Traded Patrick Dangerfield [traded w/ pick 50 to Geelong for 9, 28 and Gore]

[FantasticShirt]

There is no way the Crows don't have about a million bucks ready for Danger in case he announced during the season that he wanted to stay. A grandfather offer from Geelong, would have to be WAY in excess of that

And that would go against Geelong's long held contract/list management strategy. Good luck to them if they pay 1mil + a year for a midfielder. Even one as good as dangerfield.

 

[Cudi_420]

Melbourne's plan was to offer one of those picks plus Richmond's first round pick that we were getting before that fell through, that was going to be the trade offer for Dangerfield.

Yes. 2 and 3 were on the table after the Trengove deal fell through. Adelaide rejected this for whatever reason. There was an offer as it stood on the table.
Imo Melbourne is better off with Brayshaw and Petracca.

 

[Cleric]

Must be the same source who gave him the contract figures then..

There was also the interview with Gill where he said he couldnt say what he knew about Dangerfield as that wouldnt be right to do so. Obviously the AFL have been contacted about the deal, to get their okay.
Hey you get Danger, so you have a new best player on your team. We got a way better outcome than a compo pick.
Win, win

 

[Cleric]

It must also be pointed out that Hutchie said on AA that the offer deal is done with Danger and he has accepted a 5 year deal with a couple of bucks a year less than Selwood.

 

[Dez!]

Yes. 2 and 3 were on the table after the Trengove deal fell through. Adelaide rejected this for whatever reason. There was an offer as it stood on the table.
Imo Melbourne is better off with Brayshaw and Petracca.

No they weren't.

 

[Cudi_420]

Just curiously: is sign-and-trade permissible?

Adelaide re-signs Dangerfield at a salary determined by the other club, and is immediately offset for an agreed combination of picks/players?

This at least would allow Adelaide the flexibility to determine salary + compensation without having to match the high offer and being stuck with a contract they didn't actually want?

Adelaide is only matching for the sake of initiating a trade.

 

[fishardansin]

My favourite was when she wrote an exclusive about Swanny leaving - nek minut a front pager in the HS almost the next day saying he signed on again for 3 years.

One of the greatest stich ups ever of a journo, by Swanny and his team, to leak the opposite of what he was doing.

If she is writing about Swan, McGuire, Brayshaw, Hird and all others at Essendon responsible for outing Beverly Knight as her mole, sacking Knights and being part of the new coaching team (2011) then you can ignore it.

 

[wowlace]

Premierships in the Past decade

Mitch Clark

 

[Son_Of_God29]

Mitch Clark

Bet you would like him playing along with Hogan

 

[nickrebellious]

I have seen so many people state Adel must match because the outcome re compensation is unfair. So let me pose them a few questions.

The FREE agency system was designed as a system to promote EASIER movement of players who had given their clubs extended service. If Adel match, and Danger becomes nothing more than an out of contract player, what benefit exactly has his Free Agency status delivered him? Is it fair that his status after 8 years exemplary service, and as a FA, is the same as a James Aish or Jarrad Jansen?

Is it fair or discriminatory that Danger, in the event of a match, should be treated differently to EVERY OTHER Free Agent before him? Was this really how the AFL and AFLPA intended the system to work? Why should the Cats become Guinea pigs in the final 12 months of a system that will likely be further diluted in a years time when a new CBA rolls out? Particularly given precisely ZERO clubs have exercised their matching right to this point.

Furthermore, the matching right was never intended for the purpose of extracting a club a better trade outcome. This is precisely why no club has used it for this purpose, and why there is a compensatory formula in place. It was intended for a situation where a player was open to staying at his club but wanted to fully test the market re his value $$.

This is why no club has matched to date. The system was designed to function for the benefit of the PLAYERS not the clubs. It is a system that both gives and takes, and the Crows will likely have seen both sides of that soon. If Adel were to match it will only militarise and embolden the AFLPA in a year which will require negotiation of a new CBA. This would not be a good outcome for the AFL, and thus it's an outcome I don't expect to happen.

Put simply, Adel matching would require it to go rogue and nuclear on the Free Agency system, and against key stakeholders (AFL, AFLPA). Again, this would be madness and thus it will not happen IMO.

Geelong will give Adelaide two first rounders. You're paying unders and Danger isn't on a ridiculous contract, you'll get over it.

 

[bird_man]

Yes. 2 and 3 were on the table after the Trengove deal fell through. Adelaide rejected this for whatever reason. There was an offer as it stood on the table.
Imo Melbourne is better off with Brayshaw and Petracca.

Wouldn't Dangerfield have to agree to it though?

 

[Cleric]

I have seen so many people state Adel must match because the outcome re compensation is unfair. So let me pose them a few questions.

The FREE agency system was designed as a system to promote EASIER movement of players who had given their clubs extended service. If Adel match, and Danger becomes nothing more than an out of contract player, what benefit exactly has his Free Agency status delivered him? Is it fair that his status after 8 years exemplary service, and as a FA, is the same as a James Aish or Jarrad Jansen?

Is it fair or discriminatory that Danger, in the event of a match, should be treated differently to EVERY OTHER Free Agent before him? Was this really how the AFL and AFLPA intended the system to work? Why should the Cats become Guinea pigs in the final 12 months of a system that will likely be further diluted in a years time when a new CBA rolls out? Particularly given precisely ZERO clubs have exercised their matching right to this point.

Furthermore, the matching right was never intended for the purpose of extracting a club a better trade outcome. This is precisely why no club has used it for this purpose, and why there is a compensatory formula in place. It was intended for a situation where a player was open to staying at his club but wanted to fully test the market re his value $$.

This is why no club has matched to date. The system was designed to function for the benefit of the PLAYERS not the clubs. It is a system that both gives and takes, and the Crows will likely have seen both sides of that soon. If Adel were to match it will only militarise and embolden the AFLPA in a year which will require negotiation of a new CBA. This would not be a good outcome for the AFL, and thus it's an outcome I don't expect to happen.

Put simply, Adel matching would require it to go rogue and nuclear on the Free Agency system, and against key stakeholders (AFL, AFLPA). Again, this would be madness and thus it will not happen IMO.

What a load of tosh. Its like you don't think the clubs had to sign off on FA before the AFL introduced it? Its like you think the players run the AFL.
Delusion runs deep in some Cats supporters.

 

[arsene wenger1]

I have seen so many people state Adel must match because the outcome re compensation is unfair. So let me pose them a few questions.

The FREE agency system was designed as a system to promote EASIER movement of players who had given their clubs extended service. If Adel match, and Danger becomes nothing more than an out of contract player, what benefit exactly has his Free Agency status delivered him? Is it fair that his status after 8 years exemplary service, and as a FA, is the same as a James Aish or Jarrad Jansen?

Is it fair or discriminatory that Danger, in the event of a match, should be treated differently to EVERY OTHER Free Agent before him? Was this really how the AFL and AFLPA intended the system to work? Why should the Cats become Guinea pigs in the final 12 months of a system that will likely be further diluted in a years time when a new CBA rolls out? Particularly given precisely ZERO clubs have exercised their matching right to this point.

Furthermore, the matching right was never intended for the purpose of extracting a club a better trade outcome. This is precisely why no club has used it for this purpose, and why there is a compensatory formula in place. It was intended for a situation where a player was open to staying at his club but wanted to fully test the market re his value $$.

This is why no club has matched to date. The system was designed to function for the benefit of the PLAYERS not the clubs. It is a system that both gives and takes, and the Crows will likely have seen both sides of that soon. If Adel were to match it will only militarise and embolden the AFLPA in a year which will require negotiation of a new CBA. This would not be a good outcome for the AFL, and thus it's an outcome I don't expect to happen.

Put simply, Adel matching would require it to go rogue and nuclear on the Free Agency system, and against key stakeholders (AFL, AFLPA). Again, this would be madness and thus it will not happen IMO.

Who said the compo with was unfair? Pretty sure all I've heard is people saying they must get the maximum for him if they can

 

[Defacto]

"On 3AW Dwayne Russell said Adelaide & Geelong have agreed to a deal about Patrick Dangerfield & it will be announced after the Brownlow."

interesting

 

[pinot]

"On 3AW Dwayne Russell said Adelaide & Geelong have agreed to a deal about Patrick Dangerfield & it will be announced after the Brownlow."

interesting

Another example of player managers having big mouths

 

[halfback dasher]

"On 3AW Dwayne Russell said Adelaide & Geelong have agreed to a deal about Patrick Dangerfield & it will be announced after the Brownlow."

interesting

Got to be BS !! After all the Cats fans here on BF have all told us all they WILL get him as a RFA and won't be giving anything up for him .....in Cats fans I trust

 

[STP18]

As I posted on the Geelong board, If the rumours going around are correct and it is a contract of 800k over 5 years, that would most likely be considered 'unders' on an open market, so if the result of getting a player like Dangerfield for such a 'modest' contract means we have to give up a couple of picks, then so be it.

Sure we could go for a godfather deal in the range of 1.2m+ to get him for 'free' and save our picks, but such a contract may do more harm than good in the long run when the next wave of signings occur in 2-3 years and we have to squeeze out a Motlop or Kolodjashnij because Dangerfield is on such a large pay packet. So in essence that 400k or so that we save is in itself the difference between holding onto a couple of key players or losing them, which is more valuable to us than a couple of mid/late first round picks.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cockatoo + 2015 1st rounder + 2016 2nd rounder is about fair value imo

Fair and what we give up will be two different things in regards to Cockatoo. Not going to happen. He's staying put.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

Fair and what we give up will be two different things in regards to Cockatoo. Not going to happen. He's staying put.

Considering geelong traded last year to go up in the draft a few spots (IIRC) they obviously valued getting cockatoo.

 

[grassrootsfooty]

I have seen so many people state Adel must match because the outcome re compensation is unfair. So let me pose them a few questions.

The FREE agency system was designed as a system to promote EASIER movement of players who had given their clubs extended service. If Adel match, and Danger becomes nothing more than an out of contract player, what benefit exactly has his Free Agency status delivered him? Is it fair that his status after 8 years exemplary service, and as a FA, is the same as a James Aish or Jarrad Jansen?

Is it fair or discriminatory that Danger, in the event of a match, should be treated differently to EVERY OTHER Free Agent before him? Was this really how the AFL and AFLPA intended the system to work? Why should the Cats become Guinea pigs in the final 12 months of a system that will likely be further diluted in a years time when a new CBA rolls out? Particularly given precisely ZERO clubs have exercised their matching right to this point.

Furthermore, the matching right was never intended for the purpose of extracting a club a better trade outcome. This is precisely why no club has used it for this purpose, and why there is a compensatory formula in place. It was intended for a situation where a player was open to staying at his club but wanted to fully test the market re his value $$.

This is why no club has matched to date. The system was designed to function for the benefit of the PLAYERS not the clubs. It is a system that both gives and takes, and the Crows will likely have seen both sides of that soon. If Adel were to match it will only militarise and embolden the AFLPA in a year which will require negotiation of a new CBA. This would not be a good outcome for the AFL, and thus it's an outcome I don't expect to happen.

Put simply, Adel matching would require it to go rogue and nuclear on the Free Agency system, and against key stakeholders (AFL, AFLPA). Again, this would be madness and thus it will not happen IMO.

What are you going on about the AFL and AFLPA set up Restricted Free Agency not the clubs FFS so why would they care

Oh that's right someone wrote the rules down wrong and they didn't mean it

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Considering geelong traded last year to go up in the draft a few spots (IIRC) they obviously valued getting cockatoo.

Hence why he's not going anywhere. Adelaide posters can get their tin foil hats out about a conspiracy all they like. Nakia is going absolutely nowhere. The no.5 doesn't get handed out at my club to a player we're in Cahootz to trade away 12 months later.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

For the 186th time, why would Dangerfield stay in Adelaide if a trade fell through?

By accepting a FA offer he is telling the Crows that he wants to leave.

The chances of him doing a backflip a fortnight later and re-signing is .000000001%, and even if he did, would you really want your highest paid and highest profile player to be someone who clearly doesn't want to be there?

Boom fpm. Truth bomb alert!

 

[Two Planks]

Considering geelong traded last year to go up in the draft a few spots (IIRC) they obviously valued getting cockatoo.

Cats traded up last year to get DeGoey or Pickett. They only decided to take Cockatoo a day before the draft.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yet still managed to knock off the Cats in Geelong............

Well done you beat our ressies

 

[SA_Hawker]

Not sure if legal but here it goes...

Adelaide don't match and get compo as Pick 14 they already have 13.

Geelong then trade pick 9 to Adelaide for something(not sure what) because Adelaide didn't match the offer, Good will on Cats behalf.

Crows then have Picks 9, 13, 14. Purely as Hypothetical... Those 3 picks may net them Gold coasts pick #3(Francis) and Bennel.

Just spit ballin.

I'm not entirely sure but didn't norf Melbourne and st kilda do something similar with Dal santo