Player Watch Jordan Dawson - Our New Captain!

Remove this Banner Ad

He wasn't worth 19 in your opinion, was he? :)
I said he wasn't worth 12 at the time. But then again, I failed to take into account that we were dealing with David Noble - a famously poor negotiator, noted for giving away the farm in any/every deal he ever did.

From memory, I thought 19 was about right - but not 12.
 
Have a look back at what we got for Keath and Greenwood, both of them got 4 year contracts north of 500k. That is what we accepted for payers we wanted but could not afford to keep
Lol you're comparing 2 guys much older to cherry pick that we offered low ball contracts to knowing full well they'd most likely leave. I know you want that to be true but I'd suggest taking Adelaide coloured glasses off and remaining objective.
 
As predictable as a porno.

Media when an out of contract Victorian wants to return home: "Oh look there's not much to say, he's out of contract, his old club just needs to get whatever they can for him, I'd imagine it's done pretty quickly, not a problem".

Dawson wants to return to Adelaide: "This is a really interesting one, the Crows have a bit of a dilemma, Sydney won't back down on this one and nor should they, I can see this one going down to the wire, the Crows might have to give more than they want"
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The clubs dont want to do hostile stuff to each other as it'll come back at a later date. Prepare to be disappointed if thats what you think is going to happen. Were you someone last year sure B Crouch would be getting us top compo too?
Didnt sydney do this to us with the tippet deals ,you reap what you sow
 
The clubs dont want to do hostile stuff to each other as it'll come back at a later date. Prepare to be disappointed if thats what you think is going to happen. Were you someone last year sure B Crouch would be getting us top compo too?

no one wants to go to the mattresses for no reason. Everyone wants to be reasonable because you have to do business with the same people regularly

now you can be tough but fair, but everyone wants to be able to say they tried to be reasonable

take Hately, GWS wanted a pick around 25 (not a crazy ask), and we offered 37 as it was fair value

our argument was that our psd#1 pick formed part of his value calculation. Because he was available to us for free, we priced that in.

GWS didn’t want to apply that same discount, not agreeing that our leverage formed part of the valuation

now whether you agree or not with positions taken, you can see both sides trying to make sure they were being seen as fair
 
no one wants to go to the mattresses for no reason. Everyone wants to be reasonable because you have to do business with the same people regularly

now you can be tough but fair, but everyone wants to be able to say they tried to be reasonable

take Hately, GWS wanted a pick around 25 (not a crazy ask), and we offered 37 as it was fair value

our argument was that our psd#1 pick formed part of his value calculation. Because he was available to us for free, we priced that in.

GWS didn’t want to apply that same discount, not agreeing that our leverage formed part of the valuation

now whether you agree or not with positions taken, you can see both sides trying to make sure they were being seen as fair
Yep 100%.

It's very different when you have a wanted & contracted player, everyone knows its your right to be hard asses and demand big overs. In this case there's a guy out of contract who wants to head off home that they wanted to keep (and pretty badly given the contract on offer). It's not really in our best interests to be ass holes when we can trade in good faith. To be ass holes just because we can here is a very short sighted view that might come back to bite us much worse later.
 
no one wants to go to the mattresses for no reason. Everyone wants to be reasonable because you have to do business with the same people regularly

now you can be tough but fair, but everyone wants to be able to say they tried to be reasonable

take Hately, GWS wanted a pick around 25 (not a crazy ask), and we offered 37 as it was fair value

our argument was that our psd#1 pick formed part of his value calculation. Because he was available to us for free, we priced that in.

GWS didn’t want to apply that same discount, not agreeing that our leverage formed part of the valuation

now whether you agree or not with positions taken, you can see both sides trying to make sure they were being seen as fair

That is a reasonable assessment of the situation.

Us going the PSD route last season actually works in our favour, they know we are willing to follow through with using the leverage.

I'm not really bothered if we become hard to deal with, most of the power is with the player these days, especially when out of contract.

Sydney will of course act in their best interest and attempt to extract maximum value, but anything higher than pick 23 is unreasonable, and 23 probably sits in the middle of the teams respective views on trade value.

The Crows using the leverage we have is no different to Sydney using the leverage they had when they offered up a 2nd rounder and Jesse White for Tippett, they ended up getting him for free. We created that situation with Tippett. Sydney have contributed to this trade situation through a salary cap squeeze.
 
The fact you're still holding onto that says a lot....

Yep 100%.

It's very different when you have a wanted & contracted player, everyone knows its your right to be hard asses and demand big overs. In this case there's a guy out of contract who wants to head off home that they wanted to keep (and pretty badly given the contract on offer). It's not really in our best interests to be ass holes when we can trade in good faith. To be ass holes just because we can here is a very short sighted view that might come back to bite us much worse later.

Just questioning your argument here but it seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Sydney were arseholes just because they could be, wasn't that a short sighted view then? Might that be coming back to bite them much worse later?

Conversely if people aren't expected to hold on to such things then we shouldn't have anything to worry about if we choose to be arseholes.
 
Just questioning your argument here but it seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Sydney were arseholes just because they could be, wasn't that a short sighted view then? Might that be coming back to bite them much worse later?

Conversely if people aren't expected to hold on to such things then we shouldn't have anything to worry about if we choose to be arseholes.
I'm sorry do you think Adelaide were innocent in that whole saga?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is Dawson really a need for us with list profile?

Certainly not enough of a need to give a first rounder, let alone pick 4.
Definitely a need and in the age bracket we are lacking.

But more importantly he is a fairly high profile player that wants to come back to SA and he has chosen to come to us. We haven't been able to entice anyone of note to come to us for a while now other than Gibbs.

We need to add more talent to our squad over the next few years via trading if we want to make the most of this rebuild. The fact he has chosen us just shows that we are finally in a position where these guys actually want to come play for us.
 
Maybe we could go, Pick 4 to Sydney for Dawson and pick 12?

That basically values Jordan Dawson around pick 25.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Jordan Dawson - Our New Captain!

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top