Preview Trade Week/Month - Keep it all in HERE.

[Weiterbot23]

RE: Jordan Russell. Apparently a deal will be done this week to get him across to Port. Given the Blues have no room to use any expected compo pick (unless 2nd rounder - unlikely) and Port don't want to lose their compo from Pearce/Chaplin, I can see a similar trade to this (below) being done late this week:

Russell & Pick 33 for PA's Pick 28. We get a pick upgrade where we'd previously have got effectively squat & Port get their man and get to keep their compo for losing their FA's...

Get it done boys!

Makes sense.

 

[HARKER]

Firstly the job of contract negotiation etc usually falls to General Manager of football operations
Second, when did it become ok to bag departing club legends, sacked or otherwise
And third, when did it also become ok for you to bag listed players, ones that as far as you know are valued by the current coach and could for all you know all play 24 games next season?

You seem quite ok to encourage others to lie (the last one suggesting that a club would betray doctor patient privilege and disclose if a player had failed a medical to just anybody to have it posted in a feral footy forum) yet seem ok to bag out your own to try to justify why the club is not as active in actual trades as much as the liars suggested we would be, so in order to assuage your guilt at believing the liars you bag out existing players.

1. Coaches have quite a say when it comes to the players they want and would list their priorities and push for them accordingly.
Mclean may have well thrown a spanner in the works, but nevertheless my original statement stands as bottom end players were given contracts that we may be paying for now.

2. That's not bagging the coach and as with any organisation, you make mistakes you pay for them.
To think that Ratten was sacked only for not getting an injury depleted team into the finals is foolish at best..................and you're questioning signing on next year because Ratten was sacked.
Now that's laughable.

3. Bagging listed players? Here you go. Below are my observations posted in Feb/March this year re. Davies,

1. Marcus Davies

Marcus really looks to be having a tough time of things in this off-season.
One of the few players I can call to have gone backwards in this period, as his control of the ball has just deserted him.
Marcus is dropping marks, missing targets by hand and foot, and in general is fumbling the ball quite regularly.
It hasn’t all been bad, but the frustration on Marcus’s face has been evident quite regularly. It’s certainly not a case of his efforts not being there, but just for the skills to be down.
Marcus will need a big turn-around in order to catch the coaches’ eye over the next few weeks.
Rating: 5/10

What more can I say?

The rest, which has been deleted is just your style: No Style.

Bottom line is that every club makes mistakes and some of our list management hasn't been top notch and middle of the road should not be good enough for the CFC. Should it now?

 

[HARKER]

Russell & Pick 33 for PA's Pick 28. We get a pick upgrade where we'd previously have got effectively squat & Port get their man and get to keep their compo for losing their FA's...

Get it done boys!

Thought that may be the only way to go..................but hang on.............40YB will know better.

Sorry Mods, I won't play this game but had to throw that in....................in good spirit of course.

 

[Windhover]

Easy. We had to squeeze players that have shown their value into one year contracts recently, yet we openly gave Joseph, Ellard and Davies 2 years last year.

Who have we recently given 1 year contracts to that in your opinion should have been given 2 years? Not White I hope.

Oh, and having given 2 year contracts to Joseph, Ellard and Davies last year, which of them do you now say should be delisted. Joseph has had form issues but speed, tenacity and courage are undoubted. Importantly, when considering the list who else do we have to play on that small, fast, evasive forward? Ellard is a proven AFL quality player. That he was not getting a regular game last season is in part mystery and in part a recognition of the depth of our midfield. Davies, well maybe, since he seems to get injured as often as Gumby.

Poor............list.............management and if Ratten had anything to do with it (which he did) then it's hardly a surprise that he's gone.

Of course Ratten had involvement with list management. I maintain the list he has left us with is, subject to injuries, outstanding and ready to win a premiership. Deficits in the list such as KPF and KPD have been the subject of intense recruiting activity (witness 2010 draft).

The Club and MM are right to be complacent about the playing list and for that all kudos goes to Ratten. So, to that extent, his departure on this score remains an unpleasant surprise.

 

[Weiterbot23]

Davies would certainly be gone if it wasn't for his contract. Hopefully he takes full advantage this year, as he must know he is currently 1st in line for delisting next year.

 

[HARKER]

I reckon at the end of the day, if there is a deal or player out there that we really like, and Mick thinks will help him significantly, the club will pull the trigger and just chop a player like Davies or Joseph, and pay them out.

I'm happy to go to the draft the way we are, but just keep thinking that if Waite goes down, which is not unusual, well we just cant make the top 4.

That's not completely out of the question if Mick wants Collins and Duigan.

Where else do we go other than to have to pay players out of their contracts?

We stuffed up. It's O.K. to be honest.

 

[Sheephead]

RE: Jordan Russell. Apparently a deal will be done this week to get him across to Port. Given the Blues have no room to use any expected compo pick (unless 2nd rounder - unlikely) and Port don't want to lose their compo from Pearce/Chaplin, I can see a similar trade to this (below) being done late this week:

Russell & Pick 33 for PA's Pick 28. We get a pick upgrade where we'd previously have got effectively squat & Port get their man and get to keep their compo for losing their FA's...

Get it done boys!

Would love them to turn that Pick 28 into Ben Jacobs somehow. Maybe ex-SA boy ROK thrown in.

 

[HARKER]

Who have we recently given 1 year contracts to that in your opinion should have been given 2 years? Not White I hope.

Oh, and having given 2 year contracts to Joseph, Ellard and Davies last year, which of them do you now say should be delisted. Joseph has had form issues but speed, tenacity and courage are undoubted. Importantly, when considering the list who else do we have to play on that small, fast, evasive forward? Ellard is a proven AFL quality player. That he was not getting a regular game last season is in part mystery and in part a recognition of the depth of our midfield. Davies, well maybe, since he seems to get injured as often as Gumby.

Of course Ratten had involvement with list management. I maintain the list he has left us with is, subject to injuries, outstanding and ready to win a premiership. Deficits in the list such as KPF and KPD have been the subject of intense recruiting activity (witness 2010 draft).

The Club and MM are right to be complacent about the playing list and for that all kudos goes to Ratten. So, to that extent, his departure on this score remains an unpleasant surprise.

We risked losing Bell because of players that will spend most of the season in the VFL.

My opinion? I'm surprised we were so ready to give White a year, but that may have been as much insurance for our back-line with losing McInnes and the somewhat unknown on Jamison and possibly even Henderson.
White is a terrific character but if character had everything to do with things then Russell would still be with us, also.

Repeating myself here, but I was surprised when Armfield, Joseph and Ellard were given 2 years each within a week of each other. Wasn't anyone else?
We didn't even know the contract status of Davies until recent days. I had him pegged for the one year, but we now know that to have been 2 years. Isn't anyone else surprised?

I concede the Ratten call may have been unfair as I hold no grudges for him and would love to see him back at our club one day, but we all get judged on what we bring to the table.
You and I aren't privileged to every day events at the CFC, but from what I've been told by some people close to the club, it would have really come as no surprise for Rattens sacking should everything I've heard to be true. (Of course it may not be, though)
Had his heart in the right place no doubt but that alone doesn't make for a good coach.
The question then should be as much as to why we contracted someone we didn't really believe in as it is for Ratten's ways. Different story and one that doesn't need revisiting again.

 

[Vincent Chase]

Would love them to turn that Pick 28 into Ben Jacobs somehow. Maybe ex-SA boy ROK thrown in.

 

[GordonBlue]

My understanding is that Rookie listed players only have to be retained for 1 year, where players taken in the national draft have to be retained for at least 2.

If I was bell and the club was telling me their hands were tied and they couldn't get me on the list, then we cleared some space and took 4 kids in the draft, the last one probably being a pick in the 70s, and they get two years on the senior list striaght off the bat, I would be cut.

Bell was offered a 3 year deal by another club and that is the only reason why the request to be promoted to the senior list was part of the negotiation.

If the other club did not come in with such an offer, Bell would have been retained onto the rookie list and no-one would have raised an eyebrow.. the same way as no one raised an eyebrow when Jeffry, Curnow, Tuohy etc all remained onto the rookie list when they showed heaps.

This forced Carlton to improve on their offer and they did. We basically matched the 3 year deal (3rd being an option) and will be promoted to the senior list in 2014. He will also most likely be the nominate rookie in 2013. So in reality, the only difference between what he would have been offered by the other club and what he's signed for is where his name will appear on the players list on the club website.

Other than that, Carlton will be doing everything it can to improve it's position in the draft and improve the playing list... and Bell is in no right to feel any bit upset should we acquire a 4th pick in the National Draft

 

[HARKER]

Would it surprise anyone if the WB and the GWS struck up a deal along the lines of


GWS in. #5 and #6
WB in. #3 and #12


Some are saying that gws should take Plowman at #3 but that is a stretch IMO. If they could trade 3 for 5 and upgrade 12/13 then they could still get the best defender in the draft plus a class mid who would otherwise be gone by the later pick. It would IMO come down to if they rate plowman ,obviously, and if they want balance or an awesome midfield.

That's interesting coryne and if you were confident of the player you want falling to a certain spot, do you take the risk?
In the case of WB they may want a player they know won't last until #5.

Would make quite a talked about trade should that come about.

 

[Windhover]

Collins has shown enough over his few games this year to show that he has what it takes to keep his spot and he should get more game time this coming year.

Collins played 9 games this year. In 2 of the games (PA and WC) he had less than 10 possessions and a total of 1 tackle, 1 goal 1 behind. Against Syd (13 disposals), Rich (14 disposals) and Melb (17 disposals) he scored a total of 2 behinds. Recognising he was a sub in at least 1 of those games (PA I think) that is still 5 games of substandard football, at least statistically, for a half forward who cannot play in the midfield, has no great pace, is light-bodied, can't play in defence.

Against Geelong he had 18 disposals and kicked 1 goal 1 behind in what I recall was a pretty good effort (i.e. no inexcusable howlers) against quality opposition. Against the Bulldogs he scored 3 goals (half of his season's tally) and was a good contributor in a standard of game that was VFL at best.

I also recall his efforts against Collingwood (22 disposals, 1 goal, 2 behinds) as being reasonable. His best effort statistically was against NM with 25 disposals 5 tackles. He did not trouble the scorer but had 8 inside 50s. Since we got drubbed perhaps I under-rate the quality of those inside 50s but I certainly have no memory of any brilliantly set up goals courtesy of Collins.

I relate the above because I disagree with your opinion that Collins has "done enough" in his 9 games this year to even consider him as starting 22 next year. What is it of Collins that I do not get? His scything kicks? His sure ball-handling? His electric pace? His ability to cut out an opponent? What is it you see?

 

[HARKER]

I relate the above because I disagree with your opinion that Collins has "done enough" in his 9 games this year to even consider him as starting 22 next year. What is it of Collins that I do not get? His scything kicks? His sure ball-handling? His electric pace? His ability to cut out an opponent? What is it you see?

May I jump in because Dram may be sleeping.

Collins is one of the more interesting players on our list and is probably been the biggest "tease" we have.
Collins does most things very well in patches and there's the problem right there. It's all just too patchy but the base footballer and skill-set are there.

I really hope we get the chance to see what Malthouse can do with him as Collins is actually a good footballer.
Hate to lose him at expense of some others on our list, but I'm sure that won't be viewed in the same manner by all.

 

[AlecDuncan]

Russell & Pick 33 for PA's Pick 28. We get a pick upgrade where we'd previously have got effectively squat & Port get their man and get to keep their compo for losing their FA's...

I could totally see this happening. Cheap get by Port for a speculative pick-up, we get a bit of an upgrade, and Rusty gets the chance he deserves somewhere else.

 

[HARKER]

Possible Trade Targets:
1. Caddy
2. Toy
3. Koby Stevens
4. Ben Jacobs
5. Gumbleton
6. Jesse White
7. Tippett



Possible Trade Bait:
1. Lucas
2. Warnock
3. Hampson
4. Ellard
5. Casboult
6. Davies
7. Duigan
8. Bell
9. Bower
10. Collins


Free Agent Interest:
1. Cloke
2. Lynch
3. Goddard
4. Moloney
5. Ibbotson
6. Salopek

Our Free Agents:
1. Thornton...................................Gone.
2. Russell......................................Gone.

Just bringing the OP forward.
Have we further names to be added or to be deleted?

 

[Weiterbot23]

Bell was offered a 3 year deal by another club and that is the only reason why the request to be promoted to the senior list was part of the negotiation.

If the other club did not come in with such an offer, Bell would have been retained onto the rookie list and no-one would have raised an eyebrow.. the same way as no one raised an eyebrow when Jeffry, Curnow, Tuohy etc all remained onto the rookie list when they showed heaps.

This forced Carlton to improve on their offer and they did. We basically matched the 3 year deal (3rd being an option) and will be promoted to the senior list in 2014. He will also most likely be the nominate rookie in 2013. So in reality, the only difference between what he would have been offered by the other club and what he's signed for is where his name will appear on the players list on the club website.

Other than that, Carlton will be doing everything it can to improve it's position in the draft and improve the playing list... and Bell is in no right to feel any bit upset should we acquire a 4th pick in the National Draft

I understand what you are saying, but with so many list cloggers being discussed are you sure we want to committ to a 4th youngsters for 2 years, with a low % pick. Scotland is our only possible retirement and the end of next season and bell will take his spot.

So next year at very least we will have to delist 3 (4 if scotland stays) and thats if Okeffe and Dale don't show enough to get elevated. This will leave us with the same problem as this year with is minimal flexibitly and will restrict us from improving our list through free agency and maybe getting the final piece to the primership puzzle.

Unless we can upgrade and get 4 decent picks all inside the 60 or we really like someone, I think it would be silly to clog our list with a late pick.

 

[Stamos]

Harks,
I think it would be pretty safe to put a line through all trade targets, with the possible exception of Caddy.
Actually, you could probably put a line though everyone.

There might be the slightest chance that we get a reasonable offer for Ellard, but I'd suggest that we'd need a bloody good offer to ship anyone else (except for players like Davies, Joseph, Curnow who we will not get any offer for).

 

[Windhover]

We risked losing Bell because of players that will spend most of the season in the VFL.

There were "contract negotiations" with Bell. It does not seem that there was any risk of losing Bell.

I concede the Ratten call may have been unfair as I hold no grudges for him and would love to see him back at our club one day, but we all get judged on what we bring to the table.

Unlike perhaps others I have no qualms about balanced criticism of a club legend. I have highlighted your qualifications and would be pleased to understand what list deficiencies you think Ratten "brought to the table".

You and I aren't privileged to every day events at the CFC, but from what I've been told by some people close to the club, it would have really come as no surprise for Rattens sacking should everything I've heard to be true. (Of course it may not be, though)
Had his heart in the right place no doubt but that alone doesn't make for a good coach.
The question then should be as much as to why we contracted someone we didn't really believe in as it is for Ratten's ways. Different story and one that doesn't need revisiting again.

This is unmitigated character assassination of Ratts. You have "heard" things about Ratts (whether personal or professional you do not divulge) about which rumours you express no confidence. Then you confuse your position by stating an elementary proposition that a good coach needs more than heart - with the inference that there was some deficiency in Ratts coaching that you do not feel the need to explain.

But you do need to explain what deficiencies you are referring to because the question you leave us with "Why did we contract with someone we didn't believe in" makes an assumption that we did not "believe in" Ratts, an assumption you have studiously avoided making good.

 

[HARKER]

Harks,
I think it would be pretty safe to put a line through all trade targets, with the possible exception of Caddy.
Actually, you could probably put a line though everyone.

There might be the slightest chance that we get a reasonable offer for Ellard, but I'd suggest that we'd need a bloody good offer to ship anyone else (except for players like Davies, Joseph, Curnow who we will not get any offer for).

You're probably right although I'll just keep them open until they're picked off the table.

I still wonder what the thinking would be on Warnock.
We've declared him as a required player, but it may not take much to work out that we'd consider a trade for the right offer, being that we have 2 ruck-men in front of him.

There were "contract negotiations" with Bell. It does not seem that there was any risk of losing Bell.
But you do need to explain what deficiencies you are referring to because the question you leave us with "Why did we contract with someone we didn't believe in" makes an assumption that we did not "believe in" Ratts, an assumption you have studiously avoided making good.

I'll package up my reply with the other post as this is not a thread about Ratten.
There have been grumblings about Ratten and his methods for some time.
Some thought that his ways may be managed better with some outside help, but that reportedly went astray through times this year to the point we may lose other "key" people including several players.
There have been several posts here by "revered" and some not so "revered" posters that pretty much echoed what I had been told. That's it. I'm done.

 

[40yearBLUE]

But you do need to explain what deficiencies you are referring to because the question you leave us with "Why did we contract with someone we didn't believe in" makes an assumption that we did not "believe in" Ratts, an assumption you have studiously avoided making good.

I fear you are wasting your time Windy. He is lost to the rumour mongers, potshot posters and not much more. Sad really. Used to make a valid contribution.

 

[North Side]

I fear you are wasting your time Windy. He is lost to the rumour mongers, potshot posters and not much more. Sad really. Used to make a valid contribution.

Condescending much??

 

[Sin City]

I fear you are wasting your time Windy. He is lost to the rumour mongers, potshot posters and not much more. Sad really. Used to make a valid contribution.

What a pile of shit. You're the one who's lost to them, you're obsessed with them mate. Harker makes a contribution, he just makes sure he does it in every thread he posts in, rumour thread or not.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Condescending much??

Very much, and not in the least disguised.

 

[No1Suspect]

That's interesting coryne and if you were confident of the player you want falling to a certain spot, do you take the risk?
In the case of WB they may want a player they know won't last until #5.

Would make quite a talked about trade should that come about.

Don't recon they will do this,

I can see them taking Whitfield, Grundy and Plowman and at #12 someone like josh Simpson or Kennedy.

Best mid, best ruckman and best backman, while adding outside pace with 12 but also Whitfield.... They have the luxury of picking for needs rather than best available and still rape the draft (pardon the French), just doesn't seem fair

 

[KnobHead]

There were "contract negotiations" with Bell. It does not seem that there was any risk of losing Bell.

This is unmitigated character assassination of Ratts. You have "heard" things about Ratts (whether personal or professional you do not divulge) about which rumours you express no confidence. Then you confuse your position by stating an elementary proposition that a good coach needs more than heart - with the inference that there was some deficiency in Ratts coaching that you do not feel the need to explain.

Not sure if serious, but if you are:

• Before the dotted line is signed, then there's always a risk of losing a player. The two go hand in hand. Look at Grigg, for example, thought we had him before signed. Also, if you were settling some legal matter, would you spend any settlement money before the papers were signed? Of course not, because anything could happen.
• As for Ratts, it's pretty clear the club thinks there was a deficiency because they sacked him. Don't think there was any secret that he was sacked. It was well publicised in the media. Haredly a character assassination.
• Not sure how Harker confused his position - he said Ratt's heart was in the right place but that doesn't mean he was a good coach. Not sure how that is confusing. Some people can be a good coach but there heart isn't in the right place. Blight at St Kilda springs to mind.