List Mgmt. Carlton Draft 2021

[Stamos]

Consolidate the list: Austin reviews trade, previews draft

Nick Austin analyses Carlton's movement over the off-season player movement period.

www.carltonfc.com.au

 

[Bletch]

Pick 56 is not a bad pick to have. If we are not using it, maybe we can trade it for a F2...

National Draft Pick #56 - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Trouble is finding a club that would want that pick. Be nice to trade it, even for a F4, but more likely to help move 25 up a couple of spots. Either way, we'd need a club that would be wanting to use that pick. I can see there being fewer than 50 picks taken at this draft. Doubt we'll be the only club taking fewer than 3 draft picks.

 

[TENACIOUS]

No, you said we don't have the list spots. That is not correct.

Umm, No, No I didn't...
I posted the below... Bletch and I have been saying this for a few days. Looks like we were right.

You were being obstinate and were wrong.

Yes and have a maximum list number allowed of 42 + 2x Cat B rookies

Currently we have
33 senior list
+ 6 already signed rookies
+ 2 committed to rookies (LOB & Cottrell)
= 41 listed players + 1x Cat B

Leaves us 1x Draft list spot and 1x Cat B rookies available

To get to the required number of
36x Senior list spots
6x Rookie list spots
2x Cat B spots

we will need to

Main Draft
1x Draft and 2x Rookie Upgrades (Kennedy & Honey?)
= 36x Senior list spots

Rookie Draft
Pick 6 - LOB
Pick 25 - Cottrell
= 6x Rookie list spots

1x Cat B
= 2x Cat B spots

AFL rules state (which were posted here a couple of days ago) any LTI spots that need to be filled can only be done, after the rookie draft..
In the Pre season or in MSD

 

[Christou2Kouta]

Sounded like if someone was willing to offer us pick 35ish and a future 3rd pick we might be open to trading down from pick 25.

 

[Jeremias]

Umm, No, No I didn't...

You sure about that?

With all the rookie signings we don't have the senior list spots to take 2 in the draft.

Looks as though yes, yes you did...

 

[Bletch]

You sure about that?



Looks as though yes, yes you did...

It was pretty clear when CFC said we'd be picking LOB & Cotts back at the rookie draft, that that is what they meant. Not the SSP or some other mechanism. And this meant we were limited to one pick at the draft. It's not that hard to understand. Why did they need to delist and re-rookie? Dunno, but that's what they're doing.

 

[Andypooh23]

We could have had Dunkley or half of Charlie.

Unfortunately, we kind of ended up with half of Charlie....

Could've had Dunkley instead of Cuningham.

 

[TENACIOUS]

You sure about that?
Looks as though yes, yes you did...

No No I didn't.

That post as you're aware... Was in relation to Arrows post stating we will take 2 in the draft...
Which we do not have the list spots for 2... Unless we delist a contracted player or renege on our promise to rookie list LOB or Cottrell..

 

[TENACIOUS]

Sounded like if someone was willing to offer us pick 35ish and a future 3rd pick we might be open to trading down from pick 25.

You would want better than that, F2 and a top 40 pick (if our targets will fall in that range)
We are good to deal with but not a charity, if they want pick 25 pay up...

 

[Jeremias]

No No I didn't.

That post as you're aware... Was in relation to Arrows post stating we will take 2 in the draft...
Which we do not have the list spots for 2... Unless we delist a contracted player or renege on our promise to rookie list LOB or Cottrell..

Yet again you have completely missed the point.

You stated we didn't have the list spots available to take 2 via the national draft, I showed you how it could be done. You said it could only happen if we delist someone like Docherty or Marchbank, again I showed that is not the case.

Hanging your hat on 'the CFC website stating we'll take Cottrell as a rookie' yet at the same time being adamant we'll elevate more than one rookie is strange given nothing has been said on that very same website about rookie elevations taking place.

Anyway, best to let this one go now as clearly you're struggling to remember what you wrote or follow the discussion. Possibly both.

 

[Christou2Kouta]

No No I didn't.

That post as you're aware... Was in relation to Arrows post stating we will take 2 in the draft...
Which we do not have the list spots for 2... Unless we delist a contracted player or renege on our promise to rookie list LOB or Cottrell..

Yeah, hopefully there are a few clubs angling for the pick. West Coast and Richmond seem best placed to get offer a future second rounder and a pick in an acceptable range.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[footyfan1978]

Yeah, hopefully there are a few clubs angling for the pick. West Coast and Richmond seem best placed to get offer a future second rounder and a pick in an acceptable range.

Happy to downgrade our pick of 25 into mid 30's if some club willing to throw in a second rounder for 2022.

 

[DangerousD]

Slight edit to this.

From the Nick Austin interview posted on the CFC website, sounds like we're pretty happy to take just the one pick into this national draft. So that may mean 1 x ND and 2 x upgrades.

Not expecting much from us re: trading picks either, sounds like we're very content picking where we are and more importantly very keen to attack next year's draft.

If we are only taking one pick in the draft, surely we will look to trade 64 or whatever it is to move up a few places in the order, a few have mentioned the Dogs pick 23, I would hope we don’t just waste it.

 

[TENACIOUS]

Yet again you have completely missed the point.

You stated we didn't have the list spots available to take 2 via the national draft, I showed you how it could be done. You said it could only happen if we delist someone like Docherty or Marchbank, again I showed that is not the case.

Hanging your hat on 'the CFC website stating we'll take Cottrell as a rookie' yet at the same time being adamant we'll elevate more than one rookie is strange given nothing has been said on that very same website about rookie elevations taking place.

Anyway, best to let this one go now as clearly you're struggling to remember what you wrote or follow the discussion. Possibly both.

Missed the point? you were wrong, can't admit it and want to deflect...
Hanging my hat on CFC website, AFL website and Austin's mouth today and on trade radio..

My post to Arrow saying "With all the rookie signings we don't have the senior list spots to take 2 in the draft."
Meaning we had 1 list spot and 2 Rookie Upgrades, which I have said for day's...

You replied to

We have 33 on the senior list now and must start next season with a minimum of 36.

Which I replied

Yes and have a maximum list number allowed of 42 + 2x Cat B rookies

Currently we have
33 senior list
+ 6 already signed rookies
+ 2 committed to rookies (LOB & Cottrell)
= 41 listed players + 1x Cat B

Leaves us 1x Draft list spot and 1x Cat B rookies available

To get to the required number of
36x Senior list spots
6x Rookie list spots
2x Cat B spots

we will need to

Main Draft
1x Draft and 2x Rookie Upgrades (Kennedy & Honey?)
= 36x Senior list spots

Rookie Draft
Pick 6 - LOB
Pick 25 - Cottrell
= 6x Rookie list spots

1x Cat B
= 2x Cat B spots

AFL rules state (which were posted here a couple of days ago) any LTI spots that need to be filled can only be done, after the rookie draft..
In the Pre season or in MSD

You replied (wrongly)

We have 33 on the senior list now and must start next season with a minimum of 36.

2 x ND picks + 1 rookie elevation = 36 on the senior list

We have 6 on the Cat A rookie list currently. 5 when you take into account the elevation mentioned above. This gives us one pick, which will be LOB given we have committed to taking him.

This gives us a 36/6/1 split, and the required 42 on the senior + Cat A rookie list.

There is no reason for us to have delisted Cottrell unless we already know we are moving someone to the LTI/Inactive list. My guess is this will be Doc, and will allow us to take a rookie via the SSP period. This will be Cottrell.

End result:

Senior list: 36 (+1 inactive)
Cat A Rookie list: 7 (6 + 1 SSP)
Cat B Rookie list: 1

Then made an edit to what I originally said and are trying to make it out that I didn't say it

Slight edit to this.

From the Nick Austin interview posted on the CFC website, sounds like we're pretty happy to take just the one pick into this national draft. So that may mean 1 x ND and 2 x upgrades.

Not expecting much from us re: trading picks either, sounds like we're very content picking where we are and more importantly very keen to attack next year's draft.

Really not that interested in keeping going back and forth, personally have no issues and like you as a poster and moderator..
But, find it off putting when you jump on so many peoples opinions but can't admit when they were right and you were wrong..

 

[Stamos]

If we are only taking one pick in the draft, surely we will look to trade 64 or whatever it is to move up a few places in the order, a few have mentioned the Dogs pick 23, I would hope we don’t just waste it.

Probably going to be pretty hard to find takers.

 

[DangerousD]

Probably going to be pretty hard to find takers.

Would the Dogs not take it as a freebie?

 

[DangerousD]

Assuming that we take Austin’s comments as being truthful, if we are to remove the rucks, tall forwards, tall defenders and even the general defenders, who are the 5 or so midfielder/forwards we would likely to be choosing from?

Im surprised Butler hasn’t been mentioned, early in the year he was ranked quite a bit higher but has slipped, which is strange as not much footy has been played.

 

[Stamos]

Would the Dogs not take it as a freebie?

Perhaps. But it's a tiny upgrade.

 

[Cripptonite]

Glad Austin said our strategy was to hit the draft heavily next year and consolidate our list. We can’t afford to continue trading away our best picks or continue recruiting established players on high salaries.

Honey deserves a promotion to the senior list and Kennedy/Owies are not far away either so would be happy with either.

Only issue for me was that we told the rest of the AFL that we’re targeting a forward/mid at our pick. That’s not smart unless we are bluffing? What’s to stop a team from trading ahead of us and picking a highly rated forward/mid on our radar…

 

[Jeremias]

Missed the point? you were wrong, can't admit it and want to deflect...
Hanging my hat on CFC website, AFL website and Austin's mouth today and on trade radio..

My post to Arrow saying "With all the rookie signings we don't have the senior list spots to take 2 in the draft."
Meaning we had 1 list spot and 2 Rookie Upgrades, which I have said for day's...

I suggested we would take 2 picks with 1 rookie upgrade.
Turns out we may take 1 pick with 2 rookie upgrades.

Whilst yes I was incorrect about the composition of the three spots, you can surely see that regardless of which approach we take it involves three senior list spots?

You said we didn't have the spots to do it. We do. 2+1 and 1+2 both equal 3. I'm terrible with maths, but even I know that.

Then made an edit to what I originally said and are trying to make it out that I didn't say it

Not once have I edited anything you've posted. You have a habit of editing and deleting your own posts - often done to try and change your own argument - maybe you forgot you did that?

But, find it off putting when you jump on so many peoples opinions but can't admit when they were right and you were wrong...

More than happy to admit when I get things wrong. I did it above when I said turns out we're going with 1 + 2 rather than the 2 + 1 I thought we would.

Beyond that though I haven't done it here as there's been no need to do it. You haven't been correct, regardless of how many times you chop and change your argument.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

Pick 56 is not a bad pick to have. If we are not using it, maybe we can trade it for a F2...

National Draft Pick #56 - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Considering it sounds like we are not going to use it, I think we could very easily trade it and 25 to the Dogs for pick 23.

They get more 135 more points and look to split up 25 as they see fit and we move up 2 spots. Alternatively, it could be dealt to a team like Collingwood who not only have Daicos but also Youseph Dib who nobody in the media seems to know about. He could get bid on anywhere around the 30s - late IMO.

 

[Sin City]

Looking at the Jack Carroll selection and Austin’s comments about this year’s pick I get the feeling he really likes the Hugh McCluggage

6

Hugh Mccluggage

Age

26

Ht

185cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.3

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

7.9

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

19.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

2.0

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

7.8

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.8

4star

CL

0.6

3star

type player where they really have to get ticks for all of size, speed and skill. Cerra and Hewett get passes in those categories too.

 

[Arr0w]

We're getting Shai Bolton?

Interesting in that year, at that pick I had a few players I liked Fisher, Bolton, Docker Cox, Sproule. Bolton has been the standout

 

[gandaal]

Interesting in that year, at that pick I had a few players I liked Fisher, Bolton, Docker Cox, Sproule. Bolton has been the standout

Probably helped that he went to the club with the best player development.

 

[Bletch]

Assuming that we take Austin’s comments as being truthful, if we are to remove the rucks, tall forwards, tall defenders and even the general defenders, who are the 5 or so midfielder/forwards we would likely to be choosing from?

Im surprised Butler hasn’t been mentioned, early in the year he was ranked quite a bit higher but has slipped, which is strange as not much footy has been played.

Was just looking at this... Was a bit surprised we're not looking at KPP depth. After all, we were lacking this year, and we've effectively just swapped Young for Caz. Anyway, a midfielder that can hit the scoreboard seems to be what we're after. Here's a few prospects that might fit the bill.

1. Josh Rachele - more a dynamic forward than a mid, perhaps a Toby Greene type. Won't get to 25, but if he's still there after 13, we might try and grab 14 from Brisbane, as he'd be worth it.
2. Arlo Draper - one of a few South Australians expected to go top-20. Doubt he'd get to us, but fits what we're after.
3. Matthew Roberts - another South Australian. Midfielder who seems to have drifted a little, earlier in the year talked about in the top-10, now later in first round. Again unlikely to get to us, but snap him up if he does.
4. Sam Butler - first of this list that is a realistic chance to get to us. Brother of Dan. More a forward than midfield.
5. Zac Taylor - would have to be high on our list. Victorian. Smart, quick, good kick.
6. Connor McDonald - genuine goal-kicking mid. Another Victorian. Worth a look. Will probably be available at 25.
7. Judson Clarke - nimble forward. Victorian. Prob go 30-40 by the looks.
8. Blake Howes - mid-size half-forward/wing. Impact player. Should be available at 25.