Bluemour Discussion Thread VI (cont. in Part VII)

[Wickzki]

I hate to break the news to you, but we're finishing bottom 4 next year anyway mate.

If we bring in Josh Kelly without trading Gibbs in the process then we will not finish bottom 4. If that happens I believe that we'll end up having a St. Kilda type season in 2018. Maybe not good enough for finals but in contention for much of the season and ultimately just falling short.

 

[HARKER]

I hate to break the news to you, but we're finishing bottom 4 next year anyway mate.

But the point of Gibbs+Murphy is to get Kelly + Rayner. If we trade pick #1 we won't be getting him.

Rebuilding is about short term pain for long term gain. That's why I would do that trade. But don't worry, GWS aren't going to accept pick #9+Murphy for Kelly anyway so no point going into too much detail about it, it was just a suggestion from Harker.

Hope Bolton doesn't share your view.

No guarantees where we'll finish and let's put everything on the table in March next year. Way too early to make that sort of call.

 

[ShanDog]

I am all for seeing Levi to another club if it is certain that we get Lynch as a replacement next year. We can use the Levi pick to get another quality mid and use our #1 on Kelly. That way when Tom arrives we have a midfield that hopefully can give him quality supply. It will mean that 2018 will be another struggle year without Levi, but at least our mids will be starting to fire in preparation.
If on the other hand there is no intent to bring in a Lynch or similar then I would rather keep Levi to help out the youngsters

See where you are coming from but I'm not so concerned about the forward structure next year. It will be a work in progress for a while, but McKay, Silvagni and Curnow are enough to work with on their own. Kerr will probably get a run next year with the way he's going too. Getting Redpath if we lose Levi is important for that mature body to be there but it's not super critical IMHO.

 

[therubbernub]

They'd simply ask for our 2019 1st rounder + more. Or just say it's our problem to find a 2018 1st rounder to satisfy them somehow.

I agree that they are entitled to ask for a fair trade. It may be not what they ideally want but if it is reasonably fair then SOS has done his job and met his "moral obligation". But I disagree that GWS can just ask an unrealistic pick and then dump it on SOS and say "get it done" (I realise that you werent implying that they were being unrealistic) If what SOS offers is in the realm of fair then I think they have a moral obligation to accept it. There will always be a fairly substantial gap between what a seller "hopes he can get" and what a buyer may think "they might accept'It is the nature of negotiation. So when a reasonable offer is made by the nominated club, then I think common sense would say that GWS would and should accept. That reasonable offer IMO is our first pick only. If they ask for more they are being unrealistic.
Looking at how clubs are really quick to sign up their young stars once they show definite ability. it would work against the long term list management objectives if GWS become stubborn and make it difficult for players to get back to Melbourne. If they went down this track, it would be the players manager's responsibility to point out that it was not in their best interest to sign a new early contract because at the end of the contact the club would make it difficult at the end. That is not a good reputation to have, when you are trying to build culture

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Hope Bolton doesn't share your view.

No guarantees where we'll finish and let's put everything on the table in March next year. Way too early to make that sort of call.

Well I doubt he has finals in mind for next year. We still have a LOT of driftwood to replace and we won't be doing it in one off season.

Sumner, Buckley, White, Armfield, Gorringe, Smedts, Jaksch, Palmer, Thomas, Boekhorst, Kerridge, Lamb and Graham. My opinion of course, but all of these players don't really offer much for us going forward.

Simmo's in a rapid decline, it will be his last year and Murphy another year older. Gibbs likely to be traded.

We've seen what happens when we have key players injured, we don't have the depth to cover for them.

Youngsters will still be too inexperienced to get us over the line in the close games.

It will be one more year of pain.

 

[therubbernub]

See where you are coming from but I'm not so concerned about the forward structure next year. It will be a work in progress for a while, but McKay, Silvagni and Curnow are enough to work with on their own. Kerr will probably get a run next year with the way he's going too. Getting Redpath if we lose Levi is important for that mature body to be there but it's not super critical IMHO.

Its indeed hypothetical. we can only speculate how Harry, Charlie and SOS (kerr) will develop without a big body in the form of Levi. Yes next year was always going to be a development year for our young forward line, but for me having some big body insurance would be desirable. The worse thing that can happen is that the youngsters are overwhelmed , lose confidence and go backwards. It wasnt that long ago that charlie was devoid of confidence and there were many calling for him to play in the NB's for a while. Of course that could turn out to be total BS and they really mature with the responsibility

 

[F_therest]

Why are some people having problem with trading pick 1/2 for Kelley who is an elite in/out mid that we are desperately need in the team now or hope like hell in 4 years time that draft pick 1/2 may turn into a Kelley??

If Kelley nominate us, I hope we play fair/smart by hand over pick 1/2 and get it done in 1st day

I reckon we will and if anything it might be GWS who will try get more out of us for Kelly and at least show their supporters some 'fight'.

Would be good for us to get it done early so that we can concentrate on other trades plus it may help convince other players to join us.

 

[F_therest]

I hate to break the news to you, but we're finishing bottom 4 next year anyway mate.

But the point of Gibbs+Murphy is to get Kelly + Rayner. If we trade pick #1 we won't be getting him.

Rebuilding is about short term pain for long term gain. That's why I would do that trade. But don't worry, GWS aren't going to accept pick #9+Murphy for Kelly anyway so no point going into too much detail about it, it was just a suggestion from Harker.

Your idea of rebuilding sounds very old-Melbourne like.

Simply getting rid of any older players no matter how good or loyal they've been for you, with one even being our captain...all for the sake of stacking our team with young talent.

Would have thought people would learn by now that doing that doesn't equal success...the kids need senior players around them to lead them and learn from them. Proper development is the key and good senior players play a large part in that.

I'd hate to see our team next year without Gibbs, Murphy and possibly Simmo.

 

[therubbernub]

I reckon we will and if anything it might be GWS who will try get more out of us for Kelly and at least show their supporters some 'fight'.

Would be good for us to get it done early so that we can concentrate on other trades plus it may help convince other players to join us.

Adding Kelly PLUS having a fit and firing Kreuzer. Kreuzer on his own would start other players thinking much more positively about our setup, add Kelly to Gibbs, Cripps, Murph,SPS, Charlie.......

 

[F_therest]

I agree that they are entitled to ask for a fair trade. It may be not what they ideally want but if it is reasonably fair then SOS has done his job and met his "moral obligation". But I disagree that GWS can just ask an unrealistic pick and then dump it on SOS and say "get it done" (I realise that you werent implying that they were being unrealistic) If what SOS offers is in the realm of fair then I think they have a moral obligation to accept it. There will always be a fairly substantial gap between what a seller "hopes he can get" and what a buyer may think "they might accept'It is the nature of negotiation. So when a reasonable offer is made by the nominated club, then I think common sense would say that GWS would and should accept. That reasonable offer IMO is our first pick only. If they ask for more they are being unrealistic.
Looking at how clubs are really quick to sign up their young stars once they show definite ability. it would work against the long term list management objectives if GWS become stubborn and make it difficult for players to get back to Melbourne. If they went down this track, it would be the players manager's responsibility to point out that it was not in their best interest to sign a new early contract because at the end of the contact the club would make it difficult at the end. That is not a good reputation to have, when you are trying to build culture

I was talking about GC with Tom Lynch

 

[HereComesJuddy]

We keep hearing this and keep saying it, but is next years #8-#10 going to be better than if we have pick #1 this year?
How much better? What type of player?

So we may not finish that high, but should the club bank on finishing low for an early pick in '18? How do you sell that notion to Bolton?
Should we forgo 12 months development into a the player we know we'd take now, for someone we have no idea about in 12 months time?

Yes, the 2018 crop looks better than this years right now, but who knows what can come about for some of the highly touted players across the course of the next 12 months?

If we had the choice of moving this years or next years for Kelly, I'd move on next years. We just may not have that opportunity.

If we end up with pick 1 this year, no doubt gws will want it for Kelly. And no doubt sos won't want to let go the chance to bring in the best kid in this crop. If it was pick 3 or 4. Then yeah. But i honestly doubt sos will just say, sure take the best.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

I'm not sure about 100% correct, but it just makes sense to me.

GWS may simply say, "This years first or you don't see Kelly" and that will likely be the end of that, but what interests me is, should the situation be that GWS are happy with either first, what would Bolton request?

Would he say, "Give me Rayner as we have no-one like him" or "Get me the best mid as we need further support there" or would he say, "I have time on my side and if you say that whoever we get next year will be considerably better than anyone we can take this year, then I'm fine with that........ You can guarantee me for this to be the case? You can, can't you? SOS?"

I would keep next year's first. All indications are the top players in next year's draft are better than this year's, starting with Rankine, Hill, King brothers, Lukosius ... We should get one of them and also match the bids for Ben and the younger Hickmott.

Rayner is from all reports a fair way off Senior AFL footy and unlikely to play much midfield in his first few years. Not sure if he is a good first choice for us. We'll see if his yo-yo is better than his beep ... So if Kelly is available and we give up this year's first I would support it.

 

[Aphrodite]

If I had to rate my favourite midfielder of the past 15 years, it'd be...

Carrazzo.

Supreme work ethic.

Shame he was never nominated for the NRS.

 

[F_therest]

Adding Kelly PLUS having a fit and firing Kreuzer. Kreuzer on his own would start other players thinking much more positively about our setup, add Kelly to Gibbs, Cripps, Murph,SPS, Charlie.......

Well i think it was MS3's bluemour that said Kelly saw us as having the team with the most upside out of his suitors if he were to leave GWS.
Not hard to see why i think we here would all agree we have a higher ceiling currently than Saints & North.

If Kelly can already see that and joins us then no doubt other players will see that too...plus at that point they would have already seen Kelly join us giving them more incentive to follow suit.

Get it done early, hopefully add someone like a Balic for a token pick and it will already be a successful trade period.

 

[therubbernub]

I was talking about GC with Tom Lynch

yes i realised , but couldnt be F'd rewriting it. But the essentially the same argument

 

[Soapy V]

We don't need him anyway. Pickett will get there with another preseason or two.

Better

 

[Jabba73]

Well I doubt he has finals in mind for next year. We still have a LOT of driftwood to replace and we won't be doing it in one off season.

Sumner, Buckley, White, Armfield, Gorringe, Smedts, Jaksch, Palmer, Thomas, Boekhorst, Kerridge, Lamb and Graham. My opinion of course, but all of these players don't really offer much for us going forward.

Simmo's in a rapid decline, it will be his last year and Murphy another year older. Gibbs likely to be traded.

We've seen what happens when we have key players injured, we don't have the depth to cover for them.

Youngsters will still be too inexperienced to get us over the line in the close games.

It will be one more year of pain.

You have listed 13 out of 42 players to be removed, should leave around 30 to choose from plus whatever we trade in.

Surely we can get a decent 22 out of that.

 

[gab213]

Do you really think that the tone around the club through the pre-season would be one of, "Oh well, we can't make finals?" How s**t is that?

Don't worry about the driftwood. Every club has players making up numbers, or just simply being developed.
If a club has 18-20 players of a good standard and some workhorses underneath, you're a chance. (GWS excepted, as they have about 25)

I doubt there'd be any talk in the pre season of making finals or not making finals. I just don't see it as our primary focus at this stage.

Any such discussions would seem to be premature and Bolton doesn't strike me as someone to put the cart before the horse.

No doubt there will be a desire to improve our ladder position but I doubt finals would be talked about.

 

[Soapy V]

You have listed 13 out of 42 players to be removed, should leave around 30 to choose from plus whatever we trade in.

Surely we can get a decent 22 out of that.

Depth still issue especially with so many kids. A few injuries and we will struggle.

 

[HARKER]

I doubt there'd be any talk in the pre season of making finals or not making finals. I just don't see it as our primary focus at this stage.

Any such discussions would seem to be premature and Bolton doesn't strike me as someone to put the cart before the horse.

No doubt there will be a desire to improve our ladder position but I doubt finals would be talked about.

No, there wouldn't be talk, but no way Bolton goes into the next year with a mindset that we'll finish bottom four.

The club as a whole must have high expectations from here on in. Not that we didn't beforehand, but there will be less excuses next year and less the following one. Those green shoots won't be green shoots any more. Time to flower. (as in flower, and not the other word that flower sometimes replaces )

 

[gab213]

No, there wouldn't be talk, but no way Bolton goes into the next year with a mindset that we'll finish bottom four.

The club as a whole must have high expectations from here on in. Not that we didn't beforehand, but there will be less excuses next year and less the following one. Those green shoots won't be green shoots any more. Time to flower. (as in flower, and not the other word that flower sometimes replaces )

Agreed, I certainly hope that they are looking at a better than bottom four finish for next year, anything less than that would be unacceptable in my opinion.

 

[bmaurizio]

You have listed 13 out of 42 players to be removed, should leave around 30 to choose from plus whatever we trade in.

Surely we can get a decent 22 out of that.

if can hold on to Gibbs, attract Kelly & Hopper and Matera we'll start to make some sort of impression.
We'll need Tom Lynch, Ben Silvagni & Will Hickmont next year to complete the picture. 2019/20 onwards will be great times for the CFC.
Go Baggers

 

[bmaurizio]

There're two list clean outs to go, 2017 and the remainder in 2018. We need to make room for elite talent.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

There're two list clean outs to go, 2017 and the remainder in 2018. We need to make room for elite talent.

Correct. Just concentrating on Senior listed players ...

Smedts, Palmer and Kerridge contracted for 2018.
With Armfield retired, I think we will delist Jaksch, Gorringe, Buckley and Sumner, and delist or offer 1 year contracts to Boekhorst and Graham. I think Thomas and Rowe might also get 1 year contracts.
White, Rowe, Simpson and Thomas could all retire after Season 2018.

 

[HBF]

Better

The glimpses we are getting of Pickett is super exciting.