Bluemour Melting Pot XXI - Like seriously, the polar ice caps have got nothing on us

[BIuebagger]

Ok, didn’t want to post during the meltdown lol. Yes it was a flop of a period. But... J. Martin in for nothing soothes the pain if it happens. And will be a power play by the club. So I’ll reserve my kudos until then. No denying, Papley was the perfect profile for the club and our needs. Cap space is there. Another year into the kids. I’m pretty upset and disappointed but we can’t deny that things are turning around still. I think we might split 9 up. I think SOS will also be out for redemption in a years time. We need to go all out next period. This should be the last real developmental year in our road to a premiership and 17. Teague is going to find out a lot about the group he has and what we need at the end of next year and I think that might be the silver lining out of all of this - more time for him to settle and assess the current crop.

 

[FRUMPY]

I recon we take a punt on Bennel and Ben Sokol now

Rookie bennel if available

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[KohPhi]

Is that what I said? Saviours?

They would have been IMPROVEMENTS. Butlers a small forward and Bonar a high draft big bodied mid. If you cant see thats a missed opportunity i cant help you.

You're assuming that they wanted to come to Carlton. There are 17 other teams making offers as well.

 

[WeninRome]

*havent won a final in 15 years
GWS got given extra cash to keep cogs, and they just got pantsed in a gf.
Sydney retained a player because they couldn’t land another

Well pick a guy that you know you have a better than 50% chance of landing.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

My first initial feeling about missing out on Martin and Papley was that I didn't give a ****.

Now that I've had time to think about it I've come to the conclusion that I still dont give a ****.

And now?

I'm really pissed at missing out on Josh Kelly and Nat Fyfe when they were there for the taking. I got my hopes up and the only way I can come down from there is to find someone to unleash on. Someone has to be responsible for how I feel. Heads must roll.

 

[Stamos]

Swans didn't even table 5 & 9. That's crazy. 9 and a future 1st when they would have Daniher and most certainly move up the ladder. Just Idiocracy. I was blaming Dodoro but now I blame Sydney. They way I see it we have our small forward in Betts even if only for a year. We got for Papley again next year. My suspicion is we trade pick 9 for a future 1st maybe and then can go for Papley next year plus use our other 1st for Wines (which may also involve our 2021 first)

No way. 5+9 is massive overs for a guy who has managed 11 games in the last 2 years, and is a FA next year. 9 + a future first is overs, if Dodo was any good at his job he would have taken it and run.

 

[BigBreakfast]

Wow, shocking trade period from Carlton.

We have no chance of doing a Brisbane next year. We should have at least offered Pick 9 for Wines. Look what Neale has done for Brisbane. Cripps must be spewing right now that we are just bringing in another kid with Pick 9.

Who said Wines was even available? A person connected to him? Denied by all officials associated in any fashion. A troll calls Carlton and says, "Do you be any Wines, he is available." Now it's fact. Please.

 

[IanOfBendigo]

I dont have the profound knowledge of the Trade period as a vast number of this forum's members do, however I do have an opinion as a very long-term member. I am disappointed in this Trade period because this is the 2nd year we have nominated very real shortfalls in our team structure and experience level ... and we have failed to address these once again. I understand the principle of not paying overs and being hamstrung by player's existing contracts. Both very vaild points, but it appears we continually have a very narrow focus when targeting potential players, and rarely have a fall- back Plan B.

Missing players who have nominated us as a preferred destination is not a great look for future negotiations, regardless of the reasons. Not importing seasoned players to assist in the development of our young blokes and to ease the workload of others is another pitfall (apart from Eddie of course)! Were there other players we could have thrown our hat into the ring for that would have helped us adress some of these issues to some extent? Probably.

I reckon we're entitled to feel disappointed, but it won't stop me from renewing my membership and greatfully accepting any and all tidbits from ITK posters in the future!

Go Blues!

 

[TheNudist]

We could've offered pick 9 alone but it wasn't helping unless the Daniher trade got done. Swans made that clear. Swans offered Essendon our pick 9 and a future first but the Bombers wouldn't budge.

I don’t think that’s right. We offered pick 9 on the basis that we would receive pick 25 in return. Pick 9 on its own would have secured Papley from the swans irrespective of whether the Daniher deal went through. They wanted overs for him because he’s contracted. Given our stance on gibbs and the fact we received overs for him from Adelaide, I don’t think the supporters would have been concerned by overpaying for Papley. But sos ended up overplaying his hand

 

[FRUMPY]

ATO love this idea

Same tax bracket each year

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well pick a guy that you know you have a better than 50% chance of landing.

Anyone? Like ... for the sake of it?

 

[Matt Clape]

AFL stated this year for free agents that the other club only has to match term and total dollars not front or rear loading of the contract. You think they’ll try and screw the Gold Coast to change that for the PSD?

In my view, the AFL would be more worried that the GC drafting Martin would create a trigger for the AFLPA to try and negotiate for more aggressive free agency rules.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don’t think that’s right. We offered pick 9 on the basis that we would receive pick 25 in return. Pick 9 on its own would have secured Papley from the swans irrespective of whether the Daniher deal went through. They wanted overs for him because he’s contracted. Given our stance on gibbs and the fact we received overs for him from Adelaide, I don’t think the supporters would have been concerned by overpaying for Papley. But sos ended up overplaying his hand

Is that what the Swans said?

 

[Aramari]

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

That is breathtaking.

 

[Skull Face]

Right. So postive hat back on.

Martin in the preseason draft.

What type of player do we go after in the ND with 9? Midfielder?

What small forwards are available this draft? Anyone we can get mid draft.

Would be good if we could nail a Eddie Betts or Jeff Garlett type rookie pick this year.

Trade 9 for future 1st, gives us 3 next year that we can trade and doesn't leave us handicapped to Papley who we will no doubt pursue again.

Wonder if Brisbane would do 9 + future 3rd for 16 + future 1st

 

[Siegfried]

My take, FWIW...

Sydney weren't going to trade Papley without getting Daniher (unless we gave them a stupid offer). Even the Sydney Board reportedly got involved to stop him being traded. So not much SOS could have done there without paying big overs.

GC have no interest in later picks, because they have so many picks already (thanks to the AFL). SOS could have done the 9 for Martin and 15 thing, but perhaps he thinks we can get him cheaper (or free) in one of the drafts.

Biggest lesson to learn (for all clubs) is that you now try to get a contracted player at your peril (Gibbs, Kelly, Daniher and Papley). The culture is swinging back to the clubs. Better to go for out of contract players, at least you have the safety net of the drafts.

 

[WeninRome]

Anyone? Like ... for the sake of it?

That's not my job to answer that question. I'll hand it over to the guys that we pay a few hundred grand each to deal with.

 

[RedFury]

Dear Craig (Cameron)

I have just seen your trade proposal and it is with great regret that I write to inform you of a mixup which has occurred.

Based on the proposed trade, it appears that you believe that you've got Dustin Martin on your list - whereas it's actually Jack Martin.

Apologies
RedFury

 

[FRUMPY]

I'm not sold on getting Martin for nothing. Maybe it happens but again I'm still not sold on him as a player. Glad we didn't bend over to get him.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[Matty411]

Wtf happened? It's been explained a million times already haha

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

I refuse to spend 2 hours reading through 40 pages of melts. Already feeling flat enough. Would appreciate a summary of has been explained somewhere in there.

Strong word was we had multiple pre sorted deals. so not sure if Suns stitched us up or if the ITK word wasn't right and we were have over the line. In which case why didn't we look at alternatives or go back to Ollie.

 

[BluesWagon]

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

Adds nothing to the discussion.

Martin takes 1.2/1 year, why on earth would he extend on a hand-shake agreement for 250k over 3 years when he can probably get at least double that at the Dogs.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's not my job to answer that question. I'll hand it over to the guys that we pay a few hundred grand each to deal with.

They did answer it. If they had other targets, they would have planned for them. We didn't hear about other targets from the club did we?

 

[In Judd we trust]

Trade 9 for future 1st, gives us 3 next year that we can trade and doesn't leave us handicapped to Papley who we will no doubt pursue again.

Wonder if Brisbane would do 9 + future 3rd for 16 + future 1st

this is what i want to see happen now. we dont really need to bring in a kid at 9 . stock pile the picks so we have all the ammo needed for next seasons target

 

[choo]

Mate it will be exactly the same money over the 4 years that we already agreed with him.

Instead of 600k a year for 4 years, it will be something like:

Year 1: $1,000,000
Year 2: $500,000
Year 3: $450,000
Year 4: $450,000

GC only have to match 2.4 over 4
Yearly amount doesn’t matter anymore

 

[zeggie]

AFL stated this year for free agents that the other club only has to match term and total dollars not front or rear loading of the contract. You think they’ll try and screw the Gold Coast to change that for the PSD?

GC only have to match 2.4 over 4
Yearly amount doesn’t matter anymore

The club doesn't have the match the front or rear loading in regards to TPP salary cap.

If the player nominates $1.5mil then 500k for a 2 year contract, you can put $1m under each of the years under the TPP.

However the club, MUST pay the $1.5m in cash as stated in the contract. So it's a huge risk for a club to match a front ended offer, as they could take that cash, then demand a trade. Key example? Gibbs.