Rumour File #8.

[The Old Dark Navy's]

i was pretty sure he was saying we have to trade one of those players, rather than brock who is even less likely to get a game.

I think what 40yr is saying, is that even if Brock was gone and we had half a dozen players to delist, Bower and Setanta would still want to put themselves on the market to get more playing opportunity. If they never went to the club, would they have been forcibly traded to open up a list spot, or was there another candidate?

McLean or no McLean, Bower and O'hAilpin do not want to see more game time in the VFL than game time in the AFL next year. They are happy to remain IF a suitable trade can not be arranged. I assume by suitable trade, they mean a club where they have a greater chance of playing in the seniors, regardless of what they offer Carlton.

They can still walk into the PSD if they want to. This is what happens when a club incrementally improves across the board. Best 22 spots are at a premium and if you are injured or out of form at the wrong time, it gets nasty.

 

[40yearBLUE]

i was pretty sure he was saying we have to trade one of those players, rather than brock who is even less likely to get a game. in terms of 'evidential stuff', this year is a pretty good example. not set in stone obviously. curnow touted as taking mclean's spot.

not sure in what universe brock sitting in the VFL earning his contract for pick 11 has been a good outcome. we need to chop a player, but we're stuck with someone who in all likelihood isn't going to play many games (injury prone, 'game has gone past him'). i wouldn't say trading him in is the cause of our perceived inflexibility, but his continued existence on our list while we crap on about how list spots are so valuable, he starts to look a lot like dead weight.

So what. Lets say we had a time machine and could go back and undo the Brock trade and we say took Gysberts. All other things being the same it still would not have created more opportunity for either Bower or Irish and both, being un-contracted, would still be seeking more opportunity. They want out, not us wanting them out. Its true we need a spot open on the list and Brock not being there would alleviate that need, but it wouldnt solve the issue of either of those players feeling they could get more game time elsewhere. They wanting out simply presents our list managers with an opportunity to upgrade our present mandated 2 selections we must take, the third being the F/S on Buckley. Nothing about Brock being at the club changes any of that. Nothing. If he wasnt there it would simply be some other player, probably Kerr facing the chop, which may still occur.

And all of that assumes the club HAS given up on McLean playing which I dont accept. Clear and open minded thinkers never accept a situation has only one outcome.

 

[Wickzki]

Says a list manager contacted him.

Thank Judd we don't have one at the moment!

Sounds like Steven Icke thought he'd play an April Fools six months late.

Fev can join him on the currently unemployed team.

 

[albyg]

Is it just me that likes he idea of getting a player who nearly won a Norm Smith Medal (probably should have), experienced finals player, can kick the ball 60 mtres???? Jason Gram, if we can land him I say we go for it. Setanta for Gram would be good especially considering Kosi is nearly gone. This would give us great strength through the half back line, releasing Yazz to a wing, or even Gibbs to the midfield more often.

 

[Silvagnis]

The Saints want draft picks and salary cap space.

Setanta isn't likely to land at Frankston.

 

[ESKIE]

Says a list manager contacted him.

Thank Judd we don't have one at the moment!

I reckon Hawthorn...

Has to be a side pushing for the big one

 

[Beloved]

So for you neither can be replaced in the side?

I am not denying their value, but I accept their limits. IMO it would of been good to have the option of trading these two fringe players.

Stop trying to bait me BTW. I'm not an immature troll, I have an opinion that differs from yours.

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm simply gobsmacked that you think we should be throwing Armfield and Ellard's names around.

 

[KennyHunter9]

So what. Lets say we had a time machine and could go back and undo the Brock trade and we say took Gysberts. All other things being the same it still would not have created more opportunity for either Bower or Irish and both, being un-contracted, would still be seeking more opportunity. They want out, not us wanting them out. Its true we need a spot open on the list and Brock not being there would alleviate that need, but it wouldnt solve the issue of either of those players feeling they could get more game time elsewhere. They wanting out simply presents our list managers with an opportunity to upgrade our present mandated 2 selections we must take, the third being the F/S on Buckley. Nothing about Brock being at the club changes any of that. Nothing. If he wasnt there it would simply be some other player, probably Kerr facing the chop, which may still occur.

And all of that assumes the club HAS given up on McLean playing which I dont accept. Clear and open minded thinkers never accept a situation has only one outcome.

Ever heard of the sunk cost error in decision making?

If you lined all the Carlton players up from most likely to contribute to a future premiership to least likely, Brock would be further to the end of the line than Setanta or Bower. That is why his three year contract for 1.2M, with one year to go, is not assisting us in our effort to build that premiership winning list.

 

[Quazza]

Yet will be a rather lovely expiring contract right when free agency starts

Handy

 

[40yearBLUE]

Ever heard of the sunk cost error in decision making?

If you lined all the Carlton players up from most likely to contribute to a future premiership to least likely, Brock would be further to the end of the line than Setanta or Bower. That is why his three year contract for 1.2M, with one year to go, is not assisting us in our effort to build that premiership winning list.

Pulling in fancy terms is what people usually do to try to fool lesser thinkers into believing they know more. You dont.

You simply will not recognise that you are trying to argue 2 totally unrelated items. Brock is on the list and has a year to run on his contract. Its a fact that cannot be refuted. And he is not tall, I think we can all agree on that.

So his being on the list has absolutely no bearing on the disposition of either Bower or Irish. None. Nada. Zip zilch and zero (repeating but different terms are usually used to show derision or total disrespect for the other interlocutor, take it that way).

So I have had enough of this circular wankfest. You simply dont understand that you are arguing over 2 completely unconnected things and continuing this discourse is a waste of all of our time.

My guess is Bower might get to Freo for a round 2 pick swap (besides more opportunity Bower would like to go home), that is we take their 38 and send Bower and 44 to them. Maybe but its unlikely, Irish has some currency with GWS and we swap picks with them, we give them 22 and Irish, they give us 14 but I very much doubt that one, mostly because Irish is probably not worth that big a pick swap but you never know given that they have so many early picks. Any other pick swaps are worthless to us as we will only use 2 picks, so if we cannot upgrade either 22 or 44 we get nothing so I doubt we would bother trading.

Other than that I doubt we will do anything else in trade week.

 

[Kramer1]

Is it just me that likes he idea of getting a player who nearly won a Norm Smith Medal (probably should have), experienced finals player, can kick the ball 60 mtres???? Jason Gram, if we can land him I say we go for it. Setanta for Gram would be good especially considering Kosi is nearly gone. This would give us great strength through the half back line, releasing Yazz to a wing, or even Gibbs to the midfield more often.

Gram is up there with Danyl Pearce as a potentially available player that I would least like to see in navy blue

 

[Kramer1]

I ken what you reckon Kenny.

Carrying Brock for another season is essentially playing a man down, given the likelihood of him impacting on our 2012 season. From a pure list management pointof view it makes sense, or enough sense for me anyway, to keep the guys who may get a gig whether they be Bower, Setanta or anyone else, and wave goodbye to the guys who will not, opening up that position for a draftee etc.

Pretty clear I would have thought.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I ken what you reckon Kenny.

Carrying Brock for another season is essentially playing a man down, given the likelihood of him impacting on our 2012 season. From a pure list management pointof view it makes sense, or enough sense for me anyway, to keep the guys who may get a gig whether they be Bower, Setanta or anyone else, and wave goodbye to the guys who will not, opening up that position for a draftee etc.

Pretty clear I would have thought.

Maybe so, but it does not impact on Bower or O'hAilpin. Their reasons for wanting to leave have nothing to do with available spots on our list.

If we were able to delist McLean, we could open up another draft pick perhaps, at around 66. Frankly McLean might be providing more in terms of VFL development for some players in that he dominates at that level and sets the example. He might actually be helping us down there.

The reasons we got McLean were sound. Many neutrals actually lauded the decision at the time and the proof in in the BF archives. I don't see the point in us whinging every time he gets injured, whinging every time he gets a game but doesn't perform, whinging every trade period, until he is cut loose. Form an opinion, recognise it for what it is, but accept it. It can't be changed. Complaining achieves NOTHING.

Hell, every club drafts a dud here and there, or trades for one, or signs an outlandish contract in hindsight.

We got him for the right reason, he had shown very good form previously and had been rated. We needed a 3 year deal to lure him from his club (as it customary in these cases). This one didn't work.

If we are going to bake the club for not being perfect and remind them of it, even when they have been getting a lot right, are we supporters open to the same criticisms? Are we the perfect supporters? Are we helping our team by continuously complaining about something that can't be changed?

 

[Marc Shmurf 3]

ODN this thread is boarding on useless now. Can we keep to the topic at all or are you happy with the way the direction of this thread is heading?

 

[HARKER]

If we were able to delist McLean, we could open up another draft pick perhaps, at around 66. Frankly McLean might be providing more in terms of VFL development for some players in that he dominates at that level and sets the example. He might actually be helping us down there.

The reasons we got McLean were sound. Many neutrals actually lauded the decision at the time and the proof in in the BF archives. I don't see the point in us whinging every time he gets injured, whinging every time he gets a game but doesn't perform, whinging every trade period, until he is cut loose. Form an opinion, recognise it for what it is, but accept it. It can't be changed. Complaining achieves NOTHING.

That's some good thinking right there and I agree with you, knowing many won't

I recall watching McLean at training bumping up and encouraging all the boys, when he was recruited to the club.
Had I have not known any better, I would have thought he was our captain.
Everything I saw of the guy indicated that we had made the right decision, yet when the season proper started, it was not quite the same player I was watching and things haven't got better for him since.
I'm not yet convinced that McLean isn't carrying some type injury, hampering him from working at full level.

 

[dumb]

Clear and open minded thinkers never accept a situation has only one outcome.

then why did you overlook the possibility that if mclean was not on the list, they may not have asked to get traded because they knew that a player would not have to be chopped so the club had 3 picks? 'more opportunity' could just as easily be 'save me from the chop and get me to another club if they want me'.

 

[blueboy25]

Carrying Brock for another season is essentially playing a man down, given the likelihood of him impacting on our 2012 season.

I reckon a lot of people would have been saying the same thing about Thornton this time last year and how did that turn out?

Not saying that Brock will have a year like T Bird did this year but god forbid we have some injuries to some key midfielders next season he may be required.

 

[LanceRomance]

That's some good thinking right there and I agree with you, knowing many won't

I recall watching McLean at training bumping up and encouraging all the boys, when he was recruited to the club.
Had I have not known any better, I would have thought he was our captain.
Everything I saw of the guy indicated that we had made the right decision, yet when the season proper started, it was not quite the same player I was watching and things haven't got better for him since.
I'm not yet convinced that McLean isn't carrying some type injury, hampering him from working at full level.

This will be his first full preseason with us so lets hope he gets everything together.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

then why did you overlook the possibility that if mclean was not on the list, they may not have asked to get traded because they knew that a player would not have to be chopped so the club had 3 picks? 'more opportunity' could just as easily be 'save me from the chop and get me to another club if they want me'.

This only have merit if you think that Bower or O'hAilpin felt they would be delisted to clear a space and so conducted a pre-emptive strike. This is extremely unlikely to the point of not being worth discussing IMO.

Anyway, this is a circular conversation. Back to the rumour thread.

 

[Alice]

ODN this thread is boarding on useless now. Can we keep to the topic at all or are you happy with the way the direction of this thread is heading?

Agreed - any chance that a rumour thread could be for RUMOURS. No rebuttal - simply accept in good faith (as a rumour should be...or dismiss).

 

[dumb]

extremely unlikely, but why? it wouldn't be the first time players have asked for a trade because of that. 'lack of opportunity' and fear of delisting go hand in hand i would have thought. that, and it's playing out that we may in fact need to delist one of them, as no-one is biting. anyway yes, circular discussion. we find out after this stupid week what happens.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Agreed - any chance that a rumour thread could be for RUMOURS. No rebuttal - simply accept in good faith (as a rumour should be...or dismiss).

Hey, it's gone for 7,600 posts and done its job. There are bound to be excursions in any long thread.

Taken on board the derailing stuff though, probably should have deleted rather than allowing rebuttal and doing a spot of educating myself.

Deleting anything non-rumour related from here on in.

I don't mind rumour rebuttal in that somebody explains his reasons why he doesn't think the rumour is valid. Just don't want the messenger shot in doing so. Rumour file should be about bringing forth rumours and allowing them to be discussed, or else it might be full of nothing but juvenile fabrications and people will bypass it.

I find that if a rumour is raised, someone might be able to add to it based on what they have heard or someone might be able to shed light on a player that might pour cold water on the rumour. We know especially this time of year, that people read these rumours and get excited in case they are true so a little more info is always a good thing.

 

[Kramer1]

Maybe so, but it does not impact on Bower or O'hAilpin. Their reasons for wanting to leave have nothing to do with available spots on our list.

The actual players involved doesn't really concern me...the aim should be (at least IMO) to have as many contributers on the list as possible.

If we were able to delist McLean, we could open up another draft pick perhaps, at around 66. Frankly McLean might be providing more in terms of VFL development for some players in that he dominates at that level and sets the example. He might actually be helping us down there.

True...of course a once good quality AFL player resigned to playing out the year in the VFL might work against us too, though McLean's reported character would make your scenarion more plausible. Negligible gain or loss either way.

The reasons we got McLean were sound. Many neutrals actually lauded the decision at the time and the proof in in the BF archives. I don't see the point in us whinging every time he gets injured, whinging every time he gets a game but doesn't perform, whinging every trade period, until he is cut loose. Form an opinion, recognise it for what it is, but accept it. It can't be changed.

The reasons we chased an inside mid were sound...the reasons we went for McLean are anything but for mine. I don't whinge per se about McLean, in fact I wish him nothing but the best - by all reports he busts his balls and is a great clubman. But I suppose it is only human to ponder what could have been had we gone down another path. Structurally the position he was recruited to fill is still a big issue, and until we do something about it it's likely to remain a big issue with supporters.

Hell, every club drafts a dud here and there, or trades for one, or signs an outlandish contract in hindsight.

Indeed, and we've had more than our share. We have had a number of positive developments at the club over the past years as we have continued the climb out of the doldrums, and this was a rare slip-up. Perhaps reminiscent of the bad old days.

We got him for the right reason, he had shown very good form previously and had been rated. We needed a 3 year deal to lure him from his club (as it customary in these cases). This one didn't work.

True, but let's balance that ODN. He had also been injury prone for a couple of years, and battled what was known to be a serious ankle injury. He was never quick, and never uber sharp with his disposal. We had two ex Melbourne people on the coaching panel - did that work for us or against us?

If we are going to bake the club for not being perfect and remind them of it, even when they have been getting a lot right, are we supporters open to the same criticisms? Are we the perfect supporters? Are we helping our team by continuously complaining about something that can't be changed?

It's not an issue of perfection...its an issue of being wasteful with a high draft pick when we could ill afford it (when can a club afford it?). The same draft has seen Ball go to Pies with a huge pay off, Kennedy go to Swans with an equally impressive payoff...hell it saw Barlow go in the rookie draft. If we want to be the best we need to have the highest standards in everything we do...this was a monumental ****-up with a huge opportunity cost, and needs to be acknowledged as such.

I'll move on from it, but it would be a lot easier if Brock was in anyway capable of doing the job he was recruited to do, or we find someone else who can.

 

[Kramer1]

Just up to speed with the motion to move on...

Sounds good, though a rumour thread would probably be easier to keep in check if we were in any way invovled in trade week.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

TWR caller just mentioned something about Hawthorn looking to deal with Carlton for either Bower, O'hAilpin or Russell.

Firstly, do Hawks have anything left to give draft pick wise?

Secondly, why do callers keep throwing in Russell despite the club not declaring him on the table?