50 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

He did miss 5 games, doesn't look too unusual really. 

Can someone confirm if missing 5 games is detrimental in Adelaide's system of voting?

Adelaide will base his trade value on the length and $ of the contract we’re offering him, not where he came in their BnF. 

8 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Can someone confirm if missing 5 games is detrimental in Adelaide's system of voting?

Club Champion Voting Protocol
1 vote:  Played their role. Solid game without significant influence on the game
2 votes: Played his role well and influenced the game
3 votes: Played his role very well with significant influence on the game
4 votes: Played his role outstandingly and dominated the game

Source: Crows website

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Adelaide will base his trade value on the length and $ of the contract we’re offering him, not where he came in their BnF. 

Adelaide are [censored]!

If Jake wanted to come home and we or another club offered him 450k. They would still want two first rounders.

They think they are dealing with Collingwood... haha

A player should and will be compensated on his draft and playing value.

Dees are correct and fair in offering 10 & 27. Dangerfield was traded for 9, 28 & Gore.

8 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Club Champion Voting Protocol
1 vote:  Played their role. Solid game without significant influence on the game
2 votes: Played his role well and influenced the game
3 votes: Played his role very well with significant influence on the game
4 votes: Played his role outstandingly and dominated the game

Source: Crows website

But I recall several club systems have mechanisms built in to account for injury such as eliminating each player's five-worst performing rounds from the tally. Any idea on this?

5 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

Adelaide are [censored]!

If Jake wanted to come home and we or another club offered him 450k. They would still want two first rounders.

They think they are dealing with Collingwood... haha

A player should and will be compensated on his draft and playing value.

Dees are correct and fair in offering 10 & 27. Dangerfield was traded for 9, 28 & Gore.

Also danger did not come on small coin and Geelong signed him for 5 years at about 850000 + a season, has gore even played many games? he was stake knifes in the deal, they can't expect more then he they got for dander, they are just hypocrites just take what we giving you and  shut up you soft Crows

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

But I recall several club systems have mechanisms built in to account for injury such as eliminating each player's five-worst performing rounds from the tally. Any idea on this?

Unsure sorry mate, I think average votes per game he would've been in top 10 but don't know exact rules they have.

5 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Also danger did not come on small coin and Geelong signed him for 5 years at about 850000 + a season, has gore even played many games? he was stake knifes in the deal, they can't expect more then he they got for dander, they are just hypocrites just take what we giving you and  shut up you soft Crows

Agree... Shut up Crows! Lol

Gore was delisted today.

Comparisons with the Danger trade are not valid. Danger was a RFA and the trade was done so the Cows would get something reasonable in return. They were never going to match Cats offer, especially given their pissweak policy of paying their stars sfa. Danger had also given them many years of A grade service, not 50 games, so they expect greater trade return for years they will miss from Lever.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think Adelaide are now sh-tting on their brand.

If anyone's ever wondered why so many good players have left... we're getting an insight into the reason.

20 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Also danger did not come on small coin and Geelong signed him for 5 years at about 850000 + a season, has gore even played many games? he was stake knifes in the deal, they can't expect more then he they got for dander, they are just hypocrites just take what we giving you and  shut up you soft Crows

He was delisted today... the Crows showed him very little loyalty...

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Comparisons with the Danger trade are not valid. Danger was a RFA and the trade was done so the Cows would get something reasonable in return. They were never going to match Cats offer, especially given their pissweak policy of paying their stars sfa. Danger had also given them many years of A grade service, not 50 games, so they expect greater trade return for years they will miss from Lever.

So what the hawks paid the same amount for tom Mitchell and you could argue that Mitchell is a better player, he was the swans best player in the swans grand final loss, and the hawks were a top 4 side their picks were higher in the draft. That's a closer comparison.

48 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

So what the hawks paid the same amount for tom Mitchell and you could argue that Mitchell is a better player, he was the swans best player in the swans grand final loss, and the hawks were a top 4 side their picks were higher in the draft. That's a closer comparison.

Possibly. Case by case, of course. Tom Mitchell may well prove to be worth 2 X first rounders, more so than Omeara.   

Adel chose to not trade a player last year to be able to afford to put a bigger offer to lever that might value him as two first round picks. Instead they offered 530 in the old cba and whinged that he'd be the highest paid player if offered more. Meanwhile theyre stacked with players that delivered a minor premiership. They want their cake and to eat it too.

Adel think their paycut system where stars play for peanuts is some kind of morally upstanding system. No, its trying to rig the cap so they stay at the top and never come down. Its a smart thing to do, but it squeezes out players who actually realise they deserve a better pay deal and can get it at a middle tier side that actually deserves young talent to join them and help them rise up the ladder.

Edited October 7, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

26 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

Adel chose to not trade a player last year to be able to afford to put a bigger offer to lever that might value him as two first round picks. Instead they offered 530 in the old cba and whinged that he'd be the highest paid player if offered more. Meanwhile theyre stacked with players that delivered a minor premiership. They want their cake and to eat it too.

Adel think their paycut system where stars play for peanuts is some kind of morally upstanding system. No, its trying to rig the cap so they stay at the top and never come down. Its a smart thing to do, but it squeezes out players who actually realise they deserve a better pay deal and can get it at a middle tier side that actually deserves young talent to join them and help them rise up the ladder.

It will be funny when Sloane leaves end of next year as a RFA, it might force them to rethink their pay scale, there is loyalty and there is paying your stars a fair wage.

5 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

It will be funny when Sloane leaves end of next year as a RFA, it might force them to rethink their pay scale, there is loyalty and there is paying your stars a fair wage.

It’s hilaruous. They are behaving like feral bogan hillbillies. 

They also had an easy draw this yr and that won’t happen next season so hopefully they miss the eight.

Now that would bring an even bigger smile to my face than I have now. 

4 hours ago, Danelska said:

Please explain...

Gerard Healy

As much as I'm reluctant to take down the sense of theatre, which may be the most important part of trade week ...

The clubs haven't been able to even start negotiating yet, not until tomorrow. All they can do is just to state and restate their opening gambits, with a lot of mayo thrown around by Adelaide, who after all are giving up a player they don't want to give up - like someone said, imagine if Petracca was in Lever's position.

Adelaide have generally been good with trading players out, once they accept that said player is gone. Over recent years they've been forced to let some very good players go, and have been mature & pragmatic in not pushing things to the limit. They were very good with Bock & Davis, for example - they made a lot of noise then too, and had good cause to, but once they accepted the inevitable, they worked out some quite reasonable deals from memory.

They only stumbled when they came across a Carlton who absolutely refused to budge on their opening bid of 2 first rounders for Gibbs. It's very unusual for a club who refuse to move from their opening bid, but considering what Gibbs contributes to Carlton these days, it's not too difficult to understand why they did it.

I'd be very surprised if the two clubs didn't reach a deal fairly early, they're really not that far apart.

Unless their chief negotiator is now Brett Burton where it wasn't before.

The rest is all theatre - to involve The Crowd.

11 minutes ago, Akum said:

As much as I'm reluctant to take down the sense of theatre, which may be the most important part of trade week ...

The clubs haven't been able to even start negotiating yet, not until tomorrow. All they can do is just to state and restate their opening gambits, with a lot of mayo thrown around by Adelaide, who after all are giving up a player they don't want to give up - like someone said, imagine if Petracca was in Lever's position.

Adelaide have generally been good with trading players out, once they accept that said player is gone. Over recent years they've been forced to let some very good players go, and have been mature & pragmatic in not pushing things to the limit. They were very good with Bock & Davis, for example - they made a lot of noise then too, and had good cause to, but once they accepted the inevitable, they worked out some quite reasonable deals from memory.

They only stumbled when they came across a Carlton who absolutely refused to budge on their opening bid of 2 first rounders for Gibbs. It's very unusual for a club who refuse to move from their opening bid, but considering what Gibbs contributes to Carlton these days, it's not too difficult to understand why they did it.

I'd be very surprised if the two clubs didn't reach a deal fairly early, they're really not that far apart.

Unless their chief negotiator is now Brett Burton where it wasn't before.

The rest is all theatre - to involve The Crowd.

Bolded part is just plain wrong. It goes on for weeks before the official start of trade period. If not, what do you call the meeting between AFC and MFC where the Crows plodder walked out?

44 minutes ago, ding said:

Bolded part is just plain wrong. It goes on for weeks before the official start of trade period. If not, what do you call the meeting between AFC and MFC where the Crows plodder walked out?

Fair enough.

But it looked to me more like the posture meeting, the theatre meeting.

... in which the jilted lover melodramatically declares his anguish and his thirst for reparation to his audience, and hastily departs the scene in high dudgeon ...

It never at any stage looked like the meeting at which the deal was going to be made.

No wonder they lost the GF....

Edited October 8, 20177 yr by Wadda We Sing

1 minute ago, Wadda We Sing said:

No wonder they lost the GF....

Tim Watson reckons at HT in the GF the Crows were fighting, Richmond got a whiff of it and the rest is history. 

1 hour ago, ding said:

Bolded part is just plain wrong. It goes on for weeks before the official start of trade period. If not, what do you call the meeting between AFC and MFC where the Crows plodder walked out?

No it's not because both clubs don't know what they have to offer yet until they start trading players for picks or picks for players. 

To give an simple example, if we trade Watts to Geelong for pick 20 then we would have something more to offer Adelaide than what we have today.  The initial gambits are just that....initial

1 hour ago, SFebey said:

Tim Watson reckons at HT in the GF the Crows were fighting, Richmond got a whiff of it and the rest is history. 

Seems like there may have been unrest the whole finals series.....probably lucky they made it that far.

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

No it's not because both clubs don't know what they have to offer yet until they start trading players for picks or picks for players. 

To give an simple example, if we trade Watts to Geelong for pick 20 then we would have something more to offer Adelaide than what we have today.  The initial gambits are just that....initial

What part of "negotiating" dont you guys get?

Final numbers to be sorted, but its STILL part of negotiations.