Jump to content

Patrick Dangerfield

Featured Replies

 

Calm before the storm...

 

If collingwood get pick 4 for beams , there going to be going hard at Danger.


I find this comment interesting. Sounds like we know we'll trade at least one of pick 2 or 3 (assuming we get pick 3 for Frawley, which we should and Roos sounds pretty angry about the whole free agency debacle, so I'm sure we will), which means we probably already know what deal we wanna do, which could also mean that we are confident we'll get Danger or somebody equally good.

Paul Roos says the club won't bring in too many young players in this year's recruiting period


Would love Danger but IMO Pick 2 & 3 is overs, one of those picks and a player is okay (lets face it if he is leaving next year it is a better deal than they will get now and Pick 2 is a chane at Petracca for them)

I would also consider dealing with GWS Pick 2 and a player or Pick 2 & 3 + player for Pick 4 for a Shiel and Treloar. We need to build depth and whilst Danger is a gun I think we would get Treloar and Shiel for less money than Danger would command and with Pick 4 still think we would get Brayshaw.

I agree, mate. I just can't see GWS giving up their two best mids for more draft picks. They are seemingly keen to spread the age of their list, but they won't give up both of them.

I find this comment interesting. Sounds like we know we'll trade at least one of pick 2 or 3 (assuming we get pick 3 for Frawley, which we should and Roos sounds pretty angry about the whole free agency debacle, so I'm sure we will), which means we probably already know what deal we wanna do, which could also mean that we are confident we'll get Danger or somebody equally good.

Paul Roos says the club won't bring in too many young players in this year's recruiting period

Or it could mean they'll look at all options to get in senior players.... You've just assumed its Danger (extreme positive to extreme negative view haha)

Look I hope he comes but I doubt it, Anywho I don't think anything is going to seriously happen until this thread = 100 pages (just like the clark, frawley and roos threads)

Edited by Unleash Hell

 

I find this comment interesting. Sounds like we know we'll trade at least one of pick 2 or 3 (assuming we get pick 3 for Frawley, which we should and Roos sounds pretty angry about the whole free agency debacle, so I'm sure we will), which means we probably already know what deal we wanna do, which could also mean that we are confident we'll get Danger or somebody equally good.

Paul Roos says the club won't bring in too many young players in this year's recruiting period

I'd be happy with just Brayshaw from the draft and use all the other picks to bring in more experience

Or it could mean they'll look at all options to get in senior players.... You've just assumed its Danger (extreme positive to extreme negative view haha)

Look I hope he comes but I doubt it, Anywho I don't think anything is going to seriously happen until this thread = 100 pages (just like the clark, frawley and roos threads)

It might not be Danger, but I doubt we're just gonna throw Pick 2/3 on the table and take the best deal

We surely have a plan in mind, which is why Roos is so confidently declaring that we won't bring in many young players this year.


It might not be Danger, but I doubt we're just gonna throw Pick 2/3 on the table and take the best deal

We surely have a plan in mind, which is why Roos is so confidently declaring that we won't bring in many young players this year.

I agree, but we are just guessing atm.

It doesn't necessarily mean we will trade pick 2 or 3 or the combination either though. We could just trade late round picks for Harry L and Frost??? There's no solid evidence to suggest what the MFC will do atm.

Anyway i do think you're right - I'd be surprised if we have 2 top 10 picks by the end of the trade period

I find this comment interesting. Sounds like we know we'll trade at least one of pick 2 or 3 (assuming we get pick 3 for Frawley, which we should and Roos sounds pretty angry about the whole free agency debacle, so I'm sure we will), which means we probably already know what deal we wanna do, which could also mean that we are confident we'll get Danger or somebody equally good.

Paul Roos says the club won't bring in too many young players in this year's recruiting period

Brayshaw and Stretch will do just fine, thanks!

Would love Danger but IMO Pick 2 & 3 is overs, one of those picks and a player is okay (lets face it if he is leaving next year it is a better deal than they will get now and Pick 2 is a chane at Petracca for them)

I would also consider dealing with GWS Pick 2 and a player or Pick 2 & 3 + player for Pick 4 for a Shiel and Treloar. We need to build depth and whilst Danger is a gun I think we would get Treloar and Shiel for less money than Danger would command and with Pick 4 still think we would get Brayshaw.

what about P-2, 3, & 22; for Shiel, Jaksch, Pick-4 & Frost ?

Roos just said at a draft camp interview which is on another thread that we would not be offering pick 2 & 3 for Dangerfield. He made comments about how players would be traded the year before their contract ended to avoid FA and said if Dangerfield decided to leave that we with many other clubs would be chasing him.

Edited by Grand New Flag


If Adelaide don't get a commitment from PD within the first couple of days of trade period they will offer him up. Without a commitment he will just be another Frawley and walk to a flag contender next season.

If Adelaide don't get a commitment from PD within the first couple of days of trade period they will offer him up. Without a commitment he will just be another Frawley and walk to a flag contender next season.

Or Collingwood.

Or Collingwood.

Hopefully Melbourne. :)

Without a commitment he will just be another Frawley and walk to a flag contender next season.

... with appropriate compensation, which would be first round. Not as if they'll lose him for nothing.


... with appropriate compensation, which would be first round. Not as if they'll lose him for nothing.

Of course but I doubt it will be nowhere near as good the offer from us and unless the Crows think they're in top 4 contention then you'd reckon they'd move him.

I like the way Goodwin said "If players of Patty’s calibre were keen on that, then we’re certainly very open to the idea of trying to get someone in over the free agency period at some stage over the next few years."

Meaning if we don't get him next year we'll have another go (along with many others) next year...

I wrote in to the Sammy's who were doing the trade talk on the HS website about the Dangerfield trade, they seemed to think that it was still a high possibility for the reasons we have mentioned about Adelaide's compensation next year. According to them Dangerfield is still a fair chance to move this trade period

 

I like the way Goodwin said "If players of Patty’s calibre were keen on that, then we’re certainly very open to the idea of trying to get someone in over the free agency period at some stage over the next few years."

Meaning if we don't get him next year we'll have another go (along with many others) next year...

And next year I'd expect we'll be significantly behind the other clubs (who'll no doubt be led by Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong) in terms of attractiveness for Paddy and we'll have lost our edge.

And next year I'd expect we'll be significantly behind the other clubs (who'll no doubt be led by Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong) in terms of attractiveness for Paddy and we'll have lost our edge.

This is the point. If we don't get him this year, our chance is prob gone.


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • PREGAME: St. Kilda

    The Demons come face to face with St. Kilda for the second time this season for their return clash at Marvel Stadium on Sunday. Who comes in and who goes out?

    • 15 replies
  • PODCAST: Carlton

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Tuesday, 22nd July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to Carlton at the MCG.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

    • 0 replies
  • VOTES: Carlton

    Captain Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Kozzy Pickett & Clayton Oliver. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

    • 13 replies
  • POSTGAME: Carlton

    A near full strength Demons were outplayed all night against a Blues outfit that was under the pump and missing at least 9 or 10 of the best players. Time for some hard decisions to be made across the board.

    • 198 replies
  • GAMEDAY: Carlton

    It's Game Day and Clarry's 200th game and for anyone who hates Carlton as much as I do this is our Grand Final. Go Dees.

      • Haha
    • 669 replies
  • PREVIEW: Carlton

    Good evening, Demon fans and welcome back to the Demonland Podcast ... it’s time to discuss this week’s game against the Blues. Will the Demons celebrate Clayton Oliver’s 200th game with a victory? We have a number of callers waiting on line … Leopold Bloom: Carlton and Melbourne are both out of finals contention with six wins and eleven losses, and are undoubtedly the two most underwhelming and disappointing teams of 2025. Both had high expectations at the start of participating and advancing deep into the finals, but instead, they have consistently underperformed and disappointed themselves and their supporters throughout the year. However, I am inclined to give the Demons the benefit of the doubt, as they have made some progress in addressing their issues after a disastrous start. In contrast, the Blues are struggling across the board and do not appear to be making any notable improvements. They are regressing, and a significant loss is looming on Saturday night. Max Gawn in the ruck will be huge and the Demon midfield have a point to prove after lowering their colours in so many close calls.

    • 0 replies