I guess it didn't turn out too bad for the Tigers. Johnson is now captain of a side that promises some big things in the next few years whilst Wells has not been able to sustain his brilliance (still love him at carlton tho)
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Retrospective...2002 trade period http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12351 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | phoenix johnson [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Retrospective...2002 trade period |
I don't wish to dwell on the events that took place in the late hours before the 2002 draft, but one question has been bugging me for some time. If we knew that we were guilty as sin, why didn't we try to off trade Picks 1 and 2 for an established player in the system? Or were we that convinced we were innocent, the thought of trading our first two picks never entered our minds? Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | kingkerna [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Going on my memory I think the AFL told clubs not to trade players for the draft picks with us, does this sound familiar to people? We got away with it for French? But I think a scare campaign went out about conducting further deals??? |
|
| Author: | GWS [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was a lot of talk that the other clubs had been warned off trading with Carlton for those first rounders at that any trades may be null and void and they'd miss out all together. It happened later in the draft with Barney the stakes were much lower and the AFL may have either let that one through or simply added more penalty to the end. Whether it's true or not you can't blame the other clubs for being wary. |
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah that's how I remember it. Clubs I think were told that if they traded with us they could lose those picks. Was never going to happen but was scary enough. Certainly the talk was that they were told not to deal with us. All the more reinforcement of the decision being a shambles. Either it had to take place before the entire trade period and draft, or entirely after for future years. But anyway... If I remember the Kane Johnson deal pissed off the Tigers, as they gave up pick 4, which eventually became pick 2. |
|
| Author: | Deano Supremo [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: If I remember the Kane Johnson deal pissed off the Tigers, as they gave up pick 4, which eventually became pick 2.
I definitely remember that. The Tigers were about the only club that didn't want us sailed down the river, and only for that reason. |
|
| Author: | kingkerna [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: Yeah that's how I remember it. Clubs I think were told that if they traded with us they could lose those picks. Was never going to happen but was scary enough. Certainly the talk was that they were told not to deal with us.
All the more reinforcement of the decision being a shambles. Either it had to take place before the entire trade period and draft, or entirely after for future years. But anyway... If I remember the Kane Johnson deal pissed off the Tigers, as they gave up pick 4, which eventually became pick 2. absolutely, the tigers got ripped off, the Kangas were the big winners from memory - the deal that got Johnson to Richmond gave them pick 2 instead of pick 4 - hence Wells |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It was the Wayne Carey deal. I wonder if the Crows would prefer to have taken Wells, and whatever else they gave up for Carey, in retrospect. |
|
| Author: | da dada da dah [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess it didn't turn out too bad for the Tigers. Johnson is now captain of a side that promises some big things in the next few years whilst Wells has not been able to sustain his brilliance (still love him at carlton tho)
|
|
| Author: | titimus [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TruBlueBrad wrote: It was the Wayne Carey deal. I wonder if the Crows would prefer to have taken Wells, and whatever else they gave up for Carey, in retrospect. Sure as shark shit, I reckon. Dictionary wrote: Draconian |drəˈkōnēən; drā-|
adjective (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe. This word is always mentioned in regard to Carlton's draft penalties. And it is pretty apt, too - by issuing the decree that clubs couldn't trade for our picks in the 2002 draft it effectively stomped on our ability to recruit any kind of talented fresh blood to revitalise the patently mediocre playing list. Honestly, it was an incredible lack of foresight - or excessive vindictiveness - on the AFLs part. To answer your question though, no, I don't think that the AFL would have penalised clubs for trading for our picks. How could they? And yes, we should have had the foresight to offload them for some seriously talented players. Pity. |
|
| Author: | phoenix johnson [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok. So if we did offload them, who were the big name players coming out of contract at the time? Was Spider one of them? |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GWS wrote: There was a lot of talk that the other clubs had been warned off trading with Carlton for those first rounders at that any trades may be null and void and they'd miss out all together.
Talk alright. Demetriou blatantly came out and stated so. |
|
| Author: | buzzaaaah [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The only people who knew we were guilty werent talking. Pagan and O Sullivan were in charge for trade week. |
|
| Author: | Kouta [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Power didn't lose the pick they obtained for French.  
|
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is no retrospective because the AFL's change in the PRIORITY PICK rules for National Draft 2006: is nothing more than an extra year of Draft Penalties by stealth - which "The Spew" has gleefully inflicted on us. This is the same arsehole who said the AFL went easy on us in 2002. The club should be shouting from the highest rooftop that this decision be reversed by the AFL and we should have a Priority Pick in the first Round thus giving us Picks 1 and 2. We should be making our case to the AFL in the strongest possible terms - and if the AFL reply that changing the rules to this years draft would be "prejudicial" to the draft then we should point out that draft order was changed at the 11th hour in 2002 to penalise us - they can again be changed at the 11th hour to assist us. 
|
|
| Author: | Fabulous [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any one want Goddard for pick 17??? |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
phoenix johnson wrote: Ok.
So if we did offload them, who were the big name players coming out of contract at the time? Was Spider one of them? Not necessairly coming out of contract...we could have still traded for players under contract. Trent Croad was definitely discussed. |
|
| Author: | Wildman [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have recollections of someone suggesting that Collo brokered a deal with the AFL Management, about the penalties we would get if we made a clean breast of it. Then supposedly the AFL Board didn't like the deal Demitrou agreed to and basically ignored the agreement and smashed us. This was why it took so long and explains the shellshocked expression of Collo face after the meeting. If Demitrou had agreed for us to keep the picks that year or something like that then we may have not traded them for that reason. |
|
| Author: | titimus [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wildman wrote: I have recollections of someone suggesting that Collo brokered a deal with the AFL Management, about the penalties we would get if we made a clean breast of it. Then supposedly the AFL Board didn't like the deal Demitrou agreed to and basically ignored the agreement and smashed us. This was why it took so long and explains the shellshocked expression of Collo face after the meeting. If Demitrou had agreed for us to keep the picks that year or something like that then we may have not traded them for that reason.
..Or maybe we were told that they'd take it easy on us if we played it 'clean' - with the intention of caning us all along? I love conspiracy theories! F•cking Demitrispew! |
|
| Author: | Wojee [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The part that really hurt was barring us from trading into the earlier rounds. Until the day I die I'll never have any respect for Demetriou et al. To stand there and tell us we got off lightly was the height of arrogance and vindictiveness. |
|
| Author: | jim [ Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehammer wrote: Yeah that's how I remember it. Clubs I think were told that if they traded with us they could lose those picks. Was never going to happen but was scary enough. Certainly the talk was that they were told not to deal with us.
All the more reinforcement of the decision being a shambles. Either it had to take place before the entire trade period and draft, or entirely after for future years. But anyway... If I remember the Kane Johnson deal pissed off the Tigers, as they gave up pick 4, which eventually became pick 2. Tigers won out of that one. Would have Johnson well ahead of Wells, validated by the fact he become the Tiger's cpatain. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|