Preview Trade Week/Month - Keep it all in HERE.

[Roy71]

Channel 9 reporting we are pretty keen on Dawes.

Dawes may be heading to Western Bulldogs for picks 21 & 47 according to Football Nation.

 

[Mr.Kennedy]

Is Caddy as good as the hype? Have not seen him play. I missed our loss to them cause my son was in hospital, as you can understand I did not watch the replay, its made to sound like he is the new Judd

 

[HARKER]

Is Caddy as good as the hype? Have not seen him play. I missed our loss to them cause my son was in hospital, as you can understand I did not watch the replay, its made to sound like he is the new Judd

Not the new Judd at all and the trade may just be about right considering the trade that was done.

The advantage for Geelong is that he has the body to go next year.
The advantage for G.C. is that their preference was for that compo pick they could use next year. Will sit at about pick 9 - 14 odd.

That just about assures us now that we are going to the draft with a high pick. Looking forward to it.

 

[Blue since 72]

Best pissing contest I've witnessed in a while.

Not really.

 

[Silvagnis]

Melbourne could be one of the big winners if they walk away with picks four and 20 plus Hogan, Viney and a compensation pick for Moloney.

I hope the compensation for Moloney, Chaplin, Goddard and Pearce doesn't have a big effect on our selections.

Is Caddy as good as the hype? Have not seen him play. I missed our loss to them cause my son was in hospital, as you can understand I did not watch the replay, its made to sound like he is the new Judd

Become a spud since Essendon and Norf missed out on Caddy.

 

[Weiterbot23]

Is Caddy as good as the hype? Have not seen him play. I missed our loss to them cause my son was in hospital, as you can understand I did not watch the replay, its made to sound like he is the new Judd

There are probably about 10 million places I would've rather been than watching the Carlton v GC match, yours is one of the few I wouldn't.

I reckon Caddy will be a gun, Classy inside mid with a very nice shoe on him. Like a faster Mclean with a penetrating shoe.

Still he has only shown glimpses and is certainly not proven yet, have a feeling he will make it in a big way though.

 

[Claypigeon]

On the topic of Ellard, Joseph and Davies 2 year contracts have people stopped and thought why this is such an issue. ..

• They would be on bottom end contracts therefore paying them out wouldn't be an issue
• Delisting them would only allow access to Pick 70; likely quality at this level would be similar
• Why does signing a player, who are decent depth, to low end 2 year contracts considered a poor management
• When they were signed the coach had a similar tenure and accepted the depth they brought to the table
• At least one of the players, Ellard, would have been considered top 22 and at least top 25 at the time
• It is noted that Armfield who would have been in a similar position when signed is rarely spoken of in the same disdain (is it because he came good?)

It may have been not a good idea to sign these three and Armfield all to 2 year contracts but it is hardly debilitating to have signed them to these 2 year contacts. .. if we found a player worth trading for (ie. at the right price) that was better depth or even Best 22 then we'd pull the trigger on one of these three without a second thought. ..

Its a false economy to argue that the signing of depth to 2 year contracts is holding us back in this trade period. .. Find it more likely that Carlton are either making quiet deals that are not being covered (eg. like the Laidler one last year) or we haven't found a deal worth making and the rest is speculation. ..

 

[Blue Flame]

Ah thats not quite true now is it. He said that Ratts was to blame for some players getting 2 year contracts, when a) where is the evidence that Ratts did this when General Manager of football is usually empowered to negotiate contract lenght, and b) who says them having 2 years is a problem let alone a mistake.

There are enough lies in here without you rewriting a history that a) took place a mere hours ago and b) is there for anyone who cares to look back and read for themselves.

And what I was saying is that Ratts is to 'blame' (for want of a better word) for all player contracts. The reason for that is he is entitled to have the players he wants on the list. They don't get a new contract unless he wants them. Addressing point (b), it could be viewed as an error in hindsight due to lack of development or due to MM not requiring these players.
This does not mean it was a mistake at the time.

40Y, let's not go around on this one, I was not trying to pick a fight with you.

 

[blue healer]

On the topic of Ellard, Joseph and Davies 2 year contracts have people stopped and thought why this is such an issue. ..

• They would be on bottom end contracts therefore paying them out wouldn't be an issue
• Delisting them would only allow access to Pick 70; likely quality at this level would be similar
• Why does signing a player, who are decent depth, to low end 2 year contracts considered a poor management
• When they were signed the coach had a similar tenure and accepted the depth they brought to the table
• At least one of the players, Ellard, would have been considered top 22 and at least top 25 at the time
• It is noted that Armfield who would have been in a similar position when signed is rarely spoken of in the same disdain (is it because he came good?)

It may have been not a good idea to sign these three and Armfield all to 2 year contracts but it is hardly debilitating to have signed them to these 2 year contacts. .. if we found a player worth trading for (ie. or the right price) that was better depth or even Best 22 then we'd pull the trigger on one of these three without a second thought. ..


Its a false economy to argue that the signing of depth to 2 year contracts is holding us back in this trade period. .. Find it more likely that Carlton are either making quiet deals that are not being covered (eg. like the Laidler one last year) or we haven't found a deal worth making and the rest is speculation. ..

For me the point is that we have a new coach coming in and need to delist 4 players, therefore those 4 players, through necessity, are the untried Kerr, Bower, Thornton and Russell who are all uncontracted.

If the new coach could add Joseph, Ellard, Davies and Collins to that list of potential delistings would the same players be delisted?

In the case of Bower and Kerr they are probably monte's but would MM consider the versatility of Thornton and Russell more valuable than 2 of the contracted four?

The decision may still be the same but my thought is that if I was moving into a company as a manager I would not appreciate someone anticipating who I'd like to dismiss before I had a chance to decide.

MM may have ticked off on these but was it through desire or necessity?

Personally I would prefer us to have kept Thornton and Russell if we could have let Joseph and Davies go but there was no option to do this so my fervent hope is that all those contracted players show that they are worth the investment.

 

[chipzac]

I hope we are not missing the boat. The good clubs are doing their best to improve their lists. We just seem to be spectating?

Agree, but our hands are tied because our 'dead wood' is under contract and not worth much/anything in a trade. I think we will be doing a lot of spectating, not because we choose to, but because we have to. Maybe best we can hope for is to trade two of our picks (one being a lower pick that we can't use anyway) for one higher pick as, thanks to our poor list management, we are only going to have 3 picks in this draft.

 

[Claypigeon]

Whilst you bring up good points, I think the frustration surrounds the fact that said contracts might be prohibiting us from getting rid of a couple of players, hence preventing us from having any manoeuvrability in the trade or free agency market. There is no doubting Joseph, Davies and Ellard are good depth, but if giving them two year deals when perhaps they only deserved one is stopping us from improving our list, then it poor management. This is only applicable if we dont want to pay their contracts out. If the club is prepared to move one or two of them on if the right deal comes along, then its not really a big issue, and we shouldn't waste our breath. If we aren't prepared to do that, then questions should be asked.

The fact that Crane6 has come on and mentioned that blokes like Davies and Joseph would be delisted had they not had contracts, is definitely not a good thing for our club. If Mick thinks those blokes are delist material, you can be pretty sure they wont get much of an opportunity next year, and are essentially are just playing out their time, whilst taking a spot on the list.

Both your points are extrapolating opinion from an apparent inside source. .. As are mine (extrapolations that is). .. The fact (if it is one) that Davies and Joseph would be de-listed if they didn't have contracts does not mean that they are holding us back though. .. Again it would be a low cost payout, so if the cash is the factor it must be close enough not to be a big enough deal. ..

Some were saying that if Brock didn't have a year to run on his contract last year, the Blues would have de-listed him too. .. How did that turn out. .. Hindsight is a good thing but to put too much weight on what appears to be a non-issue is a little much. ..

Now I'm lost on another part though. .. How did Ellard end up being thrown into the mix, is it to make it sound like more of an issue than it is?

Mountain meets mole hill when you be sensible about it, for mine. ..

 

[Mr.Kennedy]

There are probably about 10 million places I would've rather been than watching the Carlton v GC match, yours is one of the few I wouldn't.

I reckon Caddy will be a gun, Classy inside mid with a very nice shoe on him. Like a faster Mclean with a penetrating shoe.

Still he has only shown glimpses and is certainly not proven yet, have a feeling he will make it in a big way though.

The young fella came out of surgery an hour after the game. Was considering telling him I did not know the score. After busting my chops for a while I told him. My son is a big FF but I he actually teared up a bit, being emotional already about knowing he will miss out on the first half of his footy season (NTFL starts now) it just got to him.

Anyhow, some say trade Warnock for Dawes, sounds like a fair trade. But no way would I want Warnock going the filth, do not want to strengthen them. imagine if he went and got over his injuries,

 

[Stamos]

Pretty sure Army signed for 3 years

 

[HARKER]

On the topic of Ellard, Joseph and Davies 2 year contracts have people stopped and thought why this is such an issue. ..

• They would be on bottom end contracts therefore paying them out wouldn't be an issue
• Delisting them would only allow access to Pick 70; likely quality at this level would be similar
• Why does signing a player, who are decent depth, to low end 2 year contracts considered a poor management
• When they were signed the coach had a similar tenure and accepted the depth they brought to the table
• At least one of the players, Ellard, would have been considered top 22 and at least top 25 at the time
• It is noted that Armfield who would have been in a similar position when signed is rarely spoken of in the same disdain (is it because he came good?)

It may have been not a good idea to sign these three and Armfield all to 2 year contracts but it is hardly debilitating to have signed them to these 2 year contacts. .. if we found a player worth trading for (ie. or the right price) that was better depth or even Best 22 then we'd pull the trigger on one of these three without a second thought. ..


Its a false economy to argue that the signing of depth to 2 year contracts is holding us back in this trade period. .. Find it more likely that Carlton are either making quiet deals that are not being covered (eg. like the Laidler one last year) or we haven't found a deal worth making and the rest is speculation. ..

Well considered summary Clay.

What knocked me back recently was when we found out that Davies was given 2 years, last year.
That's not an attack on Davies per se, but who knew that he was given that contract?
There was no announcement anywhere and no-one across any Carlton board knew any better. Why not?

Putting all our own views aside, I wonder what Malthouse really thought when he came in and saw the contract status of some of the bottom end players.
Do we really think that we would have been as inactive as we have been were it not for being hamstrung with some players contracts? (That's a question and not a statement)

It may not really matter in the end either way, but we walked into this trade period knowing we were largely impotent.

 

[HARKER]

Pretty sure Army signed for 3 years

2 years only, Stamos.

 

[Stamos]

2 years only, Stamos.

Yep, my memory mixed him up with Hammer, they signed at the same time

 

[Claypigeon]

Do we really think that we would have been as inactive as we have been were it not for being hamstrung with some players contracts? (That's a question and not a statement)

Cheers Harks. .. read the last 10 pages in one hit and was struggling with the basic premise that it was these two contracts alone (three by some of the posts) that were holding us back. .. My opinion and answer to your question is that what is holding us back from being 'seen' to be active is that the right deal hasn't come along yet. .. We were interested in Cloke, so obviously had room to list him if it had been succeeded, so we have room to list a worthwhile player. ..

Sure we 'might' be held back from trading in some depth of a similar level to the aforementioned players but I cannot extrapolate it further than that and don't think that is too big an issue. ..

It may help that I still think our list is well placed; aged in the lower end, with quality in the top end of the teams. .. Which means that we're going to be more picky and less likely to make rash moves. .. I also believe in the draft having more power than trading but a good mix of both is the best method. ..

Just because Sydney went for Tippett and Hawks went for Lake (my biggest surprise of the trade period so far) doesn't automatically mean Carlton is lagging by not having made a move in the first three days of trading. ..

 

[Dramoth]

I relate the above because I disagree with your opinion that Collins has "done enough" in his 9 games this year to even consider him as starting 22 next year. What is it of Collins that I do not get? His scything kicks? His sure ball-handling? His electric pace? His ability to cut out an opponent? What is it you see?

Where did I say he would be starting 22 next year? I dont think that the 4 guys on the bench should be considered constants. They should be exchanged for other players depending on the tactics to be used and/or the team we are playing.

I did say that he would get more game time... I didnt say he would be a run on starter although this could be state of play with Mick now in charge.

Yes, I agree that he hasnt 100% set the world on fire like we were all making out 2 years ago when we got him, but he has shown enough glimpses that with continued game time, he will improve and therefore should be retained on the list.

 

[HARKER]

Cheers Harks. .. read the last 10 pages in one hit and was struggling with the basic premise that it was these two contracts alone (three by some of the posts) that were holding us back. .. My opinion and answer to your question is that what is holding us back from being 'seen' to be active is that the right deal hasn't come along yet. .. We were interested in Cloke, so obviously had room to list him if it had been succeeded, so we have room to list a worthwhile player. ..

Sure we 'might' be held back from trading in some depth of a similar level to the aforementioned players but I cannot extrapolate it further than that and don't think that is too big an issue. ..

It may help that I still think our list is well placed; aged in the lower end, with quality in the top end of the teams. .. Which means that we're going to be more picky and less likely to make rash moves. .. I also believe in the draft having more power than trading but a good mix of both is the best method. ..

Just because Sydney went for Tippett and Hawks went for Lake (my biggest surprise of the trade period so far) doesn't automatically mean Carlton is lagging by not having made a move in the first three days of trading. ..

My understanding was that we were preparing to clear the decks in readiness for Cloke. What exactly that meant I don't know, other than we would have gone all our for our principle need.
That didn't come about and we may have gone back into our shell to some degree. (Emphasis on the "may")

Our list by far and large is good and I have no issues with it, but I do wonder whether had the CFC had its time again, we would have been as ready to hand out the contracts we did last year.
That's all.

 

[Claypigeon]

My understanding was that we were preparing to clear the decks in readiness for Cloke. What exactly that meant I don't know, other than we would have gone all our for our principle need.
That didn't come about and we may have gone back into our shell to some degree. (Emphasis on the "may")

Our list by far and large is good and I have no issues with it, but I do wonder whether had the CFC had its time again, we would have been as ready to hand out the contracts we did last year.
That's all.

Agree. .. Its similar to draft speculation. .. Perhaps we should have drafted Talia instead of Lucas but we didn't and the decision at the time was a close one the rest is hindsight. ..

Hindsight says that perhaps we should have given Davies and Joseph 1 year deals but the coach and the football department agreed to 2 years when the coach had a 2 year deal as well. .. The new coach coming in was completely unexpected (at least I hope so). .. Another thing to consider is that what if we'd offered all four 1 year deals and they'd walked or Army and Ellard had walked, I think we'd be in a poorer position now personally. ..

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I love all the trade week discussion going on here

 

[KnobHead]

Well Knobhead let's see if you did.

Why don't you try isolating the bits you admit do not make much sense to you (which contradicts your first sentence posted above, so well done you).

Perhaps you could quote where in any post I have made such a ridiculous statement. Hint: you won't because you can't.

[Then you confuse your position by stating an elementary proposition that a good coach needs more than heart . . .]
Hopefully the highlighted parts of my post and your mischaracterisation will help you, though I am not optimistic.

Since your starting assumption is without foundation there is nothing further I can do to help you.

I apologise in advance, Windy - I've got no idea what you're trying to say.

Reading what you write one can seemingly get a good gist of what you're saying, but when you try to explain it in a further post, well, it goes very pear shaped. "Post to post" you don't sync, at all.

Or perhaps you're deliberately trying to twist what people say in other posts which then confuses your own post because, well, it amuses you. Good for you. Whatever makes you happy.

And look, appreciate that you believe your posts to be infallible, and perhaps they are. But if so, for the likes of me they are too intellectual. There, perhaps I do need help?

Perhaps another tact which could help me further, if you dumb your posts down a bit we could engage on a level playing field. That'd be a "win / win"

 

[Dramoth]

Good luck, I expect one of these replies.

a) I trust the people in charge at Carlton to perform their roles.
b) Stop hating on Ratts.
c) He will completely ignore this post and look for another poster to troll.

I trust the people in charge at Carlton to be performing their roles within reason... if they went out and did something stupid (like paying players under the table with brown paper bags stuffed with wonga, then its pretty stupid...).

And year... 40YB will undoubtedly go looking for another target to troll. He has this moral position that he expects everyone else supporting the blues to mirror. He doesnt take into consideration that everyone is different and has their own moral compasses through life.

He also has an issue with someone making smartarsed one liners to him... seems rather anal about it really.

 

[Aphrodite]

Thread has been cleaned up.

STAY ON TOPIC !!!!

 

[Sector 7G]

Agree. .. Its similar to draft speculation. .. Perhaps we should have drafted Talia instead of Lucas but we didn't and the decision at the time was a close one the rest is hindsight. ..

Hindsight says that perhaps we should have given Davies and Joseph 1 year deals but the coach and the football department agreed to 2 years when the coach had a 2 year deal as well. .. The new coach coming in was completely unexpected (at least I hope so). .. Another thing to consider is that what if we'd offered all four 1 year deals and they'd walked or Army and Ellard had walked, I think we'd be in a poorer position now personally. ..

Great point. Should we only offer McInnes,McCarthy, Mitchell one year contracts for next year? If Davies had been given a 1 year contract I doubt he would be delisted. Played in a final in his 2nd year. Didn't get on the park until half way through his 3rd year and was promoted prematurely and then dropped. Never really had a chance to shine in 2012. If we are going to be this impatient with draft picks we should be more active in trading draft picks.