Strategy Should we trade Dangerfield?

[MRB37]

I hate this offseason such much so far. I'm 50/50 some days on trading Danger. I just hope they get a good coach on board that makes him want to stay.

 

[Stone Sour]

Are we going to get Sloane and Tex sign before trade week? If we are pressuring Danger for a commitment, it's only fair we pressure them too? Is this Draft any good? So if we trade Danger we aren't looking to make finals? Talia wants to play finals so are we going trade end of next year because it's obvious he wants success. If Danger wants to leave, it just makes me feel like we have a shit culture. Boak, stayed even tho Port had been shit for years.Don't say it's because of money. Boak had no idea if things were going to turn around. His team was a laughing stock and it would of been easier to leave. But he stayed and he was rewarded. Even bottom teams keep more good players than us it feels like. I just wished Roo didn't say we could trade him. Now it's more speculation and gives the impression we can't keep him. Whatever we get has big shoes.Don't we need more elite talent, not less?

 

[MRB37]

My only thought on why Roo would say that wasn't to target Danger specifically, but more to highlight the point of "We're not taking shit from anyone and we won't let a player screw us over again. We want to build something special, so you either want to be here or you don't, and even if you're as talented as a Dangerfield, the rules still apply to you. If you don't want to be here, then we'll move you out for someone who does"

 

[fatbarber]

As much as the thought of losing Paddy breakes my heart. Club needs to think with the head. Imagine we knock back pick 2 and 3 for example and two years down the track these kids are megastars, Paddy walked a year later for "not much" we would be pretty upset. Also wonder about Paddy's longevity, the see ball get ball must be hard on the body long term. Would still break my heart though!

 

[aneale]

Just look at the Pies reaction to losing Beams, their first thought is get Dangerfield. Even though it has nothing to do with Beams.

That annoys me no end, it puts an enormous amount of pressure on in a situation where we are not involved. If I was running the Club yesterday and I heard Collingwood say that they wanted a Dangerfield for compensating the loss of Beams (and there for infering that Brisbane had to engage us in at least a 3 way trade) I'd have picked up the phone to Caro or Barrett and said that Collingwood and Brisbane have no player we are interested in, and if we were to lose Danger, we would want a Parker or O'Meara in return. Screw it, 2 can play let's name a wishlist.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Are we going to get Sloane and Tex sign before trade week? If we are pressuring Danger for a commitment, it's only fair we pressure them too? Is this Draft any good? So if we trade Danger we aren't looking to make finals? Talia wants to play finals so are we going trade end of next year because it's obvious he wants success. If Danger wants to leave, it just makes me feel like we have a shit culture. Boak, stayed even tho Port had been shit for years.Don't say it's because of money. Boak had no idea if things were going to turn around. His team was a laughing stock and it would of been easier to leave. But he stayed and he was rewarded. Even bottom teams keep more good players than us it feels like. I just wished Roo didn't say we could trade him. Now it's more speculation and gives the impression we can't keep him. Whatever we get has big shoes.Don't we need more elite talent, not less?

I think you are missing the point.

I don't think anyone wants to trade him for the simple sack of trading him. It's not like, I don't think anyone has said - we must trade him because we can get someone better and then we move on. I don't think that is the case, if so those who do please correct me if I wrong.

The point most want to know is, if he (Dangerfield) is on our list after trade week that he has made a verbal committment to the club and they are very confident he will stay. Most want to know that the club has done their due dillergence in keeping him and are very confident that he will stay. If he stays, the club knows he will stay and then negotiate a contract sometime next year, this is why no one is asking for Tex or Sloane to make that same committment as they are very confident they have verbalized this committment already and the club is confident they will stay.

 

[Bicks]

Does it matter if the AFC INSISTS that Paddy commits if Paddy does not want to commit?
The club cannot force him into a trade. And, even if Danger agreed, I'm sure he would only go to the club of his choice. And that would not be Melbourne.
Do you think that the club of his choice would try to get 2 top 10 draft picks to give to us?
You must be F.....g dreaming.
Unless he's prepared to go to any club, we have Buckly's chance of getting more than one top 10 pick for him.

No it must be you that's ............ dreaming!!

Unfortunately all clubs now operate in a landscape that contains free agency and everything that goes with it...reality really bites!

You must be Patrick Dangerfield because only then could you confidently say he would not go to Melbourne, nobody knows other than Patrick himself where he may be prepared to play his football. You know for sure Paul Roos, Simon Goodwin, Peter Jackson and the MFC couldn't convince Patrick that the Demons is good club to be at?? BTW Roos has already flagged pick 2 & 3 are on the table to try and lure Dangerfield there.

My personal belief is the "bright lights" of Melbourne and the media gigs that would be available to Patty beckon.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

As much as the thought of losing Paddy breakes my heart. Club needs to think with the head. Imagine we knock back pick 2 and 3 for example and two years down the track these kids are megastars, Paddy walked a year later for "not much" we would be pretty upset. Also wonder about Paddy's longevity, the see ball get ball must be hard on the body long term. Would still break my heart though!

We are not getting pick 2 and 3 as the Melbourne Football club didn't get the priority pick and won't get pick 3 as a compensation pick for losing Frawley.

Dangerfield won't go to Melbourne Football club. It's a big Victorian club or he will stay.

 

[crowsup]

That's why need to tack into a second and third trade.

one club will help another club get that deal done and then helkp a third club get that deal done.

Beams going to Brisbane is our ticket to get a good deal done.

That's only on the proviso her asks to leave.

That may eventuate if Paddy were to choose Collingwood. But, if Danger chose Geelong, they could very well say "we give you pick 14 this year or nothing next year". What would you say to that?

 

[The Karma Bus]

I think you are missing the point.

I don't think anyone wants to trade him for the simple sack of trading him. It's not like, I don't think anyone has said - we must trade him because we can get someone better and then we move on. I don't think that is the case, if so those who do please correct me if I wrong.

The point most want to know is, if he (Dangerfield) is on our list after trade week that he has made a verbal committment to the club and they are very confident he will stay. Most want to know that the club has done their due dillergence in keeping him and are very confident that he will stay. If he stays, the club knows he will stay and then negotiate a contract sometime next year, this is why no one is asking for Tex or Sloane to make that same committment as they are very confident they have verbalized this committment already and the club is confident they will stay.

The interesting grey area that will come is what I mentioned earlier..
If he says he wants to see how things pan out with the coaching changes..
And I think that will be the situation, he will want that..

Surely we can't trade him if he says that..
Then if we keep him, will people slam the club that they should have traded him if he chooses to go next year because things aren't working for him with the new coaching set up, club direction etc..?

 

[crowsup]

No it must be you that's ............ dreaming!!

Unfortunately all clubs now operate in a landscape that contains free agency and everything that goes with it...reality really bites!

You must be Patrick Dangerfield because only then could you confidently say he would not go to Melbourne, nobody knows other than Patrick himself where he may be prepared to play his football. You know for sure Paul Roos, Simon Goodwin, Peter Jackson and the MFC couldn't convince Patrick that the Demons is good club to be at?? BTW Roos has already flagged pick 2 & 3 are on the table to try and lure Dangerfield there.

My personal belief is the "bright lights" of Melbourne and the media gigs that would be available to Patty beckon.

I see that you have not heard Danger say that he wants success as well. Do you believe that Roos could convince Danger that they will be in a premiership window in the next two seasons? Besides, would you be happy with just pick 2 and any of the Melbourne players? I believe that pick 3 is not available to Melbourne, anymore.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

That may eventuate if Paddy were to choose Collingwood. But, if Danger chose Geelong, they could very well say "we give you pick 14 this year or nothing next year". What would you say to that?

Then I would say to him - we won't be doing a deal with Geelong unless they can satisfy us with a deal that suits our needs and then you can stay an extra 12 months in Adelaide and then we will match any deal put forward by Geelong.

Meaning, Geelong will then have to trade for you or you end up in the PSD or you can do a deal right now to help us by changing your mind about getting to Collingwood.

 

[Bicks]

I believe that pick 3 is not available to Melbourne, anymore.

You believe, I really don't know, but Damian Barrett seems to think it is as late as this morning on the radio, so he and the MFC must believe they will get the pick after their 1st rounder as compo for losing Frawley at a guess...

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

The interesting grey area that will come is what I mentioned earlier..
If he says he wants to see how things pan out with the coaching changes..
And I think that will be the situation, he will want that..

Surely we can't trade him if he says that..
Then if we keep him, will people slam the club that they should have traded him if he chooses to go next year because things aren't working for him with the new coaching set up, club direction etc..?

Does that mean the board should run the appointment of the coach and coaching panel past him before we appoint them?

If he wanrs that much say in how the club opperates, trade him as no one players is bigger than the club.

We can not chop and change a coach based on keeping one, two or three players.

If he is wishy washy about the appointment, we must trade him. If he doesn't have faith in the board to make the correct call, maybe we should trsde him.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

You believe, I really don't know, but Damian Barrett seems to think it is as late as this morning on the radio, so he and the MFC must believe they will get the pick after their 1st rounder as compo for losing Frawley at a guess...

I thought the commission announced yesterday that they would not get a first round priority pick.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ority-pick-for-melbourne-20140923-10ky43.html

And it will be a discrace if they AFL give them a first round pick for Frawley leaving.

 

[Stone Sour]

I think you are missing the point.

I don't think anyone wants to trade him for the simple sack of trading him. It's not like, I don't think anyone has said - we must trade him because we can get someone better and then we move on. I don't think that is the case, if so those who do please correct me if I wrong.

The point most want to know is, if he (Dangerfield) is on our list after trade week that he has made a verbal committment to the club and they are very confident he will stay. Most want to know that the club has done their due dillergence in keeping him and are very confident that he will stay. If he stays, the club knows he will stay and then negotiate a contract sometime next year, this is why no one is asking for Tex or Sloane to make that same committment as they are very confident they have verbalized this committment already and the club is confident they will stay.

Not saying we are trading him for the hell of it. And it's fine that we aren't pressuring Sloane and Tex because we are confident of keeping them. But I would want them to be receiving the same talk as Danger and not have the attitude that Danger is the only flight risk. It's interesting that the articles I read, the journalists are think he will stay. Which we can take with a grain of salt because no one truly knows.

I guess the point I was making is that it feels like we know we have a shit culture and we don't have faith that we can keep him and we dont think we will be successful in the short term/mid term.Is Danger going to be the last big name we lose or will we lose Talia as well?If we lose Danger, Draft picks don't excite me coz they're so unknown. Sometimes pick 14 turns out better than pick 2. Or we pick up a gun with pick 2 or 4. If we trade him I would want a player as well. It might be the right thing but i still hate that we can't keep players. I don't want be a feeder club anymore.

 

[crowsup]

You believe, I really don't know, but Damian Barrett seems to think it is as late as this morning on the radio, so he and the MFC must believe they will get the pick after their 1st rounder as compo for losing Frawley at a guess...

I don't know Damian Barrett. Is he a Melbourne official? Or is he another Jarman?
I think, at the moment it is all suppositions.

Then I would say to him - we won't be doing a deal with Geelong unless they can satisfy us with a deal that suits our needs and then you can stay an extra 12 months in Adelaide and then we will match any deal put forward by Geelong.

Meaning, Geelong will then have to trade for you or you end up in the PSD or you can do a deal right now to help us by changing your mind about getting to Collingwood.

I like your idea of confronting Danger with that ultimatum. The plebe here though would not like it if Geelong still finished getting Danger, a la Sydney and (that shit person) Tippet.
For what it is worth, I believe that Ricciuto's idea of getting the right coaching group and everything else in place, will be a good way to keep Dangerfield and the rest of our elite players in place.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Does that mean the board should run the appointment of the coach and coaching panel past him before we appoint them?

If he wanrs that much say in how the club opperates, trade him as no one players is bigger than the club.

We can not chop and change a coach based on keeping one, two or three players.

If he is wishy washy about the appointment, we must trade him. If he doesn't have faith in the board to make the correct call, maybe we should trsde him.

I don't mean pleasing one player, what if it's a terrible coaching move full stop and we are rabble like?
If we mess this up, hard to blame too many for wanting to leave..

 

[Bicks]

Not saying we are trading him for the hell of it. And it's fine that we aren't pressuring Sloane and Tex because we are confident of keeping them. But I would want them to be receiving the same talk as Danger and not have the attitude that Danger is the only flight risk. It's interesting that the articles I read, the journalists are think he will stay. Which we can take with a grain of salt because no one truly knows.

I guess the point I was making is that it feels like we know we have a shit culture and we don't have faith that we can keep him and we dont think we will be successful in the short term/mid term.Is Danger going to be the last big name we lose or will we lose Talia as well?If we lose Danger, Draft picks don't excite me coz they're so unknown. Sometimes pick 14 turns out better than pick 2. Or we pick up a gun with pick 2 or 4. If we trade him I would want a player as well. It might be the right thing but i still hate that we can't keep players. I don't want be a feeder club anymore.

You don't think a package of pick 2 & 3 would go close to nabbing Cameron if he really wants to come to the AFC??

Draft Picks have collateral value too!!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Not saying we are trading him for the hell of it. And it's fine that we aren't pressuring Sloane and Tex because we are confident of keeping them. But I would want them to be receiving the same talk as Danger and not have the attitude that Danger is the only flight risk. It's interesting that the articles I read, the journalists are think he will stay. Which we can take with a grain of salt because no one truly knows.

I guess the point I was making is that it feels like we know we have a shit culture and we don't have faith that we can keep him and we dont think we will be successful in the short term/mid term.Is Danger going to be the last big name we lose or will we lose Talia as well?If we lose Danger, Draft picks don't excite me coz they're so unknown. Sometimes pick 14 turns out better than pick 2. Or we pick up a gun with pick 2 or 4. If we trade him I would want a player as well. It might be the right thing but i still hate that we can't keep players. I don't want be a feeder club anymore.

That's why I proposed doing this deal.

If at the end of trade week - we end up with Cameron, Aish and 2 picks inside the top 11 (our pick 10 as one of them) and we have only lost Lyons and Dangerfield. That would be a win.

How I see this occouring.

Adelaide give up: Dangerfield and Lyons
Adelaide gain: Cameron, Aish and pick 9 (Collingwood)

Collingwood gain: Dangerfield, Lyons
Collingwood lose: Beams, pick 9 & pick 27

Brisbane gain: D Beams, pick 27
Brisbane lose: pick 4 and Aish

GWS lose: Cameron
GWS gain: pick 4

If we end up wiyh a deal like that - I'd say yes as we lose a blue chipper in Dangerfield but we gain 2 back in Cameron and Aish. The club could sell that as a massive win to members and the wheel will start turning back our way. I'd say to Collingwood, that's the deal you need to make if you want Dangerfield and I strongly believe they will give up pick 9, pick 27 and Beams for Dangerfield and Lyons.

Then we go and sell the club and pick 4 to GWS and Cameron.

If that would to eventuate, I think we would actually end up with a stronger as a playing list after those trades.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I don't mean pleasing one player, what if it's a terrible coaching move full stop and we are rabble like?
If we mess this up, hard to blame too many for wanting to leave..

Then maybe, just maybe it's something the club will have to go through.

Then the board goes as well and we have a massive clean out.

What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger and we are not going to die.

 

[Bicks]

I don't know Damian Barrett. Is he a Melbourne official?

Damian Barrett has a little more credibility than Jarman for starters, and the source he was quoting was Peter Jackson AFL appointed interim CEO of the MFC and highly respected Administrator within AFL circles.

 

[Stone Sour]

You don't think a package of pick 2 & 3 would go close to nabbing Cameron if he really wants to come to the AFC??

Draft Picks have collateral value too!!

I think GWS would be looking for an established player and a high draft pick. And isn't the mail they want pick 1. So I don't know if 1,2 and 3 will interest them too much. It might but it might not.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Then maybe, just maybe it's something the club will have to go through.

Then the board goes as well and we have a massive clean out.

Yeah that's fair enough but in regards to the current situation with Danger, it makes it hard to trade him if he says he wants to see the direction of the club..
At least he's being up front with us if that's his word..

Take him for his word and back ourselves in is all we can probably do..
Trading him after he says that suggests we have no faith in ourselves, in our just announced appointments and is a culture killer..
Interesting few weeks coming up, that is for sure..

 

[Bicks]

I think GWS would be looking for an established player and a high draft pick. And isn't the mail they want pick 1. So I don't know if 1,2 and 3 will interest them too much.

The mail is they want Christian Petracca so whatever delivers him.