List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[BlackGoanna]

Fox sports have pick 10. 2026 1st and 2nd rounder and Hayward for Charlie and pick 40

I posted a week or so ago the likely scenario. That is a future 2nd coming to us not the other way around.

So Curnow for the 2 firsts, future 2nd and either Hayward or McInerney.

We would remove the future 2nd demand if Florent was added

 

[jaggabagga]

I posted a week or so ago the likely scenario. That is a future 2nd coming to us not the other way around.

So Curnow for the 2 firsts, future 2nd and either Hayward or McInerney.

We would remove the future 2nd demand if Florent was added

That's disgusting, giving up a dual coleman medallist contracted for another 4 years on 700k way unders, for that is absolutely disgusting.
We have the best forward in the game when he's uninjured locked in for a steal for 4 years.
F that manager. I'd be holding, a lot of weak hands on bigfooty

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

That's disgusting, giving up a dual coleman medallist contracted for another 4 years on 700k way unders, for that is absolutely disgusting.
We have the best forward in the game when he's uninjured locked in for a steal for 4 years.
F that manager. I'd be holding, a lot of weak hands on bigfooty

That would literally be one of the biggest payouts for a player we've seen.

'Way unders' is a laughable statement.

 

[jaggabagga]

That would literally be one of the biggest payouts for a player we've seen.

'Way unders' is a laughable statement.

None of you seem to be taking into account he's signed for 4 years on half coin, maybe less than half coin.

 

[BlackGoanna]

That's disgusting, giving up a dual coleman medallist contracted for another 4 years on 700k way unders, for that is absolutely disgusting.
We have the best forward in the game when he's uninjured locked in for a steal for 4 years.
F that manager. I'd be holding, a lot of weak hands on bigfooty

Are you ok mate ?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

None of you seem to be taking into account he's signed for 4 years on half coin, maybe less than half coin.

I'll repeat, that's one of the biggest returns for a player we've seen full stop.

No where near 'way unders', half the Sydney fans would blow a gasket if they did that deal which says everything you need to know about whether it's considered 'overs' or not.

 

[BlueTongue]

That's disgusting, giving up a dual coleman medallist contracted for another 4 years on 700k way unders, for that is absolutely disgusting.
We have the best forward in the game when he's uninjured locked in for a steal for 4 years.
F that manager. I'd be holding, a lot of weak hands on bigfooty

SO, 2 x 1sts, a future second AND Hayward for Charlie & 40 is not enough?

You got me, I'm stumped

 

[Moon]

I'm not assuming anything anymore when it comes to Carlton, zero trust based on last 25 years.
The fact they are even chasing a contracted C-grade Khamis tells me there is still a fool embedded in the club somewhere and not just in the match committee, which is harmful enough in itself.
The other 2 Reidy and Chesser can see the merit in.

Playing my tune there Jaggabagga fella ... couldna said it better meself. On the same page, cuz.
My Faith will disintegrate pretty quickly if C-graders are first choices.
Nuffin like filling up with junk first to stop the juices flowin and taking the edge off the appetite.

I'm kinda nervous

 

[Michael Jezz]

SO, 2 x 1sts, a future second AND Hayward for Charlie & 40 is not enough?

You got me, I'm stumped

Charlie turns the Swans into a top 6 team. Carlton receive nothing concrete and take on risk. The 2 first rounders are picks in the teens. One of them, this years, in a poor draft. Charlie is worth a top 5 pick a pick between 5-12 + hayward. The Swans need to work harder if they want Charlie Curnow and instantly rise up the ladder. Our option is to keep him as he is contracted and reap the benefit of his talent.

 

[jaggabagga]

That would literally be one of the biggest payouts for a player we've seen.

'Way unders' is a laughable statement.

Not really, what are those two first rounders again, pick 10 and what will Sydeney do next year, probably back in finals, so not looking as good now is it, pick 10 and say pick 13 plus a flanker. And maybe a second rounder if we are lucky. Yeah no thanks i'll take gun key fwd for 700k thanks Alex

 

[BlackGoanna]

Playing my tune there Jaggabgger fella ... couldna said it better meself. On the same page, cuz.
My Faith will disintegrate pretty quickly if C-graders are first choices.
Nuffin like filling up with junk to stop the juices flowin and taking the edge off the appetite.

I think you did a good job of saying it better fella. Nuffin like a nuffy

 

[BlackGoanna]

Charlie turns the Swans into a top 6 team. Carlton receive nothing concrete and take on risk. The 2 first rounders are picks in the teens. One of them, this years, in a poor draft. Charlie is worth a top 5 pick a pick between 5-12 + hayward. The Swans need to work harder if they want Charlie Curnow and instantly rise up the ladder. Our option is to keep him as he is contracted and reap the benefit of his talent.

And those picks magically appear from where exactly?

All good have opinions but you got to be realistic in how such a deal will happen.

Or you just roll out the typical response and tell them all the GAGF we will play Curnow in the reserves if need be

 

[jaggabagga]

I think you did a good job of saying it better fella. Nuffin like a nuffy

Are you o.k mate??

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Not really, what are those two first rounders again, pick 10 and what will Sydeney do next year, probably back in finals, so not looking as good now is it, pick 10 and say pick 13 plus a flanker. And maybe a second rounder if we are lucky. Yeah no thanks i'll take gun key fwd for 700k thanks Alex

Hayward on the open market would comfortably be worth a late first rounder at a minimum. So essentially 3 mid to late firsts and a future 2nd.

That is a massive payout for a soon to be 29 year old.

 

[BlueTongue]

Charlie turns the Swans into a top 6 team. Carlton receive nothing concrete and take on risk. The 2 first rounders are picks in the teens. One of them, this years, in a poor draft. Charlie is worth a top 5 pick a pick between 5-12 + hayward. The Swans need to work harder if they want Charlie Curnow and instantly rise up the ladder. Our option is to keep him as he is contracted and reap the benefit of his talent.

Charlie turns 29 before the season starts.
He has had multiple surgeries on his knee and an ankle reconstruction.
Hayward is 26 and also contracted until the end of 2029 and their most consistent forward.

Charlie is a bigger risk to hold on to than take that deal.

 

[JustaBattler]

And those picks magically appear from where exactly?

All good have opinions but you got to be realistic in how such a deal will happen.

Or you just roll out the typical response and tell them all the GAGF we will play Curnow in the reserves if need be

The poinbt though is that - It isn't Carlton's 'problem' to solve.

Realistic is what Carlton decides is 'real' - no any other club NOR curnow.

You don't give players like curnow away - when you have all the leverage in 4 years remaining on his contract.

The CLub can weigh up the risk of keeping him in ( allegedly) unhappy state versus what he can bring to the CLub by way of compensation - that is the CLub's call- if teh CLub reckons the offer(s) for curnow don't at least equal his risk adjusted worth to the Club all things considered to the best of their ability - then curnow stayts.

Carlton first is about just that - not curnow, not Sydney, Geelong or any other CLub - Carlton.- and IF Carlton ends up keeping him and it doesn't work out - NO BIG DEAL- the world is full of harry hindsight's and 'opinions'.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

That's disgusting, giving up a dual coleman medallist contracted for another 4 years on 700k way unders, for that is absolutely disgusting.
We have the best forward in the game when he's uninjured locked in for a steal for 4 years.
F that manager. I'd be holding, a lot of weak hands on bigfooty

Just wait until Mackie offers us pick 19 and a third string small forward for him....

 

[BlueTongue]

Just wait until Mackie offers us pick 19 and a third string small forward for him....

I'd laugh but he would literally do something as shit as that

 

[swellnoodles]

Not really, what are those two first rounders again, pick 10 and what will Sydeney do next year, probably back in finals, so not looking as good now is it, pick 10 and say pick 13 plus a flanker. And maybe a second rounder if we are lucky. Yeah no thanks i'll take gun key fwd for 700k thanks Alex

Finally, someone understands what it would take for Charlie to leave.

 

[circusdevil]

The Judd Trade was essentially two top 4 picks and pick 20. He was uncontracted and injured to the point that it was unknown how he would return. This was at a time when you could not trade years picks in advance so that all had to come out of one years bounty.

Since future trading, it has been more expensive to get top line players across (Gibbs, Cameron, Kelly etc).

Sure Charlie is older, but he is contracted. He is a generational talent that opens the door for a premiership. He should have at least 6 seasons in him. We should aim for a much higher return.

If we trade him to get points for players that are promised to us anyway then we are inept. Trading out a superstar to match bids and to get a Hayward like player is the worst list management idea I have ever heard.

Find a way to move picks around to get the points we need (we just got pick 9 and 19 to get creative with). You trade Charlie for a superstar only, or you hold for a year until the draft isn't as insipid as this years and then revisit it.

 

[swellnoodles]

The Judd Trade was essentially two top 4 picks and pick 20. He was uncontracted and injured to the point that it was unknown how he would return. This was at a time when you could not trade years picks in advance so that all had to come out of one years bounty.

Since future trading, it has been more expensive to get top line players across (Gibbs, Cameron, Kelly etc).

Sure Charlie is older, but he is contracted. He is a generational talent that opens the door for a premiership. He should have at least 6 seasons in him. We should aim for a much higher return.

If we trade him to get points for players that are promised to us anyway then we are inept. Trading out a superstar to match bids and to get a Hayward like player is the worst list management idea I have ever heard.

Find a way to move picks around to get the points we need (we just got pick 9 and 19 to get creative with). You trade Charlie for a superstar only, or you hold for a year until the draft isn't as insipid as this years and then revisit it.

Finally.

 

[BlackGoanna]

The poinbt though is that - It isn't Carlton's 'problem' to solve.

Realistic is what Carlton decides is 'real' - no any other club NOR curnow.

You don't give players like curnow away - when you have all the leverage in 4 years remaining on his contract.

The CLub can weigh up the risk of keeping him in ( allegedly) unhappy state versus what he can bring to the CLub by way of compensation - that is the CLub's call- if teh CLub reckons the offer(s) for curnow don't at least equal his risk adjusted worth to the Club all things considered to the best of their ability - then curnow stayts.

Carlton first is about just that - not curnow, not Sydney, Geelong or any other CLub - Carlton.- and IF Carlton ends up keeping him and it doesn't work out - NO BIG DEAL- the world is full of harry hindsight's and 'opinions'.

Thanks for enlightening us.

 

[marcmurphy3]

The deal that's been proposed for Charlie (2 1sts, a 2nd, Hayward) is better then the Cameron deal. Significantly better then the Gibbs deal. Probably better then the Kelly deal.

The Cameron deal was actually pretty poor when you consider what went back the other way.

No point talking the Judd trade. That was 20 years ago.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

The Judd Trade was essentially two top 4 picks and pick 20. He was uncontracted and injured to the point that it was unknown how he would return. This was at a time when you could not trade years picks in advance so that all had to come out of one years bounty.

Since future trading, it has been more expensive to get top line players across (Gibbs, Cameron, Kelly etc).

Sure Charlie is older, but he is contracted. He is a generational talent that opens the door for a premiership. He should have at least 6 seasons in him. We should aim for a much higher return.

If we trade him to get points for players that are promised to us anyway then we are inept. Trading out a superstar to match bids and to get a Hayward like player is the worst list management idea I have ever heard.

Find a way to move picks around to get the points we need (we just got pick 9 and 19 to get creative with). You trade Charlie for a superstar only, or you hold for a year until the draft isn't as insipid as this years and then revisit it.

At least 6 years in him?

I don't think you'd find many football followers that would think the bloke who's had an enormous history of knee issues has at least 6 years left in him when he's turning 29 at the start of next year. Playing through to 35 years old would be a fantastic result for him but a seriously unlikely one.

26 year old Curnow would be worth the kings bounty some in here speak of, at 29 he's just not of the same value on the market.

Luckily for us, if we so choose to, we can keep hold him to his contract if we don't think the offer we get is worth letting him go.

 

[JustaBattler]

At least 6 years in him?

I don't think you'd find many football followers that would think the bloke who's had an enormous history of knee issues has at least 6 years left in him when he's turning 29 at the start of next year. Playing through to 35 years old would be a fantastic result for him but a seriously unlikely one.

26 year old Curnow would be worth the kings bounty some in here speak of, at 29 he's just not of the same value on the market.

Luckily for us, if we so choose to, we can keep hold him to his contract if we don't think the offer we get is worth letting him go.

At least 4 years of "something" - which judging by the 'talk' on here- isn't worth much to other Clubs anyway.