Patrick Dangerfield

[Pure_Ownage]

by the way, we dont want motlop + a pick in a shit draft. motlop has shown nothing like what dangerfield has. you have to give up quality for quality.

No one who is remotely sensible is suggesting that.

What we are suggesting is that Motlop (or another young player around the fringes) plus an ablett pick in a very good draft would be in the ballpark (note by ballpark I mean a good middle point for a fair discussion, not necessarily a deal clincher) of a fair trade (particularly considering where you'll finish next year it would be a high top ten pick, maybe even top 5). I don't think that's a crazy suggestion.

 

[HulkHawkins]

You can have Josh Hunt for free

You might have to chuck in a box of Pale Ale as well

 

[David the Cat]

Dangerfield is a gun, but I think Menzel still has a lot of improvement, and could be better than SJ. Motlop + Ablett pick = deal

No way. Dangerfield isn't worth that for mine...yes, he's quick and has ability but he drifts in and out of games far too regularly IMO. Take a hot kid and develop him in the Geelong way...thats how we have done it at this club and I see no reason to change that strategy for a Dangerfield.

As for Menzel being better than SJ.....thats a very, very big call....but I hope your right!!!

 

[AM]

No way. Dangerfield isn't worth that for mine...yes, he's quick and has ability but he drifts in and out of games far too regularly IMO. Take a hot kid and develop him in the Geelong way...thats how we have done it at this club and I see no reason to change that strategy for a Dangerfield.

As for Menzel being better than SJ.....thats a very, very big call....but I hope your right!!!

There have been some weird calls made this week David. Maybe people are not coping too well with the upcoming bye. Suggesting Menzel has shown anything that would have him within a bulls roar of SJ almost (not quite) tops the one mentioning Joel Selwood in the context of trade talks.Sheesh!

 

[you pick one]

No way. Dangerfield isn't worth that for mine...yes, he's quick and has ability but he drifts in and out of games far too regularly IMO. Take a hot kid and develop him in the Geelong way...thats how we have done it at this club and I see no reason to change that strategy for a Dangerfield.

As for Menzel being better than SJ.....thats a very, very big call....but I hope your right!!!

I,d have to go with the VDUBS on this one, Motlop + the concession pick would get it done for me,I actually see him as a hot kid what is he 21 with about 50 odd games under his belt plenty of time to develop him in any way Scotty wanted, and we know already the kids got what it takes to play at the top level and a body that should make him a 10 year player yeah I'd do the deal.

 

[you pick one]

There have been some weird calls made this week David. Maybe people are not coping too well with the upcoming bye. Suggesting Menzel has shown anything that would have him within a bulls roar of SJ almost (not quite) tops the one mentioning Joel Selwood in the context of trade talks.Sheesh!

Yeah and on top of that I've got the week off in dream team.

 

[DBAH0]

by the way, we dont want motlop + a pick in a shit draft. motlop has shown nothing like what dangerfield has. you have to give up quality for quality.

Suppose a lot would come down to if Adelaide would be able to trade him to another Melbourne base club, or whether you'd have a potential stalemate similar to the Sam Jacobs situation.

The Ablett pick I am more keen on keeping than trading for Dangefield considering the 2012 crop is going to be as good if not better than the 2001 draft (and there's a good chance we trade that for Jake Stringer anyways).

Motlop I think would actually fit a need for Adelaide. They've long been after good small crumbing forwards for a long time now, and I think Motlop has the potential to be a real good one, he's just stuck behind the likes of Stokes, Christensen, Varcoe, Byrnes etc. at the moment.

I'd start negotiations around Motlop plus our 1st rounder, but I wouldn't want to add more to that. Of course this all depends on whether Dangerfield actually demands a trade or not, he's looked a lot better under Bickley in the past few weeks.

 

[Archangel]

Vardy to Selwood to Dangerfield; GOAL!

Has a nice ring to it

 

[Vdubs]

No way. Dangerfield isn't worth that for mine...yes, he's quick and has ability but he drifts in and out of games far too regularly IMO. Take a hot kid and develop him in the Geelong way...thats how we have done it at this club and I see no reason to change that strategy for a Dangerfield.

As for Menzel being better than SJ.....thats a very, very big call....but I hope your right!!!

I only said "could be". There have been a lot of coodabeens. But early on, SJ had 'that' look about him, and I see similarities with Menzel. Here's hoping.

 

[Vdubs]

There have been some weird calls made this week David. Maybe people are not coping too well with the upcoming bye. Suggesting Menzel has shown anything that would have him within a bulls roar of SJ almost (not quite) tops the one mentioning Joel Selwood in the context of trade talks.Sheesh!

Each to his own. Apart from recently, Menzel has shown some SJ like signs at the same stages of their careers. SJ has the runs on the board, Menzel is potential only, but he likens his own game to Goodes, so confidence he does not lack, and that is important.

If both Selwood and Dangerfield were keen on a swap, which is as likely as Ablett returning, I would NOT feel we had lost out on the swap. Just saying.

 

[David the Cat]

Each to his own. Apart from recently, Menzel has shown some SJ like signs at the same stages of their careers. SJ has the runs on the board, Menzel is potential only, but he likens his own game to Goodes, so confidence he does not lack, and that is important.

If both Selwood and Dangerfield were keen on a swap, which is as likely as Ablett returning, I would NOT feel we had lost out on the swap. Just saying.

Sorry???? Are you saying that Geelong swapping Joel Selwood for Dangerfield would not represent a loss for Geelong?

Surely your taking the piss.

Thats so " out there" it takes my breath away.

 

[Turbocat]

Agree on the first line.

They'll want more than that, especially with our first pick being late this year.

And we can't afford to trade Gillies with our think young defenders stocks, nor do he and Motlop have a lot of currency. Besides they dont need another young key defender, Talia and Thompson are good options there.

Ablett pick + fringe player or later round 1 pick plus good middle tier player is the minimum of what you're looking at, especially if he finds some form next year.

Let me be clear , I have little confidence in any deal getting done. I've said before , he and Boak will probably stay over there. But if he wanted out and if he stipulated us , it would swing things our way a little.
I also think two young players with talent would appeal more than a Stokes or a Byrnes but I could be wrong. Thats just guessing and would also get influenced by their new coach.
Gillies to me is another Laidler. If he was really that appreciated then he would have forced his way into the side by now. But with games he may well be a reliable defender for years to come. You may be right about their requirements I forgot about Thompson.
In any case , any of our young guns are not tradable by choice so if thats the only way a deal could be done , id rather not do it.

 

[AM]

Sorry???? Are you saying that Geelong swapping Joel Selwood for Dangerfield would not represent a loss for Geelong?

Surely your taking the piss.

Thats so " out there" it takes my breath away.

Menzel to be as good as Stevie J! A Selwood/Dangerfield trade would be no loss to us! They say these things come in threes don't they David? Can't wait for number three.

 

[David the Cat]

Menzel to be as good as Stevie J! A Selwood/Dangerfield trade would be no loss to us! They say these things come in threes don't they David? Can't wait for number three.

If I had a facepalm jpg I would use it....still trying to get my head around the logic Ammo...and I just can't!

Time for a bex and a good lie down.

 

[Vdubs]

Sorry???? Are you saying that Geelong swapping Joel Selwood for Dangerfield would not represent a loss for Geelong?

Surely your taking the piss.

Thats so " out there" it takes my breath away.

Have you recovered? This is all so hypothetical, it is rubbish. All I'm trying to say, and failing miserably, is that if Selwood himself wanted out to Adelaide, who knows why on earth etc., and we got Dangerfield, I would not see that as the same loss as Ablett leaving for the picks we got. As I said the chances are zilch. Dangerfield has a lot of upside , specially in a team like Geelong, but he would benefit from Selwood's hard work.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Let me be clear , I have little confidence in any deal getting done. I've said before , he and Boak will probably stay over there. But if he wanted out and if he stipulated us , it would swing things our way a little.
I also think two young players with talent would appeal more than a Stokes or a Byrnes but I could be wrong. Thats just guessing and would also get influenced by their new coach.
Gillies to me is another Laidler. If he was really that appreciated then he would have forced his way into the side by now. But with games he may well be a reliable defender for years to come. You may be right about their requirements I forgot about Thompson.
In any case , any of our young guns are not tradable by choice so if thats the only way a deal could be done , id rather not do it.

Yeah I'm not necessarily that confident either, we will see.

I agree with you that particularly with a new coach, they would prefer younger players over older ones, even very good older ones.

I see what you're saying about Gillies but you need to remember Laidler looks good because he's getting games, because he fitted a need for Carlton. No one would think Laidler was particularly good if he'd spent half the year at the Bullants because Carlton didn't have a spot for him. I wasn't saying Gillies has no value or can't play, I was saying clubs don't tend to trade in players they don't think they have a regular use for, and given Adelaide are not short on talls, would he be likely to get a regular game like Laidler does? Probably not. Therefore to Adelaide, he doesn't have the value. A midfielder, or a small forward who would play every week like Laidler, might.

We also need to be realistic, Dangerfield's played over 50 AFL games, Gillies and Mots have played a handful. Now I'm not saying Danger's necessarily worth a super high pick, but he's certainly worth more than they are. Now that might work if they are the steak knives to push it from close to done, but not as the main part of the deal.

And the main part of the deal can't be a pick in the 20's in what is considered quite a weak draft, clubs if they lose one of their best young players need to sell hope to the supporters that in the long term they will get something out of the deal, and they can't do it with that. I also think that's fair, we wouldn't accept a mid 20's pick in this draft for Menzel or Duncan so why should they accept that for Dangerfield?

Which is why like I said we can revisit this in 12 months, because the picks, which would be the main part of the deal, are not good enough this year. Next year when they are, if he's still homesick we will see, and I back Wells to decide whether Danger is the equivalent or better of whoever we would otherwise use the pick on then, I back him to make whatever the right call is.

 

[Turbocat]

Good call. PO. Can't argue with that post

Perhaps to do a Dangerfield trade a third party would be needed. Get a pick from them, add that to a Motlop and P25 etc It would not surprise me if it was done this way because like Laidler I suspect Gillies or West may interest a club or two. Gillies at the Swans for instance. Maybe not Crows but I suspect Laidler's form probably shows that missing games at Geelong doesn't automatically mean your a dud.

 

[pinion]

<------ would give menzel and a first round pick (in a weak draft) for dangerfield. he is a gun. not quite there in consistency, but has all the tools

post ablett, i think we lack a really gun midfielder. i love selwood, but he's just not quite there with his finishing.

 

[Rosso]

OK I may as well throw one up for debate. Trade our compo pick and perhaps a player (say T Hunt / West) or are we better trading that pick for a pick in the GWS mini draft?

Now before you post - think about some of the talented young mids that have come out of recent drafts (Swallow, Gaff, Rich, Martin, Cotchin, Gibbs, Scully, Trengove, Hill, Boak). Either way it's a win/win but we would need Danger to nominate us (ala Ottens) as his preferred destination for us to be any chance.

 

[Belisarius]

It seems that it is likely one day Dangerfield will just tear a game apart - but he in my mind he has not done enough to be considered a really good footballer. Takes a few seasons of really solid consistent performances - with a few blinders sprinkled in.

So I would not trade Menzel and a pick for him. I would not trade Menzel for him full stop.

No problem with having a look at power midfielder if the trade is right - but just cannot see it happening.

If there was a trade where we got a really good ruckman or CHB/FB - that would benefit us more in the next two years than a mid. After that - well that could be a different story but I don't think so.

Not many players I can see in the league available that would fit these credentials so cannot see a trade there - while there seems more mids out there to be considered.

So I expect we need to trust our past drafting if we are to stay at the top for the next season or two. We will need Vardy, Menzel, Bundy and Duncan to really develop into consistent players next season. Maybe THunt as well.

It would be a bonus if we pick up a very good player from another club.

 

[David the Cat]

It seems that it is likely one day Dangerfield will just tear a game apart - but he in my mind he has not done enough to be considered a really good footballer. Takes a few seasons of really solid consistent performances - with a few blinders sprinkled in.

So I would not trade Menzel and a pick for him. I would not trade Menzel for him full stop.

No problem with having a look at power midfielder if the trade is right - but just cannot see it happening.

If there was a trade where we got a really good ruckman or CHB/FB - that would benefit us more in the next two years than a mid. After that - well that could be a different story but I don't think so.

Not many players I can see in the league available that would fit these credentials so cannot see a trade there - while there seems more mids out there to be considered.

So I expect we need to trust our past drafting if we are to stay at the top for the next season or two. We will need Vardy, Menzel, Bundy and Duncan to really develop into consistent players next season. Maybe THunt as well.

It would be a bonus if we pick up a very good player from another club.

At last....some common sense. Keep talking like this and people will think you know your footy!! Good post....far too much bromance in here for Dangerfield.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It seems that it is likely one day Dangerfield will just tear a game apart - but he in my mind he has not done enough to be considered a really good footballer. Takes a few seasons of really solid consistent performances - with a few blinders sprinkled in.

So I would not trade Menzel and a pick for him. I would not trade Menzel for him full stop.

No problem with having a look at power midfielder if the trade is right - but just cannot see it happening.

If there was a trade where we got a really good ruckman or CHB/FB - that would benefit us more in the next two years than a mid. After that - well that could be a different story but I don't think so.

Not many players I can see in the league available that would fit these credentials so cannot see a trade there - while there seems more mids out there to be considered.

So I expect we need to trust our past drafting if we are to stay at the top for the next season or two. We will need Vardy, Menzel, Bundy and Duncan to really develop into consistent players next season. Maybe THunt as well.

It would be a bonus if we pick up a very good player from another club.

Agree with that, I like Dangerfield, but I would not be trading Menzel let alone Menzel and a pick.

I think your first paragraph is fine but it doesn't mean he's not a worthy trade target, it just means you don't overpay. You know the raw attributes are there, and you back your excellent development system to take those tools and turn him into a top line player. No doubt there's potential there, so long as you don't overpay.

You do make some sense re the list management, and if a quality ruckman or key back was available next year I'd pursue them first over Danger, but it doesn't mean he should be discounted. While we do need talls and I've said it a lot, we will lose some retirees at the end of this year, a few more around 2013, and then in 14-15 the 01-02 draft classes will all be over 30, so we've got to replace a heck of a lot of players across all the lines, so while talls are a need, we should also be getting as much quality in as we can, even if it includes non talls, as both will be a need for us over the next few years.

I'm happy to keep drafting there but also be open to the right trades if they present themselves.

Good call. PO. Can't argue with that post

Perhaps to do a Dangerfield trade a third party would be needed. Get a pick from them, add that to a Motlop and P25 etc It would not surprise me if it was done this way because like Laidler I suspect Gillies or West may interest a club or two. Gillies at the Swans for instance. Maybe not Crows but I suspect Laidler's form probably shows that missing games at Geelong doesn't automatically mean your a dud.

Yes a third party would be needed. For the sake of indulging the thought, though I expect nothing to happen next year, if it were this year if would either be trading a player +25 to GWS to help upgrade our first pick, and then using that, or trading someone somewhere else for another reasonably high pick, and using both picks in the deal.

I still reckon there's no chance though, Adelaide know next year's draft is a lot stronger than this year's, so it's unlikely they'd get a worse deal than they would now, so particularly if they back their new coach to bring the best out of him, it's in their best interests to keep him another 12 months. And likewise Dangerfield, if he wants to come here, knows it's best to wait til he's out of contract when it's easiest to do. Hence why there'll be no movement until the end of next year if there's any movement at all.

 

[DanA]

Some massive overrating of Dangerfield on this board. He's had another mediocre season. To put it in perspective he has the kind of impact Travis Varcoe has. Potential is well an truly their but i'm not sold on him as a certainty to be a future star anywhere near what Selwood is now.

I don't think giving our compo pick for him represents good value and I certainly wouldn't be adding good players in.

Menzel for Dangerfield? I wouldn't be happy with that let alone adding to it.

 

[BACCS]

Why is this thread still going? It was started by a known troll on our board, and Dangerfield isn't going anywhere, I really don't know how many times he needs to state that. You are all basing your comments on media hype which was based on questions heavily biased to a Victorian audience.

I don't care if some of you think he is over rated or whatever, we are quite happy with him at Adelaide.

 

[The 747]

Why is this thread still going? It was started by a known troll on our board, and Dangerfield isn't going anywhere, I really don't know how many times he needs to state that. You are all basing your comments on media hype which was based on questions heavily biased to a Victorian audience.

I don't care if some of you think he is over rated or whatever, we are quite happy with him at Adelaide.

Because we have a bye and therefore little else to talk about?