Rumour Bluemour Discussion XL - ‘Silly Season’ in full swing 😱

[Aphrodite]

#BUMP from February


Re: 'Alleged' rumours resurfacing ...

Folks, this is the way things are here.

Posters are responsible for what they post. Moderators can not attest to the accuracy or otherwise of any rumour posted.

Moderators will intervene for a couple of reasons.

1. If a thread is threatening to be derailed because of a post.

2. If invested parties request the removal of material.

None of this draws a conclusion as to the accuracy or otherwise of the original post.

There is no need to further speculate. What will be will be.

Also, you need to remember that this thread like all parts of this forum is bound by the rules of poster conduct. If you want to express skepticism towards a rumour that's fine, but having a crack at posters who are contributors to this forum is simply not on and will be acted upon.

Simply put, don't be a dick.

Thanks all!

 

[Rustica]

Sydney board rumour (unsourced) is they offered Florent + Logan McDonald + F2 which we knocked back.

They think that it's crazy that we would knock it back.

I would say that the difference between Charlie Curnow and Logan McDonald is far greater than Oli Florent and a pick that can't help us get Cody

Wouldn’t even trade Frankie Evans for that

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Do we need to get ahead of it? I believe one of the ITK's said a week or two ago that the plan was to only take Dean and Ison and a later pick in the draft?

If we're trading Curnow I'd think we'll almost certainly try and get a top end picks in ahead of HD

 

[The Return of the Paf]

I have a pretty good feeling that any Geelong player we would trade in wouldn't play as well as they did at the Cats. Buyer beware.

Maybe, but by that logic any player from any club brought into Carlton won't play as well as players do at Geelong, and Geelong don't have any naturally talented players.

 

[ferrisb]

Carlton have lost 58% of games where Harry and Charlie both played together.

Carlton has lost 63% of games where Cripps has played.

Sakc!!!

 

[Rosscoe 17]

When I look at Geelongs list..I wouldn’t trade CC for any of them. It’s weird because they are playing in a grand final.

 

[ferrisb]

I'm on tender hooks waiting for a response

Supposably...

 

[The Return of the Paf]

If we're trading Curnow I'd think we'll almost certainly try and get a top end picks in ahead of HD

If you take the rhetoric on face value, we are twiddling our thumbs regarding any points needed for Father Sons and academy players over the next two years. 'Players, not picks' - indeed!

 

[ferrisb]

I have zero inside knowledge, just throwing it out there: has Charlie been less focused mentally/less driven, since his brother left the club? Ed was such a warrior and I’d imagine drove standards on the track, and you’d hear that Charlie loved to compete/play with him. Would, Ed pull Charlie into line?

Charlie finished 4th in the Coleman last year.

Everyone above him played 3-6 games more than him.

Looking at average goals per game, he was 2nd in the league (for the third straight year). And even then Hogan only beat him through insane goal conversion.

This year was a blip.

 

[Flaggers22]

Carlton have lost 58% of games where Harry and Charlie both played together.

This does not mean there is a causal relationship. The same way increased ice cream sales don't lead to increased drownings, yet they are positively correlated.

Here are a few potential confounders that you haven't considered:

Baseline Performance - From 2016-2025, we've only won 39.9% of our games, so if we're winning 42% when they play together, it suggests they might be performing above expectation (again it's naive to make such a claim just based on win percentage).

Clustering - You mentioned that our winrate with Mckay playing sans Curnow, is higher than the inverse. Charlie played around 20 more games from 2016-2019, when we won 28% of our games. So are we actually better off with Mckay as a lone forward, or did Charlie just play more games in a terrible team?

Team Composition, Opposition Strength, Replacement Player(s) & Game Location - Perhaps we were playing stronger teams without McKay then we were without Curnow, perhaps there was a disproportionate number of away games, perhaps the player who replaced Charlie in the side was better than the one who replaced Mckay (Casboult vs Kemp), perhaps we had a raft of injuries in those games without Curnow. These are factors you have to consider.

Sample Sizes - Random variation is exaggerated in small samples. Hypothetically, if Charlie misses 5 games in any given season, the observed win percentage could swing just by chance — a couple of unlucky bounces, or an away fixture against a top side. As the sample size grows, the law of large numbers kicks in, and the observed win rate converges toward the team’s true underlying probability of winning in that scenario. Put simply, if there's fewer than 100 games where they're playing without the other, then you're likely capturing meaningless noise.

There's obviously more variables, but it would be fruitless to list them all. I just want to say I appreciate you and anyone who compiles data and asks thought provoking questions. However, I think your interpretation is too simplistic. Analysing data is hard, and people aren't wired to account for randomness or uncertainty. There's a reason people study this stuff for 4-10 years at university. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you or anything, I only responded because I saw a few people pushing the idea that we may perform better without Charlie. Which may yet be the case, but you can only make that determination with a full analysis. However, everything I know about the data and what I've heard from the coach leads me to believe we play better with both.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

This does not mean there is a causal relationship. The same way increased ice cream sales don't lead to increased drownings, yet they are positively correlated.

Here are a few variables that you haven't considered:

Baseline Performance - From 2016-2025, we've only won 39.9% of our games, so if we're winning 42% when they play together, it suggests they might be performing above expectation (again it's naive to make such a claim just based on win percentage).

Clustering - You mentioned that our winrate with Mckay playing sans Curnow, is higher than the inverse. Charlie played around 20 more games from 2016-2019, when we won 28% of our games. So are we actually better off with Mckay as a lone forward, or did Charlie just play more games in a terrible team?

Team Composition, Opposition Strength, Replacement Player(s) & Game Location - Perhaps we were playing stronger teams without McKay then we were without Curnow, perhaps there was a disproportionate number of away games, perhaps the player who replaced Charlie in the side was better than the one who replaced Mckay (Casboult vs Kemp), perhaps we had a raft of injuries in those games without Curnow. These are factors you have to consider.

Sample Sizes - Random variation is exaggerated in small samples. Hypothetically, if Charlie misses 5 games in any given season, the observed win percentage could swing just by chance — a couple of unlucky bounces, or an away fixture against a top side. As the sample size grows, the law of large numbers kicks in, and the observed win rate converges toward the team’s true underlying probability of winning in that scenario. Put simply, if there's fewer than 100 games where they're playing without the other, then you're likely capturing meaningless noise.

There's obviously more variables, but it would be fruitless to list them all. I just want to say I appreciate you and anyone who compiles data and asks thought provoking questions. However, I think your interpretation is too simplistic. Analysing data is hard, and people aren't wired to account for randomness or uncertainty. There's a reason people study this stuff for 4-10 years at university. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you or anything, I only responded because I saw a few people pushing the idea that we may perform better without Charlie. Which may yet be the case, but you can only make that determination with a full analysis. However, everything I know about the data and what I've heard from the coach leads me to believe we play better with both.

Yes.

 

[ctwenty1]

When I look at Geelongs list..I wouldn’t trade CC for any of them. It’s weird because they are playing in a grand final.

Yep

Champion team as opposed to team of champions

I think this is what GW and Austin are trying to rectify, which makes any trading of Charlie interesting

 

[GT619]

Wouldn’t even trade Frankie Evans for that

no one touches Frankie

 

[Tazblue]

In theory what are the actual legitimate best offers the Cats could make?

We are wanting to trade Charlie at a value based on his Coleman form, but in reality we are dealing with his 2025 form, which is miles below. It's also more likely the 2025 form is what we'll get for the next 4 years if we hold him, so what is that worth?

No one would be chasing Charlie if they thought 2025 form was all he has

 

[Wickzki]

This does not mean there is a causal relationship. The same way increased ice cream sales don't lead to increased drownings, yet they are positively correlated.

Here are a few variables that you haven't considered:

Baseline Performance - From 2016-2025, we've only won 39.9% of our games, so if we're winning 42% when they play together, it suggests they might be performing above expectation (again it's naive to make such a claim just based on win percentage).

Clustering - You mentioned that our winrate with Mckay playing sans Curnow, is higher than the inverse. Charlie played around 20 more games from 2016-2019, when we won 28% of our games. So are we actually better off with Mckay as a lone forward, or did Charlie just play more games in a terrible team?

Team Composition, Opposition Strength, Replacement Player(s) & Game Location - Perhaps we were playing stronger teams without McKay then we were without Curnow, perhaps there was a disproportionate number of away games, perhaps the player who replaced Charlie in the side was better than the one who replaced Mckay (Casboult vs Kemp), perhaps we had a raft of injuries in those games without Curnow. These are factors you have to consider.

Sample Sizes - Random variation is exaggerated in small samples. Hypothetically, if Charlie misses 5 games in any given season, the observed win percentage could swing just by chance — a couple of unlucky bounces, or an away fixture against a top side. As the sample size grows, the law of large numbers kicks in, and the observed win rate converges toward the team’s true underlying probability of winning in that scenario. Put simply, if there's fewer than 100 games where they're playing without the other, then you're likely capturing meaningless noise.

There's obviously more variables, but it would be fruitless to list them all. I just want to say I appreciate you and anyone who compiles data and asks thought provoking questions. However, I think your interpretation is too simplistic. Analysing data is hard, and people aren't wired to account for randomness or uncertainty. There's a reason people study this stuff for 4-10 years at university. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you or anything, I only responded because I saw a few people pushing the idea that we may perform better without Charlie. Which may yet be the case, but you can only make that determination with a full analysis. However, everything I know about the data and what I've heard from the coach leads me to believe we play better with both.

Thank you for posting this. I was shaking my head reading the meaningless stats.

When we played our most meaningful footy in the last 20 years - second half of 2023 - McKay was sidelined for half of it and we won every game that he missed. Then won the final against Melbourne without him again.

Does that mean that we're better off without Harry or without one of the two in the team?

No.

 

[ctwenty1]

No one would be chasing Charlie if they thought 2025 form was all he has

Gee I hope we don’t blink

 

[Dominator_7]

Funny how the media are always so quick to echo whatever crap comes out of dodgy D’Orazio’s mouth, but never offer any ideas of suitable trades. Just that ‘Charlie is desperate to leave’ and that (insert club) A graders are off limits. So what are they expecting GW and crew to do with that ? Buckle and take whatever scraps we are offered ? Not on Davies and GW’s watch. They’re not Brad Lloyd and a half retired Cook.
This story is just going around in circles and proving to be a big waste of our clubs time.

 

[lukep_86]

Supposably...

This is the one that grinds my goat

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Because the distance from the bottom to the top is bigger than it has ever been.

We desperately, hopelessly need to raise our floor as a footy club. Since 2002 we have circled the drain and when we are bad, we are awful and everyone wants to leave and the fans turn on each other and...are you seriously happy to go back to the bottom 4?

For what? Another '66 game rebuild' that takes 8 years to get back to finals (that would be 2034 for anyone counting at home)? That is the path our club appears to be taking, though, and it is madness.

The clear difference between us and Essendon is that they don't have any good players outside Merrett (but tonnes of depth). We are the opposite - a good top end, but paper thin. And the one unique thing we can do is send out two Coleman medallists in the forward line, and have a duel Brownlow medallist leading the midfield.

I definitely do not want a complete rebuild ever again. I would much, much rather aim to just consolidate in the middle of the ladder, open up cap space and fill gaps, the way Collingwood and Geelong have done.

I don't think a complete rebuild is necessary either... the "66 game" rebuild was nonsense.

But I do think we need to cash in on next year's draft as much as possible.

I also doubt that finishing 12th "raises our floor" it just doesn't do anything for us except put us in a worse position to match a bid for Cody... that's literally all it does for us.

That 2x Coleman medalist has quite clearly checked out... people even saying he was shopping himself around as early as May! We were still a chance to make finals at that point, in fact the North Melbourne game would have squared the ledger and given us a decent shot at it... he turned up on his bike wearing slippers after being under an injury cloud all week...

Just can't rely on an idiot like that. Chances are he'll stay at the Blues next year, but given his attitude, he's likely to just stink it up again next year and request a trade again...

That Brownlow medalist is going to turn 31 next year... his body has been knocked from pillar to post during his career and it's really difficult to see him recapture that form.

Collingwood "filled gaps" because they were lucky enough to have gun F/S players come through and drafted generational talents like Pendles and Sidebottom.

Geelong I think we all know have been allowed to cheat the system... Bailey Smith for pick 17 and 38? 3rd round pick for pick 7 + Bowes? 3 late first rounders for Cameron with two 2nd's coming back?

This year, it looks like we're adding stop gap players, perhaps considered money ball types along with Dean + Ison. They are not going to make up for what we've lost/going to lose. But there's not a lot out there and even if there was, we just haven't got the trade capital to make things happen.

Next year, it should be about cashing in on the last draft before Tassie, a generational talent draft that we won't get the opportunity to take advantage of again for a long time. Get a few 1st round picks right here and we're set to rise up the ladder in a short period of time.

2027 is when we can target trades and free agents. By then, we'll have a war chest... some big names will become a free agents too... Rowell, Serong, Anderson... then there's other pretty good players in that boat: Coleman, SDK, Day, Green, Ash, Bergman, Weightman...

The key is the timing... it is crucial... we need to hold before we strike.

 

[sosos]

Those saying this are not only short sighted, they are wrong.

The saying is - cutting off your nose to spite your face..

Big oops. Well it launched a nice tangent I guess. Better than that cheese saga...

 

[GoBlues!]

Funny how the media are always so quick to echo whatever crap comes out of dodgy D’Orazio’s mouth, but never offer any ideas of suitable trades. Just that ‘Charlie is desperate to leave’ and that (insert club) A graders are off limits.
This story is just going around in circles and proving to be a big waste of our clubs time.

Exactly Dom7.

It’s like the media and Charlie’s manager are all sitting around in a circle jerk, getting off on their own opinions.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Not against something like this.

Banking a mid range future first alleviates a lot of stress matching bids for Cody Walker (a bird in the hand)
Think I would prefer to GIVE F2 rather than 2025 end of first round if something extra was required back. We have a few potential acquisitions to pay for.

Two best 22 or future best 22 players would be somewhat adequate. Dattoli and Green good prospects small forward/mid and a highly rated young ruckman

They'd need to throw in their pick #11 this year as well...

Also, whilst Green is a highly rated young ruck, I just don't think they're that relevant to team success.. and will probably become less relevant with the new rules coming in...

I'd much rather Dattoli + #11 + F1 + Florent for Charlie + F3.

 

[GoBlues!]

Big oops. Well it launched a nice tangent I guess. Better than that cheese saga...

I loved your post sosos, it launched a nice tangent and gave us a welcome distraction.

 

[choo]

Sean Darcy

4

Sean Darcy

Age

27

Ht

203cm

Wt

111kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.1

3star

K

3.4

1star

HB

6.6

4star

CL

2.4

4star

HO

28.8

5star

D

6.8

1star

K

2.0

1star

HB

4.8

3star

CL

1.8

4star

HO

20.3

5star

D

11.4

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

6.8

5star

CL

2.6

5star

HO

32.0

5star

to cheats. Can we get involved?
Warner to Freo. Charlie to Sydney
Freo lose Darcy get 6 from cheats
Sydney lose Warner get Charlie plus Freo something
Carlton lose. Charlie get 6 plus Syd 2026 1st

 

[Benaly28]

Sean Darcy to cheats. Can we get involved?
Warner to Freo. Charlie to Sydney
Freo lose Darcy get 6 from cheats
Sydney lose Warner get Charlie plus Freo something
Carlton lose. Charlie get 6 plus Syd 2026 1st

Nope.

 

[GT619]

Thank you for posting this. I was shaking my head reading the meaningless stats.

When we played our most meaningful footy in the last 20 years - second half of 2023 - McKay was sidelined for half of it and we won every game that he missed. Then won the final against Melbourne without him again.

Does that mean that we're better off without Harry or without one of the two in the team?

No.

ww just hit form at the right time. momentum is hard to stop