Hot Topic Carlton 2024 Trade Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

It's not "a F1 and a bit extra" though. Port are asking for two firsts with at least one being in this years draft. By accounts, we are at least asking Gold Coast for pick 13 for F1 and F2, so already this is not "a bit extra" that is significant in itself. Port will then want more than just pick 13.
But apparently Coll will get away with 13 + Richard’s. Make it make sense.
 
In 12 months Houston will be rising 29 - let him go to Collingwood and be in the next wave of their ageing list demographic.

Trading him in for the capital being suggested denudes a club of the ability to replace him.

In 12 months, Houston will still have 7 months left as a 28 year old, if people dont think its a good fit, all good, but this distorting of facts isn’t needed to justify anyone’s opinion,

He turns 29 in May 2026
 
Like with BS article about Owies contract demands, is it possible some of these articles are a bit of gamesmanship?

I’ve been critical of Austin in the perception that other clubs feel they dont need to trade for Owies because we wont offer him a deal, the article about Kennedy and Young is something i would have liked from the club regarding Owies.

Other clubs need to think they have to trade, i understand no interest in Young, not so much Kennedy.
 
What goes around comes around.

“I’d be happy to keep GWS honest and bid on Will Setterfield at Pick 1”

- Adrian Dodoro, 2016
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Although true Jim was condescending
For one, I modified my message before he posted to clarify what I was seeking in terms of a worthwhile discussion, but secondly this isn't the first time they've come at me with a short essay built off a largely faulty premise.
Where are * at with #9 & Kako?
Assuming Houston not happening would they trade 9 for F1 & 34?
I feel like Kako isn't in the mix until at least 12, but really I would rate him 15-25.
 
Interesting looking at the top 10 in our B&F:

5 of the 10 were top 15 picks (Cripps, Walsh, Weiters, Mckay, Curnow)
4 of the 10 were value trades (Newman, Hewett, Acres, Kennedy)
1 of the 10 another draftee (TDK)

None of our high profile trade targets (Gov, Saad, Cerra, Williams) featured.

Hewett and Williams were both free agents, though Hewett would have been unrestricted.
 
I like your thinking Redman…
Adopted children and biological children are treated equally under the law, so it would require a specific provision in the AFL rules to exclude adopted children - though that could arguably be implied given the purpose of father-son (and daughter) rules being to recognise the familial history with the club. Might there be different answers for children adopted young as opposed to someone adopted a la the Blindside scenario or a more extreme variant thereon? What about a biological child never known to the father and perhaps the identity of the father never previously disclosed to the child? A bit of a minefield, but as it stands it seems to me that in the absence of something express in the AFL rules around father-son (and daughter) recruiting the starting position is that adopted and unrecognised children qualify. The only clear protection against a blatant ex-player-adopt-a-junior-player rort would be the general prohibitions on tampering with the draft - but of course this is the AFL so ex-post-facto makey-uppy would come as no surprise.
 
He'd instantly become our best kick of the ball. Something we've been lacking.
Same thing was said about cerra. dont think cerra is a top 3 kick in our team even when fit.

This 'good kick' stuff is right - but I think less important than having a good kick to take. We just don't have anyone to kick to half the time.
 
Same thing was said about cerra. dont think cerra is a top 3 kick in our team even when fit.

This 'good kick' stuff is right - but I think less important than having a good kick to take. We just don't have anyone to kick to half the time.
Ain’t that the truth. We have NFI how to create space to kick in to. Many of our reputed poor kicks are actually good kicks. When you factor in looking up the ground, calculating the angles of oppo defenders etc rather than just being aware player x will be cutting in, while player y will lead up and big player z will present to the wing for the fall back dump. Or similar. It has long irked me that too often clubs have their running patterns set and immediately enacted while we rely on individuals own “creativity”.

It is crazy that we have for decades ignored the basics. We need a Chocco Williams type to drill skills and patterns. At this level is is not defensible. I still shudder to think how good we could be if we stopped relying on individuals and zero in on systems. The cream will still rise, but the base is strengthened exponentially.
 
He'd instantly become our best kick of the ball. Something we've been lacking.
And tackles hard, is a 2 way player, has pace and can run on a wing. That said I would not be over-paying for him. Try and get pick 13 for a reasonable price - even pay overs - and this would probably force Collingwood out of the race or force them to give more, the choice would then be us or North and I don't mind strengthening North as much as I do the Pies, especially as their best years are still a few years off. If the price is too stiff we go to the draft with 12 and 13 or whatever they end up being which in this draft is a strong hand to go with and hopefully another pick in between them and Ben Campo with Lucas late or rookie.

Would potentially fill a few gaps but isn't easy to see where a genuine second key defender can be found unless someone from within steps up.
 
Adopted children and biological children are treated equally under the law, so it would require a specific provision in the AFL rules to exclude adopted children - though that could arguably be implied given the purpose of father-son (and daughter) rules being to recognise the familial history with the club. Might there be different answers for children adopted young as opposed to someone adopted a la the Blindside scenario or a more extreme variant thereon? What about a biological child never known to the father and perhaps the identity of the father never previously disclosed to the child? A bit of a minefield, but as it stands it seems to me that in the absence of something express in the AFL rules around father-son (and daughter) recruiting the starting position is that adopted and unrecognised children qualify. The only clear protection against a blatant ex-player-adopt-a-junior-player rort would be the general prohibitions on tampering with the draft - but of course this is the AFL so ex-post-facto makey-uppy would come as no surprise.
We were close to a test case with Jason Horne-Francis, it would have been interesting.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hot Topic Carlton 2024 Trade Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top