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

[Strangled Cat]

Sensible post. Danger as an individual is irreplaceable from us, because we don't have anyone as good as him. A like-for-like trade would be something like Motlop and Guthrie for Danger. Honestly, he's that good.

A like for like trade would be Dangerfield for Selwood and a fouth rounder. There's absolutely bugger all in it. Danger had a better year this year than Joel, no doubt about that, but just you watch how good Joel will be next year with Danger in the side. Joel's biggest knock is that he can't handle a tag. Danger has shown that to a lesser degree he is susceptible to a tag, also. But, who will oppositions tag when there's both of them in the guts? They can't both be tagged every single week.

 

[arsene wenger1]

I honestly think the reason for the Kelly, stokes, sj delistings are that we will load up huge on years 1 & 2. If Geelong say they will pay him 1.8 mill for the first 2 years surely Adelaide cannot match that.

900 a year? Reckon they'd easily match that

 

[sarah.13]

900 a year? Reckon they'd easily match that

Think he meant 1.8 for each of the first 2 years.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

900 a year? Reckon they'd easily match that

Sorry I meant 1.8m for each of the years so 3.6m for 2. That's gotta be the way to go

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I haven't even been following your proposed bet with Vader...

I think Adelaide will end up with your first round selections from 2015 and 2016. Maybe some exchange of later picks and/or fringe players, as the steak knives in the deal, but those first two picks will be the core of it.

I disagree. You won't be getting our first rounder from 2016. I'm happy to have a friendly little bet with you if you like? Something like a signature bet perhaps?

So what do you say KMG? Are you in?

 

[Sttew]

Not sure if this has been posted already but Scoop Maclure in 3AW Sports Today reported last night the deal is done. Geelong have traded pick 9 plus either a 2nd round pick in next year's draft or a swap of next year's first round draft picks. So no players from Geelong to be in the mix.

 

[Johnny Cattery]

a bit too much hysteria around the possible fallout from any trade, and around the idea that the Cats are "too nice"?

History shows "nice" is hard to judge, or rather, good judges get it wrong at the time.

Swans were said to have been friendly at the end of 08 when they gave us pick 28 (which became Mitch Duncan) for Mumford, then a rookie, albeit one with regular senior games.

Nice? Not quite. In the past few years the Cats have spent a lot chasing a first ruckman:
pick 21 (for Stanley + 60, which became 59 and Cunico), plus
pick 36 (for McIntosh), plus
Varcoe (for Clark).

When you throw in the list spots and salaries committed to trying to find a ruckman who could walk - this year we had 6 listed players and 2 rookies, double what most clubs have - pick 28 for Mumford starts to look like the worst Cats trade of the last decade. Far from winning, the Cats lost badly in the long term.

Contrastingly, we got our "nice" reputation in part from Emma Quayle's reporting of the Cats' participation in the Burgoyne trade. From memory, she called us "the good guys" because our trading of pick 33 for what became 40, 42 and 56 (Vardy, Christensen and Cowan) enabled the dominoes to start falling.

You could argue that that "nice" trade went pear shaped because of injury, but in the new "points" system we'd have to say the Cats were big winners. Wells swapped 563 (value of pick 33) for 1018 (429 + 395 + 195). [For what it's worth, in between 33 and 40 we "missed" only Sam Reid (Swans) and Jamie McMillan (North).]

Far from being "nice", the Cats took advantage of what the points system has now made obvious: there's not much difference between picks once you get below about 15 and so the club had a big win, doubling the chances of getting a viable player.

That matter of the value of picks explains why Adelaide thinks there is a big difference between 9 and 14: because history says there is. Which the Cats know - hence their work to move from 14 to 10 last year. (Bring on the double compo pick, please AFL, or we could have a replay of this saga with Rhys Mathieson in 2023.)

Of course you could say 33 for 40,42 and 56 was a bad trade because getting Burgoyne strengthened the Hawks. By contrast, sending Christensen to the Lions didn't make any difference to the pecking order of clubs. So one element of this is that we can envision competing against Adelaide for finals next year, and for that reason alone sending them anything seems like a bad idea.

But my point is that however Danger gets to Geelong, if we do trade we won't know for years whether or not it was a good deal. And the idea that the Cats are "nice" is probably a myth, and the christensen trade is part of that myth too. Too many people at the time judged him in terms of the Christensen of 2011, not the player of 2013-14 who barely played 50% of games.

 

[cat_fanatic]

Not sure if this has been posted already but Scoop Maclure in 3AW Sports Today reported last night the deal is done. Geelong have traded pick 9 plus either a 2nd round pick in next year's draft or a swap of next year's first round draft picks. So no players from Geelong to be in the mix.

A swap of next years first round picks sounds good, considering we will likely finish on top

 

[wcadams88]

Not sure if this has been posted already but Scoop Maclure in 3AW Sports Today reported last night the deal is done. Geelong have traded pick 9 plus either a 2nd round pick in next year's draft or a swap of next year's first round draft picks. So no players from Geelong to be in the mix.

We win this Deal 100% would be happy if it was the deal

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It would give us leverage... , should we have to use it it gets us a better trade , if we save it for the draft... better kid ...

Id probably prefer to find another way than messing with our 2016 but I think in a game of leverage , it would be worth the investment .

Even if we end up trading swapping our R1 with Adelaide P6 to P14 is a significant upgrade for them.

I think if we were to try and swap 9 and other picks for Melb's 6 they would smell a rat (ie us wanting to get Danger in the draft) and not do it if they also want him.

However, I think GC would trade with us.

I still think the most likely scenario is that the clubs talk with AFL in the background and the AFL let a side trade through in Adel's favour after they dont match, Adel gets pick 14 compo + 9 from us, we get second rounders or other players to fill our list spots back, everyone wins.

If the AFL won't do it (which I think they will) or Adel are obstinate then it proceeds as follows.

Geelong offers 9 (because we would need to use 9 on him in the ND anyway) and possibly our 2015 2nd rounder (if it hasnt already gone on the Hendo trade by then). If the 2nd rounder is gone we offer 9 + 2016 2nd rounder. Adelaide want more, we shouldnt offer 2 first rounders unless a 2nd rounder is coming back the other way, Adel either accept this unders or dig their heels in.

The alternative is they push for players over the 2nd pick (it will be easier to sell unders to their members if they get a young SA player back rather than random picks), now I would consider 9 + one of our young SA players but realistically they are all contracted and other than HS none are likely to want to go, and we will not push out players who dont want to go.

So at this point we give Adel a day or two to decide if they will accept a haircut on the deal.
Meanwhile we talk to GC, whom we have a good trading relationship with and have traded future picks in the past. They hold 3 19 and 22 and by this stage will have pick 10 for Dixon, and will get another first rounder somewhere for Bennell, so 5 picks inside 30. They won't be able to use all the picks they have, and they will want future picks as they have previously.

We propose the following:
GC receive: Geel pick 9, Geelong 2016 first rounder
GC lose: Pick 3 2015, 3rd rounder 2015 (pick #40) and 4th rounder 2015 (#58), Zac Smith

Geel lose: Pick 9 2015, 1st rounder 2016 (est b/w picks 14 and 20)
Geel receive: Pick 3 2015, Zac Smith, GC's picks 40 and 58

I think that's fair, pick 15-20 which is where our first rounder is likely to be next year (it might be even earlier which would benefit GC) is overs for Smith but thats balanced out by us upgrading pick 9 to 3 for free so thats a fair deal. Getting their later picks back looks ambitious but I bet they will throw them in because they wont use them anyway still having 5 picks inside 30, so long as they get a future first rounder for a better draft. We get later picks that we need to fill our list spots.
We then take Danger at 3 in the ND because there is no way Carlton or Brisbane take him at #1 or #2, the only risk is Ess/Melb so by getting ahead of them we are virtually guaranteed to get Danger. We give up the two first rounders and get Danger Smith and some later picks which is good for us.

We then go back to Adelaide and threaten them that we will do this deal unless they get reasonable and take say the two firsts for Danger and their second, or 9 and a second rounder. The leverage should work because otherwise they get nothing and we get him anyway.

I am not sure if the club would be ruthless enough to do this but I would.
It all depends how reasonable Adelaide is really, our first preference will be to do a deal with them but they ought to be careful. If they get obstinate and demand crap like 2 first rounders and Gregson like half their supporters want, or if they wont budge unless we include a player who doesnt want to go, then we deal elsewhere and they can have nothing.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Not sure if this has been posted already but Scoop Maclure in 3AW Sports Today reported last night the deal is done. Geelong have traded pick 9 plus either a 2nd round pick in next year's draft or a swap of next year's first round draft picks. So no players from Geelong to be in the mix.

It will be interesting to see the AFL clarify the rules around future pick trading (which no doubt both clubs are discussing with the AFL privately). As it stands they are saying if you trade a future first rounder you cant trade your 2nd rounder from that same draft. Now it's reasonable to assume that our pick 9 this year goes on Danger (whether it be trade or draft) our 2nd rounder this year goes on Hendo (along with Walker probably) and GC will want one of our future picks for Zac Smith. So I can't see us trading next year's first to Adel if it means we cant trade next year's second.

However maybe they will treat it as 'net' in terms of picks in and out, i.e. if we trade out our 2016 first but get in Adelaide's 2016 first because we are still considered to have a 2016 first we can then be allowed to trade our 2016 2nd. It will be interesting.

 

[Cataholic]

I think if we were to try and swap 9 and other picks for Melb's 6 they would smell a rat (ie us wanting to get Danger in the draft) and not do it if they also want him.

However, I think GC would trade with us.

I still think the most likely scenario is that the clubs talk with AFL in the background and the AFL let a side trade through in Adel's favour after they dont match, Adel gets pick 14 compo + 9 from us, we get second rounders or other players to fill our list spots back, everyone wins.

If the AFL won't do it (which I think they will) or Adel are obstinate then it proceeds as follows.

Geelong offers 9 (because we would need to use 9 on him in the ND anyway) and possibly our 2015 2nd rounder (if it hasnt already gone on the Hendo trade by then). If the 2nd rounder is gone we offer 9 + 2016 2nd rounder. Adelaide want more, we shouldnt offer 2 first rounders unless a 2nd rounder is coming back the other way, Adel either accept this unders or dig their heels in.

The alternative is they push for players over the 2nd pick (it will be easier to sell unders to their members if they get a young SA player back rather than random picks), now I would consider 9 + one of our young SA players but realistically they are all contracted and other than HS none are likely to want to go, and we will not push out players who dont want to go.

So at this point we give Adel a day or two to decide if they will accept a haircut on the deal.
Meanwhile we talk to GC, whom we have a good trading relationship with and have traded future picks in the past. They hold 3 19 and 22 and by this stage will have pick 10 for Dixon, and will get another first rounder somewhere for Bennell, so 5 picks inside 30. They won't be able to use all the picks they have, and they will want future picks as they have previously.

We propose the following:
GC receive: Geel pick 9, Geelong 2016 first rounder
GC lose: Pick 3 2015, 3rd rounder 2015 (pick #40) and 4th rounder 2015 (#58), Zac Smith

Geel lose: Pick 9 2015, 1st rounder 2016 (est b/w picks 14 and 20)
Geel receive: Pick 3 2015, Zac Smith, GC's picks 40 and 58

I think that's fair, pick 15-20 which is where our first rounder is likely to be next year (it might be even earlier which would benefit GC) is overs for Smith but thats balanced out by us upgrading pick 9 to 3 for free so thats a fair deal. Getting their later picks back looks ambitious but I bet they will throw them in because they wont use them anyway still having 5 picks inside 30, so long as they get a future first rounder for a better draft. We get later picks that we need to fill our list spots.
We then take Danger at 3 in the ND because there is no way Carlton or Brisbane take him at #1 or #2, the only risk is Ess/Melb so by getting ahead of them we are virtually guaranteed to get Danger. We give up the two first rounders and get Danger Smith and some later picks which is good for us.

We then go back to Adelaide and threaten them that we will do this deal unless they get reasonable and take say the two firsts for Danger and their second, or 9 and a second rounder. The leverage should work because otherwise they get nothing and we get him anyway.

I am not sure if the club would be ruthless enough to do this but I would.
It all depends how reasonable Adelaide is really, our first preference will be to do a deal with them but they ought to be careful. If they get obstinate and demand crap like 2 first rounders and Gregson like half their supporters want, or if they wont budge unless we include a player who doesnt want to go, then we deal elsewhere and they can have nothing.

Please email this to the club. Asap.

 

[cats_09]

It will be interesting to see the AFL clarify the rules around future pick trading (which no doubt both clubs are discussing with the AFL privately). As it stands they are saying if you trade a future first rounder you cant trade your 2nd rounder from that same draft. Now it's reasonable to assume that our pick 9 this year goes on Danger (whether it be trade or draft) our 2nd rounder this year goes on Hendo (along with Walker probably) and GC will want one of our future picks for Zac Smith. So I can't see us trading next year's first to Adel if it means we cant trade next year's second.

However maybe they will treat it as 'net' in terms of picks in and out, i.e. if we trade out our 2016 first but get in Adelaide's 2016 first because we are still considered to have a 2016 first we can then be allowed to trade our 2016 2nd. It will be interesting.

I was about to ask the same thing - as per the article on the AFL site regarding trading of future picks: 'If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.'

I would have thought the idea of that rule is to stop a team targeting player/s from another team and trading away a 1st & 2nd rounder for next year in order to secure the trade - but if teams are essentially just swapping first round picks, does that still apply because technically we will still have a first round pick for next year and we would still be able to meet one of the other clauses of having at least 2 first round picks in a 4 year period.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I was about to ask the same thing - as per the article on the AFL site regarding trading of future picks: 'If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.'

I would have thought the idea of that rule is to stop a team targeting player/s from another team and trading away a 1st & 2nd rounder for next year in order to secure the trade - but if teams are essentially just swapping first round picks, does that still apply because technically we will still have a first round pick for next year and we would still be able to meet one of the other clauses of having at least 2 first round picks in a 4 year period.

It is hard to tell because they haven't defined 'it's' first rounder, i.e. our only 2016 first rounder is the one we own but after we do that trade we own Adel's 2016 first, so that becomes ours, so in my mind it should qualify.

I understood the spirit of the restrictions around not being able to trade more than one year in advance and also not trading all your picks from the same draft as to stop teams potentially gutting their lists on risky trades that dont work. So to me if you still have a first rounder from 2016, even if it's not your own it meets the spirit of that.

I am not sure why Adelaide would do it though, if I was them logically I would think that us with all our trade ins will finish higher than them without Danger next year in which case them swapping future first rounders isnt really a benefit, it's only a benefit if they think we will miss finals again.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Not sure if this has been posted already but Scoop Maclure in 3AW Sports Today reported last night the deal is done. Geelong have traded pick 9 plus either a 2nd round pick in next year's draft or a swap of next year's first round draft picks. So no players from Geelong to be in the mix.

So about Carlton wanting pick 9 for Henderson....

Won't be devistated if we don't get him anyway. Danger is 1# priority.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So about Carlton wanting pick 9 for Henderson....

Won't be devistated if we don't get him anyway. Danger is 1# priority.

We will get Henderson either as a 2nd rounder + walker trade or PSD. He is not as good is Danger and clubs will not be clamouring to take him in the draft if he doesn't want to go there.

 

[Johnny Cattery]

I think if we were to try and swap 9 and other picks for Melb's 6 they would smell a rat (ie us wanting to get Danger in the draft) and not do it if they also want him.

However, I think GC would trade with us.

Meanwhile we talk to GC, whom we have a good trading relationship with and have traded future picks in the past. They hold 3 19 and 22 and by this stage will have pick 10 for Dixon, and will get another first rounder somewhere for Bennell, so 5 picks inside 30. They won't be able to use all the picks they have, and they will want future picks as they have previously.

We propose the following:
GC receive: Geel pick 9, Geelong 2016 first rounder
GC lose: Pick 3 2015, 3rd rounder 2015 (pick #40) and 4th rounder 2015 (#58), Zac Smith

I think that's fair, pick 15-20 which is where our first rounder is likely to be next year (it might be even earlier which would benefit GC) is overs for Smith but thats balanced out by us upgrading pick 9 to 3 for free so thats a fair deal. Getting their later picks back looks ambitious but I bet they will throw them in because they wont use them anyway still having 5 picks inside 30, so long as they get a future first rounder for a better draft. We get later picks that we need to fill our list spots.

Sorry Turbocat, it's a well thought out set of trades but the jump from 9 to 3 is just way too big. People aren't factoring that we are only getting about a third of Danger's career. Pick three is as close as you get to a guaranteed top line player; when you factor in the chance of getting that player for 12 years rather than four, or even six, just pick nine for Danger, perhaps a tick higher, is probably about right. But a club that gave away three for 9 and 18)) would be doing something damaging.

 

[xtatik222k]

And you're underestimating Guthrie's potential as a player.

No I'm not. Potential is different from proven track record. I know what kind of player Guthrie could be. I think he's likely to be a gun in the future. The fact he's not yet, shifts the bargaining power. It's like being one card away from a flush when you're yet to see the turn in poker. You haven't made your hand yet, but you need to bet the odds. I think we've seen the heights of Motlop's ability. He just needs to add consistency to his game. We haven't seen the heights of Guthrie. He still has improving to do.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Sorry Turbocat, it's a well thought out set of trades but the jump from 9 to 3 is just way too big. People aren't factoring that we are only getting about a third of Danger's career. Pick three is as close as you get to a guaranteed top line player; when you factor in the chance of getting that player for 12 years rather than four, or even six, just pick nine for Danger, perhaps a tick higher, is probably about right. But a club that gave away three for 9 and 18)) would be doing something damaging.

Turbocat is not me, he posts better than me.

I think not all drafts are equal, much as I do love drafts. For example if we get 3 that's basically either Francis or Parish or Curnow, unless we bid it Mills/Hopper and the Sydney clubs dont match (which they will). Now I like those first 3, especially Parish, but do I think any of them is a really likely outcome to be better than Danger? No.

Whereas if pick 3 was going to get me a shot at a Stringer or Omeara or Wines or a Brayshaw then yes I would maybe take that over Danger. Not all drafts are equal.

Also Danger apart from being in the age bracket Hocking stated we want to bring in, is not that old. I remember when the Hawks got Burgoyne at age 27 everyone said he'd only last 3 or 4 years and he is still going.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Turbocat is not me, he posts better than me.

I think not all drafts are equal, much as I do love drafts. For example if we get 3 that's basically either Francis or Parish or Curnow, unless we bid it Mills/Hopper and the Sydney clubs dont match (which they will). Now I like those first 3, especially Parish, but do I think any of them is a really likely outcome to be better than Danger? No.

Whereas if pick 3 was going to get me a shot at a Stringer or Omeara or Wines or a Brayshaw then yes I would maybe take that over Danger. Not all drafts are equal.

Also Danger apart from being in the age bracket Hocking stated we want to bring in, is not that old. I remember when the Hawks got Burgoyne at age 27 everyone said he'd only last 3 or 4 years and he is still going.

Yep Burgoyne has nearly played as much for Hawthorn as he did at PA.

 

[betchsta]

Paddy & Mardi came into my work for lunch earlier in the week.

All I can say about Mardi is, Well you get my gist .....

 

[Johnny Cattery]

Turbocat is not me, he posts better than me.

I think not all drafts are equal, much as I do love drafts. For example if we get 3 that's basically either Francis or Parish or Curnow, unless we bid it Mills/Hopper and the Sydney clubs dont match (which they will). Now I like those first 3, especially Parish, but do I think any of them is a really likely outcome to be better than Danger? No.

Whereas if pick 3 was going to get me a shot at a Stringer or Omeara or Wines or a Brayshaw then yes I would maybe take that over Danger. Not all drafts are equal.

Also Danger apart from being in the age bracket Hocking stated we want to bring in, is not that old. I remember when the Hawks got Burgoyne at age 27 everyone said he'd only last 3 or 4 years and he is still going.

Sorry Pure_ - but don't undersell yourself!

Take your point abt drafts, and indeed longevity - so my post doesn't factor in that in the end no one knows what they're getting. And in fact the points system would say that in fact GC would be ahead with 9 and 18, so worth sending it to the club as suggested above!

Can you see a way to get a ruckman out of those conversations? For seems clear that the GFC shopping list of 3 mids + ruck + defender was compiled with Motlop's exit in mind, ie with a couple of extra picks. keeping him much my preference, but I cannot see how we can get Smith unless GC are desperate for Kelly and Johnson, and it doesn't sound like they are (apart from their captain).

 

[Turbocat]

I think if we were to try and swap 9 and other picks for Melb's 6 they would smell a rat (ie us wanting to get Danger in the draft) and not do it if they also want him.

However, I think GC would trade with us.

I still think the most likely scenario is that the clubs talk with AFL in the background and the AFL let a side trade through in Adel's favour after they dont match, Adel gets pick 14 compo + 9 from us, we get second rounders or other players to fill our list spots back, everyone wins.

If the AFL won't do it (which I think they will) or Adel are obstinate then it proceeds as follows.

Geelong offers 9 (because we would need to use 9 on him in the ND anyway) and possibly our 2015 2nd rounder (if it hasnt already gone on the Hendo trade by then). If the 2nd rounder is gone we offer 9 + 2016 2nd rounder. Adelaide want more, we shouldnt offer 2 first rounders unless a 2nd rounder is coming back the other way, Adel either accept this unders or dig their heels in.

The alternative is they push for players over the 2nd pick (it will be easier to sell unders to their members if they get a young SA player back rather than random picks), now I would consider 9 + one of our young SA players but realistically they are all contracted and other than HS none are likely to want to go, and we will not push out players who dont want to go.

So at this point we give Adel a day or two to decide if they will accept a haircut on the deal.
Meanwhile we talk to GC, whom we have a good trading relationship with and have traded future picks in the past. They hold 3 19 and 22 and by this stage will have pick 10 for Dixon, and will get another first rounder somewhere for Bennell, so 5 picks inside 30. They won't be able to use all the picks they have, and they will want future picks as they have previously.

We propose the following:
GC receive: Geel pick 9, Geelong 2016 first rounder
GC lose: Pick 3 2015, 3rd rounder 2015 (pick #40) and 4th rounder 2015 (#58), Zac Smith

Geel lose: Pick 9 2015, 1st rounder 2016 (est b/w picks 14 and 20)
Geel receive: Pick 3 2015, Zac Smith, GC's picks 40 and 58

I think that's fair, pick 15-20 which is where our first rounder is likely to be next year (it might be even earlier which would benefit GC) is overs for Smith but thats balanced out by us upgrading pick 9 to 3 for free so thats a fair deal. Getting their later picks back looks ambitious but I bet they will throw them in because they wont use them anyway still having 5 picks inside 30, so long as they get a future first rounder for a better draft. We get later picks that we need to fill our list spots.
We then take Danger at 3 in the ND because there is no way Carlton or Brisbane take him at #1 or #2, the only risk is Ess/Melb so by getting ahead of them we are virtually guaranteed to get Danger. We give up the two first rounders and get Danger Smith and some later picks which is good for us.

We then go back to Adelaide and threaten them that we will do this deal unless they get reasonable and take say the two firsts for Danger and their second, or 9 and a second rounder. The leverage should work because otherwise they get nothing and we get him anyway.

I am not sure if the club would be ruthless enough to do this but I would.
It all depends how reasonable Adelaide is really, our first preference will be to do a deal with them but they ought to be careful. If they get obstinate and demand crap like 2 first rounders and Gregson like half their supporters want, or if they wont budge unless we include a player who doesnt want to go, then we deal elsewhere and they can have nothing.

AS usual you spin is intriguing .........
I must be missing something in the "bold" ... to me once we have been backed into the corner... and we then trade with GC... our 9 is gone and we have 3.... ( as long they have not officially knocked back the comp and matched) and Id tell Adelaide... (like the Draft Day movie) sorry that deal is gone... you now have the choice take the comp or we take him in the draft....and have 3 in the draft as well.

So it seems to me timing is all important.... best to do the trade for 3 asap... before even we lodge the Danger deal. If GC would do that deal..is the real question. Watching the u17's today at the G...it would be a smart move long term

 

[Turbocat]

Sorry Turbocat, it's a well thought out set of trades but the jump from 9 to 3 is just way too big. People aren't factoring that we are only getting about a third of Danger's career. Pick three is as close as you get to a guaranteed top line player; when you factor in the chance of getting that player for 12 years rather than four, or even six, just pick nine for Danger, perhaps a tick higher, is probably about right. But a club that gave away three for 9 and 18)) would be doing something damaging.

You need to say sorry Pure..it his idea... but as you will see from my response... id hope it would just give us leverage for them to look down the barrel , and see Nothing or the comp. Sure they may just want to watch the world burn and match so we use 3 on him...but Id suspect thru gritted teeth they would take the comp. We would look a cross between mongrels and very switched on pro team ..that will do a very fair deal to a point...but push too far and we will put you down and then jump in with the knees.

 

[Lana]

I think if we were to try and swap 9 and other picks for Melb's 6 they would smell a rat (ie us wanting to get Danger in the draft) and not do it if they also want him.

However, I think GC would trade with us.

I still think the most likely scenario is that the clubs talk with AFL in the background and the AFL let a side trade through in Adel's favour after they dont match, Adel gets pick 14 compo + 9 from us, we get second rounders or other players to fill our list spots back, everyone wins.

If the AFL won't do it (which I think they will) or Adel are obstinate then it proceeds as follows.

Geelong offers 9 (because we would need to use 9 on him in the ND anyway) and possibly our 2015 2nd rounder (if it hasnt already gone on the Hendo trade by then). If the 2nd rounder is gone we offer 9 + 2016 2nd rounder. Adelaide want more, we shouldnt offer 2 first rounders unless a 2nd rounder is coming back the other way, Adel either accept this unders or dig their heels in.

The alternative is they push for players over the 2nd pick (it will be easier to sell unders to their members if they get a young SA player back rather than random picks), now I would consider 9 + one of our young SA players but realistically they are all contracted and other than HS none are likely to want to go, and we will not push out players who dont want to go.

So at this point we give Adel a day or two to decide if they will accept a haircut on the deal.
Meanwhile we talk to GC, whom we have a good trading relationship with and have traded future picks in the past. They hold 3 19 and 22 and by this stage will have pick 10 for Dixon, and will get another first rounder somewhere for Bennell, so 5 picks inside 30. They won't be able to use all the picks they have, and they will want future picks as they have previously.

We propose the following:
GC receive: Geel pick 9, Geelong 2016 first rounder
GC lose: Pick 3 2015, 3rd rounder 2015 (pick #40) and 4th rounder 2015 (#58), Zac Smith

Geel lose: Pick 9 2015, 1st rounder 2016 (est b/w picks 14 and 20)
Geel receive: Pick 3 2015, Zac Smith, GC's picks 40 and 58

I think that's fair, pick 15-20 which is where our first rounder is likely to be next year (it might be even earlier which would benefit GC) is overs for Smith but thats balanced out by us upgrading pick 9 to 3 for free so thats a fair deal. Getting their later picks back looks ambitious but I bet they will throw them in because they wont use them anyway still having 5 picks inside 30, so long as they get a future first rounder for a better draft. We get later picks that we need to fill our list spots.
We then take Danger at 3 in the ND because there is no way Carlton or Brisbane take him at #1 or #2, the only risk is Ess/Melb so by getting ahead of them we are virtually guaranteed to get Danger. We give up the two first rounders and get Danger Smith and some later picks which is good for us.

We then go back to Adelaide and threaten them that we will do this deal unless they get reasonable and take say the two firsts for Danger and their second, or 9 and a second rounder. The leverage should work because otherwise they get nothing and we get him anyway.

I am not sure if the club would be ruthless enough to do this but I would.
It all depends how reasonable Adelaide is really, our first preference will be to do a deal with them but they ought to be careful. If they get obstinate and demand crap like 2 first rounders and Gregson like half their supporters want, or if they wont budge unless we include a player who doesnt want to go, then we deal elsewhere and they can have nothing.

I don't think GC would like to spend all of that time creating a complicated trade to just be leverage in another trade.

If GC will go for it ( They wouldn't, we would be robbing them blind. If we have a good year next year and the future first round pick is worth pick 14,what we'd be hoping, they'd be paying us to take Zac Smith off their hands. If we have a really bad year and the future pick generates pick 4, which is what they'd be hoping, would value Zac Smith around pick 27, they'd be confident that they can get a better deal than that). If you took out Zac Smith out of the trade, the break even for the trade would be the future pick being between 10 and 11. Which makes it a lot more likely go through

In any case if we got pick 3. It weakens their bargaining power even further (as we remove the worry that someone like Essendon or Melbourne would pick him up with an earlier pick). That pick 3 would set an absolute maximum price for Dangerfield. We have zero incentive to go over that value. They'd have to give us something back in return and not just some little pieces on the side. The compensation pick sets the lower bound of the trade.

Pick 3 2234
pick 13 (Adelaide first pick) 1212
Pick 14 (potential compensation pick) 1161

Cutting that in the middle would be pick 3 and 28 for Dangerfield and pick 13. Valuing Dangerfield at 1699 points (between pick 6 and 7)

If we did that trade

The two movements together would be

Out
Future first round pick
pick 9 (1469 points)
pick 28 (677 points)
In
Dangerfield (1699 points)
pick 13 (1212 points)
pick 40 (429 points)
pick 58 (170 points)
Future first round pick break even = 3510-2146= 1364 which is between pick 10 and 11

Though after going through those complicated dealings we might as well just pass on the two rounders for Dangerfield. Which isn't going to happen.

I still think that he will move via free agency with at best minor switch around of picks, it doesn't make sense from our perspective to give them close to the value they want.