List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Josh Caddy + 56 traded to Richmond for 24 and 64

[catempire]

They did late last year. Just like all clubs approached many players.
Wasn't going to happen until Geelong caved and then talked to him about going as part of the Delidio deal. After that he was gone no matter what happened.
We messed up but it's not a huge deal IMO.
I know for a fact that Geelong weren't too unhappy with the pick we got for him as they weren't thrilled with his attitude and training.
Way less of a mistake than StevieJ, Chappy, Pods as at least we got something for him. And at least we have some cover for him in Cockatoo, Parfitt, Menegola who all could end up being better.
Unlike those other 3 where we gave them away for nothing with absolutely no replacements.

I don't see how it was a stuff up in the cold light of day with everyone having explained their positions. But I doubt you and I will agree on that.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I don't see how it was a stuff up in the cold light of day with everyone having explained their positions. But I doubt you and I will agree on that.

Yeah we probably won't. I'll re-word it and say everything didn't go entirely to plan.

 

[MacStradbroke]

How many AFL games has Parfitt played?

What a stupid f*#%kin comment.

 

[catempire]

Yeah we probably won't. I'll re-word it and say everything didn't go entirely to plan.

I can certainly agree the plan would never have been to trade Caddy at all, let alone for pick 24. But these things don't always unfold in the way you hope.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

How many AFL games has Parfitt played?

Funny isn't it. You sook about how we don't trade for draft picks and re develop, yet we traded an average performing 25 year old for a pick which landed us a kid who looks like a gun midfielder for 10+ years and your throwing the sooks about it.

Hypocritical stances much?

When we actually do go down the bottom, your going to be the first to scream and cry about it, because reality is you just look for anything to sulk about at a given time.

 

[darren forssman]

It went:

1. Deledio nominates Geelong
2. Richmond says "we will take Caddy"
3. Geelong says "nah"
4. Caddy says "yeah"
5. Geelong can't afford Deledio and accedes to Caddy's wishes.

Isn't that what I said?

We agree on the end result, so will leave it at that.

 

[catempire]

Isn't that what I said?

We agree on the end result, so will leave it at that.

Happy to leave it but was responding to he suggestion it "came out of an error". Doesn't appear that way to me.

 

[nananana catman]

It went:

1. Deledio nominates Geelong
2. Richmond says "we will take Caddy"
3. Geelong says "nah"
4. Caddy says "yeah"
5. Geelong can't afford Deledio and accedes to Caddy's wishes.

I have heard information that contradicts number 5. I have heard that Geelong DID have the $$ and after a meet Deledio did not want to come to Geelong. Wasn't impressed with who he met and what he saw. Not normally into the rumor mill stuff myself, but was from a pretty close source to it all.

 

[catempire]

I have heard information that contradicts number 5. I have heard that Geelong DID have the $$ and after a meet Deledio did not want to come to Geelong. Wasn't impressed with who he met and what he saw. Not normally into the rumor mill stuff myself, but was from a pretty close source to it all.

Interesting. Maybe so but the salary cap also seems to be a binding constraint given we are paying 100%.

 

[nananana catman]

Interesting. Maybe so but the salary cap also seems to be a binding constraint given we are paying 100%.

The Cap story sounded pretty accurate. I thought it was well worth passing on this different version I had heard because it was from a pretty close contact to it all, and it differed greatly from the story in the media.

 

[00VicWard001]

I have heard information that contradicts number 5. I have heard that Geelong DID have the $$ and after a meet Deledio did not want to come to Geelong. Wasn't impressed with who he met and what he saw. Not normally into the rumor mill stuff myself, but was from a pretty close source to it all.

He was probably met by the club doctor and asked to do a proper medical...

 

[catempire]

The Cap story sounded pretty accurate. I thought it was well worth passing on this different version I had heard because it was from a pretty close contact to it all, and it differed greatly from the story in the media.

Yeah cool. I'm just saying the two don't necessarily contradict. It could be both.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

He was probably met by the club doctor and asked to do a proper medical...

He was probably met by Bartel, who was there for his exit interview, and Scott didn't show up to see either of them.

 

[00VicWard001]

He was probably met by Bartel, who was there for his exit interview, and Scott didn't show up to see either of them.

Funniest comment I've seen for a while. Thank you.

 

[darren forssman]

Happy to leave it but was responding to he suggestion it "came out of an error". Doesn't appear that way to me.

I saw Spazzy's post after I posted and I like his re-wording as well for my own thoughts.

 

[CatRiot]

Although Caddy is still probably best 22 in our side, I think he's a bit over-rated. Not a match winner.

 

[Nickoo]

We have no desperate need for a first round pick. That is a misnomer.

Can someone explode the first round pick myth; as I see it given we've finished six and above that our first round picks are at best always below 16 given GWS and GC priority picks? So Parfitt pick looks pretty good and nakia pick 2014 given that we have continued to perform well for the best part of a decade.

So first round pick how many do we need? Or how many should we have tried to get by falling down the ladder more often? That seems to be the constant complaint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Can someone explode the first round pick myth; as I see it given we've finished six and above that our first round picks are at best always below 16 given GWS and GC priority picks? So Parfitt pick looks pretty good and nakia pick 2014 given that we have continued to perform well for the best part of a decade.

So first round pick how many do we need? Or how many should we have tried to get by falling down the ladder more often? That seems to be the constant complaint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You misunderstood what I meant and what BB was referring to I think. Under the AFL rules you must take 2 R1 picks in 4 years, we've traded away 3 years in a row so many assume we have to trade back in... then you read the penalty attributed to breaching this rule, yeah we don't have to do shit as it's a wet lettuce leaf punishment.

 

[nananana catman]

He was probably met by the club doctor and asked to do a proper medical...

Probably not

 

[00VicWard001]

Probably not

Probably was?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Interesting. Maybe so but the salary cap also seems to be a binding constraint given we are paying 100%.

We would be paying 100 % because we are frontloading. Almost every club will be because of the debacle that is the drawn out CBA negotations every club with players already on long term contracts (for us eg Hawkins Selwood Duncan Danger etc) those deals will have a clause written in that they go up by x amount when the new cap comes in, but the clubs don't know how much the cap rise will be, so all clubs are needing to frontload their other major player contracts this year in case the actual cap rise for next year isn't as big as the AFLPA are promising, otherwise they will be seriously caught out and have to fire sale players.

So yes we will be at 100 % of the cap right now but it's 'artificially' so. What they are really saying is they valued the flexibility to frontload contracts to the max now in preparation for the new CBA more than they valued keeping Caddy as a forward, rather than that they couldn't fit Caddy in the cap to keep him. After all if the latter was true and Caddy refused to be traded we would have been over the cap and in breach of the cap and I highly doubt the club would be that irresponsible in it's management. What's more likely is they could have fit Caddy under the cap but when he decided he wanted more $ at Richmond they saw the chance to free up cap and took it.

As for Deledio whatever the reason am glad he isn't here at this early stage his body looks like McIntosh MK2 and I think GWS paid a very high price for a lemon (actually I think most of their trades have been pretty poor in the last few years). Tuohy will be much more useful for us for longer than Deledio would have been.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

I can certainly agree the plan would never have been to trade Caddy at all, let alone for pick 24. But these things don't always unfold in the way you hope.

Pick 24 Was daylight robbery. He's not a elite mid. He's a good honest hard mid- but he lacks polish and vision. His decision making isn't elite either. This will go down as a "the Cats got lick 24 for an average half forward - and drafted 250
Game premiership AA midfielder Brandon Parfitt."

 

[catempire]

We would be paying 100 % because we are frontloading. Almost every club will be because of the debacle that is the drawn out CBA negotations every club with players already on long term contracts (for us eg Hawkins Selwood Duncan Danger etc) those deals will have a clause written in that they go up by x amount when the new cap comes in, but the clubs don't know how much the cap rise will be, so all clubs are needing to frontload their other major player contracts this year in case the actual cap rise for next year isn't as big as the AFLPA are promising, otherwise they will be seriously caught out and have to fire sale players.

So yes we will be at 100 % of the cap right now but it's 'artificially' so. What they are really saying is they valued the flexibility to frontload contracts to the max now in preparation for the new CBA more than they valued keeping Caddy as a forward, rather than that they couldn't fit Caddy in the cap to keep him. After all if the latter was true and Caddy refused to be traded we would have been over the cap and in breach of the cap and I highly doubt the club would be that irresponsible in it's management. What's more likely is they could have fit Caddy under the cap but when he decided he wanted more $ at Richmond they saw the chance to free up cap and took it.

As for Deledio whatever the reason am glad he isn't here at this early stage his body looks like McIntosh MK2 and I think GWS paid a very high price for a lemon (actually I think most of their trades have been pretty poor in the last few years). Tuohy will be much more useful for us for longer than Deledio would have been.

I agree with all of that but still think it's not inconsistent with being unable to afford Deledio. Which is probably not a bad thing.

 

[Benny78]

So glad he's gone. He would've been another problem on the field today adding to slowing momentum and failing hard.

 

[SJ]

Interesting. Maybe so but the salary cap also seems to be a binding constraint given we are paying 100%.

If we are paying 100%, how did we expect to attract Deledio?