Completely agree with this sentiment. If we are realistic about targeting free agency we have to go all out for Danger. Fits the age bracket and is the best out there, it's a no -brainer really.
I was wondering if perhaps pur comments about Sloane from the likes of Richo earlier in the year may have been a bit of smoke and mirrors to hide our interest in Danger?
Why not Dangerfield?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Re: Why not Dangerfield?
Stay away from FA until the end of 2017. By then they will all want to come to us so we will be able to cherry pick who we want. And more importantly, at a better price
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri 23 May 2014 11:32pm
Re: Why not Dangerfield?
Might have been to increase Sloane's market value, meaning that they would have had to pay Sloane more than they otherwise would - leaving less in the bank for Dangerlewdogs wrote:I was wondering if perhaps pur comments about Sloane from the likes of Richo earlier in the year may have been a bit of smoke and mirrors to hide our interest in Danger?
Re: Why not Dangerfield?
If it is not zero then it very close to zero chance of him coming to the Saints. It's Adelaide (Crows) or Moggs Creek(Cats) - his manager has stated as much.
- St Chris
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 2:20pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
Re: Why not Dangerfield?
The Age is reporting the possibility of Dangerfield nominating for the draft....
So in the spirit of off season hypotheticals, we haven't traded out Pick 5, Dangerfield has nominated in the draft and put a $3.6M over 4 years price on his head, and picks 1 through 4 have taken kids, do you pick him at 5??
For me, I pick him. Moggs Creek isn't that far from Seaford ( if you take the Sorrento Ferry ), and he would be the face of the club for the next 5 years, allowing Nick to take a step back and concentrate on footy and his family for his last couple of seasons.
So in the spirit of off season hypotheticals, we haven't traded out Pick 5, Dangerfield has nominated in the draft and put a $3.6M over 4 years price on his head, and picks 1 through 4 have taken kids, do you pick him at 5??
For me, I pick him. Moggs Creek isn't that far from Seaford ( if you take the Sorrento Ferry ), and he would be the face of the club for the next 5 years, allowing Nick to take a step back and concentrate on footy and his family for his last couple of seasons.
Re: Why not Dangerfield?
Would we need him if the bloke in your avatar eventuates??St Chris wrote:The Age is reporting the possibility of Dangerfield nominating for the draft....
So in the spirit of off season hypotheticals, we haven't traded out Pick 5, Dangerfield has nominated in the draft and put a $3.6M over 4 years price on his head, and picks 1 through 4 have taken kids, do you pick him at 5??
For me, I pick him. Moggs Creek isn't that far from Seaford ( if you take the Sorrento Ferry ), and he would be the face of the club for the next 5 years, allowing Nick to take a step back and concentrate on footy and his family for his last couple of seasons.
Without question, pick 5 on Danger would be a great result, irrespective of how fanciful.