Was the Carey experiment worth it?

[Lidge]

Question/s for the Crows fans...

Do you feel the experiment of of signing Carey was worth it and are/were you happy with the club taking this risk?

Do you think it's set you back a couple of years by forgoing early draft picks - or are you satisfied you have a good batch of youngsters to take you where you want to go?

Has your view of the Carey signing changed now that his finished compared to when you first won his signature?

Do you think you got your value for money?

Will Ronnie Burns be shown the door at the end of the year?

Not an attempt to wind you up - am genuinely interested to hear your views. As you can imagine, mixed feelings from the Roos fans with his departure, seeing our best player ever in your colours and now the retirement.

cheers.

[jc67]

It was worth a go, Simply didnt work out.

Burns is only still here because geelong are paying half his contract (as long as it is fulfilled)

[macca23]

They're fair questions.

I had huge hopes when we got Carey. I thought we gave far too much for him but I also thought his acquisition might just make us a premiership side.

With the benefit of hindsight, it was a massive mistake, if you take into account what we gave away for him. Effectively Daniel Wells and draft pick #18.

Yes, it will set us back somewhat for those very reasons.

Mind you, none of this was Carey's fault. He always attempted to give great value and when he wasn't injured, he did. There was also the intangible he gave by being a positive influence on the young players.

As for Burns, he came for nothing - Finnin who geelong delisted - and we got slightly more than nothing, but not a lot more.

Burns will either retire or be delisted at the end of this year.

[Lidge]

Originally posted by jc67
It was worth a go, Simply didnt work out.

Burns is only still here because geelong are paying half his contract (as long as it is fulfilled)

Sounds like the same reason we had David Bourke on our list for 2 years - he only cost us $40K per season, but Richmond had to fork out an extra $160K per season. Amazing he earned that much!

We also have a similiar arrangement with Carlton paying 60% of McKernan's contract. The downside to that is that he'll be on our list until end of 2005 until his contract expires.

[-WWJD-]

Think we had to go for it.

I don't think we had to give the Roos as much as we did for him. He wasn't going anywhere else.

Sure, dissapointed with the way it worked out, but some people are over hyping the failure. We didn't expect him to be our main forward to win games off his own boot like he did at the Roos. When he could get his body right and get on the park he was more than sevicable.

Just wished blokes like Stevo and Welsh could've found a bit of consistency with their bodies so we wouldn't have had to use Duck as the key man up forward.

But, it wasn't to be.

I just hope we can keep him around the club in some capacity.

[spindoctor]

Burns trade was A-OK...Finnin amounted to nothing, we paid Ronnie a base wage and he was brilliant in a fair few games for us last year. No regrets there.

Carey...well now he has to retire I will say the experiment was a failure. Not his fault. In fact, if he'd continued on this season in the form he'd been showing, it would definitely have been worth it.

The unquantifiable elements are his effect on the young KPs at the club. Hopefully he continues to hang around and continues his work with them. Then it may not be such a bad idea after all.

But a sad end to a promising final year (or penultimate year).

[DaveW]

Nup. We lost badly on this one.

At the time it was said we'd have to win a premiership for the trade to prove a winner. We've fallen a long way short of that.

2003 was a bit hit and miss. It seemed that for every good game Carey played he there was one bad game and one missed through injury.

The first half of 2004 was a bit better. He started very slugglishly, but finally hit his straps and even showed glimpses of his former form. But again his injury-prone body has given way.

Overall he wasn't worth the high first rounder we traded away, let alone the high second rounder thrown in as well.

[Russian]

Any club with the key forward problems Adelaide had then would've taken Carey if they could get him. Perhaps Wells and pick 18 (Shore) would've been better but Carey's influence on the youngsters can't be ignored. Once he got himself fit, his performances have been pretty good. Picks 4 and 21 for Carey was probably a good deal, Carlton's salary cap breaches have made the deal worse but I don't think it was that bad. Given their time again I think the decision would be the same even if the reasons were different.

Ronnie Burns was a mistake and I can't see him playing another AFL game

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Russian
Ronnie Burns was a mistake and I can't see him playing another AFL game I would argue otherwise because we gave up Finnin for him who got delisted by Geelong last year. He was never going to be a good player. We got Ronnie with Geelong paying 50% of his contract. Last year Ronnie kicked 23 goals for us and in a couple of games was a match winner. How is that a mistake when we got a bit out of him for absolutely nothing in terms of trade value??????:confused:

[Russian]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I would argue otherwise because we gave up Finnin for him who got delisted by Geelong last year. He was never going to be a good player. We got Ronnie with Geelong paying 50% of his contract. Last year Ronnie kicked 23 goals for us and in a couple of games was a match winner. How is that a mistake when we got a bit out of him for absolutely nothing in terms of trade value??????:confused: The trade was ok but you would've been better off delisting Finnin and having another draft pick for an 18yo IMO. He was part of the go for the premiership strategy - that was the mistake.

[DaveW]

I suspect Finnin still had a year so trading him to Geelong was our way of delisting him. Of course that meant we had to have Burns for two years rather than just Finnin for just one more year.

But I don't really go for the extra young player argument. If say, we'd kept Finnin and delisting him at the end of last season, then our extra pick would've been in the 70s or thereabouts. Not really much better quality than the players on our rookie list.

Burns was a reasonable pick up.

[Russian]

Originally posted by DaveW
But I don't really go for the extra young player argument. If say, we'd kept Finnin and delisting him at the end of last season, then our extra pick would've been in the 70s or thereabouts. Not really much better quality than the players on our rookie list. 2002: You took Shirley at 56 and Begley at 68 who were never going anywhere other than Adelaide. The last three players taken were Lokan, Fisher and Norman.
2003: Here's a few names - Davey, Surjan, Lovett-Murray, Brett Jones, Pratt, Hartigan, DeLuca, Kenna

All would have you in a better position now than Burns does.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Russian
2002: You took Shirley at 56 and Begley at 68 who were never going anywhere other than Adelaide. The last three players taken were Lokan, Fisher and Norman. Shirley was apparently a chance to be taken by Carlton. Begley could just as easily have been taken by your lot.
2003: Here's a few names - Davey, Surjan, Lovett-Murray, Brett Jones, Pratt, Hartigan, DeLuca, Kenna Only Davey really impresses me of that lot. (But again, just a rookie lister where the Demons have struck gold.) Surjan too I guess if he lives up to his billing.

Not like there wont be those sort of lower end draft players there this year when Burns is delisted.

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

I have enjoyed Wayne's time at the club. It was only ever going to be a 2 year thing - as it has turned out 18 months. I would have like to see him work more with some of the younger players....but who is to say that hasn't happened at training etc? I just think it is very sad that a true champion of the game has to go out on this note.

thanks Wayne.

k
xx

[Crow_Magnon]

I was talking recently to the father of one of our rookie listed players (a KPP type) who suggested that recruiting Carey would have been a success even if he never played a single game.

He said that what he had taught the younger guys was far more important to the Crows than any onfield performances. (I suppose we just wait and see......and given what we saw with Watts, Bock and Hentschel on the weekend, I reckon he may be on the right track!)

[panthers]

As a non crow person i believe most clubs would have been happy to have Wayne on their list. If not as a player at least as a mentor in regards to the younger guys in the club. it really is ashame that he will be retiring now as he deserves a cavalcade type sendoff as being one of if not the greatest player in the AFL.

I think the adelaide footy club should go flat out trying to retain him as a skills coach

[noddy]

Originally posted by Lidge
Question/s for the Crows fans...

Do you feel the experiment of of signing Carey was worth it and are/were you happy with the club taking this risk?

Do you think it's set you back a couple of years by forgoing early draft picks - or are you satisfied you have a good batch of youngsters to take you where you want to go?

Has your view of the Carey signing changed now that his finished compared to when you first won his signature?

Do you think you got your value for money?


It was a gamble worth taking & i have no regrets what so ever.

Wayne Carey in my opinion gave as much as his body would allow to the AFC & probably played some games when he shouldn't have, i would have liked to see him hang around the club for a while longer & help develop our young guns & maybe take up an off field position with the club next year.

Wayne Carey retiring at this time in the season does not mean all doom & gloom.

Would the Roos at some later stage welcome Wayne back to the club that he rightfully belongs with ??

[mymansyd]

Agreed.

The gamble was well worth it. At the end of 2002, we'd just made a prelim (where we were beaten by collingwood's thuggery and poor umpiring).

Crows did the right thing by topping up their list with Carey, Torney & Burns, correctly thinking that that would be the icing-on-the-cake to get us into a GF.

Oh well, it didn't work. We all realise that. Big deal.

Let's get on with it now and focus on our current youngsters + drafting more youngsters to strengthen our mighty club for an assault on our 3rd flag in the not-too-distant-future!

Crows must try and make Carey stay on as an assistant. I agree with all those sentiments.

Be nice to see Wayne toss the coin and be paraded in front of the Crows faithful at next week's Melbourne match.

p.s. Crows always stated they expected 2 goals per match from Wayne + a couple of goal assists. He's ended up playing 28 games for 56 goals. Right on target. I, for one, thought he was excellent.

[MaccasNeighbour]

In 2001/2002 scribes all of the country were saying all Adelaide needed to be a premiership side was a quality CHF. Most Adelaide fans agreed.

Suddenly the best CHF in history becomes available. Of course they're going to go for him.

Yes it was a risk.

No it wasn't as succesful as most here hoped.

No it wasn't the disaster most Victorians would like to have us believe.

We were one of of about 5-6 clubs that went after him quite aggresively. Demand increases price, simple laws of economics. We were never going to pick him up with anything but high draft picks or our best players. It is ridiculous to say we gave up too much, if we hadn't given up what we did, we wouldn't have got him.

[marvin]

Originally posted by Lidge
Question/s for the Crows fans...

Do you feel the experiment of of signing Carey was worth it and are/were you happy with the club taking this risk?


No, it wasn't worth it.
I wasn't happy with the club taking the risk.
I can understand why they did it.

Do you think it's set you back a couple of years by forgoing early draft picks - or are you satisfied you have a good batch of youngsters to take you where you want to go?


No - we effectively gave up one important draft pick. Crows - Carey + D Wells in 2004 are still probably in the bottom half.

Has your view of the Carey signing changed now that his finished compared to when you first won his signature?


I've enjoyed watching him play more than I expected, and we've been a better team when he's on the park.


Do you think you got your value for money?

Yes.


Will Ronnie Burns be shown the door at the end of the year?

I wish he'd never found the way in.

[Kane McGoodwin]

Carey was worth the gamble (we needed another key forward).
We gave up too much for him though.
Time to move on, as can't dwell on the past.

[bigman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by noddy
[B]It was a gamble worth taking & i have no regrets what so ever.

Agree with Noddy, completely.

The experiment of taking Wayne, in retrospect did not work out as we had hoped, but we took a risk, and if it had worked the AFC would have been seen as collective geniuses. You do not get anywhere in life if you arer not prepared to be a risk taker. Better to fail trying than to never try at all.

Now we have to get back to the drawing board and work out the best way for obtaining long term success for the next 5 or so years.

[brucetiki]

I think that the gamble with Carey paid off. If he was fit for every game, then it would have been better though. Still, what we saw of him in his time at Adelaide was quite good, and almost getting back to his old ways in recent weeks.

It was a risk, it paid off, and hopefully if Carey stays around the club, it may continue to pay off on the off-field.

As for Ronnie Burns, we should have sacked him after the drink-driving fiasco. He was a big, big flop.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by brucetiki
It was a risk, it paid off, and hopefully if Carey stays around the club, it may continue to pay off on the off-field..

Too big a risk for too little gain.

Pick #2 (thats what it became in the end) and Pick #18 was far far too much for Carey's 28 games running at 50-70% of his peak powers and Jason Torney.

Hell even if Carey played all 22 games both years and booted 50 goals in each it still wouldn't have been worth it. 2 years for a declining player for such a high draft pick which couldve given us 10-15 years of service was stupid.

[kirky]

Life is about taking risks. We took one on the basis we thought (and this is everyone at the AFC and its supporters) we needed Carey to get us a premiership, remember we played off in a PF after travelling for 4 weeks and just fell short. It didn't pay off, so what, you win some and you lose some. Get over it and move on.

[Crow-mosone]

I will argue til I am blue in the face that it was worthwhile.
what I would have hated more: is that we were close or thereabouts in 2002, and common opinion was that we needed someone or something to take us over the top, if we did nothing then that would genuinely be accepting mediocrity
we would be sitting here, wondering why we never take a risk, and how we will never win a flag if we don't roll the dice when we need to.

It clearly to my mind was worth it, and hey it didn't work out - so **** what. Many other teams wanted carey as well. better to have been in the game, rather than watching from the sideline.

Further, I hope in the same circumstance we do it again.

footnote
Daniel wells doesn't seem to have come on much this year... ;)

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Too big a risk for too little gain.


A flag too little gain?

until goddard and wells live up to the billing, I'll take the euphoria of the ride that was recruiting the King.

[Daphne]

Some of you may feel that it didnt work out. Put aside the fact that he didnt help get you to another Grand Final, you are going to reap the benefits of having had him at your club for years to come. Your younger players will have learnt a lot from him. Leadership being one very important part of it. Ricuttio (spelling) said yesterday that he has been amazing for the young ones and he is looking forward to seeing the results in the future. Dont underestimate what the two years of having the King at your club will help in the future.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
A flag too little gain?

But we didn't win a flag - and it was too fanciful to suggest that a 31yo with bad shoulders coming off a year out of the game was going to be the final piece of the puzzle in any Premiership bid.

As I said, in the end, for 28 games we gave up our pick of any youngster in the 2002 draft bar one (Goddard) - Wells, Brennan, Rivers, Walsh, Salopek, Mackie, Schammer, Faulkner, Schulz, et al - then we gave up our second pick as well! Essentially throwing away a potential 20 years service in return for 2.

That is too little gain for such a massive outlay in anyone's book.

So yes it was risk, but it was too big a risk. We weren't getting Wayne Carey circa 1993-1999 - we were getting Wayne Carey circa 2001-2002 who was coming off a year's hiatus and had shown signs of decline at the Kangaroos before the scandal.

We traded for a name and a reputation, not a player - and now all we are left with is a long drawn out rebuilding process that will see us struggle for at least the next couple of seasons.

EDIT: tpyos

[Wayne's-World]

fact: if we hadn't chased Carey knowing where we finished that year, and our need for a KP forward, this board would have lynched the management of the AFC.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
fact: if we hadn't chased Carey knowing where we finished that year, and our need for a KP forward, this board would have lynched the management of the AFC. Correct.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
fact: if we hadn't chased Carey knowing where we finished that year, and our need for a KP forward, this board would have lynched the management of the AFC.

fact: We should've gone after Pavlich instead.

#2 and Ian Perrie/Tyson Stenglein probably would've been enough.

Problem solved.

[Wayne's-World]

Originally posted by dyertribe
fact: We should've gone after Pavlich instead.

#2 and Ian Perrie/Tyson Stenglein probably would've been enough.

Problem solved.
Interesting, I would have chase Pavlich stronger at the time.

On reflection Pavlich is not known for his contested marking, more his running ability.
Our need ATT was for a marking forward.

The other not so clear issue was whether Pavlich was keen on returning to Adelaide.
Because we went cold on chasing him very very quickly.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Interesting, I would have chase Pavlich stronger at the time.

On reflection Pavlich is not known for his contested marking, more his running ability.
Our need ATT was for a marking forward.

The other not so clear issue was whether Pavlich was keen on returning to Adelaide.
Because we went cold on chasing him very very quickly.

Once it became clear Wayne wouldn't retire from football and would be available for an inevitable trade, the club made a mission of moving and earth to get him - and that's exactly what we did.

At the time wasn't Pav 'Plan B'? If Collingwood or Sydney (the two other hot tips to land Duck at the time) agreed a deal with Carey we were to then hit Freo with everything we had.

Understand what you're saying re Pav's willingness (or lack there of) to come home, but out of contract and with him being made the final piece of the Premiership puzzle at West Lakes - the club he supported as a boy - I don't think it would've taken much to convince Pav to come home, especially if we used our acquisition of the #2 pick-to-be (Carlton's penalties, etc.) in exchange for Kane Johnson to throw at Freo, along with the Pez Dispenser.

All theory of course.

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
But we didn't win a flag - and it was too fanciful to suggest that a 31yo with bad shoulders coming off a year out of the game was going to be the final piece of the puzzle in any Premiership bid.

As I said, in the end, for 28 games we gave up our pick of any youngster in the 2002 draft bar one (Goddard) - Wells, Brennan, Rivers, Walsh, Salopek, Mackie, Schammer, Faulkner, Schulz, et al - then we gave up our second pick as well! Essentially throwing away a potential 20 years service in return for 2.

That is too little gain for such a massive outlay in anyone's book.

So yes it was risk, but it was too big a risk. We weren't getting Wayne Carey circa 1993-1999 - we were getting Wayne Carey circa 2001-2002 who was coming off a year's hiatus and had shown signs of decline at the Kangaroos before the scandal.

We traded for a name and a reputation, not a player - and now all we are left with is a long drawn out rebuilding process that will see us struggle for at least the next couple of seasons.

EDIT: tpyos

Once again, you have confused risk with hindsight driven outcomes.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Once again, you have confused risk with hindsight driven outcomes.

Care to elaborate? I'd like to hear you go into detail for once rather than just make hollow one-liners.

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Care to elaborate? I'd like to hear you go into detail for once rather than just make hollow one-liners.

First line,
"But we didn't"

price of fish - discuss.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
First line,
"But we didn't"

price of fish - discuss.

That's your problem Crow-mo - you're harping on your opinion of the piece of fish prior to when you actually ate it, instead of analysing how it tasted, what its consistency was and whether the price you paid for it was actually worth it.

Love the way you conveniently ignored the crux of my point too:

So yes it was risk, but it was too big a risk. We weren't getting Wayne Carey circa 1993-1999 - we were getting Wayne Carey circa 2001-2002 who was coming off a year's hiatus and had shown signs of decline at the Kangaroos before the scandal.

We didn't know all that at the time did we? Analysis and comprehension not your strongpoint?

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
That's your problem Crow-mo - you're harping on your opinion of the piece of fish prior to when you actually ate it, instead of analysing how it tasted, what its consistency was and whether the price you paid for it was actually worth it.


absolutely. Hindsight does not relate to whether the risk was worth it, you can only weigh up the factors you have at the time.
you can assess the outcome, not the risk factor, after the event.


Love the way you conveniently ignored the crux of my point too:

So yes it was risk, but it was too big a risk. We weren't getting Wayne Carey circa 1993-1999 - we were getting Wayne Carey circa 2001-2002 who was coming off a year's hiatus and had shown signs of decline at the Kangaroos before the scandal.


No I didn't ignore your point, it's just not a very good one.
Not only did we not get carey circa 93 - 99, we did not think we were. :eek:
I seem to recall this point being made very clear at the time by the AFC and that he was to be a complementary forward, not the main man per 93 - 99.



We didn't know all that at the time did we? Analysis and comprehension not your strongpoint?

No we didn't know all sort of things at the time, isn't that my point? Better make sure you take a course in analysis and comprehension before you leave school.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
absolutely. Hindsight does not relate to whether the risk was worth it, you can only weigh up the factors you have at the time.
you can assess the outcome, not the risk factor, after the event.

What we did know equated to maximum risk. We were not trading for Chris Tarrant or Warren Tredrea, players who are top-notch performers now and are still seasons away from their forseeable peak. We traded the family silver for a player in his twilight years who had spent a year out of the game - an x-factor within itself.

We could not have expected him to perform to his very best, so why trade the very best for him?

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
No I didn't ignore your point, it's just not a very good one.
Not only did we not get carey circa 93 - 99, we did not think we were. :eek:
I seem to recall this point being made very clear at the time by the AFC and that he was to be a complementary forward, not the main man per 93 - 99.

So if we knew we weren't getting Carey at his best and he was only going to be used as a foil - why did we give up so much for him?

A complimentary forward with two seasons left is not worth a third round pick, let alone a number #2 pick (and the rest), whether his name is Wayne Carey or not.

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
No we didn't know all sort of things at the time, isn't that my point? Better make sure you take a course in analysis and comprehension before you leave school.

Crow-mo, crow-mo, crow-mo. Again your argument descends into the realms of hollow rhetoric. Here's a thought - rather than simply paraphrasing me in constructing your 'retort' (for want of a better term) what say you practice what you preach and comprehend what I am saying? Is it really that hard or is your oafish superiority complex too far gone? ;)

"No we didn't know all sort of things at the time"

*So we didn't know he was 31?
*We didn't know he'd just spent a year out of the game?
*We didn't know he had a history of serious shoulder injuries?
*We didn't have a fair inkling his shelf life was two seasons max at best?
*We didn't know that in his last full year at the Kangaroos (2001) his contribution was well down on previous years - traditionally the harbinger of a thirtysomething player subject to further decline, especially after missing an entire year in 2002?

These were the factors we did know at the time of the trade and they gave fair warning as to what contribution we could expect from Carey - a contribution that in all probability would fall far below his previous standards of excellence and thus be an overall contribution that was not worth risking so very much for.

Nothing to do with hindsight, everything to do with questioning why the club did not give deeper thought to what we did know before risking so very much.

At the end of the day you maintain the risk was worth it because the potential payoff was a Premiership. If you mortgage your house and back a 100/1 shot in the Melbourne Cup the potential payoff is millions of dollars - but it's not worth the risk if you know the horse is old and broken and has been out to stud for the past year is it.

[macca23]

There are several things about the whole Carey experiment that disappoint me, particularly in respect of the AFC, not Carey.

The first thing is that they gave up too much for a rising 32 year old player. That isn't hindsight as I always felt that.

The second one is that the club mis-led us at the time. The club publicly stated that Carey had been through a rigorous medical test and was in excellent physical condition. He was being touted by them as the answer to our contested marking problem. How was he ever going to do this when he can't raise his arms above his head - or didn't those rigorous tests cover that aspect?

The 3rd one is that most of us would have preferred Pavlich, but we were told that he wasn't interested. It came out later that the reason he wasn't interested is that they told him that Carey was their main target, but they'd look at him if it fell through with Carey. He also said that if he had ben the prime target from the word go he probably would have come home, but he wasn't prepared to be hanging around as a second best possibility.

[Wayne's-World]

Originally posted by macca23

The 3rd one is that most of us would have preferred Pavlich, but we were told that he wasn't interested. It came out later that the reason he wasn't interested is that they told him that Carey was their main target, but they'd look at him if it fell through with Carey. He also said that if he had ben the prime target from the word go he probably would have come home, but he wasn't prepared to be hanging around as a second best possibility.
Let him go at the draft table, let him go for Carey.
How many chances does the AFC want?

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by noddy
Would the Roos at some later stage welcome Wayne back to the club that he rightfully belongs with ??

Wayne will be welcomed back to Arden Street.

We're having our 80 years in the VFL/AFL and 30 years since our first flag celebrations in 2005. Not having our greatest player at the functions will mean that the celebrations wouldn't be complete. The club has been in touch with Wayne and the recent comments by Stevens and Archer indicate that personal feelings will be set aside for the greater good of the club.

As for the fans, most of us were angry with Wayne, but deep down, many of us would have preferred for him to finish his career with us (with the implication that we would never have recruited Wells). I know many of you visit the Roos board, and you would have read of our hostility towards Wayne when we played your team, but since his retirement, all that angst and anger has disappeared.

In terms of the "flag or nothing" aspect of recruiting Wayne, I think it was a risk that was worth taking. Many of us on the North board felt that the Crows were a good chance to win the 2003 Premiership with Carey in the side. It just didn't work out that way. Carey has shown some good form in the past month - it's just a shame for the Crows that the form didn't happen last August and September. There is a part of me that is disappointed that he couldn't deliver your club a flag - it's not only a matter of Carey and his footballing reputation, but it's also the fact that Adelaide FC were totally ethical, responsible, and professional in dealing with my club over the Carey trade (and other trades in the past).

Thanks for taking care of the King for us. He is such a large part of the history of North Melbourne, and now he's a small part of your club's history. He's got two homes now, but I hope he can return to his Arden Street home so we can say "thank you" to him.

[Eago77]

The Carey the crows got wasn't the Carey that was a dominant force for the roos. He was a player with injury problems and a body of a 35 year old, he was never going to live up to his time at the roos.

Was the gamble worth it? Maybe at the time but obviously not in hindsight.

They need a CHF, they recruited a tall FP, who had to be the main forward (due to injury to Stevens which probably spelt the end of any chance the gamble had of paying off), it wasn't going to work. But you cant pick up a Tredrea or a Brown with draft pick 2 & 19 (or whatever) so you have to take a punt, it didn't work.

Would they have been better of taking two youngsters, probably, but there's always a chance of that backfiring and with the sour taste of Angwin still in their mouths, you cant blame them.

My biggest thing with the crows recruiting is their hope that by drafting a Hewitt, Richardson, Schell, Fitzgerald or a Scott Stevens they reckon they'll stumble upon a good tall forward instead of draft young talls like they have done with Watts. Christ Damon White (picked up late) would waltz into the crows side but instead they took recycled hacks. You cant get good players by trading **** ones. The risk they took with carey was fair enough at the time, it didn't work but i dont think its the real reason why they will struggle over the next few years.

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by Eago77
The Carey the crows got wasn't the Carey that was a dominant force for the roos. He was a player with injury problems and a body of a 35 year old, he was never going to live up to his time at the roos.

Was the gamble worth it? Maybe at the time but obviously not in hindsight.

They need a CHF, they recruited a tall FP, who had to be the main forward (due to injury to Stevens which probably spelt the end of any chance the gamble had of paying off), it wasn't going to work. But you cant pick up a Tredrea or a Brown with draft pick 2 & 19 (or whatever) so you have to take a punt, it didn't work.

Would they have been better of taking two youngsters, probably, but there's always a chance of that backfiring and with the sour taste of Angwin still in their mouths, you cant blame them.

My biggest thing with the crows recruiting is their hope that by drafting a Hewitt, Richardson, Schell, Fitzgerald or a Scott Stevens they reckon they'll stumble upon a good tall forward instead of draft young talls like they have done with Watts. Christ Damon White (picked up late) would waltz into the crows side but instead they took recycled hacks. You cant get good players by trading **** ones. The risk they took with carey was fair enough at the time, it didn't work but i dont think its the real reason why they will struggle over the next few years.

Yes, we paid too much for Carey. And we've underused our other piece of the puzzle, Torney.

I'm seriously disappointed if that rumour about Pavlich is true. He should have been no 1, not Carey. Carey should have been our back-up if we missed Pavlich. Pavlich was a gun CHF as a junior, and he is f'in huge...exactly what we needed.

As for the likes of Schell, Richardson, Fitzy etc - yep, they were stupid decisions. I still maintain Richardson wasn't given enough of a chance, but anyway.

However, generally, they were very low picks so the margin was smaller. But still. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Fitzgerald, for one, was very talented, but his injury history should've been more important.

[tiger of old]

someone on 3aw yesterday brought up a valid point.if the crows were able to find a 3rd capable fwd to go with stevens and carey then the carey gamble might have paid off.
carey was past his best on his arrival however as a 3rd option in the fwd line he would have been a handful for any defence.

cheers!

[spindoctor]

That 3rd forward was Perrie. It worked in the first game they played together, against Freo:

Carey 4
Stevens 3
Perrie 3

I think.

But then the injuries happened and it all got stuffed up.

[topjars]

Despite his off field behaviour (which he inherited from North Melbourne anyway.........

8 out of ten

[Lidge]

Originally posted by topjars
Despite his off field behaviour (which he inherited from North Melbourne anyway.........

8 out of ten

Yeah - but the hotel room spa was a trick he discovered in Adelaide! Don't blame us for that one!

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
What we did know equated to maximum risk. We were not trading for Chris Tarrant or Warren Tredrea, players who are top-notch performers now and are still seasons away from their forseeable peak. We traded the family silver for a player in his twilight years who had spent a year out of the game - an x-factor within itself.

We could not have expected him to perform to his very best, so why trade the very best for him?



So if we knew we weren't getting Carey at his best and he was only going to be used as a foil - why did we give up so much for him?

A complimentary forward with two seasons left is not worth a third round pick, let alone a number #2 pick (and the rest), whether his name is Wayne Carey or not.



Crow-mo, crow-mo, crow-mo. Again your argument descends into the realms of hollow rhetoric. Here's a thought - rather than simply paraphrasing me in constructing your 'retort' (for want of a better term) what say you practice what you preach and comprehend what I am saying? Is it really that hard or is your oafish superiority complex too far gone? ;)

"No we didn't know all sort of things at the time"

*So we didn't know he was 31?
*We didn't know he'd just spent a year out of the game?
*We didn't know he had a history of serious shoulder injuries?
*We didn't have a fair inkling his shelf life was two seasons max at best?
*We didn't know that in his last full year at the Kangaroos (2001) his contribution was well down on previous years - traditionally the harbinger of a thirtysomething player subject to further decline, especially after missing an entire year in 2002?

These were the factors we did know at the time of the trade and they gave fair warning as to what contribution we could expect from Carey - a contribution that in all probability would fall far below his previous standards of excellence and thus be an overall contribution that was not worth risking so very much for.

Nothing to do with hindsight, everything to do with questioning why the club did not give deeper thought to what we did know before risking so very much.

At the end of the day you maintain the risk was worth it because the potential payoff was a Premiership. If you mortgage your house and back a 100/1 shot in the Melbourne Cup the potential payoff is millions of dollars - but it's not worth the risk if you know the horse is old and broken and has been out to stud for the past year is it.

took me a few days to bother reading this, can I have the 2 minutes of my life back? yawn.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
took me a few days to bother reading this, can I have the 2 minutes of my life back? yawn.

Yep, typically mentally defunct response from you - didn't expect anything less.

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Yep, typically mentally defunct response from you - didn't expect anything less.

that's right. mind you wouldn't deficient have been the better word? good thing you didn't transfer to that journalism course.

[dyertribe]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
that's right. mind you wouldn't deficient have been the better word? good thing you didn't transfer to that journalism course.

Aye, the same way "crow-mosome" would have made for the better username. Good thing you keep replying to me.