It's not just the club, it seems to be the supporters too.

An Essendon supporting relative of mine (sad, I know) exclaimed that they shouldn't give Ryder up for anything less than a top 5 pick and a good player. What a joke.

Do they not realise he can just walk with EFC getting no compensation?

WRONG again pal. Check the dates again, I had this information before the press got hold of it!

I take it you won't or haven't got the "Balls" to take up my offer then you microscopic myopic entity!

Irrelevant? Sheeit didn't know that there was a ranking system in place here! Your importance however cannot be questioned given your preeminent status of self proclaimed know all on this forum. Can I suggest another Avator for you... "King Billy Coke Bottle" ... yes that might just about do it!

AND just to keep to the thread, there is no way on this planet, or in this or any other alternate reality that Dangerfield will be playing with us.

Take up an offer from a sad old senile fool from you? You'll be lucky to last long on this site the way your churning out the Kms at this rate.

And its spelt 'avatar' fool

back to the neighborhood house you go.

Do they not realise he can just walk with EFC getting no compensation?

Clearly not.

Bahahaha essendon demanded Ollie wines for Ryder and got told to [censored]

Good to see they've kept their slapstick approach to trading.

Good lord

I'd block Picket but he's just too much fun to read

Do they not realise he can just walk with EFC getting no compensation?

I had read Ryder wanted Essendon to get adequate compensation (I might be wrong)

But if push comes to shove and the bombers play hardball he may have look at the option of breaking his contract (due to the supplements scandal) and walking........ but there would be more costly legal battles there. So unless The bombers refuse to let Ryder go via trade request then I would expect him to be traded to his destination of choice

I had read Ryder wanted Essendon to get adequate compensation (I might be wrong)

If that is true it just doesn't make sense that a player leaves a club becuase he was poorly/improperly looked after yet he wants them to be compensated?

If that is true it just doesn't make sense that a player leaves a club becuase he was poorly/improperly looked after yet he wants them to be compensated?

Would suggest that one,he knows he is contracted and two, he doesn't want the supporters to hate him.

Who cares about Ryder? Wrong thread.

It's not just the club, it seems to be the supporters too.

An Essendon supporting relative of mine (sad, I know) exclaimed that they shouldn't give Ryder up for anything less than a top 5 pick and a good player. What a joke.

Ryder’s a good player, who had a very good season, but did I miss the part where he ascended to Wayne Carey status and started winning matches off his own boot?

Bahahaha essendon demanded Ollie wines for Ryder and got told to [censored]

They must be on drugs.

Melbourne looking to draft Ryder? I thought this was the Dangerfield thread.

Not worth pick 3 - are you kidding? why do people continually overrate draft picks.

Lets look at the last 10 pick 3s and tell me how many are better than Frawley? I would say Griffen and Martin (who every club appear to reject last year), with Tysons one good year putting him up for discussion. He easily beats the rest, can take key forwards and comprehensively beat them.

People somehow think pick 3 would be a guaranteed star, that Frawley is sh1te and we're getting over compensated.

This is far from the truth. I think if people were truthful and this was a normal trade, they would baulk at Frawley for pick 3.

2004 Ryan Griffen

2005 Xavier Ellis

2006 Lachie Hansen

2007 Chris Masten

2008 Stephen Hill

2009 Dustin Martin

2010 Sam Day

2011 Dom Tyson

2012 Lachlan Plowman

2013 Jack Billings

This exactly the reason why it staggers me that people won't give up our early pick(s) for Dangerfield. Even at pick 3 it's absolutely no certainty to get a great player. Most of those guys are good players, but not one of them is amongst the cream of the competition (as Dangerfield is). Hill and Martin come close.

Imagine if we had picks 2 and 3 and picked up the equivalent of Lachie Hansen and Chris Masten?

(The quote above comes from the Peter Jackson thread on the main board but my reply clearly relates to Dangerfield)

They also apparently wanted Pearse Handley from Brisbane. Idiots.

...and we want Pendles from Collingwood for Clark.

This exactly the reason why it staggers me that people won't give up our early pick(s) for Dangerfield. Even at pick 3 it's absolutely no certainty to get a great player. Most of those guys are good players, but not one of them is amongst the cream of the competition (as Dangerfield is). Hill and Martin come close.

Imagine if we had picks 2 and 3 and picked up the equivalent of Lachie Hansen and Chris Masten?

(The quote above comes from the Peter Jackson thread on the main board but my reply clearly relates to Dangerfield)

There is a massive discrepency between the value of a top pick and the reality of what it is usually worth. In particular, people put so much emphasis on the gap between all the top picks when in reality it is very small.

Edited September 24, 201410 yr by Clint Bizkit

, people put so much emphasis on the gap between all the top picks when in reality it is very small.

or the gulf is a million miles wide - the trouble is, prior to the player playing a couple of seasons at senior levels it is anyone's guess if the gap will be minuscule or grand Canyonesque

There is a massive discrepency between the value of a top pick and the reality of what it is usually worth. n particular, people put so much emphasis on the gap between all the top picks when in reality it is very small.

I agree Clint. I've said it in the thread already, supporters massively overrate the value of draft picks. Roos has even said a similar thing himself I believe.

It's why I thought at the time that surrendering pick 20 and 2 for Tyson and 9 was a bloody fantastic deal at the time. I saw downgrading 2 to 9 as a very minor change - just as likely to get a good player in the 6-10 range as you are 1-5, so it amounted to Pick 20 for Tyson and loose change.

It's the sort of thing I'm hoping for in this trade, if it happens.

There is a massive discrepency between the value of a top pick and the reality of what it is usually worth. n particular, people put so much emphasis on the gap between all the top picks when in reality it is very small.

The irony being Dangerfield was Pick 10...

Melbourne looking to draft Ryder? I thought this was the Dangerfield thread.

Paddy 'Danger' Ryder, that's who we're talking about..

Paddy 'Danger' Ryder, that's who we're talking about..

Riders nick name should be Night

Edited September 24, 201410 yr by binman

Too many Paddy's, it's just getting confusing.

Might explain Pickets recent outbursts.

or the gulf is a million miles wide - the trouble is, prior to the player playing a couple of seasons at senior levels it is anyone's guess if the gap will be minuscule or grand Canyonesque

Yep, it's either/or depending on the results.

It's odd how people tend to view future drafts without looking back at how things have panned out previously. Aren't we supposed to learn from history? ... or maybe people are taking that saying "Never look back" a tad too far.

The momentum for Petracca has slowed dramatically since we've heard the Dangerfield rumours and the rumour that the Saints might take Petracca with their first pick.

Petracca has gone from the next "big thing" to ... who's Petracca? (the Petracca thread is now on the 2nd page in the Draft and trading board) One minute he's the savior of our midfield woes and next minute ...

According to an article in today's paper, Saints can't give away their first pick.

I was talking about the rumour that the Saints might draft Petracca with the no.1 pick and the effects there on.

That story mentions that they've put the no.1 pick on the table - they still can or could draft Petracca if they wish.

My observation was that the Petracca thread hasn't been posted on for over a week and all things considered, that seems a bit strange considering how many here are/were enamoured with him.

Dangerfield, Gray, Parker, Fyfe, Ablett,

Highest pick is Dangerfield at pick 10

Dangerfield, gray, Parker, fyfe, ablett,

Highest pick is Dangerfield at pick 10

Ablett compromised because of Father/Son. Would've gone high. Obviously there are great players from a range of picks.

Looking at the Player Ratings on the AFL website.

Ablett Compromised

Pendlebury Pick 5

Selwood Pick 7

Dangerfield Pick 10

Griffin Pick 3

Harvey Pick 46 (about 1000 years ago)

Sloane Pick 44

Franklin Pick 5

Fyfe Pick 20

Boak Pick 5

Top 10 players in the comp rating-wise and 7 of them are top 10 picks.