Universal Love Steve Silvagni - List Manager Extraordinaire

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm on the left hand side of the site, but I do not consider myself an expert. Just a guy that likes writing about football in a way that's a little different to everyone else.

The tagline under your name said you were an expert.
 
The tagline under your name said you were an expert.
Yeah that's the moniker that the website bestows upon the pros/semi-pros. I'm a semi-pro (I'm actually an economist...).

I don't like it personally, but its the way the guys want to delineate the fan stuff from the pro/semi-pro stuff.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If you read the piece you would have noted I thought they should have gone harder; the list of players 25 or older remains the problem.

The issue was that you indicated we traded out the wrong players and that we should have traded out our older players. The simple answer to that is we didn't trade out Henderson, Yarran and Menzel simply because they had currency. We traded them because they had demonstrated they were not willing to uphold the on field standards necessary to stay at the club.

Henderson and Yarran checked out. Tired of losing, they simply stopped trying and both had offers in the works by mid season at the latest. Menzel was just not improving his workrate. He and Yarran were dropped during the season for lack of effort. He also had only one year left on his contract and there was always a fear of him returning to S.A or going to Geelong with his brother. We cashed it where it suited.

We lost experience with Judd, Carrazzo, Henderson, Yarran and to an extent Ellard going. We had others over the preceding years. The club belief is that you need leaders, you need teachers, you need an experienced core when you are trying to bring on young players during a rebuild. That's the very reason we sought to bring in Judd at the end of 2007. We had Murphy and Gibbs struggling with few leaders around the club. Whitnall, Nick Stevens, even Fev was a candidate for captaincy in the minds of the playing group.

As practical as it might seem to trade away those who are 28/29 years of age given the years they have left in the game, it does affect development and it does affect culture to do those things. Trade away the ones who don't want to be there and don't want to work and use the others to guide and teach.
 
Last edited:
If you read the piece you would have noted I thought they should have gone harder; the list of players 25 or older remains the problem.

No, you wrote a long piece about how poorly Carlton did at the trade table in an effort to position yourself as a self-appointed expert when clearly you are no better or informed than any one of the folk on this forum.

You have been called out on it and have no basis to back up your claims because they are not only far-fetched, but they are sensationalised to try and boost your notoriety and/or internet reputation.

Here's your most recent selfie :

footinmouth.jpg
 
No, you wrote a long piece about how poorly Carlton did at the trade table in an effort to position yourself as a self-appointed expert when clearly you are no better or informed than any one of the folk on this forum.

You have been called out on it and have no basis to back up your claims because they are not only far-fetched, but they are sensationalised to try and boost your notoriety and/or internet reputation.

Here's your most recent selfie :

footinmouth.jpg
Cool.
 
I think the value Carlton received for the players it traded out was quite good, although I would have probably preferred if Geelong's 2016 first rounder was still in the Blues' hands. The GWS 4-for-1 trade was the AFL's first pu-pu platter deal.

If you're going to steal Bill Simmons lines, at least acknowledge him.

And use it correctly....4 players for pick 28 doesn't fall into that territory by any stretch. This Luke Partington must be a can't miss star.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What sort of return can I expect on an investment property in the western suburbs, RB?

I'd take his advice with a grain of salt, Thy.

Economists have predicted 10 out of the last 3 recessions.

:)
 
The issue was that you indicated we traded out the wrong players and that we should have traded out our older players. The simple answer to that is we didn't trade out Henderson, Yarran and Menzel simply because they had currency. We traded them because they had demonstrated they were not willing to uphold the on field standards necessary to stay at the club.

Henderson and Yarran checked out. Tired of losing, they simply stopped trying and both had offers in the works by mid season at the latest. Menzel was just not improving his workrate. He and Yarran were dropped during the season for lack of effort. He also had only one year left on his contract and there was always a fear of him returning to S.A or going to Geelong with his brother. We cashed it where it suited.

We lost experience with Judd, Carrazzo, Henderson, Yarran and to an extent Ellard going. We had others over the preceding years. The club belief is that you need leaders, you need teachers, you need an experienced core when you are trying to bring on young players during a rebuild. That's the very reason we sought to bring in Judd at the end of 2007. We had Murphy and Gibbs struggling with few leaders around the club. Whitnall, Nick Stevens, even Fev was a candidate for captaincy in the minds of the playing group.

As practical as it might seem to trade away those who are 28/29 years of age given the years they have left in the game, it does affect development and it does effect culture to do those things. Trade away the ones who don't want to be there and don't want to work and use the others to guide and teach.
What my long piece from June boiled down to was that Carlton's list of players aged 23-24 or younger was starting to show prospect; the list over that age looked more clogged than any list in recent history. I characterised trading Yarran and Henderson as "business as usual" trades, and expected that one of Bryce Gibbs or Marc Murphy would at least be talked about as being on the table. I saw the likes of Cripps, Bell, Docherty and Menzel as being the start of the development of a core.

My piece elicited an emotional response, which is something that I'm not used to. If you look at my back catalogue you'll note that I tend to take an optimistic view of the football world - I mean, when I wrote in June I was quite positive of the Blues' medium-term prospects, if the 2015 trade period was used to significantly reset. Now, there was some changes made, but in aggregate terms I don't think enough was done, hence the line: Carlton have done lots of things, but precisely nothing (hyperbole if I'm being fair to myself) to kick start the rebuild that the club so sorely needs.

I'm happy to disagree with people on merit, and as I say a lot of people did. That's fine, I'm comfortable enough in my own skin and confident enough to express a view that may be tangential to what the consensus is. That's the way debates happen, and in this instance my view sticks out. As I said in the post that was deleted, I'm very happy to discuss and debate, and I look forward to doing so at various points in the future.
 
I'm not in that game, fortunately (I do policy). Economic forecasters exist to take the heat off of meteorologists.
Hey, shame your cliche run didn't come to play with our review. "Carlton will eventually be back on top where they belong". Go back and fix the ******* thing please.
 
If you're going to steal Bill Simmons lines, at least acknowledge him.

And use it correctly....4 players for pick 28 doesn't fall into that territory by any stretch. This Luke Partington must be a can't miss star.

Who said anything about stealing? Its a wink - those that know, know.
 
What my long piece from June boiled down to was that Carlton's list of players aged 23-24 or younger was starting to show prospect; the list over that age looked more clogged than any list in recent history. I characterised trading Yarran and Henderson as "business as usual" trades, and expected that one of Bryce Gibbs or Marc Murphy would at least be talked about as being on the table. I saw the likes of Cripps, Bell, Docherty and Menzel as being the start of the development of a core.

My piece elicited an emotional response, which is something that I'm not used to. If you look at my back catalogue you'll note that I tend to take an optimistic view of the football world - I mean, when I wrote in June I was quite positive of the Blues' medium-term prospects, if the 2015 trade period was used to significantly reset. Now, there was some changes made, but in aggregate terms I don't think enough was done, hence the line: Carlton have done lots of things, but precisely nothing (hyperbole if I'm being fair to myself) to kick start the rebuild that the club so sorely needs.

I'm happy to disagree with people on merit, and as I say a lot of people did. That's fine, I'm comfortable enough in my own skin and confident enough to express a view that may be tangential to what the consensus is. That's the way debates happen, and in this instance my view sticks out. As I said in the post that was deleted, I'm very happy to discuss and debate, and I look forward to doing so at various points in the future.

The problem is that it wasn't something different, it was just poorly thought out LOL Carlton BF group think.

If you wanted to take an interesting look at our trade week, maybe think about why we were in the position we were in. Why do Henderson and Yarran check out? Why have we failed to develop players recently? In the end, your article boiled down "The GWS four are s**t. Carlton are worse than they were before trade week, they should have traded Gibbs".

Why should we trade Gibbs? If anything, Melbourne's recent history has shown that playing 90% kids is a recipe for disaster. As ODN said, with Judd, Carrazzo etc going, trading the few decent senior players we have left doesn't make any sense. Even if you wanted to, you'd wait until next season or the one after when you have a clearer idea of where Cripss, Docherty etc are going.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top