rpfc

He was a valuable commodity...

I thought the principle was "trade players not willing to re-sign a year before they become Free Agents"... At the moment - Jones has not re-signed.

So...you would rather Roos get nothing for his best player than something? Even though you are criticising him for not getting a good return for him? You are having it both ways - Roos is living in the real world - where our most talented player has major issues, has missed 51 games through injury, and doesn't want to play at the club anymore. The situation sucks - Roos' handling of it doesn't.

Go over to that other thread and count how many posters are not happy with HL. And then look at how many have since recanted, or pulled back from their unhappiness. HL gets a lot of unwarranted nonsense thrown his way, he also gets some warranted nonsense... Sit a poster down and smack them in the face and tell them HL is coming and they will be happy he is.

Same with Jones... How is that principle going?

They are running on the spot. It's a furious status quo.

Adelaide wants to know if Dangerfield has signed his last contract with the club, and they want to know now. But the cards are in the hands of Dangerfield - if he wants his freedom - all he has to do is endure 2015 at the Crows. My god it will be a feral time, and he will regret a decision not to leave now if he has decided to go via Free Agency. Keep the pressure up on the situation - if Adelaide can't get him to even verbally commit - they might try to force him out. A deal now will be 100 times better than compensation next year.

The only thing they can do/will do is put some pressure on clubs to give us something decent back. It is a terrible look and they know it when a bloke retires, gets out of a contract, and goes somewhere else (especially a good team) for very little. I would hope that we can pry a decent player out of Geelong that they want to offload for reasons other than playing ability (fat contract, personality issues, application issues, etc).

lol They are gone. To Roos and Mahoney they are purely investments for players that we actually want.

I wonder what Roos/Viney/Mahoney are willing to give up for him... As Jaded alludes - he isn't a priority for our progress. But he will be welcome, more so if the deal is suitable.

The other no brainer is that the investment required for Cameron would be huge. Better spent on his equivalent in the midfield. Now, if we happen to be able to secure that midfielder with one of the two picks we have in the top 3, then go after Cameron. But our midfield is the single on field reason we are where we are. All other lines we are average to above par. Midfield is still 3rd world.

He's a great young player, but give his equivalent in the midfield, please. I have heard the arguments against needing a great midfield, all I have to go on is bitter experience and envy.

You've learned your lesson, Melb16... No idea what the lesson is but you've learned it.

MC has not been able to play football and Frawley was push/pulled out of his traditional position in the backline. They are both excellent players but life after them is not only on the horizon, it will not make this club any worse, in fact, if we use Pick 3 properly - it might make us better...

Hang on a second, pants. Stern was rubbish and the ownership situation over there is pure evil but the fact remains that the Lakers were about to get another superstar and the NBA stepped in and made a decision that has rejuvenated Basketball on the West Coast and the NBA in general. A good competition is predicated on the rise AND fall of teams from year to year. The AFL has seen a couple rise of late but the other side of that coin is the fall of some clubs that won't fall if they continue to be allowed to recruit the best players.

Here is an anecdote (or an antidote...): A couple of years ago, one of the best players in the NBA was traded to the LA Lakers, a perennial finalist and mythological franchise, in a deal that was passable from the standpoint of the club losing said player. However, NBA Head Office stepped in and nixed the trade. They said publically that the deal was not good enough for the club losing the player. However, a few weeks later a deal was struck with the LA Clippers, a perennial basket case, for that player to go there and change the dynamic of the league and Los Angeles Basketball in general. If Gillon cares about his league that he is running (into the ground), then he will take note of the ancillary powers at his disposal...

What I know is draft, free agency and salary cap regulated sports. The AFL is now a member of all three regulations now - and is, by an embarrassing distance, the worst run. There is no room in those sports for players to stop trades unless they have a 'No Trade Clause' in their contract. An NBA, NFL, and MLB player can be traded without their consent, just as kids in the AFL are drafted to clubs without their consent. Darren Jarman once did what was reasonable and refused to come the club that picked him in the draft - the Demons. Soon, the same will be said of players who refused trades - it will be a thing of the past. You simply cannot run a competitive league with the rules set up the way they are now. Free Agency is not the problem - the half baked regulations and rules of the AFL salary and player movement infrastructure is the problem.

Read the OP, not just the title.

Players do not get a say in where they are drafted, why should they get a say in where they are traded? Players want more freedoms without the negatives that come with this ultra-professional environment. If you want to be able to stop a trade, negotiate a No Trade Clause into your contract, otherwise you should have no say in where you are traded to - just like in other draft and salary cap regulated leagues - NBA, NFL, NHL, and the MLB. The best teams are not going to get any worse if players are able to dictate where they play.

It's obvious that Dayne Beams needs a change of environment and Nathan Buckley and Collingwood shouldn't stand in the way of that need...

As soon as he picks one club, your 'good news' becomes irrelevant. He could walk in the draft and get to Pick 50 at that club. We have zero bargaining power, the only way we get anything of worth is if the AFL lent heavily on the receiving club. And, usually in the AFL, the leaning is the other way around...

Again, no need for such a thin skin. You are walking amongst Dees fans wary of life in general - a few raised eyebrows and eyeballs is nothing.

Don't be so thin-skinned. Demonland is like a pub run only for Dees fans - you can't just throw out coy allusions while everyone is listening and not expect a few 'pffts'...

This is an instance where the only two parties that should matter is Adelaide and Melbourne. We should offer Pick 3 and Adelaide would accept as Danger is destined to go for a worse pick next year. We would trade for him on the last year of his contract and try to convince him to stay beyond 2015. The player should not be allowed to stop a trade unless he has a clause built into his contract to do so.

He hasn't even agreed to come. If I were him, I would be going to NM and trying to do some damage off their half back flank. And Clark's worth is less than HL's I know that - the guy is crocked. But Clark is a much better player, and a huge investment. The situation stinks.