?? players will we realisticly delist, Starting when???

Rhys26 · **Joined:** Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:12 am **Posts:** 1730

thegezman wrote:

your probably right that they have no future, but if you cut too deep then the kids get thrown to the wolves. you need a balance, and some cannon fodder like banno and mcgrath will be needed from time to time. there are only so many pups you can blood at once. we would be far better off adding 12 odd kids over two seasons than slashing and burning all the deadwood in one year and adding 12 kids at once.

remember next years draft is supposed to be strong too.

Fair points gezman but I'd rather finish last and watch our kids get some senior game time experience. Bannister, Mcgrath and co should not be getting any game time at the expense of those kids.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

You need those guys if we get a lot of injuries- especially to our more senior players. Otherwise they can play for the Bullants and guide the young players there.

Quote:

Was Teague contracted for 3 years when he won the B&F.

He was given a 2 year contract end of last year.

Megaman · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:39 pm

Well sporny didn't survive:
http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=303393

Sorry if this has been posted, couldn't see it anywhere

Knackers · **Joined:** Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:27 pm **Posts:** 597

AGRO wrote:

I would normally agree - but if we can afford to allow Ratten 12 months to work on Davies (provided his injury allows it) I think it would be a good test for both ie. a test of Davies character and a test of Ratten's player development ability. Obviously Ratten saw something in Davies to warrant him having the "7" guernsey - lets see if Ratten can bring it out.

Again I only advocate it if we cant find anything else of value down at pick 67 in National Draft - and also because of the wreckage that is the 2000 and 2001 Drafts.

Don't tease me!

bondiblue · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:31 pm

We can do whatever we have to do and it wont hurt us in 2007 or 2008.

the gezman wrote

Quote:

your probably right that they have no future, but if you cut too deep then the kids get thrown to the wolves. you need a balance, and some cannon fodder like banno and mcgrath will be needed from time to time. there are only so many pups you can blood at once. we would be far better off adding 12 odd kids over two seasons than slashing and burning all the deadwood in one year and adding 12 kids at once.

remember next years draft is supposed to be strong too.

I was concerned about throwing the kids up against fully developed men, but that was last year and this year.

You will find that of all the names Rhys mentions, only DeLuca, McGrath (and I wouldn't consider delisting Carrazzo) are the only ones to play regular games for us in 2006.

Given that 2006 will continue to be a development year, I do not envisage more than 2 of the 6-7 new recruits to play in 2007, and we'd keep DeLuca, Saddington and Teague due to contracts. The kids bodies have grown in the last 2 years, and Murphy is a freak, just as Gibbs will be.

Now considering this, draw yourself a team excluding new draftees (other than Gibbs at this stage) and you'll find we can fit a team of young bodies from our existing list bar delistings. I mean have a look at the muscle Blackwell, our smallest and skinniest has put on in a pre season and throughout the year. And if we pick up a good mature body in the PSD (which we should) then add him too.

Delist 9 (off contract) : French, Longmuir, Chambers, Davies, Sporn, Prenders, Livingston, McGrath, Bryan,and rookies Batson and Smith, and draw up a quick list of abled bodies (keep in mind there's another preseason under their belts after this summer):

B....Carrazzo Thornton Bower
HB...Scotland Setanta Houlihan
C.....Simpson Bentick Walker
HF....Fisher Kennedy Waite
F.......Betts Fevola Whitnall

R....DeLuca Stevens Murphy

I/C..McLaren Lappin Kouta Wiggins

Emerg...Blackwell Russell Hartlett Jackson R Edwards Saddington Edwards
Flint R, Aisake R Bannister

Contracted Teague

Now add: Gibbs, 17, 19, 35, 51, 65 and a PSD plus 2-3 new rookies, and it doesn't make us any worse with depth or body strength by getting rid of the 9 above. In fact you could consider delisting Bannister to promote 2 of our rookies.

Next year there's still room made for new players with Kouta, Lappin, Teague, DeLuca, Saddington, to be replaced for another 5 new players from a strong draft. And add to that those who do not perform in 2007, or want out.

We are on the right track, because then after 2007, it's quality vs quality to keep their spots on the list, and we'll only get stronger with that mindset and in that position. We'll only be forced to delist 3 per year after 2007.

Right now we want to get rid of 12-14, but that can't happen over night due to contracts, and limitations in the numbers we can pick, and because of next year's potential 5 pickings in the draft, plus PSD.

All we need is another 2 ruckmen, and a bit of development and patience. Grow Aisake Grow.

Go Blues.

GWS · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:32 pm

AGRO wrote:

Again I only advocate it if we cant find anything else of value down at pick 67 in National Draft - and also because of the wreckage that is the 2000 and 2001 Drafts.

Best investment advice I ever heard was to forget about what you paid for something immediately after your purchase. The value of an object is in its CURRENT and FUTURE market value.

All those mums and dads desperately hanging onto their Telstra shares because they paid over $7 for them are costing themselves more money every year simply because they're unwilling to acknowledge the loss. It's not just about the loss they've incurred but the potential growth they continue to miss out on due to their stubborness.

Keeping Davies on the list is like holding onto Telstra shares. If you weigh it up against the other options (reinvesting in a player or stock that has the potential to grow) it doesn't stack up.

If Davies had been a rookie list pick up it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that he was an ultimately wasted early pick is irrelevant to our situation.

Speakers · **Joined:** Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:19 pm **Posts:** 1105

It's probably also worth considering that Davies is a HACK!!!!!!!!!

Mrs Caz · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:39 pm

I guess posters can start posting in this thread now:

http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=13121

Siegfried · **Joined:** Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:30 pm **Posts:** 2864

fullmont101 wrote:

Pafloyul wrote:

fullmont101 wrote:

then promote the 2 players that we HAVE to

How does that one work out then?

Smith and Batson have both been on the rookie list for 2 years, you cant have a player on the rookie list for more than 2 years, so we have to promote them if they are staying on.

The AFL changed the rules not long ago, players can now be on a rookie list for 3 years. All our rookie listed players can be kept on the rookie list for another year.

Effes · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:15 pm

Siegfried wrote:

fullmont101 wrote:

Pafloyul wrote:

fullmont101 wrote:

then promote the 2 players that we HAVE to

How does that one work out then?

Smith and Batson have both been on the rookie list for 2 years, you cant have a player on the rookie list for more than 2 years, so we have to promote them if they are staying on.

The AFL changed the rules not long ago, players can now be on a rookie list for 3 years. All our rookie listed players can be kept on the rookie list for another year.

Don't you mean international rookies?

Siegfried · **Joined:** Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:30 pm **Posts:** 2864

Effes wrote:

Siegfried wrote:

fullmont101 wrote:

Pafloyul wrote:

fullmont101 wrote:

then promote the 2 players that we HAVE to

How does that one work out then?

Smith and Batson have both been on the rookie list for 2 years, you cant have a player on the rookie list for more than 2 years, so we have to promote them if they are staying on.

The AFL changed the rules not long ago, players can now be on a rookie list for 3 years. All our rookie listed players can be kept on the rookie list for another year.

Don't you mean international rookies?

Someone on here answered a question I posted on here a while ago, saying that international rookies have always had 3 years.

The AFL changed the rule not long ago so that all rookies can now spend 3 years on the rookie list.

AGRO · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:12 pm

GWS wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Again I only advocate it if we cant find anything else of value down at pick 67 in National Draft - and also because of the wreckage that is the 2000 and 2001 Drafts.

Best investment advice I ever heard was to forget about what you paid for something immediately after your purchase. The value of an object is in its CURRENT and FUTURE market value.

All those mums and dads desperately hanging onto their Telstra shares because they paid over $7 for them are costing themselves more money every year simply because they're unwilling to acknowledge the loss. It's not just about the loss they've incurred but the potential growth they continue to miss out on due to their stubborness.

Keeping Davies on the list is like holding onto Telstra shares. If you weigh it up against the other options (reinvesting in a player or stock that has the potential to grow) it doesn't stack up.

If Davies had been a rookie list pick up it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that he was an ultimately wasted early pick is irrelevant to our situation.

With dividends from T1 and T2 - no problem.

Also another piece of advice - its only a loss if you sell.

Davies was Pick 38 - hardly an early pick. :wink:

Rod Waddell · **Joined:** Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1651

GWS wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Again I only advocate it if we cant find anything else of value down at pick 67 in National Draft - and also because of the wreckage that is the 2000 and 2001 Drafts.

Best investment advice I ever heard was to forget about what you paid for something immediately after your purchase. The value of an object is in its CURRENT and FUTURE market value.

All those mums and dads desperately hanging onto their Telstra shares because they paid over $7 for them are costing themselves more money every year simply because they're unwilling to acknowledge the loss. It's not just about the loss they've incurred but the potential growth they continue to miss out on due to their stubborness.

Keeping Davies on the list is like holding onto Telstra shares. If you weigh it up against the other options (reinvesting in a player or stock that has the potential to grow) it doesn't stack up.

If Davies had been a rookie list pick up it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that he was an ultimately wasted early pick is irrelevant to our situation.

Telstra stock = utility stock
Davies = utility?

?? players will we realisticly delist, Starting when???

Who is online