Should Dangerfield have won the MVP??

[iameviljez]

DO you think Geelong will win a premiership because they have a player like Danger who should be on at least 1.5million playing for 800K?

It certainly helps. Not having to do a Blumfield/Caracella/Hardwick and drop good players due to a salary cap squeeze is generally considered a positive.

It also allowed us to have a decent crack at trading in for other experienced players like Scott Selwood.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Because fair distribution is about market rates not manipulation through collusion!!

What are you on about

 

[TiggerMan22]

It certainly helps. Not having to do a Blumfield/Caracella/Hardwick and drop good players due to a salary cap squeeze is generally considered a positive.

Whats up with offering Menzel a shit contract then?

 

[Mr Magic]

What are you on about

the real world versus ponzi schemes!!

 

[iameviljez]

Whats up with offering Menzel a shit contract then?

Who knows?
Not sure if it's salary cap squeeze, a question of what they feel he's worth, or whether the Menzel camp is overvaluing his own contribution.
He's a good player, but gee he can go missing at times.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Second biggest.


#tuohy

Third biggest.

#SelwoodbeingAA

 

[PhatBoy]

You know talk of Ablett JNR being better than Ablett SNR is ridiculous but arguably Dangerfield could be better than Ablett SNR as his career unfolds.

What Geelong pays versus the fair dispersion of talent are totally different concepts like with GSW!!

This sounds like hysteria but it is ALMOST not far off the mark.

What made senior such a great player was his sheer uniqueness. No other player was like him. He could play FF as well as the specialists - two all time greats in Dunstall and Lockett played their whole careers there and still got overshadowed to some degree. But he could run better than they could, win ball up the ground better than they could, was a better contested mark, faster etc etc.

Now since he retired, the only really unique player from the superstar bracket has probably been Buddy. Realistically you could probably plonk him anywhere bar ruck and he'd be a game changer. Maybe not as a key defender but yeah, you get the idea.

But he is missing one thing that Dangerfield has, and that's sheer speed. As we know for his size buddy is a great runner but he's not as quick as Dangerfield.

So while Danger probably doesn't have the goal sense of buddy, he is a more valuable all round asset and his goal kicking ability seems to be improving all the time.

I don't really see a reason why he can't be around the 50 goal mark for the rest of his career, still getting 25-30 per game. That would make him a very similar player to pre-FF Gaz Senior.

Who knows, maybe they will park him up there permanently when he gets to 31-32.



*I would have included Fyfe in this same discussion pre-broken leg.

 

[1990crow]

Are you disappointed Danger has apparently seemed to try harder playing for Geelong than when at Adelaide??

Not really. We are a better team without the one man team, Danger.

 

[iameviljez]

The fact that there has been a massive circle jerk around Dusty winning the Brownlow and Danger not being in that conversation really helped Martin win.

I think that's true, but we haven't really had two such incredibly dominant players head-and-shoulders above the competition since perhaps Ablett and Carey in '94. Not even Voss, Hird and Buckley in 2001 could flick the switch to "beast mode" like Martin and Danger.

 

[AG]

I think the result was correct, the margin of votes between the two was surprising though. Martin has had a slightly better season than Dangerfield.

It's a best player or the year award, we spend too much time worrying about the definition of "most valuable". I wish they would change the name to be honest.

 

[STPer18]

Because fair distribution is about market rates not manipulation through collusion!!

Otherwise it is not a sporting competition but a political one based on power relationships and negotiation tactics!!

It's called making your club a decent place to be at. North are offering half the competition massive contracts, but no one seems to want to go there, alternatively, Geelong at it's peak, and Hawthorn for that matter, brought in players for low contracts because players genuinely wanted to play for them. You can't start punishing clubs for being well-run and having a positive environment. Equalisation is already aiming to do that.

 

[Wojcinski]

Not really. We are a better team without the one man team, Danger.

LOL

 

[iameviljez]

Actually I think players should be independently rated money wise making up the salary cap for the club from the consensus of a wide ranging committee and market. For example if another club wanted Danger for 1.5 million regardless of him staying at Geelong for 800K that should be the salary price to stop organisations being player ponzi schemes and returning back to being competitive clubs!! For example assume all players are freely available each year on open market which players go where and who makes up the club mix based on market value. So if Dangers real value is 1.5 million that club who pays that what do they pay to each player relatively speaking making up the rest of their list??

For example Golden State Warriors win the NBA simply because of players accepting lower salary fitting a better list in the cap!!! First that had Curry on a lowball contract, now they have Durant lowballing

... which is their right to do. If the club and player have a good enough relationship that the player is happy to sacrifice in the name of team success, that's reasonable and fair.

A Ponzi scheme is nothing like players accepting wages under their actual value to keep the team together. A Ponzi scheme would be if Martin got Townsend and Caddy to pay his wage, and then Caddy signed on Rioli and Bolton to pay his wage, and... basically, a Ponzi scheme is a financial system that relies solely on growth to cover operational costs.

 

[Tiggytigers]

if he should've won it he would've... but the players made it pretty clear that they think martin is the best

 

[Mr Magic]

... which is their right to do. If the club and player have a good enough relationship that the player is happy to sacrifice in the name of team success, that's reasonable and fair.

A Ponzi scheme is nothing like players accepting wages under their actual value to keep the team together. A Ponzi scheme would be if Martin got Townsend and Caddy to pay his wage, and then Caddy signed on Rioli and Bolton to pay his wage, and... basically, a Ponzi scheme is a financial system that relies solely on growth to cover operational costs.

But that is just it.

See people are not watching the Geelong football club.

They are watching political negotiations between Danger and others to promote his success.

If Geelong win the premiership this year I do not regard it a win for the Geelong football club. I regard it a win for Dangerfields political aspirations partly derived from salary cap manipulation!! For example the Crows where not adequate compensated for Danger and if they where they should have a definitely stronger squad facing Geelong next week!! IMO Dangerfield interest in the media is separately indirectly linked to supplementing or subsiding his actual Geelong player competitive salary in order for Dangerfield and his teammates to gain on field performance advantage to the detriment of other clubs and players in the competition. For example Adelaide Crows are less likely to win a premiership this year because of the poor trade result for Adelaide from the poor compensation they received from Danger. Likewise West Coast got a lowball compo for a known effort provider when fit in Scott Selwood likewise, Gold Coast got little for Smith and Henderson and Tuohy involvements hardly suggest Geelong's success is club orientated and organic!!

The Ponzi scheme is not so simply defined. Ponzi schemes can be anything separate from market reality(which forges genuine competition) so it could be contrived results through player manipulation separate to market value driving competition to the extent that the manipulation was so significant it determined the result separate from pure competitive performance on the field. For example Golden State Warriors won their title off the field at the trade and list management area, the players just had to turn up!

For example Hawtorn had the zoning premierships, Geelong the father son premierships with little to do with on field competitive performance apart from a reasonable effort not to mention the COLA and other expansion influences in the competition. Arguably Geelong's recent record has been more attributed to Stephen Wells than anybody else especially any culture club input!

 

[iameviljez]

If Geelong win the premiership this year I do not regard it a win for the Geelong football club. I regard it a win for Dangerfields political aspirations partly derived from salary cap manipulation!! For example the Crows where not adequate compensated for Danger and if they where they should have a definitely stronger squad facing Geelong next week!!

That's not collusion, that's just sacrifice. Collusion would be if two organisations quietly agreed to distort what should be a competitive relationship - such as two clubs playing each other before the finals agreed to both rest their best players. Dangerfield and the GFC are supposed to be working together.

The Crows play by the exact same rules that we do.

The Ponzi scheme is not so simply defined. Ponzi schemes can be anything separate from market reality(which forges genuine competition) so it could be contrived results through player manipulation separate to market value driving competition to the extent that the manipulation was so significant it determined the result separate from pure competitive performance on the field. For example Golden State Warriors won their title off the field at the trade and list management area, the players just had to turn up!

No, a Ponzi scheme is literally where operations are sustained purely through recruitment and growth. To quote Wikipedia:
"A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒn.zi/; also a Ponzi game)[1] is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading"

 

[Mr Magic]

That's not collusion, that's just sacrifice. Collusion would be if two organisations quietly agreed to distort what should be a competitive relationship - such as two clubs playing each other before the finals agreed to both rest their best players. Dangerfield and the GFC are supposed to be working together.

The Crows play by the exact same rules that we do.

No, a Ponzi scheme is literally where operations are sustained purely through recruitment and growth. To quote Wikipedia:
"A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒn.zi/; also a Ponzi game)[1] is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading"

That definition of ponzi is not exclusive.

Furthermorere who is we??? What makes you think we are even talking about organisations???

When Miami Heat officially won the NBA was it a victory for the Miami Heat or the big 3 including Lebron? Why are you so definitive and naive??

BTW I never said anything was collusion I said a number of things where separate from market reality and separate from onfield club versus club performance!!

For example its called a MVP and yet even a poster on this thread refers it to really a best player award which clearly it is not so titled!!

One thing I do believe is whatever the result next week, Adelaide represent more of a competitive on field football club than the Geelong representation IMO with the later far less WYSIWYG.

 

[iameviljez]

Furthermorere who is we??? What makes you think we are even talking about organisations???

When Miami Heat officially won the NBA was it a victory for the Miami Heat or the big 3 including Lebron? Why are you so definitive and naive??

BTW I never said anything was collusion I said a number of things where separate from market reality and separate from onfield club versus club performance!!

For example its called a MVP and yet even a poster on this thread refers it to really a best player award which clearly it is not so titled!!

One thing I do believe is whatever the result next week, Adelaide represent more of a competitive on field football club than the Geelong representation IMO.

Did the shop run out of full stops?

 

[scarecrow2k1]

A player plays well in a final so we should change an award that's decided on the home and away season?

 

[Mr Magic]

Did the shop run out of full stops?

I am not in the market for one at the moment.

Whats the price?? Are you offering something??

 

[Sttew]

NO

He might have flashes of brilliance. But he also has flashes of inconsistency.

He was also suspended this season

Inconsistency? What planet are you on??

As for being suspended, you're right. Danger is a thug and the AFL has to stamp out thuggery

 

[Xtreme]

Inconsistency? What planet are you on

Oh really so his disposal effeciency is always perfect.... not like it was in the 30s and 40s against the Tigers in the QF. Must have been another player wearing 35 that kept on kicking the ball out on the full!!

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Actually I think players should be independently rated money wise making up the salary cap for the club from the consensus of a wide ranging committee and market. For example if another club wanted Danger for 1.5 million regardless of him staying at Geelong for 800K that should be the salary price to stop organisations being player ponzi schemes and returning back to being competitive clubs!! For example assume all players are freely available each year on open market which players go where and who makes up the club mix based on market value. So if Dangers real value is 1.5 million that club who pays that what do they pay to each player relatively speaking making up the rest of their list??

For example Golden State Warriors win the NBA simply because of players accepting lower salary fitting a better list in the cap!!! First that had Curry on a lowball contract, now they have Durant lowballing

Sorry but completely disagree. Players take less so the team can succeed. It's a team sport. Not an individual sport. Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn all won multiple flags because the gun players took less money so they could stay together. Sacrifice for the team is what it's about.

 

[Ricketz]

Not really. We are a better team without the one man team, Danger.

It didn't feel like Danger ever carried your boys.

 

[Mr Magic]

Sorry but completely disagree. Players take less so the team can succeed. It's a team sport. Not an individual sport. Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn all won multiple flags because the gun players took less money so they could stay together. Sacrifice for the team is what it's about.

What you don't realise is the Geelong football club lacks soul!!! It took me a while to pinpoint this. I speculate its a regional cultural thing born from dependency.

This explains why they got close without winning it with good teams with G Ablett Snr even though they were up against it versus Hawthorn zoning efforts!! They only started win after acquiring a ridiculous amount of talent via Wells and losses to Sydney from Davis's goal spree late! It probably explains with Ablett Jnr left and his recent behaviour apparently wanting to come back!

The fact is when Geelong becomes a real football club thats when Billy Brownless punches Gary Lyon in the mouth in public and then kicks him in the balls!!! SO it is not going to happen for a good while yet!!! For example Geelong could never win like the Pies won in 1990 versus Essendon!

this is another reason why Geelong are so reliant on Dangerfield. They do not believe in themselves enough with their own flaws they need to look to Danger for inspiration!!!

What you can't see is Danger takes less so better individuals can come in and play with the other players, teamwork has nothing to do with it at Geelong!! Then again Brisbane in particular was a good team of individuals to and hardly a gun team in terms of teamwork with individuals like Aker running amok and why Voss failed so badly initially as a coach!!