Outoftheblue wrote:
I think the plan was fairly obvious. We tried to replace our missing generation (several years of draft picks given or taken away, or wasted) with players we hoped could make us competitive until fresh talent emerged.
Carlton supporters have been spoilt by success and I think there was a real concern that they wouldn't tolerate rolling over for a couple of seasons to stockpile picks. Of course, not only have we picked up so many second-chance players, we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in choosing targets, so the end result is we have simply prolonged the misery.
I remember thinking that. In 2003, it sort of made sense. We had no middle tier and the old guys were largely booted out or retired. So the list was changed over almost 50% in order to turn the list over and give the mature bodies / semi-trieds a chance. It sort of worked; perhaps too well.
At the end of 2004 we went for Chambers and Longmuir. Did the Club really think we were in line to play finals? This can be the only reason as to why you'd top up with 2 more mature aged players, surely? If not, why would you continue to top up? We seemed pretty confident at the end of 2004; 11th place, few delistings. And then 2005 hit...
...At the end of the year, we picked up Saddington - was this a special case given his CHB experience?
Perhaps more important to these is the non-delisting of players we are only now delisting. Some say we had to create space for this years superdraft, some say we couldnt afford to pay anyone out (salary cap in 2004 and actual cash in 2005)...I say i'd much rather us coming last with 15 kids coming through than with 10.