Patrick Dangerfield

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Nicely selected half a sentence and then presented out of context!

it's completely in context

You want to keep a pick instead of geting a star

What part is out of context

[rjay 23,997]

You don't trade 2 top picks for one player.

[dazzledavey36 49,175]

2 and 3 are way overs for Danger. He is a game breaker yes.. but he is 25 years old who isn't exactly got a fully fit body atm. We will be lucky to get 5 years out of him.

Either save one pick for a Brayshaw/Petracca Deal with GWS for a Shiel or Trelor. These guys atleast will be 10 year players.

If pick 2 and 3 go to Danger I will be very annoyed.

[rjay 23,997]

If pick 2 and 3 go to Danger I will be very annoyed.

...and very surprised 'dazzle'. Can't see it happening.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

2 and 3 are way overs for Danger. He is a game breaker yes.. but he is 25 years old who isn't exactly got a fully fit body atm. We will be lucky to get 5 years out of him.

Either save one pick for a Brayshaw/Petracca Deal with GWS for a Shiel or Trelor. These guys atleast will be 10 year players.

If pick 2 and 3 go to Danger I will be very annoyed.

If, and it's a big if, we were actually in the running for Danger and the Crows wanted two first rounders - I could see us doing a Tyson type trade where Pick 3 becomes, for example, Pick 9-10-11 with a player of value also coming back our way. Then we trade Pick 2 and, say, Pick 10 for Dangerfield while also still having netted another good young player from the earlier trade. I'd be more comfortable with that.

[Wunders 389]

I would do pick 2+3 for Dangerfield and their first pick (maybe a swap of later picks too to get in a better position)..

But id be waiting to see what other clubs offer and then we can trump it if its worth it (maybe pick 2 and second round alone could do it etc).

[pitchfork 181]

If when it's all said and done we shifted 2,3, toumpas/trengove for danger and shiel...I'd be over the moon. 1st trade: get player and pick, 2nd trade: move the pick with the other stuff

[binman 39,031]

Id do pick 2+3 for Dangerfield and their first pick (maybe a swap of later picks too to get in a better position)..

Me too. Pick 2 and 3 for Danger and their pick 10 would be great. I understand the view that there is a big opportunity cost with that call (though offset somewhat if you think pick 10 ends up being comparable to pick 3 - a relatively common scenario) but i for one am sick of not having an out an out mid field star.

I should couch that by saying that by dint of hard work Jones is now up there (and it is ridiculous that with this numbers he didn't make the AA team, or the squad at the least) but Danger is one of the bets 10 players in the league and one of my favorites. I would love him at the dees and he would instantly bring our mid field (by far are weakest area) up a couple of rungs and therefore dramatically increase our chances of winning games.

The other thing is as Roos recognises we don't have the luxury of drafting a potential gun and waiting 4-5 years for him to get to AA level (which is what we need). We need to win some games and we need a player like Danger who can come in and make an impact straight away.

Do it.

[Bang Bang Bang 5,548]

I remember this forum when we all thought Judd was coming to Melbourne back in 2007... posters then were saying pick 4, 14 and 21 (the mooted price for a trade) was way over the odds.

Well, those picks turned out to be Cale Morton, Jack Grimes and Addam Maric. In terms of output since then, Judd beats them hands down!

I can see similar rumblings emerging here. pick 2 and 3 for Dangerfield is a premium price, but you're getting 6+ years from a guarenteed, bonafide superstar. The draft picks may amount to superstars or they may amount to nothing. I'd be willing.

[Ted Lasso 17,056]

More than happy to cough up 2 and 3 for danger and pick 9 two unknowns for a star and an unknown and often pick 9 gets as good a player as pick 3

[Whispering_Jack 28,052]

Door ajar for Paddy trade

[Moonshadow 16,367]

There is NO WAY KNOWN, that Danegrfield will come to Melb. You blokes are deluding yourselves but carry on! Just hope that when this is exposed as pure folly then the trip down is cushioned by a few tons of mattresses!

Exactly what we've been saying to you about Juice picket!

[Guest]

I understand the hesitancy, but I would willingly give up 2+3 for Dangerfield.

It's not just what he brings on the field. Yes, he would immediately improve us on game day - but his marketability is a key factor for me. We need bums on seats, and star power is the best way to go about it. Financial success ultimately opens the door for greater on-field success.

We need to become an attractive free agent destination to become/stay relevant in the current AFL landscape; it's the way the game is going.

What also needs to be factored in is the retention of our own OOC players. Pick 2 & 3 likely won't deliver us an abundance of success for at least 2-3 years whilst they develop into legitimate AFL players - in that time, we have quality players coming out of contract. If they see we still haven't legitimately improved by say, the end of 2016, they could want out too.

It's a dangerous situation - We need immediate results to stabilise the football club, trading for Dangerfield + bringing in 'oldies' such as your O'Keefe's/Lumumba's/Sewell's/Malceski's is a path I hope we take. If nothing else, it will keep the 'spuds' like Terlich out of the side, minimise the pressure on the likes of Tyson/Trengove/Watts/Viney, whilst allowing Toumpas/Salem etc to develop properly in the two's.

[daisycutter 28,670]

2 paddys on the market.....now that would be a paddy whack

[Demoneyes 562]

You don't trade 2 top picks for one player.

In total agreement!

2 and 3 are way overs for Danger. He is a game breaker yes.. but he is 25 years old who isn't exactly got a fully fit body atm. We will be lucky to get 5 years out of him.

Either save one pick for a Brayshaw/Petracca Deal with GWS for a Shiel or Trelor. These guys atleast will be 10 year players.

If pick 2 and 3 go to Danger I will be very annoyed.

I doubt very much that we would trade 2 & 3 for one player. As I have said previously IF we get 3 then we will organise a trade for that with a player exchange picks etc. Pick 2 could also go in a similar exchange as others are being looked at.

[Pipefitter 2,029]

Surely this isn't happening.

[ignition. 1,421]

For me pick 2 & 3 for Danger alone is paying overs.

Pick 2 & a player (Toumpas or Trengove) for Dangerfield is ideal, leaving pick 3 to scoop Carlton for Tom Mitchell.

Alternatively if the same picks and player as above can be used in a different order e.g Picks 2 & 3 for Dangerfield and Adelaide's Pick 10 which is traded onto Sydney with say Toumpas, I would be happy.

As long as we can acquire two high end players with the proposed picks 2 & 3 I'm happy. Only one will not be good enough for me - play hard ball Dees.

[Robbie57 1,995]

Relatively poor draft this year plus Roos thinks the draft is a lottery (which our experience shows to be true).

If the opposition has to worry about Jones, Vince, Tyson and Danger for starters then our younger brigade will have less heat on them.

We need more maturity in the midfield.

You have to ask what do we really have other than picks to trade with and who will we realistically get with them?

[ignition. 1,421]

Relatively poor draft this year plus Roos thinks the draft is a lottery (which our experience shows to be true).

If the opposition has to worry about Jones, Vince, Tyson and Danger for starters then our younger brigade will have less heat on them.

We need more maturity in the midfield.

You have to ask what do we really have other than picks to trade with and who will we realistically get with them?

Imagine if they had to worry about Jones, Dangerfield*, Vince, Tyson, Mitchell*, and Viney.

Three players in their prime and three GUNS on the improve each year all very likely to one day become A graders.

Our midfield woes would over.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Our midfield woes would over.

and then all our woes would be over - especially with Hogan involved

Roos probably realises the magic wand that this player represents

[Demon Disciple 11,089]

Tom Mitchell from Sydney.

Cheers

[BIG JIM 508]

Forget danger throw pick 2 and 6 million over 6 years at Luke Parker younger and will be better IMO

[Nasher 33,162]

Forget danger throw pick 2 and 6 million over 6 years at Luke Parker younger and will be better IMO

In other words: forget the trade that is looking viable, and go after one you have no hope of pulling off.

[Guest]

Forget danger throw pick 2 and 6 million over 6 years at Luke Parker younger and will be better IMO

What really appeals about Danger is his pace - something our midfield (and team as a whole) desperately, desperately lacks.

Parker is a great player, no doubt (watch him poll well tonight), but he doesn't have the x-factor or marketability that Danger has.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Guest

[Demon Disciple 11,089]

Forget danger throw pick 2 and 6 million over 6 years at Luke Parker younger and will be better IMO

Even though I'd give up picks 2&3 for Parker way before Dangerfield, i still wouldn't do it for Parker. Picks 2&3 are too high a price for any player in the AFL. Period.