I would have said that 9 year contracts were from a bygone era that never existed (save for Lynch), but Buddy blew that up...

If Dangerfield is earning a million when he is 28 in 2018, he will be well worth it.

Wages are getting higher.

The cap is increasing by $400k a year of late.

The best players are going to get some coin. A million for Dangerfield will be his worth soon enough.

Doesn't mean we have to pay it though, rpfc. If a $milllion a year for Dangerfield takes up some Adelaide cap that pushes out a decent player or two for them or prevents them from going after one of our guys, I'll be happy.

Doesn't mean we have to pay it though, rpfc. If a $milllion a year for Dangerfield takes up some Adelaide cap that pushes out a decent player or two for them or prevents them from going after one of our guys, I'll be happy.

And we then sign Tex.

To contradict what I said earlier was impressed with Danger today - not a great game by his standards but showed real G& D today trying to lift the Crowes despite playing hurt. Great leadership I thought.

I'd rather offer it to Fyfe if anyone 2 years younger and imo a better player

Why would we waste that much money, Look for the next Dom Tyson id say.

Also a young tall forward to work in tandem with Hogan.

Tom Lynch, Dion Prestia, and... well whatever Roos wants i'm cool with

Tom Lynch, Dion Prestia, and... well whatever Roos wants i'm cool with

Yeah Prestia would be good addition.

Did the Herald Sun really let this Rubbish article get printed?

What a Joke!!

.....I like Crawf...

Hall started at Swannies in 02...Roos took over in ...yep 2002

Does make for an interesting what if though

Is it possible that wallace wanted a hall type?

before all the coaching stuff hit the fan up there. & Roos took the job?

Not the right path for us and not the way Roos works. It must breed resentment as has been shown in the past.

My other concern with rapid accelerators is that their hamstrings are prone to ping and they're never quite the same again.

Too risky in the long term.

thats true with the hammy's. so we don't want to spend up big on super fast twitchers, 2nd Rnd picks, or trades for not too much.

I wonder what Demonlanders would think of going after a Dangerfield type at the end of 2015 or 2016. We're still a few years off being capable of challenging, so at the moment it becomes about perhaps a conservative approach. Build the culture and work out what we have on the list already. But in one or two off seasons, we'll know exactly what we still lack. I wonder what attitudes would be at that point.

I'd like to have a crack at Gary Rohan the next time he's out of contract.

And we then sign Tex.

or one of their running players. if tex re-signs.

I'd rather offer it to Fyfe if anyone 2 years younger and imo a better player

I'd go after Fyfe too, but NO $1m a yr plays for anybody.

No premiership side that I know of have had a $1m player in their ranks; the best teams eg Geelong, have players taking 'below market price' so they can build a formidable team.

To contradict what I said earlier was impressed with Danger today - not a great game by his standards but showed real G& D today trying to lift the Crowes despite playing hurt. Great leadership I thought.

what chance the irony, that Chip re-signs with us, & the Crows finish in an ordinary fashion & Danger leaves them? back to Vic. does Crawf want us to force the price up on Danger, so the Cats hav to over spend on him?

what would this do to our chances of holding Chip if we chase Danger with fists of $$$

agree with the concept, he's exactly the sort of player we need. not like we've got a team of superstars we're struggling to keep, we surely have the money to throw around. that said, $10 mil is too much.. I reckon 5 years $5 million

with dunn/TMac/Georgiou etc. stepping up and Hogan to come in, frawley leaving wouldn't be the end of the world. we could potentially get a first round pick for him and use his money (which would probably be overs anyway) on dangerfield

agree with the concept, he's exactly the sort of player we need. not like we've got a team of superstars we're struggling to keep, we surely have the money to throw around. that said, $10 mil is too much.. I reckon 5 years $5 million

with dunn/TMac/Georgiou etc. stepping up and Hogan to come in, frawley leaving wouldn't be the end of the world. we could potentially get a first round pick for him and use his money (which would probably be overs anyway) on dangerfield

No, no, you're new around here, don't go voicing your opinion when the majority of the posters on this forum disagree, you'll get punished, I know, i too was once the new kid on the block.

Not wanting to do your jobs for you or anything mods, but this thread is sounding suspiciously like the 'Players to target at the end of the year'.

Dangerfield is great, but I'd much rather scoop the GWS talent pool.

This.

All the best deals will come from the franchise clubs, thats for sure. There is no way to hold on to that massive pool of talent, and there will be bargains galore to pick and choose from.

I'd go after Fyfe too, but NO $1m a yr plays for anybody.

No premiership side that I know of have had a $1m player in their ranks; the best teams eg Geelong, have players taking 'below market price' so they can build a formidable team.

Alright, I am going to scoot right past the point that the cap has increased by about $400k a year for half a decade and the fact that Geelong started its reign in 2007 ($7m) and when they last won the flag in 2011 ($8.2m), or the fact that next year it will break past $10m.

I am going to not mention those points but instead focus on the ability of Geelong to bring all their very good players through the same couple of drafts. It is much easier to do this when you can bring players reaching their potential at the same time to sacrifice for the greater good. For us we have our good players spread over years - some at the peak of their powers like Jones and Frawley and some who are just beginning to see their power like Tyson and Viney. Getting this group to sacrifice for each other will be tougher.

Another aspect that makes salary sacrifice hard - we still don't have a wide range of talent to pay. We have some bright spots on our list but they will be well paid due to the fact that there are some dark spots on the list as well. You have to reach the cap minimum which means that we are going to have over paid players - it's just the nature of the cap system for teams with a lack of top end talent in the prime of their career.

What a ridiculous article.... This is something a 12 yearly old would post on Big Footy.

Great comment.

Is Crawford writing this because he knows that we will have a significant amount we won't be needing to pay Frawley?

I would normally not waste a small part of my life reading a Crawford article, but that fact he is a Hawthorn man, and is telling US what to do with all this money that we apparently have, then I can't help but not take a small interest in his words this time.

Is Crawford writing this because he knows that we will have a significant amount we won't be needing to pay Frawley?

I would normally not waste a small part of my life reading a Crawford article, but that fact he is a Hawthorn man, and is telling US what to do with all this money that we apparently have, then I can't help but not take a small interest in his words this time.

Exactly what I thought too, but I still don't think he'll leave.

Is Crawford writing this because he knows that we will have a significant amount we won't be needing to pay Frawley?

I would normally not waste a small part of my life reading a Crawford article, but that fact he is a Hawthorn man, and is telling US what to do with all this money that we apparently have, then I can't help but not take a small interest in his words this time.

I think we'll have a significant amount available as we won't be paying Mitch Clark, nor will we be paying the full salary cap.

Mind you, if Frawley did walk, we may be in a position where we have to hand out a big contract or 2 just to make the minimum salary cap % paid.

I think we'll have a significant amount available as we won't be paying Mitch Clark, nor will we be paying the full salary cap.

Mind you, if Frawley did walk, we may be in a position where we have to hand out a big contract or 2 just to make the minimum salary cap % paid.

Why write an article about Melbourne? Why on their "bye" week? Why write about a player playing in the Sunday twilight spot?

Plenty of other things that could've been written about, hence why I had some interest in what was said, or perhaps what wasn't said. May very well be nothing.