Nasher

Unless you're taking an adult from the second tier competitions, I'd have thought any kid you take with your last pick is long odds of playing. Given the two kids we took as rookies - King and Harmes - never got near the side either, I don't think there is much of a case to answer here.

Dreaming is okay, so long as we don't get all "Hrmph, typical MFC losers, nothing good ever happens to us" when he doesn't come.

Riley. It is Riley. Reilly is that other guy that still plays for Adelaide.

Thanks guys. Where would we be without official thread enders?

He does waste it and that's why I think we won't get him. I like him but he's a foot soldier. We need good users of the footy.

It wasn't meant to be harsh. If you make the 'R' in NQR 'ready' instead of 'right' then I think it's probably fairer.

Absolutely. And what an opportunity of a lifetime for a coach with senior gig ambitions:1- lengthy contract (I'm guessing) 2- Guaranteed gig after 2 years 3- Two years "practice" - calling the shots without having the pressure or responsibility that comes with it 4- Working with one of the best in the business 5- entering a senior gig already knowing the players and the club, without having to waste time learning the place, ie can hit the ground running

Me too. I wouldn't know a good coach if one kicked me in the crotch, but he apparently has shown promise and the plan seems sound. It also feels nice not to get screwed over, which it looked like we might for a while last night.

Why do crud players who are going to be delisted nominate a preferred club anyway? Surely you'd just go anywhere that would have you. I remember Peter Walsh putting in a similar request to Craig Cameron in the mid 00s - "I know I'm gone, if you could find me a new club I'd be grateful". The club obliged and traded him to Port, and moved up two places in the draft.

Just one of the players and the fifth for their fourth. They'd be stupid to take a risk on all three - but then again this is the club that was laughing at us when they got Chris Johnson in the PSD.

And what's Eddie got to do with it anyway?

He's not tortoise slow like those two. You might be right about him turning out average, but the comparison is a bit naff I think.

I'm not going to ban you, but you have been shown the door enough times to know where it is. Close it behind you please, it's cold out there.

Remember when half the site wanted Dayle Garlett with this pick? Thanks Hawthorn.

Plenty of Adelaide supporters reckon Dangerfield had a close relationship with Sanderson and if anything, this increases the chances of him walking. Very hard to make head or tail of any of this to be honest. I'd be pretty concerned if I were a Crows fan: multiple key players possibly exploring avenues for exit, and an administration making huge decisions on the fly. Scary stuff.

Plenty of rumours about that Goodwin said "I'm about to sign with Melbourne so sign me now or I'm gone". Who knows if it's true, but it sounds like the Reverse-Neeld. If it is, hopefully it works out just as well for them.

Really? Damn.

Yep! Disrupts our plans, but I accept that that's the price to pay for getting to watch an Adelaide trainwreck for a few weeks.

I naively thought we got this guy to slot straight in to the 22. Probably a more realistic view would be an investment - a young NQR that can become a R with time and development, and that is what is happening. He looked really good in the last couple of games; progress was made. Hopefully he can consolidate on it in 2015.

Nah, you got called a troll by a guy who thinks that's what you were being. Being an administrator has nothing to do with it.

I don't think it's overs. Draft picks (and Toumpas) carry significant risk - we of all clubs should understand that. Dangerfield comes with next to no risk from a "can this guy play" perspective. Any trade has to be weighted in Adelaide's favour to negate that risk. Downgrading one of the high picks to a lower-top 10 pick is a very small change in my opinion, it's the trade equivalent of loose change. Just as likely to get a gun at pick 9 as you are at pick 3.

You either have an astoundingly short memory, or you're a troll. On recent form I'm leaning towards the latter.

I like the deal mooted in the thread. 2+3+Toumpas (or our second rounder) for Dangerfield+9. Three unknowns for a known and an unknown. I can't find a deal that works that doesn't involve them giving us a pick back. Pick 2 on its own seems too little, 2+3 seems too much.

Agree. He was awful this year. I think he has enough credit in the bank for me to believe it an aberration and move on, so I'm looking forward to a Garland with renewed vigour next year.