List Mgmt. Contract, Trade & Draftee Discussion - 2022 Off Season Edition

[Keys]

Contract status of all players now fully updated

The Contracts Thread

2024 List Changes : Out: Retired- Gaff Delisted - Jones, Trew(R), Baker(R), Witherden, Burgiel, Culley(R), Rotham, L Edwards Traded - Darling (NM) Barrass (Hawthorn) In: Trade/FA acquisitions - Graham (Richmond) Baker (Richmond) Owies (Carlton) Draft - Allan (Pick 16) Shanahan (Pick 30) Gross...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[twce13]

He's a midfielder in the Winder mould. Better agility, less size, similar talent level.

Perhaps, but missing mentality, which may be the biggest separator.

 

[WCE_phil]

Playing Devils Advokent, if Jones and Jefferson are on the board at 21 (not that I think Jefferson lasts that long) you'd have to take Jefferson right?

I rate Jones, but there's something that feels very dumb about taking a small forward/mid over a fairly decent rated tall if there's one available.

Which one wins games, tall forwards or smalls?

As devil's advocate if we take Busslinger at 9, then I want our next two picks to be mids. Now making the assumption that Hewett is either taken by us or off the board I want Burgiel at 20 unless Keeler is available. I would then want Charlie Clarke at 26 as a replacement for Cripps unless Jakob Ryan is still somehow available on a purely best available basis and to lock down the last of our developing defenders.

The board would probably Melt if we took a small run and carry/kicking defender, a 3rd tall defender, a tall forward/ruck and a mid/forward with our picks.

If that is devils advocate when we next challenge for the premiership our backline would look like this.

FB Busslinger Edwards Cole
HB Ryan Bazzo Hough

This makes the assumption the most likely defender/mid to become a mid is Chesser.

I make this assumption that we are 6 years off being a premiership challenging side and that Barrass is done. Cole, Liam Ryan and Sheed the only players from the 18 grand final team potentially making the side there..

 

[CountryLad]

With GWS holding pick 1 and taking Cadman the eagles at pick 2 would have been looking at Sheezel and Wardlaw who are the players North are keen on. Moving to 3 from 1 for North only works because pick 2 was also included. North clearly wants first choice on those 2, which is why they are only putting pick 3 on the table for trade at the moment. If we wanted Cadman we could of made it happen.

The only way we got Cadman was to grab pick one or if North took pick one off the table which they hadn’t.

We would have had to outbid GWS to get to Pick one. Don’t think that interested the Eagles. GWS had pick 3,12,15,18,19 plus future picks to grab it. They would have eventually made an offer North couldn’t refuse.

If you listen to the interviews over Trade Radio McCartney made it clear that certain Victorian based draftee’s weren’t interested in going interstate. ( Wardlaw/Sheezel)

Eagles would have had the same feedback in regards to Sheezel and Wardlaw so they had to the choice to either grab Tsatas, Ginbey,Clarke, McKenzie,Poo, Hewitt, Humphrey,Buss, Hollands at pick 2 or split the pick and grab 2 of them.

It’s the best result for us not to mention the fact we received a future 2nd & 3rd for Rioli.

The conversation about keeping pick 2 for Cadman Sheezle or Wardlaw is done …. 2 of them didn’t want to come and the other was going to be gone by our pick

 

[Spank2304]

The only way we got Cadman was to grab pick one or if North took pick one off the table which they hadn’t.

We would have had to outbid GWS to get to Pick one. Don’t think that interested the Eagles. GWS had pick 3,12,15,18,19 plus future picks to grab it. They would have eventually made an offer North couldn’t refuse.

If you listen to the interviews over Trade Radio McCartney made it clear that certain Victorian based draftee’s weren’t interested in going interstate. ( Wardlaw/Sheezel)

Eagles would have had the same feedback in regards to Sheezel and Wardlaw so they had to the choice to either grab Tsatas, Ginbey,Clarke, McKenzie,Poo, Hewitt, Humphrey,Buss, Hollands at pick 2 or split the pick and grab 2 of them.

It’s the best result for us not to mention the fact we received a future 2nd & 3rd for Rioli.

The conversation about keeping pick 2 for Cadman Sheezle or Wardlaw is done …. 2 of them didn’t want to come and the other was going to be gone by our pick

From my point of view there was no way North were giving GWS pick 1 without pick 2 being in the transaction. The point is moot because the bigger part of the trade was the involvement of Port and getting JHF across. I think the deal was a good one for the eagles as well, that was never the debate.
You said we should take talls with our first two picks, my point was that it is a bad draft to do that given the players available in the draft unless we wanted Cadman (and our best chance to get him would have been to hold pick 2)...

 

[CountryLad]

From my point of view there was no way North were giving GWS pick 1 without pick 2 being in the transaction. The point is moot because the bigger part of the trade was the involvement of Port and getting JHF across. I think the deal was a good one for the eagles as well, that was never the debate.
You said we should take talls with our first two picks, my point was that it is a bad draft to do that given the players available in the draft unless we wanted Cadman (and our best chance to get him would have been to hold pick 2)...

Can you show me where I said we should take talls ????
Other than that I’m not discussing the Cadman thing as I say it’s done and we would never have got him. Move on

 

[Wce17]

He's a midfielder in the Winder mould. Better agility, less size, similar talent level.

I’d just keep Winder & play him in his best position. The midfield

 

[WCE_phil]

I’d just keep Winder & play him in his best position. The midfield

Hence why I have no interest in WCE drafting jones. 175cm (if he's ****ing standing dead straght), slight frame and 63 maybe 65kg's by now.

 

[Spank2304]

Can you show me where I said we should take talls ????
Other than that I’m not discussing the Cadman thing as I say it’s done and we would never have got him. Move on

Sorry it was actually someone else who suggested prioritising talls at our first 2 which started this whole conversation. You just jumped in adamant that we could never get cadman haha. OK nostradamus I'll leave you to your crystal ball

 

[shooshka]

From my point of view there was no way North were giving GWS pick 1 without pick 2 being in the transaction. The point is moot because the bigger part of the trade was the involvement of Port and getting JHF across. I think the deal was a good one for the eagles as well, that was never the debate.
You said we should take talls with our first two picks, my point was that it is a bad draft to do that given the players available in the draft unless we wanted Cadman (and our best chance to get him would have been to hold pick 2)...

They absolutely would have given pick 1 without getting pick 2 (no way they give JHF without pick 2, but that is a separate argument).

They would have had the same choice of Wardlaw or Sheezel if we had kept pick 2 (Cadman gone to GWS - and no way we were taking either of those guys now the truth is out!).

They were just holding out for a better offer (and, more likely, pretty keen on getting Port to pressure us to get involved as 2 + 3 is a better outcome).

I think if there had been a way for us to move to pick 1 without a huge cost we would have done so. But GWS have deeper pockets with draft picks (always) so unfortunately that wasn't an option.

 

[Spank2304]

They absolutely would have given pick 1 without getting pick 2 (no way they give JHF without pick 2, but that is a separate argument).

They would have had the same choice of Wardlaw or Sheezel if we had kept pick 2 (Cadman gone to GWS - and no way we were taking either of those guys now the truth is out!).

They were just holding out for a better offer (and, more likely, pretty keen on getting Port to pressure us to get involved as 2 + 3 is a better outcome).

I think if there had been a way for us to move to pick 1 without a huge cost we would have done so. But GWS have deeper pockets with draft picks (always) so unfortunately that wasn't an option.

Our Picks 2+20+F2 might have got it done but its an extremely high cost. If the eagles thought Cadman could be a Buddy or Kennedy they might have paid it. My whole point is if we rated the talls in this draft we could have made a play for Cadman. No one even rates Cadman as the best player available in the draft he's usually 4 or 5 in most peoples rankings. Given the outcome of the mega deal I'd say we are going more likely going for mids given our position in the draft and the players who will prob be available at those picks.

Also not sold on the narrative that we wouldn't pick Wardlaw or Sheezel. I know it is popular belief and has been well reported in the media but the only thing WC has really said on the matter that I have seen was O'Brien stating that the club was not afraid to pick up interstate talent and had been successful in doing so in the past. Where theres smoke theres fire and its certainly possible that Wardlaw and Sheezel have said they dont want to go interstate but WC would only need North to believe it was a possibility that WC would take one of them to make them nervous.

Its all academic anyway and I'm happy to leave it as a difference of opinion.

 

[ronpingwins]

Had a guy come into my work today who told me a few interesting things.

Now I don't know if he full of it or not but I thought I'll post it anyway.

He said we have been in discussions with both Essendon and West Coast about draft night trades if certain outcomes happen.

Essendon one is if North don't select Sheezel then we may look to trade up as they believe Phillipou we fall to our pick.
He said the trade will be something like:

Carlton: Pick 4, Pick 22 & Future 2nd
Essendon: Pick 10, Pick 49 & Future 1st

The West Coast one is if Ginbey makes it to their first pick they believe could get all 3 of Ginbey, Busslinger and Hewett if they can get our pick.

Carlton: Pick 21, Pick 26, Future 1st
WC: Pick 10, Pick 49, Future 2nd

Post on the Carlton boards rumour thread. I keep reading more creative ways to make us melt.

 

[FKASC]

Post on the Carlton boards rumour thread. I keep reading more creative ways to make us melt.

 

[FKASC]

I don’t even want to work out what that all equates to when you factor in the pick 2 split

 

[CountryLad]

Sorry it was actually someone else who suggested prioritising talls at our first 2 which started this whole conversation. You just jumped in adamant that we could never get cadman haha. OK nostradamus I'll leave you to your crystal ball

Don’t need to be Nostradamus. Just need to listen to enough information to know we weren’t getting Cadman. You Wooshaaaa would make a nice couple

 

[Spank2304]

Don’t need to be Nostradamus. Just need to listen to enough information to know we weren’t getting Cadman. You Wooshaaaa would make a nice couple

 

[bh90210fan]

No way anyone gets hold of our future 1st. We can’t be that stupid

 

[FKASC]

No way anyone gets hold of our future 1st. We can’t be that stupid

 

[Hook461123]

No way anyone gets hold of our future 1st. We can’t be that stupid

You wouldn't think so...but I did think that about pick 2 as well

 

[bh90210fan]

You wouldn't think so...but I did think that about pick 2 as well

I think we did alright out of the pick 2 split and the trade down last year. Given that, I’m relatively comfortable in assuming the Pieman won’t be trading away a likely top 4 pick in a strong draft next year with a bunch of exciting VC, SA and WA kids at the pointy end potentially on offer.

 

[Keys]

Post on the Carlton boards rumour thread. I keep reading more creative ways to make us melt.

No way anyone gets hold of our future 1st. We can’t be that stupid

You wouldn't think so...but I did think that about pick 2 as well

We traded pick 2 for 8 and 12. Given the relatively unique nature of this draft that trade made sense. Most years it wouldn’t have

Thinking we would trade our future 1st, likely a top 5 pick, for pick 10, Carlton’s future 2nd (high 20’s at best) and 49 is ludicrous. Throwing 20 and 26 into it as well as our future 1st is just nonsense

 

[Nuffington Post]

We traded pick 2 for 8 and 12. Given the relatively unique nature of this draft that trade made sense. Most years it wouldn’t have

Thinking we would trade our future 1st, likely a top 5 pick, for pick 10, Carlton’s future 2nd (high 20’s at best) and 49 is ludicrous. Throwing 20 and 26 into it as well as our future 1st is just nonsense

Not a chance we get rid of our future first - not unless it’s a swap with Hawthorns XD


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[kane249]

I don’t even want to work out what that all equates to when you factor in the pick 2 split

Assuming we finish Bottom 4 and Carlton just missed the 8


There's still a gap of roughly pick 12 missing to balance it, it's massively in Carlton's favour

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

When has “a guy who came into my work today” ever turned out to be wrong?

 

[Hook461123]

We traded pick 2 for 8 and 12. Given the relatively unique nature of this draft that trade made sense. Most years it wouldn’t have

Thinking we would trade our future 1st, likely a top 5 pick, for pick 10, Carlton’s future 2nd (high 20’s at best) and 49 is ludicrous. Throwing 20 and 26 into it as well as our future 1st is just nonsense

Not saying they're equivalent. But if you told me at the end of the season that we would trade our first top 5 pick in 12 years I would've said you were crazy.
I still believe the top 3 are standouts this year but I won't go over that again.

I'm trying to get over my pick swap melt but its hard with all this talk about taking Allan and Ginbey in the first round

 

[The wily weagle]

As devil's advocate if we take Busslinger at 9, then I want our next two picks to be mids.

But then isn't the inference that if we are prioritizing a defender over an onballer, that we require talls more so then we do midfielders?

This is entirely the problem: our recruiters/club seem to be lost as to to where we have long been deficient: the midfield

And not just in the midfielder, but in terms of contested ball, ground ball and tackling. All of which would be addressed if we prioritized the very type of player we keep ignoring over and over again with our initial picks: contested ball winning, big bodied midfielders that tackle and hit the scoreboard

Buslinger would be another failure to identify and address where we are breaking down. I am certainly not saying he cant play, but he just isn't the type of player that we most require