List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
People are blurring the lines here.

Charlie vs Cameron, I don't think anyone could argue Charlie is the better footballer. Cameron is clearly in front and that may always be the case.

But then you add all other factors - contract situation etc. and it tells a different story.

If Cameron wanted to come to Carlton at the end of the year, we wouldn't give up Charlie. Cameron is a FA and wants out. Charlie is contracted and doesn't.

We would not entertain it and rightly so. That's not how you build a list.
 
Jeremias said:
People are blurring the lines here.

Charlie vs Cameron, I don't think anyone could argue Charlie is the better footballer. Cameron is clearly in front and that may always be the case.

But then you add all other factors - contract situation etc. and it tells a different story.

If Cameron wanted to come to Carlton at the end of the year, we wouldn't give up Charlie. Cameron is a FA and wants out. Charlie is contracted and doesn't.

We would not entertain it and rightly so. That's not how you build a list.
Click to expand...
The initial question of ''would you swap Charlie for Jezza'' is pretty straight forward, introducing other factors like the bolded (or me noting age) is what blurs the lines IMO.
 
BlueJet said:
The initial question of ''would you swap Charlie for Jezza'' is pretty straight forward, introducing other factors like the bolded (or me noting age) is what blurs the lines IMO.
Click to expand...

This was in response to post #708.

Given the hypothetical put forward by Bamboo Harvester you can't just ignore certain critical bits of information. They directly impact the response.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If Cameron chooses us (which he wont) and its not for picks because he is a RFA (which gws/afl will always find a way) i would dismantle our team in a heart beat.
 
Jeremias said:
This was in response to post #708.

Given the hypothetical put forward by Bamboo Harvester you can't just ignore certain critical bits of information. They directly impact the response.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what it's in response to,
Introducing additional factors not only blurs lines but turns it into a separate question altogether.
 
Gethelred said:
See, I think Cameron and Harry can work in the same forward line, with Charlie roaming between the arches (or vice versa; I'm not getting into the Charlie/Harry CHF conversation again!) but what it would do is spell the end for Kennedy, Casboult and McGovern, possibly TDK.

In any case, both would be unworkable inside 5 years; you're spending more than 2/3's of the salary cap on your KPF's. Charlie's a spearhead alone, imagine his production as a second tall? Let alone Harry's as a third. One of them gets an offer from somewhere else, and it simply couldn't be sustained.
Click to expand...

Who knows how the $$$$ would be worked out, there are a few teams who pay big bucks to 3-4 players and can manage and who knows what concessions players are willing to make if they think they are going to win premierships.

Even though I’ve just said to move Harry in to the ruck, I think there is a limit to forcing players out of their preferred positions to make way for a better option in their preferred role.

As I think we are too tall and slow already, even before we add Kemp, I could only see a set up working where one of the players, plays as the full time ruck.
 
DangerousD said:
Who knows how the $$$$ would be worked out, there are a few teams who pay big bucks to 3-4 players and can manage and who knows what concessions players are willing to make if they think they are going to win premierships.

Even though I’ve just said to move Harry in to the ruck, I think there is a limit to forcing players out of their preferred positions to make way for a better option in their preferred role.

As I think we are too tall and slow already, even before we add Kemp, I could only see a set up working where one of the players, plays as the full time ruck.
Click to expand...
I've maintained throughout our rebuild (once it began to take shape) that we've seen a mandate for contested marking list wide, with the players selected being better at it for their height or good at it overall. If we've done this, it necessitates that we've done it for a reason, with a specific goal in mind.

Geelong under Scott, in 2014-15, ran a gameplan of kick-mark, completely changing how Geelong operated from their dynasty; where they immediately switched into the corridor and took risks, blowing their opponents away in bursts of 10 goals with power and speed, they switched into not a cautious game but simply used their size to outmark smaller opponents. This was a decent idea, as it took advantage of their overall size when compared to their opponents across the board, but while the list was larger it was not necessarily better at contested marking. Think of it this way; under Grant Thomas, St Kilda played a similar game to Geelong under Thompson, albeit they had Gehrig and Riewoldt where Thompson had Scarlett and Mooney. Do we dismiss Geelong's success with the similar gameplan because it was not optimised under Thomas?

Had we kept Bolton, this was the direction we were looking to go, IMO. With Teague at the helm - and an aggressive mindset to boot - that isn't completely out of the window, just the strategy towards implementing it and what ball movement looks like will differ considerably. What it means is that I expect there to be friction between the various pieces on the ground (back into midfield, and midfield into forward) until it either clicks or it doesn't and Teague is moved on.

How that works for the KPF's we've got - and, as I've seen little of TDK, beyond what he's done on the ground in the ones, I'm going to have to go with a mixture between Jimmae's theory that he's a CHF with part time ruck and Arr0w's more flexible interpretation of his rucking abilities - is that we'll need someone who is capable of getting them to work together, with two to three of them making dummy leads to create space behind them at any given time.

I'm utterly against taking people out of their roles, except when the consequences are their not making it as an AFL player. If someone is pushed out, then it better be because we've got options everywhere.
 
HereComesJuddy said:
If Cameron chooses us (which he wont) and its not for picks because he is a RFA (which gws/afl will always find a way) i would dismantle our team in a heart beat.
Click to expand...
For me, it's purely a matter of degree.

If they wanted solely Charlie, and we had the finances to set it up so that his contract now doesn't prejudice Weitering, McKay, Cripps, Walsh etc down the road, then we're talking. If he wanted 10 mill over 7 years, he can make the offer to Essendon tomorrow.
 
BlueJet said:
I'm aware of what it's in response to,
Introducing additional factors not only blurs lines but turns it into a separate question altogether.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.

When considering whether we should trade Charlie for Cameron, we can’t consider Cameron’s status as a free agent?
 
Sharks On A Plane said:
Cameron is one of the most athletic tall forwards in the history of the game.
Click to expand...
its pretty obvious i'm alone in my thinking and respect your views but i don't see it as much...but i see it in charlie. charlie can take hangers, has better maneuverability and elusiveness and overall athletism imo.
 
Jeremias said:
So let me get this straight.

When considering whether we should trade Charlie for Cameron, we can’t consider Cameron’s status as a free agent?
Click to expand...
The initial scenario was querying whether we'd trade Charlie in order to get Cameron through the door.
You've opted to discuss free agency status, which while relevant to list management, is ultimately a separate discussion to the one initially raised.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred said:
See, I think Cameron and Harry can work in the same forward line, with Charlie roaming between the arches (or vice versa; I'm not getting into the Charlie/Harry CHF conversation again!) but what it would do is spell the end for Kennedy, Casboult and McGovern, possibly TDK.

In any case, both would be unworkable inside 5 years; you're spending more than 2/3's of the salary cap on your KPF's. Charlie's a spearhead alone, imagine his production as a second tall? Let alone Harry's as a third. One of them gets an offer from somewhere else, and it simply couldn't be sustained.
Click to expand...
Personally Get, TDK ain’t going nowhere...
 
BlueJet said:
The initial scenario was querying whether we'd trade Charlie in order to get Cameron through the door.
You've opted to discuss free agency status, which while relevant to list management, is ultimately a separate discussion to the one initially raised.
Click to expand...

No, I answered the question.

I then opted to add further context to the discussion by pointing out that if we're really discussing Cameron as an option, his free agency status cannot and should not be ignored.
 
FitzroyBlueBagger said:
Personally Get, TDK ain’t going nowhere...
Click to expand...
I hope not, but on my part that's hope rather than anything based on something more substantial.

But if we had Cameron, McKay and Charlie, something has to give when you consider the rest of the list, and it is in the ruck department that (traditionally speaking) there is room to move in terms of how influential they can be on a game vs a KPF, and how much talent/salary cap you should be tying up in ruckmen, regardless of how talented.

Again, that's not an argument I necessarily want to have again (although we're not doing anything else). I just don't think ruckmen should be a priority to have at league best level, and you should base your setups on winning no more than 35% of the taps whilst at worst halving the rest.
 
Some good discussion here.

Cameron is a RFA, which means that GWS could just match any offer....a trade could secure him 'out of good faith', similar to what the Cats did to secure Dangerfield, although he was also a RFA. That was the basis of my hypothetical.

Just my opinion - if Charlie was up and running, I wouldn't trade him for Cameron....mainly because I think he would provide a better dynamic with Harry and Martin and skinny Gov up forward. Throw Papley in there if that bird hasn't flown, and you've got a frightening proposition for any opposition. Cameron would also likely tie up a fair chunk of salary cap, which we may need to retain some of our guns.

Charlie is also more marketable for the club, particularly for the younger demographic....we need players who the kids want to come and see, so we can get them back to the footy after some of the stuff we've dealt up in recent years. Right now we don't have a lot apart from Crippa and Eddie....not sure if Cameron fits that category.
 
Gethelred said:
I hope not, but on my part that's hope rather than anything based on something more substantial.

But if we had Cameron, McKay and Charlie, something has to give when you consider the rest of the list, and it is in the ruck department that (traditionally speaking) there is room to move in terms of how influential they can be on a game vs a KPF, and how much talent/salary cap you should be tying up in ruckmen, regardless of how talented.

Again, that's not an argument I necessarily want to have again (although we're not doing anything else). I just don't think ruckmen should be a priority to have at league best level, and you should base your setups on winning no more than 35% of the taps whilst at worst halving the rest.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of your post and some tough decisions would need too be made..
Kruezer i would retire been an absolute warrior but body has endured too many injuries, sad but time to move forward...
DeKoning is our next ruckman in my eyes it’s only my opinion but I’ve seen enough of him to be strongly convinced, for me his our next #1...
Still a little underdeveloped in areas, physically and endurance
wise but I’d be pumping in as many games into him this year as possible with Russell’s elite management...
As for the Cameron v Charlie debate, if he hadn’t hurt the knee ‘twice now’ he wouldn’t even be in the conversation...
Cameron is a gun, FA would be nice though...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aphrodite
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management 📃
198 199 200 201 202
Replies
5K
Views
263K
TeeJay Blue
TeeJay Blue
Aphrodite
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2023 List Management
395 396 397 398 399
Replies
10K
Views
444K
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
News List Changes - Thank you LOB, Honey & Philp
2 3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
8K
haveago
haveago
The Old Dark Navy's
  • Sticky
2024 Carlton AFLW List
Replies
1
Views
985
The Old Dark Navy's
The Old Dark Navy's
Aphrodite
News AFLW List Changes/Delistings 2023
Replies
17
Views
1K
BlueGum
BlueGum
TENACIOUS
Review Carlton Club Manager 2022 (Game)
Replies
10
Views
1K
TENACIOUS
TENACIOUS
The Old Dark Navy's
AFLW 2023 Carlton AFLW Player List
Replies
2
Views
609
Aphrodite
Aphrodite

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top