So "giving in to the popoulist voice" and matching is detrimental to the club? You do know how unrestricted free agency works don't you? To explain it to you simply, if we match Geelong are forced to do a trade. As all the reasonable parties on both sides are saying, a deal will almost certainly get done. At an absolute minimum this will involve at least one first round pick and eveyrone seems to agree there will be additional picks or players involved. Your first is pick 9. The compo is 14.
According to your logic "what's best" is taking pick 14 when we will almost certainly get more if we match. So how on earth is matching detrimental to Adelaide? I'm sure a deal will be done, Adelaide won't get market value for Danger but we'll get more than pick 14.
At some point there will be a "what's best" call for Adelaide, but this will be during the negotiations, not in the matching decision as you imply (by both your comment and the post you quoted). As an example, if we are offered Pick 9 and Murdoch and Geelong say "that's it we can't do any better", then the administration will need to make a call about whether playing hardball or taking the deal is best for the club. Do they (1) push for more and risk getting nothing or (2) take the deal. The "what's best" test will apply equally to Geelong in the negotiations. If Adelaide say "we want pick 9 plus murdoch plus next year's 2nd round or we're walking away", the Geelong guys will need to decide what's best for the club at that point.
If you mean "what's best" for Geelong, then Adelaide taking the compo in best for you as you will get danger for nothing (other than your later picks getting shuiffled down 1 spot). I hate to break it to you but the Adelaide administration will do "what's best" for our club, not yours.
If Geelong come through with a huge offer that we can't match then fair enough, but all the noise seems to indicate this won't happen.