One has NOTHING to do with the other

Jack is going nowhere. Just media speculation

add me to the keep JSOS.

If its Gresham or JSOS, why are we even talking about it?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Add me too

If you look at it that way, its a no brainer.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I agree we need a KPD, a mature ruck for depth, maybe draft a mid, but you'd take best available with your first round pick wouldn't you?

I understand where you are coming from but I think your model is a bit rigid. Always?

The reason why the AFL stipulated minimum 3 draft selections is to ensure the top teams release 3 players if they have a near perfect list. Makes the world go round.
It happens.

Only a couple months ago we had 17 out of contract and were looking at letting TDK and Jack go, we were looking at delisting Fogarty, Cuningham, Marchbank, Dow at the end of the year ahead of others who were reasonable.
Now you're suggesting letting go the abovementioned or the next layer, those who are young and developing?

Midfielders Walsh Cerra Kennedy out this week. Last week Fogarty, Dow and Cuningham beat Daicos Daicos and Pemblebury in the last quarter. Ed and Fisher may need to be replaced with mids. After first round we only have pick 65.

One year at a time. Trade next years first round for a pick this year to not be forced to use it on Campo.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

You're on the ball Crusader. Thanks. I think Ed was only a one year rookie lifeline.

Its tight.

I'm sure we have 2 too many rookies with 7. May have to promote Boyd and retire Ed.

Means theres no room to keep Marchy or Cuningham by putting them on the rookie list, not that they would be around if we delisted them. I reckon both would be snapped up by other teams before rookie selections. Maybe pay out LOB. He is surplus with Hollands Binns Acres Cottrell and Campos coming next year.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

What do you think Cru?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Cook suggests that Carlton going to draft this year and maybe a free agent

I think I’m uncertain about the whole thing

Curnow & Durdin are the only ones we’re not committed to next season & early payouts for the others aren’t on the table because they still count against both the TPP and list allocation for that year. If they don’t, they certainly should.

Primary, rookie, supplementary… a list spot is a list spot. The only thing that changes is the acquisition. Once they’re on, they’re on.

Last year, we moved some things around to put Ed on the rookie list because we wanted a key forward & the pool of players was better in the ND. He might’ve got the arse entirely if the family business hadn’t lured Hayes away from the game.

Of the above list, I think Boyd, Durdin, O’Keeffe & Cincotta are keepers. Raffle the rest.

This season’s vacancies (at least half a dozen, I reckon) will come from the primary list. If we can’t manufacture a decent clutch of draft picks, then we might find that all four of them are ‘promoted’ (on the same length & money, mind you) and we audition a couple of supplemental picks again.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

Been the plan all year

I have no doubt they will get Gresham
Try and improve draft order to 4-5 good picks
Then possibly 1 or 2 mature role players through DFA or pre season

That's what he also said last year, but we got Acres on the cheap. Otherwise we went to the draft.
We got a future 4th for Setterfield to make a space for Cowan, and demoted Ed to get Lemmey.

Pick 1. Currently pick 12

Pick 2. Next year's first round for a pick in the 20's maybe or GCS first rounder.

Pick 3. currently Pick 62

Pick 4. currently Pick 68

Pick 5. Currently pick 82

Maybe package up picks 62, 68 and 82 for a better pick from GCS, but dont expect much if we trade out our 2024 first rounder .

The above scenario could give us in reality 3 good picks. Maybe Dow will get us a pick 68, but that's not a good pick unless its for a mature player flying under the radar.

FA looks to be Gresham. There's not much else out there till we see list of DFA's. Have to wait to see what's free out there first you'd think.

Gresham's form may back fire on his chances.
Gresham might not even be a Sub against us this Sunday.
If that's the case, despite being a free kick, it will look like a stupid free hit for $4-500K

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Gresham best game of the year will be against us (hope not ) hasn't the club fell for this old trick in past hopefully Austin stays AWAY from this bloke i would not recruit him . What we need is a player with strong body and some sort of pace,speed,acceleration .

People really need to chill about Gresham. Will imporve the list, if he can reach his best is a good player with speed and will cost nothing and be nowhere near $500k and certainly won't cost us Silvagni. The overreaction is amazing

Question for me re Gresham is why would we want him when he plays in a similar position as cunningham hf who can go in the middle and Cunningham is much cheaper and wont be on as long term contract

Hang on Farmer. Your post is a bit rich and an overreaction if I ever saw one.

You are quoted posting he WILL be the FA and WILL cost us $400-$500K. That's where I got my info.
I haven't debated Gresham with anyone else except in this Thread.

Now you are posting.

If he gets back to his best is not reassuring given he is possibly past his best and not in the Best 23 when all are fit at the Saints.
Got his big contract with Saints and thank god for the saints its over, and they are not desperate to keep him. In fact, he's depth at the Saints.
He didnt want to come to Carlton when we were desperate for a small forward. OK, maybe the money was too good to refuse from the Saints, but we thought, given he grew up a Carlton supporter.

He shouldn't even be in the Silvagni discussion. They are separate.

Gresham is the same height as Fisher and would be replacing him if anyone.

No overeaction, just responses imo.

As long as he's in the conversation, there will naturally be a response to the suggestion in a footy forum. You are spruiking him. Have a look.

It looks to me we are taking Gresham without costing us a draft pick, but he is taking up a spot without knowing what other FA and DFAs are out there.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I am not necessarily advocating Gresham to the Blues but right now he is definitely an upgrade on some of our small forwards based on talent - he can play

Agree there's a couple he may be an upgrade for, Ed and Fisher, but the two are players are surplus and depth. That's the point.

We are talking 2024 right?

He's currently not in their best 22 right?

Gresham is 177cm and 81kgs.
His years before 2023 show he had better seasons in the past.
Lets see who he is an upgrade on:

Owies 183
Motlop 177
Fisher 177 upgrade on one trick pony Fisher
Durdin 172
Martin 186
Cuningham 185
Fogarty 180
Binns 182
Curnow 182 upgrade on 35yo Ed

Its not like we have a shortage of his type, and with another preseason ahead for the kids Motlop, Durdin, Binns ... Gresham might be behind them all next year.

Like I said before, if he costs us $350, I suppose that's what LOB costs us, no more than that. Is he worth a spot on the list? Does he fill a position we have a need for?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Everyone knows GCS status regarding their academy players and all clubs are looking at what can be offered to get their picks. I doubt we are in the hunt given the choices and options available to GCS.

If that's the case, and we dont improve our draft picks we are left with 12, 62, 68, 84. To take all those picks we have to delist/trade 4 players. Surely we aren't going to delist 2 players to take pick 104, 105, let alone 84 to give us 5 draft picks and a FA

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

No probably not so we will need to find another way.