The AFL’s off-season player movement period has become busier and busier in recent years and it looks like 2015 will be the biggest yet, with the headline act the likely movement of Patrick Dangerfield.
Dangerfield has been considered on the AFL’s elite midfielders since his breakout 2012 season – he has finished in the top 10 of the Brownlow Medal in every year since, and has been named All Australian twice.
On top of that, his 2015 season has probably been his best yet – he’s averaging career-best disposals numbers and has nearly doubled his best tackling numbers.
He should win Adelaide’s best and fairest this year, will almost certainly be All Australian again, and will enter the Brownlow Medal count as an outside-but-not-unrealistic chance.
Despite all that, he looks a near certainty to be in other colours in 2016, and rumours have persisted for nearly a year that Dangerfield is set to leave the Crows via free agency this year. As such, some even suggested Adelaide should have traded him away at the end of 2014 in order to at least get decent compensation for his departure.
Melbourne reportedly offered the second and third picks in the 2014 national draft – certainly better compensation than Adelaide will receive if he leaves this year – but that was soundly knocked back by the Crows.
Geelong is the most likely destination for Dangerfield. He hails from nearby Moggs Creek and played with the Geelong Falcons in TAC Cup before he was drafted. If the Cats land Dangerfield, they’ll have arguably the best midfield duo in the comp between him and Joel Selwood.
Dangerfield’s at the top of a big free agency shopping list for the Cats, with rumours they’re also keen on West Coast’s Scott Selwood (brother of Joel) and Brisbane’s Matthew Leuenberger.
Just about every other Victorian club are also said to have some interest in Dangerfield, with Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood the most commonly named.
While Crows fans would love Dangerfield to re-sign with Adelaide, the saga has dragged on long enough that you’d think if he had any intention of signing, he’d have done so by now.
The real curiosity is what might happen when Dangerfield moves to sign with another club – as there is a genuine chance that, for the first time in AFL free agency history, Adelaide might match the offer.
As a restricted free agent, Dangerfield has the right to accept a contract offer from another club, but before he can move Adelaide have a three-day period in which they can either match the offer from that club, or allow Dangerfield to move on.
If they match the offer, Dangerfield can either sign with the Crows and stay, or his club of choice will have to pony up an acceptable trade.
Lots of free agents have moved clubs since the doors first opened in 2012, but as yet no club has attempted to match the offer on a restricted free agent, generally taking the stance that if players don’t want to be at the club then they should be let go, and also knowing that the compensation picks they will receive will likely outweigh what they could get through a trade.
If Adelaide lose Dangerfield they will certainly receive a first-round pick in compensation, which will be tied to their draft position, meaning it’d likely be around pick 12 or so, depending on the final results of the season.
That’d be about on par with what St Kilda got for Brendon Goddard (pick #12 in 2012 draft) and what Collingwood got for Dale Thomas (pick #11 in 2013 draft), but well below what Melbourne got for James Frawley (pick #3 in 2014) – despite Dangerfield being a far bigger loss than any of those players.
For that reason alone, Adelaide should match Dangerfield’s offer, and force the other club into a trade. That’s an even more appealing option given that the AFL will this year, for the first time, allow for the trading of future draft picks.
Say Geelong finish ninth for the year and have pick #10 in the draft, and Adelaide finish eighth and have pick #11. Geelong make an offer, Dangerfield accepts. If Adelaide let Dangerfield go then they receive pick #12 in return and are still behind Geelong in the draft order – not something they’d be too happy with, given they’ve just lost their best player to them.
However, if Adelaide match the offer, they could demand that Geelong trade them not only their first round pick for the coming draft, but also their first rounder for 2016.
Not only do they net so much more value out of the trade, they have the added satisfaction of taking something back from Geelong in return.
Player movement in the AFL is undergoing rapid change, and the case of Patrick Dangerfield may wind up being the biggest example of this yet. Along with a lot of other expected movements this October, it’s going to make for a dramatic and entertaining off-season.
Edgar Slosh
Roar Guru
Adelaide could have traded him to Melbourne for pick 2 and 3 last year but he was under contract and had the right to say NO. One dissenting voice said 'do it' but he got the sack not long after ;) They offered him a contract and his manager said lets just wait, huh... Its all in favor of players
Edgar Slosh
Roar Guru
Or he's from Moggs Creek
Winston
Guest
The fact that no club has matched an offer yet can be due to other reasons though. I'd say most of the free agency movers so far are either 1) older players are bad clubs who want a crack at premiership or at least a more successful club; or 2) players seeking new scenery. 1 would be players like Goddard, Dal Santo, Waite. 2 would be Higgins, Malceski. In all those cases there's not much point in the existing club trying to match it. Either the existing club uses the opportunity to get a compensation pick in return for a rebuild, or it's a highly sucessful club with not enough salary cap to retain all its stars so it's that good some leave. It's far less common that someone like Buddy would leave a successful club. If Hawks had $10 to burn they probably should at least consider using it on him.
TomC
Guest
Yeah, I'm just guessing, but I reckon all the stakeholders are indeed very good at staying silent about the goings on. Every so often we hear a whisper about them, and even more frequently things emerge that suggest there've been negotiations going on for a long time that have stayed silent. Brisbane's trades last year are a good example: I am confident that there was a great deal ofback and forth around the Christensen and Patfull trades before anything was made public, particularly on terms between players and clubs but even between clubs on trade value. It all seemed to work out so neatly and so quickly. It appeared as though no one was taken by surprise. As for restricted free agency, once a club has made it clear to a player that they're prepared to match the competing offer, no one has an incentive to make any of the negotiations public, unless the player desperately wants out.
Paul D
Roar Guru
If that is the case, there's a lot of clubs, players and agents who are all very good at keeping mum on the deals that are hashed out. Although that's not surprising, they are quite good at draping a veil of secrecy over the whole trade process these days. Understandably so given the media hysteria every time a player even has a dream about changing clubs.
TomC
Guest
I don't agree with that. I suspect that in effect clubs are matching rival offers for RFAs, but this happens before the official period.
WhereIsGene
Guest
Pretty sure Damien Barrett wrote Adelaide should match the offer even before it was known Dangerfield might be leaving. Well actually I'm not sure but its the sort of thing Damien Barrett would do.
Mullo
Guest
Of course he wouldn't. He will never actually have to go in the draft but it remains a threat, nonetheless. The pre-season draft is on 27 November, by the way. This is after the trade period and after the National Draft. By which stage very few clubs, perhaps only his intended destination, will have $1m free in the salary cap.
fairsuckofthesav
Guest
If Crows matched Cats Offer and then no deal is done. Would Danger want to go into a draft where Brisbane have first go at him?
Paul D
Roar Guru
There’s really no point in even having the clause for clubs to match the offer – it’s a fig leaf offered by the AFL to the clubs, so that the AFL can claim clubs still have leverage over players who want to leave. The fact no club has bothered to match a rival club’s offer at any stage since it was implemented gives the lie to the notion it’s an effective tool at retention. No club is going to risk outlaying money to pay a player who doesn’t 100% want to be there.
Mullo
Guest
The AFL's rules for RFA matching do not require 'loading' to be matched, only the term and total financial amount.
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
Does anyone know how much room to move within the cap Adelaide has? If any offer to Dangerfield is heavily front ended Adelaide may have trouble matching it even though they might like to.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Or that he's good at football.
Lachie
Roar Rookie
Excellent Mullo. Clearing up a LOT of false statements. Compo pick was what the crows knowingly signed up for when they rejected Melbourne's offer last year. The crows won't match
Gyfox
Guest
After his comments about Port Adelaide yesterday, Dangerfield will definitely be leaving Adelaide!!!!
johno
Guest
Should they match the offer if he wants to leave? Yes There is nothing healthier for your list than having a star who doesn't want to be there
Mullo
Guest
There are at least three reasons that make matching unlikely: 1. As with any uncontracted player trade scenario the gaining club has the leverage of taking the player in the draft with a price on his head. 2. The compensation pick is only available if no match occurs. It is a valuable commodity that is destroyed if an RFA offer is matched. A "side-trade" that adds to the value of a compo pick is more likely than matching and destroying the compo. 3. In this case, Geelong is unlikely to have anything resembling better value to Adelaide than compo. It will have re-signed Motlop (imminent) and traded its first pick for Henderson (with some re-balancing of picks).
Winston
Guest
This shouldn't be a difficult decision at all. Clubs pay big money to get the best players. He is their best player, so Adelaide should pay top dollar for him. No number of draft picks can compensate his loss. If it was a trade, anything less than a Josh Kennedy and Chris Judd trade would not be good enough, but given their number of talls, they probably don't even want a KPP at the loss of Dangerfield. So actually, even if say Hawthorn offered up Roughead, don't think they should take it.
Todd
Guest
Club's need to get serious about this free agency blight. Offer a contract a year out. If player does not accept trade them. If you want to retain them for an additional year, it should be assumed that you will match the offer and then shop them around anyway.
Josh
Expert
Could've sworn I was the first one to write about Dangerfield this year. Honestly, it's like no one's even noticed he's out of contract.