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

[Vader]

What happens if Geelong don't trade?

Dangerfield nominates for the ND or PSD, where he risks being selected before Geelong can get their hands on him. Geelong don't want that, Dangerfield doesn't want that. Not going to happen.

On your last point, says who?

Don't you think we've gone over this a million times already??

The Judd trade set the precedent. Pick 9 & your 2016 1st rounder are well under that precedent.

 

[bartelisahardnut]

The PSD is the least likely scenario.

The most likely scenario is that Adelaide match Geelong's offer and a trade is done. This is in the best interest of all parties - Adelaide, Geelong, and Dangerfield. Adelaide won't accept losing him as an RFA, because the compensation pick they would receive is manifestly inadequate.

Nobody will want him in the ND or PSD. Adelaide don't want it, because they don't want to lose a valuable asset for nothing. Geelong don't want it, because there is significant risk that another club could grab him before their pick. Dangerfield doesn't want it, because he could end up playing for Melbourne or Brisbane. For these reasons, Dangerfield going in the draft is the least likely option - not the most likely scenario as you asserted.

Wrong. As much as Adelaide uses the "we are going to match" threat, is as likely that Danger and the GFC use the "you'll lose him for nothing via the draft" option. I don't see Geelong or Danger using the PSD as a mechanism to get him if there is no trade. Those first picks before geelong in the PSD carry no currency or real value.

However the first 8 picks in the national draft prior to geelongs pick carry much more hope and currency. Therefore, a club is less inclined to use one of those picks on a Dangerfield "one and done" deal, when that pick could be the next Danger for 10 years.

That is why Geelong are probably pushing Adelaide to not match the offer and then come to a second deal for a player swap/pick swap where it is an upgrade of first round picks and player (swap pick 9 for 14 plus GHS/Smedts) or a swap of player GHS/Smedts for a super late draft pick. I suggest the most they are prepared to give up is that pick 9 they would use in the national draft.

As much as Adelaide supporters think they have the leverage, they don't. I believe that both sides realise the best scenario is for Adelaide to accept slight unders and geelong to work a deal for a no.18-22 young player for a late draft pick. But if Adelaide gets to greedy, Geelong walks away from the table and goes to the draft to pick up Danger. There is an element of risk there, but the risk for Adelaide then becomes massive because they effectively lose their best player for nothing. The presumption that they will then be able to trade him to wherever is bogus because he has already stated he will go to the draft!

 

[thegerman]

Dangerfield nominates for the ND or PSD, where he risks being selected before Geelong can get their hands on him. Geelong don't want that, Dangerfield doesn't want that. Not going to happen.

The Judd trade set the precedent. Pick 9 & your 2016 1st rounder are well under that precedent.

Yep, like many crows supporters have said. You're telling us something like we've never heard it before

 

[year of the cat]

This thread is becoming unreadable.

Becoming?

 

[dazbroncos]

Draft Tampering is illegal.. but it happens and the AFL has consistently turned a blind eye to it ever since the Chalmers affair, even though worse offences have been committed since then. Luke Ball nominated for the draft, but refused to sit a medical examination for any club other than Collingwood - how that was not deemed to be draft tampering is entirely beyond me. The only draft tampering case that I can recall since Chalmers is Adelaide being prosecuted over the Tiprat contract - and the AFL was right to do so on that occasion.

No player can be traded against their will, and forced to enter into a contract with their new club. The only way a player can be forced to enter a contract with a club they don't want to be at is if they nominate for the draft. Should they choose to do so (either ND or PSD), and nominate terms, then the following applies:

There is surprisingly little in the AFL Player Rules about the trading of players. The inability of clubs to force players to sign with non-preferred clubs is probably a matter of Australian Law, rather than an AFL imposed thing. The draft is different, because the act of nomination explicitly states that players accept that they could be selected by any club and agree to be bound to the club which drafts them.

At the end of the day, there is virtually no chance of Dangerfield ending up at a 3rd club during the trade period. He may end up at a 3rd club if no trade is done and he nominates for the ND or PSD (as is his right). It is in the best interests of all 3 parties to see that a deal is done - Adelaide, Geelong, and Dangerfield. For that reason, I expect that a deal will be done. Adelaide will get less than Dangerfield's worth, Geelong will pay more than they're happy with, and Dangerfield will be wearing blue & white hoops in 2016.

Given the tampering statement, that I tend to agree with, I had this as an option..
AFC takes FA compo.
GFC Gets:
Danger

AFC Gets:
#14.

GFC /AFC Trade:

GFC Loses: Pick 9, Rd 1 2016.

GFC Gains: Pick 14. Rd 2 2016 and Kerridge. ( outside AFC best 22 and mentioned by many AFC posters as trade bait)


AFC 2015 : Has 2 x Rd 1 - 9, 13
AFC 2016: Has 2 x Rd 1 picks.

GFC 2015: Pick 14
GFC 2016: No rd1, 2 x Rd2

Gets PD to GFC. AFC end up with 2 x RD 1 this year and 2 x Rd 1 next year. Lost PD and Kerridge.
AFL gets PD to where he wants and GFC gives up picks to get it done and loses trade value points in the process.

Leaves Crows with 4 x Rd1 picks over 2 years.
Go Catters

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Dangerfield nominates for the ND or PSD, where he risks being selected before Geelong can get their hands on him. Geelong don't want that, Dangerfield doesn't want that. Not going to happen.

The Judd trade set the precedent. Pick 9 & your 2016 1st rounder are well under that precedent.

Sounds like you've got it all worked out then.

Can't wait.

 

[rooie]

 

[CatTricks]

Becoming?

Should make it 'Crows Only'

 

[Frappe]

Yes their should be accountability but their isn't under afl current rules. The crows can rort the matching system by not signing up all their players.

Thanks. Makes sense now.

 

[rooie]

i just made cookies, i will trade them for danger. they are absolutely worth it.

 

[cat_fanatic]

Three sentences in a row which are completely wrong. Matching was a clause drafted when free agency was being mooted to ensure that clubs don't lose marquee players for a crappy return. It was agreed to by the AFL, the clubs and the players. To kick up a stink about it now is akin to throwing the toys of the cot when the rules go against you.

What?

Matching is there to ensure a club has the option to keep a player should they be offered more money elsewhere.

It's not there to use as a tactic to try and get more than the designated compensation pick.

If Adelaide match i think it will be generally frowned upon and will come back to bite them.

 

[thegerman]

What?

Matching is there to ensure a club has the option to keep a player should they be offered more money elsewhere.

It's not there to use as a tactic to try and get more than the designated compensation pick.

There's the truth right there.

 

[LongBomb]

Dangerfield doesn't want it, because he could end up playing for Melbourne or Brisbane. For these reasons, Dangerfield going in the draft is the least likely option - not the most likely scenario as you asserted.

No club in their right mind will risk wasting a top 10 pick for one year's service from Dangerfield. It's just not going to happen.

The AFC will be desperate to avoid the PSD because they get zero return in this scenario.

Time will tell, but I think you misunderstand which way the scales are tilting in this deal.

 

[Seeds]

Dangerfield nominates for the ND or PSD, where he risks being selected before Geelong can get their hands on him. Geelong don't want that, Dangerfield doesn't want that. Not going to happen.

The Judd trade set the precedent. Pick 9 & your 2016 1st rounder are well under that precedent.

Judd trade set the precedent of what not to do. Carlton suffered massively from it. There will never be another club dumb enough to do a Judd deal.

 

[Brentmeister]

What?

Matching is there to ensure a club has the option to keep a player should they be offered more money elsewhere.

It's not there to use as a tactic to try and get more than the designated compensation pick.

If Adelaide match i think it will be generally frowned upon and will come back to bite them.

If it was all about money, why doesn't the player just go to his club: "xxx has offered me $700k. You're only offering me $600k. If you offer me $700k I'll stay"?

Therefore free agency would be circumvented. So in fact, the point you raised perfectly illustrates why matching is designed to give the original club more leeway to negotiate a stronger trade return.

 

[catempire]

In an effort to break the monotony, some people (particular Crows fans) could brush up on their negotiations theory. Start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement

 

[sauron256]

If it was all about money, why doesn't the player just go to his club: "xxx has offered me $700k. You're only offering me $600k. If you offer me $700k I'll stay"?

Therefore free agency would be circumvented. So in fact, the point you raised perfectly illustrates why matching is designed to give the original club more leeway to negotiate a stronger trade return.

Because in that circumstance, before RFA the club could simply say "no, and we won't trade you."

RFA gave players the power to say "xx is offering me more," forcing the club to match it or the player is free to walk.

 

[randyzany]

How is this even relevant? Geelong won't be making Dangerfield a Godfather offer, like the one that Sydney offered to Franklin. Adelaide are almost certain to match the offer, given that they are financially capable of doing so and will almost certainly receive more by trading him than they would if they let him go as a FA.

Once Adelaide match Geelong's offer, it's just a normal trade situation. What Adelaide might have received as RFA compensation is completely irrelevant.

If you want to know what price you can expect to pay, look at what Carlton paid for Judd. They gave up picks 3 & 20, plus Kennedy, who they had picked up with pick #4 only 2 years before. That's the benchmark.

Adelaide will be looking to receive 2x 1st round draft picks, or the equivalent value in players. Given that Geelong appear unwilling to part with any of their best young players, the deal will almost certainly revolve around draft picks. You have access to 2x 1st round draft picks (2015 and 2016), so they will probably form the major part of the deal.

How is this even relevant? Geelong won't be making Dangerfield a Godfather offer, like the one that Sydney offered to Franklin. Adelaide are almost certain to match the offer, given that they are financially capable of doing so and will almost certainly receive more by trading him than they would if they let him go as a FA.

Do you honestly want to treat a guy that left nothing out on the field for your club for almost a decade as nothing more than a mere commodity to haggle for a better trade?

For anyone with a bit of common sense and decency it's clear that he's not leaving for money so how much he's getting paid by Geelong should never enter into the conversation for trying to make a case as to what Adelaide are entitled to in a trade, it should be totally irrelevant.

FFS have some gratitude and respect for his contribution to your club. Geelong went though the same with gaj in regards to not being adequately compensated for his defection. Unfortunately for us the league head honchos deemed it in their interest to pry him out of Geelong to use him as a marketable tool for one of the plastic franchises and in the end we had to make do with the scraps they gave us for poaching him from the club.

I think the afc is probably better off drafting young talent as doesn't appear that your list is deep enough, with or without Danger, to win a flag in the next 5 years anyway unlike Geelong which some would argue could've won 1 or 2 more flags had gaj played his entire career at the Cattery.

 

[b1ggl3s #4]

Adelaide don't match. Receive P14. Geelong trade P9 to Adelaide for their 2015 2nd & 3rd rounders. Adelaide get 3 first round picks. Geelong get PD, 4x picks under 40. Or something like that.

 

[Brentmeister]

If this is the case, why is the AFLPA hammering the AFL to remove compo? Seeing as you know, please fill us in.

The AFLPA is only campaigning to remove UNRESTRICTED free agency compo.

 

[LawnMosey]

Adelaide don't match. Receive P14. Geelong trade P9 to Adelaide for their 2015 2nd & 3rd rounders. Adelaide get 3 first round picks. Geelong get PD, 4x picks under 40. Or something like that.

Not bad. GFC could explain their reasoning for downgrading pick #9 is because we're in desperate need of more picks at this draft. Surely that would get us past Ken Wood. An alternative could be for them to trade their 2016 rd 2 pick for another 2015 rd2 with the Giants (on the hunt for future picks) and give us 2 round 2s...

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Personally, I hope we try and deal with Essendon to trade up to pick 4 in the draft, then make the offer to Dangerfield.

That way, Danger is a Cat either way and Adelaide either get pick 14 or nothing.

Edit* I should clarify, only if Adelaide's demands are unreasonable.

 

[cat_fanatic]

Because in that circumstance, before RFA the club could simply say "no, and we won't trade you."

RFA gave players the power to say "xx is offering me more," forcing the club to match it or the player is free to walk.

This.

 

[iameviljez]

The Judd trade set the precedent. Pick 9 & your 2016 1st rounder are well under that precedent.

The Judd trade was a massive win for West Coast. No thanks.

I should also add that precedent doesn't mean much. Judd may have set a precedent, but so did Nick Stevens, so did Lance Franklin, so did Luke Ball - all very different executions of a scenario of a wanted player departing.

 

[cynical]

just offer him a 2 year deal for $1.3mil a year or whatever the crows wont match, then give him a new contract for $550k for the last 4 years

no reason to trade for him

come up with a sweetener this year or next that is favourable for the crows