completely shot....

Dear Kane, let's just see what what happens. I really don't need to be tagged every 2 seconds. You were very adamant he was staying 6 months ago.
But scott did not say trade did he.
Let's wait and see, and if you are wrong will you apologise with the same velocity?

 

[Mahlepi]

Treloar is uncontracted compare Dangers value to his.

Treloar is 4 years younger

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Yes, heard him on 5AA on Saturday morning. He has no idea, completely biased towards Geelong (he is a Cats fan) - "All Adelaide will get is a compo pick, if he goes into PSD no other Melbourne club we take him and Geelong get him for nothing" - Seriously, is he deluded?

He was spouting the same nonsense on the SA Footy Show yesterday (just why that Victorian flog is hosting the SA Footy Show is beyond me).

Let's make it simple for Baldy McTubbTubbs:

It's risk v reward. We are happy to risk losing compensation pick 14 as the reward of what we can get in a "normal" trade combined with likelihood of that eventuating makes it worthwhile.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Yes, heard him on 5AA on Saturday morning. He has no idea, completely biased towards Geelong (he is a Cats fan) - "All Adelaide will get is a compo pick, if he goes into PSD no other Melbourne club we take him and Geelong get him for nothing" - Seriously, is he deluded?

In fairness we were saying the same thing when he said Danger will be leaving Adelaide under free agency.

Someone at Geelong has clearly told him that.

 

[Mego Red]

The different was that Beams was still contracted to Collingwood for several years. So if Collingwood felt they didn't receive a fair offer they would simply refuse to trade him (there is precedence for this - Mitch Brown wanted to leave the Eagles for St Kilda two years ago but they refused to do the deal).

You always have to pay a premium for a contracted player.

Dangerfield is OOC and has made it clear he won't be signing a new deal with the Crows which makes his trade value less than Beams even though he's a far better player.

Trade value is partly defined by contract, but less with every year as contracted players demand to leave. The only advantage in trying to get non-contracted is the PSD threat, which is irrelevant in this case.

The difference between contracted and not is less than the difference between Danger and Beams.

 

[Pdub]

I think Treloar and Danger's trade value is similar. A first round and second round, or potentially two firsts.

Danger the better player at the moment but Treloar has the potential to be as good. We will likely get 6-7 years from Danger, Collingwood will get 10+ from Treloar. You have to take all these things into consideration.

If Tex was on the trade table, would he get what the Bulldogs gave up for Tom Boyd (pick 6 + Ryan Griffen)? Tex clearly the better player but the Dogs paid overs because of Boyd's age and potential.

You are delirious if you think a Danger and Treloar are of equal value, you said it yourself, "Treloar has the potential to be as good" that's arguable and he it's potential, Danger is a guaranteed best midfielder in your team, he gets more ball than Sellwood without ducking. Treloar at best maybe will be as good at Dangerfield but probably not, Dangerfield is already Dangerfield.

Bulldogs only gave up Ryan Griffen because he asked to leave, every club in the AFL would give up pick 6 and a player asking to leave for Tex.

 

[Mego Red]

Treloar is 4 years younger

My little sister is twelve years younger. She's worth three first tons picks.

Danger is better than Treloar. Chances are he always will be.

 

[footy4ever]

Sounds like our very own David Mackay.. had one decent game after signing a 4 year deal... 1 year later... Still a spud.

It's only been 1 year? 3 more to go? Oh dear.