Carlton asking for more!

[beelzebub 22,740]

I suspect some associated wrangling now as some sort of interest in Buckley and /or Bell may have come into play.

[JP_ 60]

McLean + Bell + pick 50 for picks 11 + 27 would be nice.

[drdrake 3,065]

They are just awaiting to see if Fev goes, if he goes to the Pies they will try to offer us pick 14 instead, unfortunately this deal might not go through until the Fev deal is done.

[titan_uranus 23,249]

I was hoping the deal would be finalised by now. Just starting to get a bit worried.

If we have to add something to the deal, I wouldn't be averse to adding Bell in (i.e. McLean and Bell for pick 11), but according to everything the deal should go through as is.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I think some people need to take 2 steps back and a couple of deep breaths re: Icke's statement yesterday about the McLean Deal.

After this deal Melbourne have: #1, #2, #11, #18, #34, #50, #66

Carlton have the following: #27, #43, #59, #75

Carlton are just trying to score Pick #34 out of Melbourne (most likely as a swap for #43) - but it will obviously try to swap their picks #59 and #75 up to Melbourne's #50 and #66 because Melbourne won't be using these picks.

So Melbourne would use #1, #2, #11, #18, #43 and still have a pick for the PSD

Carlton would use #27, #34, #50, #59, #66.

capish?

Offer them McLean & Buckley, for Pick# 11 + Pick# 43

[dee-luded 2,958]

theyre fishing..

stuff them.. They will be getting picks or something to ice their cake with any Fev deal.

You dont make a deal then reneg..( unless of course youre scum ) Icke has said the deal in principal would still get iit done. leave it there.

Time to get the Lions interested in McLean, they need an inside player. They hold pick 12.

If Carlton reneg, that could be our next best option, accept keeping McLean ourselves.

[whelan45 202]

Offer them McLean & Buckley, for Pick# 11 + Pick# 43

I don't see why we would want to get rid of Buckley for pick 43? What are we going to get at this stage of the draft that will be better than holding onto Buckley? I think people are getting too carried away with draft picks.

[Akum 2,660]

I'd say it's taking some time because they're preoccupied with the Fev deal, which is the key factor for how the rest of their trade week goes, and which they'd want to conclude before turning their attention to anything else. The Fev deal has so many elements that it will be extremely complex, especially if they're trying to use him to wangle an early draft pick.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I don't see why we would want to get rid of Buckley for pick 43? What are we going to get at this stage of the draft that will be better than holding onto Buckley? I think people are getting too carried away with draft picks.

Thats not getting rid of Buckley for 43, he's a sweetener to the pot of 11 & 43.

[old55 21,874]

I don't see why we would want to get rid of Buckley for pick 43? What are we going to get at this stage of the draft that will be better than holding onto Buckley? I think people are getting too carried away with draft picks.

I don't think we need pick 43, we've already got 5 picks before that up to 34.

The only draft advantage for us is to upgrade 34.

If there was a Buckley deal we'd want 34 + Buckley for 27

[H_T 2,941]

If there was a Buckley deal we'd want 34 + Buckley for 27

My thoughts precisely on the Buckley thread.

[titan_uranus 23,249]

It might be the other way around Old55: I read that Carlton wanted to upgrade their pick, so that it might be McLean and pick 34 for pick 11 and pick 43.

[whelan45 202]

Thats not getting rid of Buckley for 43, he's a sweetener to the pot of 11 & 43.

I would prefer Mclean for 11 rather than putting Buckley and 43 in the mix. I just don't think with picks 1,2,11,18 and 34 that we really need pick 43.

Lets hope they keep their word on the original Mclean deal

[beelzebub 22,740]

It might be the other way around Old55: I read that Carlton wanted to upgrade their pick, so that it might be McLean and pick 34 for pick 11 and pick 43.

Buckley and Bell effects aside thats what I was starting to ponder as well.

Be mugs to accept it of course

[Disco Demons 92]

if we trade a player for a draft pick do we have to use that draft pick?

can this been seen as a way to add room on our list rather than delisting?

[Ryan Dee 140]

if we trade a player for a draft pick do we have to use that draft pick?

can this been seen as a way to add room on our list rather than delisting?

I am pretty sure you can pass on a draft pick. So the answer no we don't have to use it.

[old55 21,874]

It might be the other way around Old55: I read that Carlton wanted to upgrade their pick, so that it might be McLean and pick 34 for pick 11 and pick 43.

Yeah they might want that but originally we offered McLean + 34 for 11 + 27 (see Sunday Age)

So McLean for 11 is in the middle.

It sounds possible that Buckley and/or Bell is being worked into negotiations.

[beelzebub 22,740]

Yeah they might want that but originally we offered McLean + 34 for 11 + 27 (see Sunday Age)

So McLean for 11 is in the middle.

It sounds possible that Buckley and/or Bell is being worked into negotiations.

Until the interest in Bell/Buckley we had a workable deal...even Icke attested to that so it must be the "fine" print of added value ( ne players/picks ) both ways thats holding it up. If thats the case there will be more movement at melb..and more again as the vacuum of two players creates more opportunities.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

I am pretty sure you can pass on a draft pick. So the answer no we don't have to use it.

Correct,

The rules were amended in 2007 to allow clubs to not be obligated to utilize on-traded draft picks.

[Clanger King 9]

Give them Daniel Bell for the pen in there top pocket. Been on the list for 5-6years and is nothing but a depth player. Would rather Liam Jurrahs dad to be our depth player then a Daniel Bell with no upside.

[H_T 2,941]

Would rather Liam Jurrahs dad to be our depth player then a Daniel Bell with no upside.

By all past reports on LJ's dad......I'd do that trade in a 'heartbeat'.

[Armitage Shanks 0]

Greetings All,

Long time reader, first time poster.

I have to agree that we do not require any picks higher than 34.

With picks 1, 2, 11, 18 and 34 along with Number 1 in the PSD why would we need any more picks? How many players do you expect to be delisted/retired? My count at the moment is 4 in Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan and obviously Mclean.

Obviously if we can engineer a pick under 34 but preferably in the first round then it would be worth going for in order to have a chance at receiving a key position forward such as Temel, Panos etc.

[The Great One 99 125]

Can't remember exactly. But didn't Carlton p*ss everyone off last year by waiting till the last minute to finalize the Mathew Warnock deal, and making it so most of the other trades were too late to get done?

[jayceebee31 692]

NEWS @ DRAFT CAMP RE McLean- it was told to me that originally MFC wanted pick 11 & pick 27 for McLean & pick 34.Therefore, Carlton may not be stalling -we may still be demanding this change- however, it was strongly thought pick 11 would end up being the exchange.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I would prefer Mclean for 11 rather than putting Buckley and 43 in the mix. I just don't think with picks 1,2,11,18 and 34 that we really need pick 43.

Lets hope they keep their word on the original Mclean deal

I'm not of the opinion that this draft is as poor as has become fashionable for some to spruik.

This is why we disagree. I for one want to continue to churn the list. Not to throw out all who have experience, but rather keep the experienced framework, yet keep @ least 1/2 a dozen draftees per year rolling through our ranks, plus the preseason pick'ee.

I think we may get close to a 'James Craig' or someone of that ilk with a pick around 43, "better than 50". I don't think Buckley would draw a 2nd rounder after his injuries, but you never know.