In 2010, Russell has his best year (after a long wait) at HB with Scotland so we then recruit Duigan and Laidler to play the same positions. Oh and send Yarran back there too who is now a forward and Walker who was once there and went forward with success but is now back.

I reckon we dodged a bullet with the Geelong discards, (Chapman, Pods, Hunt).
None of those blokes were going to be a part of #17 but they might have stood in the way of a kid who will be.

He actually signed a 2 year deal. He was contracted until the end of this year & signed a new deal @ the beginning of the season.[/quote]

A contract extension; the net result being prior to the commencement of the 2013 season, Andrew was contracted for the following three seasons... until the end of 2015 on significant money! No wonder our salary cap is stuffed!!![/quote]

Bullshit.
He signed a 2 year deal.
Complain all you like about us giving him 2 years, but don't claim it as a 3 year contract.

A contract extension; the net result being prior to the commencement of the 2013 season, Andrew was contracted for the following three seasons... until the end of 2015 on significant money! No wonder our salary cap is stuffed!!![/quote]

Bullshit.
He signed a 2 year deal.
Complain all you like about us giving him 2 years, but don't claim it as a 3 year contract.[/quote]

Clearly you can't add, so I will say this very slowly and simply... prior to the beginning of 2013 Carrazzo was signed up until the end of 2015... 2013, 2014, 2015... therefore he was signed up for three years (two still remaining)!!

It was a two year contract extension on an existing contract... 1 + 2 = 3 years!

He turns 30 before the end of the year... and he is being paid big money, has played 24 games in the last two seasons... and Mckay says we couldn't move much this trade period because of salary cap issues

Clubs like Hawthorn (Crawford, Mitchell etc), Geelong etc give players at Carrazzo's age one year contracts....

It's not simply that Carrazzo got a 2 year extension, but that he got it a full season in advance. The club did a nice turn by their veteran player, at the cost of seeing him play next to no footy with what may be chronic "old man injury" - bad calves. The club seems to have taken an inordinate risk to keep a veteran happy.

Without wanting to rewrite history perhaps the clubs intentions were to lock him away rather than having him come off contract in a year he becomes a free agent. At the time of signing he was just about the best lock down player going around he could get plenty of the ball.
At time of his resigning he was destroying players like Pendlebury, Watson and co.

Sure...he was in good form...doesn't mean you have to offer a guy his age three years. And if he's not happy with a one or two year deal, let him walk. I doubt he would like his suitors compared to life at Carlton.

I know they were both free agents but people should stop inferring that their movements during this period are connected.

They were not!!

The club did not match what Eddie was being offered by other clubs, and if they had it would have been considered terrible list management, he was given a 4 year contract!!! on $500k+. He also wanted to be closer to his father, had CFC offered same length on a bit less coin he would have stayed but we would not match the terms that were being offered.

I'm okay with getting Docherty, Thomas I'm not sure nor Everitt.

Does this mean the Coaching & List Management group believe we are close to a premiership?

Thomas at his best is a gun but in my opinion his best his behind him and he has 3 years maximum at the top. Docherty is a talent and at 20 is a worthwhile pickup. Everitt has been plagued by inconsistency his whole career and cannot play "tall". Everytime he has he has struggled. Concerns me that I hear McKay say he could be a swingman with Henderson. Seriously!!

Also, no improvement in the draft. AGAIN. Pick 13 & 39 plus the above players isnt that good IMO. Did we try and get more picks inside Top 20? We lack genuine A grade talent through the middle. Our No. 1s Kruezer, Murphy & Gibbs are now in their prime and need to improve.

I really wonder where our list is. MM says we lack midfield run. I don't believe we have addressed it. Also, not one key position player. We will again be relying on Watson, Casboult & Rowe to step up.

Be interesting to see how it plays out but I get the feeling we are still caught in no mans land.

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015

I think our list is better balanced and a little more flexibility after trading.
We've added talented running ability in the midfield where the game is won and
our new recruits all have the basic skills, decent kick of the football, they can mark the ball , good run and you can add a little X factor too. What's not to like?
Our deficiency however, a focal big and talented KPF was not addressed , it will still be very tough without one , but then how many were there available? I cant be too critical, I think the list is been reasonably managed, problem is we coming from too far back .
With some luck we will be seeing quite few more wins in 2014.
Ciao

_________________
Go Blue Boys

Nice to have picked up 3 players with AFL standard kicking skills and athleticism.

Yep, this was a bad move all things considered, pulled the trigger way too early & for way too long. Would have been happy to extend for the additional year (end of '14) and assess then to go another 1 year contract based on his output. He may have been a UFA but we'll need cash for younger players who are RFA's and should see developing midfield options rising to take the regular spots the likes of Carrots & Judd take up.
30 years of age rule to apply, 1yr contracts from CFC.

And if it doesn't come (which is highly unlikely) we'll use the excuse of not getting that key forward we needed. The club falls on excuses that are caused by their own failings. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy of mediocrity.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Ffs its called list management. We get too hung up on our fav sons and then pay them too much. We are too incompetent / insecure to bear the possibility that a player leaves and becomes a better player elsewhere. What we need to do is play the odds. Believing that a player demanding over the odds, can be traded and then replaced with a younger player who can be developed and hopefully exceed the player he replaced. Trouble is we have been very inconsistent with the development part.
Betts departure is a positive sign.

on the whole i agree with that post

however in the context of what we do betts should have stayed someone else should have taken less.

this only works if we are consistent.

if we keep paying judd a million and lose betts for nothing... (or in wage terms 100k its ridiculous

so lets see how we handle our next set of contracts

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

So you think a premiership is likely, then.
I hope you're right.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

You don't think that bringing in Dale Thomas addresses our lack of midfield run? I would have thought that there are few better two-way runners out there than Dale Thomas. He will add nothing if not midfield run.

The acquisition of Docherty might also help address this issue as it should allow players like Tuohy, Gibbs, Simpson or even Walker to spend more time in the midfield. A non-hobbled Murphy should also help.

Agree about the key position players, especially forwards, but we would have had to sell the farm for anyone half-decent, and when the players that did move were White, Gumbleton and Podsiadly, I'm glad that we didn't pull the trigger.

_________________
Formerly Blues-Back2003.

Agree about Judd's piece of the pie...will make him the most overpaid player in the AFL next year.

Betts should have been the guinea pig with the NEW CFC list management philosophy. Even if we had the money in the cap, list managers need to assess worth and pay accordingly. Betts is not worth 2m over 4 years IMHO. Not happy to see him go but would've been happy with the stronger stance....until.....the Thomas affair.
Paying Daisy all that money demonstrates that we just won't learn

So, the question is, Did we not match Adelaide's offer because of salary cap (knowing we'd get DT) or because we wanted to make a statement about a player's value?
If the answer is the former, then we have made no progress with embracing 21st century list management

_________________
If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!

The club put an offer to Eddie as to what they thought he was worth. Obviously it was less than Adelaide's. This offer would've been given to Eddie with other money already set aside for Thomas. Thomas might be getting overpaid by us, but that's what happens with free agents. You have to pay more because you need the other club to refuse to match the offer. Just like Adelaide are overpaying Betts because they needed to make sure we couldn't match it, we needed to make sure Collingwood wouldn't match our offer for Thomas.

Read small as small/medium. He will happily mesh into the forward line, where as others not in that list would be bit players.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.