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!

 

[marcmurphy3]

Agree, I think the Sydney deal would also be largely contingent on us having an agreement to trade up already... otherwise, would be pointless if we lose both picks to a likely Dean bid.

Or could trade out and load up for next year's draft.

 

[marcmurphy3]

So we're losing Charlie and TDK for one top 3 pick in a weak draft and a future pick which is likely to be 15 plus next year?? How did this make us better?

It doesn't next year but if we dont see ourself as contenders it doesn't need to.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Honestly speaking, it's a deal that the logical thinking Carlton fans would take comfortably, I absolutely would for certain (ESPECIALLY if we can get into the top 3 of the draft)

The casuals on our socials are about to sook up a storm though

They still think we are getting gulden + warner

 

[Lukeblueboy]

I’d rather papley in the deal over Haywood.
Haywood just doesn’t do it for me for some reason. Need more x-factor imo

 

[SolGoodman]

There's going to be quite a few that mock us when this trade does go down because "HAHAHAH EVERYONE IS LEAVING CARLTON LOLZ".

However, I am genuinely very excited at the prospect of said deal, Hayward is a B-B+ player, Florent at his best is a B for sure, you lock up any doubts about getting Cody next season AND we potentially get one of the top three prospects from this draft?

Where the **** do I sign?

 

[SolGoodman]

They still think we are getting gulden + warner

You forgot the future 1st too mate.

 

[Opium]

It doesn't next year but if we dont see ourself as contenders it doesn't need to.

Absolutely we need to. 2027 is a compromised draft and basically a write off.

 

[Sam The Doc]

There's going to be quite a few that mock us when this trade does go down because "HAHAHAH EVERYONE IS LEAVING CARLTON LOLZ".

However, I am genuinely very excited at the prospect of said deal, Hayward is a B-B+ player, Florent at his best is a B for sure, you lock up any doubts about getting Cody next season AND we potentially get one of the top three prospects from this draft?

Where the **** do I sign?

Wish I could feel as optimistic about those 2 as you do.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

For those of you saying that they wouldn't want Florent / part of a separate deal...

He is the steak knives of that trade... we'd be doing them a favour taking him off their books...

11 + F1 + Hayward + Florent

for Charlie + F2/F3 I think is what it would look like. There's always a pick going back the other way.

 

[Opium]

Or could trade out and load up for next year's draft.

Nobody will be trading away future picks from a bottom side

 

[marcmurphy3]

Nobody will be trading away future picks from a bottom side

Sure they might. Depends on the deal.

 

[macky99]

Is O'Keefe in the next push or do we need another KPF?

We definitely need a developing key position forward very little depth or quality there except for Mckay.
Walter ideally would have been the one.

 

[macky99]

So we're losing Charlie and TDK for one top 3 pick in a weak draft and a future pick which is likely to be 15 plus next year?? How did this make us better?

In the short term no we are better, but let's see the outcome first as there is some good talent at the high end of this draft despite the negative commentary.

We need to be looking towards the future bringing in quality young talent.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I would expect us to have approached WCE with an offer of 10 + 11 for their F1.

If they reject, approach North and Melbourne with the idea of 10 + 11 for their F1 + a 3Rnd.

If they both reject, then try and offer that to WCE for pick 2.

If they reject then offer 10 + 11 for 6 + 24 from *.

If they reject, then 10 + 11 at the draft this year isn't really ideal especially if a Dean bid comes before we get to pick...

Just to pick this one apart: If they reject then offer 10 + 11 for 6 + 24 from *. If they reject, then 10 + 11 at the draft this year isn't really ideal especially if a Dean bid comes before we get to pick...

It's not that much difference for us, in my opinion.

10 would match the Dean bid by itself, we'd then get to use 11 and keep the JSOS compo (21) as well.
Vs
Using 6, then having to match the Dean bid with 21 and 24.

Is this the kind of draft where you want to effectively trade 11 and 21 for Pick 6? Or is the evenness of the draft such that two bites at the cherry inside that 10-25 range is better? Is the drop-off from 6 to 11 all that significant? Doesn't seem so. Would be more about targeting a very specific player (ie. Lindsay), vs taking a best available/most suitable of what's left option (ie. Grlj, Cumming, Greeves, Dovaston) as well as a free throw at the start of the second round (ie. Pickett, Barker, Ludowyke).

 

[Benaly28]

Suns have screwed Humprey over by chasing Petracca.

 

[SolGoodman]

That looks like poo, I guess it's true, everyone really does look better in blue.

 

[Opium]

Who would we use as a tall forward if McKay goes down.

Do we think Hayward and Khamis would work?

We kick it high and long to our small forwards like we do anyway. No need to change our game plan.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Or is the evenness of the draft such that two bites at the cherry inside that 10-25 range is better?

Also depends on free list spots

 

[Bluebag13]

Just to pick this one apart: If they reject then offer 10 + 11 for 6 + 24 from *. If they reject, then 10 + 11 at the draft this year isn't really ideal especially if a Dean bid comes before we get to pick...

It's not that much difference for us, in my opinion.

10 would match the Dean bid by itself, we'd then get to use 11 and keep the JSOS compo (21) as well.
Vs
Using 6, then having to match the Dean bid with 21 and 24.

Is this the kind of draft where you want to effectively trade 11 and 21 for Pick 6? Or is the evenness of the draft such that two bites at the cherry inside that 10-25 range is better? Is the drop-off from 6 to 11 all that significant? Doesn't seem so. Would be more about targeting a very specific player (ie. Lindsay), vs taking a best available/most suitable of what's left option (ie. Grlj, Cumming, Greeves, Dovaston) as well as a free throw at the start of the second round (ie. Pickett, Barker, Ludowyke).

In this years draft? Im of the opinion I would take the two bites of the cherry. Dovaston and Farrow would be very nice as an example

 

[TENACIOUS]

This might work,

Eagles > McDonald, Pick 8 (Sydney), Acres & McGovern
Suns > Pick 2 & Pick 36
Swans > Curnow
Blues > Humphrey, Chesser, F1 (swans) F1 (suns)

Works out:
Allen compo > McDonald, Pick 8 (Sydney) Chesser > Acres & McGovern
Humphrey & F1 > Pick 2 & Pick 36
Curnow > McDonald, Pick 8 & F1 (swans)

 

[goreds]

In the short term no we are better, but let's see the outcome first as there is some good talent at the high end of this draft despite the negative commentary.

We need to be looking towards the future bringing in quality young talent.

There is??

And not already linked to a team??

 

[Stamos]

Thats my thinking. Would allow us to get out of the Harry Dean "hit zone".

Walk away with Pick 3/4, Dean + Ison from the draft.

We would still need more points for Dean & Ison

 

[Opium]

Thats my thinking. Would allow us to get out of the Harry Dean "hit zone".

Walk away with Pick 3/4, Dean + Ison from the draft.

Do we know if Dean will be bid before our pick?

 

[Blue__Balls]

This might work,

Eagles > McDonald, Pick 8 (Sydney), Acres & McGovern
Suns > Pick 2 & Pick 36
Swans > Curnow
Blues > Humphrey, Chesser, F1 (swans) F1 (suns)

Can't help but think that if McDonald's name hasn't been mentioned by now, he's unlikely to be moving. Reckon Sydney would rather partner him with Curnow than punt him to bring Charlie in.

Also think GC would laugh at Humphrey and their future first for Pick 2 and 36.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Agree, I think the Sydney deal would also be largely contingent on us having an agreement to trade up already... otherwise, would be pointless if we lose both picks to a likely Dean bid.

Yep. We need to be sure that we can put that 11 to good use, before accepting it otherwise it doesn't really do much for us to warrant letting Charlie go.

Prioritise getting a F1 that will (almost) categorically ensure we have enough to pay for Walker so we can also grab another top 10 in next year's draft.

Need to get into *'s ear about the 2027 F1 for their 2026 F1. We'd have to add something to it, but it should be doable too.

The talent in next year's draft trumps what is on offer this year.

If we can somehow end trade week with F1(*), F1(North), F1 (Swans) along with our own 2026 1st then we are a serious chance to walk away with Walker, Butler, Neocleous and I like Gus Kennedy off half back can play midfield too... those 4 will be some serious weapons in the future...