View Full Version : The case for trading Carrazzo and Scotland
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 17:46
IMO the ideal "trade bait" is a player who is in your best 22 but who can be replaced without unduly weakening the side. Try to trade a player outside your best 22 and no other club will give you much for him (unless you are a mega depth side like Geelong (eg Prismall) ). Pick a player easily inside your best 10 and you rob Peter to pay Paul.
I think our best 22 is something like
Carrazzo Jamison Thornton
Bower Waite Scotland
Stevens Gibbs Walker
Russell Fisher Simpson
Kreuzer Fevola Betts
Hampson Judd Murphy
Cloke Bentick Grigg Bannister
BUT, replace Carrazzo with Browne and Scotland with Grigg or Armfield and you really dont lose much at all IMO
Some might say that following my logic you could call Russell trade bait, but I think he has more upside and less trade value as he does not have the runs on the board of a 29 or 44.
As for the rest of our list, I just dont see any tradeable material - I would categorise them as
No trade value
Saddington
Ackland
Blackwell
Hartlett
Houlihan (harsh, but I really dont think anyone would want him)
Aisake
Jackson
Developing
Benjamin
Austin
Anderson
Pfeiffer
Edwards
Important Depth Players
Setanta
Hadley
Wiggins (and even if he's not, very minimal trade value)
So eric's back of the envelope analysis is that Carrots and Scotto are our 2 most tradeable commodities.
It's a good analysis, but I don't understand why they need to be traded. If guys like Army and Browne keep Carrots and Scotland out of the 22 then good on them I say. It's better than giving a young player a token game. There should exist competition for spots. That's how a good team works.
If we trade them, what are we going to get for them? Not a lot me thinks, 2nd or 3rd rounders? Is it really worth trading off experienced players for less than they're probably worth for more young kids, when we are already the youngest list in the AFL and fairly devoid of leadership and experience? In my opinion, its not.
Murphinator
9 Jun 2008, 18:01
;11313336']It's a good analysis, but I don't understand why they need to be traded. If guys like Army and Browne keep Carrots and Scotland out of the 22 then good on them I say. It's better than giving a young player a token game. There should exist competition for spots. That's how a good team works.
If we trade them, what are we going to get for them? Not a lot me thinks, 2nd or 3rd rounders? Is it really worth trading off experienced players for less than they're probably worth for more young kids, when we are already the youngest list in the AFL and fairly devoid of leadership and experience? In my opinion, its not.
Spot on
Point taken but going by your theorem IMO Fisher also falls under the same catagory as Scotland and Carrazzo. He is not going to develop any more as a player and IMO, Edwards could develop into playing the lead up foward better than Fisher ever will. Fisher cannot kick up to AFL standered as a foward as he has miss goal on several occasions in simple conversion range. I believe he has good trade value to a team looking for a third tall or marking foward. Possible solution Fisher for Kennedy(WCE) i wish. With the departure of Kennedy we have missed his big precence and acting as a decoy for Fevola.
Bentick doesn't deserve to start in your line up. Yes he gets plenty of the ball but what does he do with it, is another question. He has minor trade value but again is taking up space for our youth to develop. He is not going to get any better than he is while some of our younger players have the potential of becoming better play than he ever will. These players consist of Anderson, Benji, Pfiffer, Jackson and Blackwell.
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 18:19
;11313336']It's a good analysis, but I don't understand why they need to be traded. If guys like Army and Browne keep Carrots and Scotland out of the 22 then good on them I say. It's better than giving a young player a token game. There should exist competition for spots. That's how a good team works.
If we trade them, what are we going to get for them? Not a lot me thinks, 2nd or 3rd rounders? Is it really worth trading off experienced players for less than they're probably worth for more young kids, when we are already the youngest list in the AFL and fairly devoid of leadership and experience? In my opinion, its not.
You make a good point - I'm not for trading them for the sake of it. In fact, if there was no trade target I would be more than happy to keep them. But every club goes into trade week at least considering doing a deal or two, and in those circumstances, you need some assets to put on the table.
I suppose what I really had in mind was a situation where we were looking for another KP / ruckman (eg Warnock)
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 18:22
Point taken but going by your theorem IMO Fisher also falls under the same catagory as Scotland and Carrazzo. He is not going to develop any more as a player and IMO, Edwards could develop into playing the lead up foward better than Fisher ever will. Fisher cannot kick up to AFL standered as a foward as he has miss goal on several occasions in simple conversion range. I believe he has good trade value to a team looking for a third tall or marking foward. Possible solution Fisher for Kennedy(WCE) i wish. With the departure of Kennedy we have missed his big precence and acting as a decoy for Fevola.
Bentick doesn't deserve to start in your line up. Yes he gets plenty of the ball but what does he do with it, is another question. He has minor trade value but again is taking up space for our youth to develop. He is not going to get any better than he is while some of our younger players have the potential of becoming better play than he ever will. These players consist of Anderson, Benji, Pfiffer, Jackson and Blackwell.
I think Fisher would be more difficult to replace. I agree I would rather have kept Kennedy, but WCE arent dumb - they also knew that JK had loads more potential than Fish. Still, I think if you took Fish out of the forward line we would really struggle.
As for AB, I would have agreed with you till about 3 weeks ago but I'm starting to think he has really taken the next step. Miles ahead of Blackwell and Jackson
How about The case for not having A case for trading .. thread after a good win - Richmond visitors will think we are the feral ones
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 18:26
How about The case for not having A case for trading .. thread after a good win - Richmond visitors will think we are the feral ones
Except you'll note I have not bagged either player - on the contrary I am saying they both have good trade value.
juzza316
9 Jun 2008, 18:29
Point taken but going by your theorem IMO Fisher also falls under the same catagory as Scotland and Carrazzo. He is not going to develop any more as a player and IMO, Edwards could develop into playing the lead up foward better than Fisher ever will. Fisher cannot kick up to AFL standered as a foward as he has miss goal on several occasions in simple conversion range. I believe he has good trade value to a team looking for a third tall or marking foward. Possible solution Fisher for Kennedy(WCE) i wish. With the departure of Kennedy we have missed his big precence and acting as a decoy for Fevola.
Bentick doesn't deserve to start in your line up. Yes he gets plenty of the ball but what does he do with it, is another question. He has minor trade value but again is taking up space for our youth to develop. He is not going to get any better than he is while some of our younger players have the potential of becoming better play than he ever will. These players consist of Anderson, Benji, Pfiffer, Jackson and Blackwell.
Nothing that Edwards has done so far suggests to me he is going to be any better than Fisher.
Havent been a Bentick fan in the past, but am starting to warm to him now. Gets in and under and always breaks the tackle to get the handball away. Need a player like him in the team. Also, isnt Bentick only 21-22 years old? Why don't you think he is going to get any better? Just a simple, short-sighted view you seem to have.
IMO the ideal "trade bait" is a player who is in your best 22 but who can be replaced without unduly weakening the side. Try to trade a player outside your best 22 and no other club will give you much for him (unless you are a mega depth side like Geelong (eg Prismall) ). Pick a player easily inside your best 10 and you rob Peter to pay Paul.
I think our best 22 is something like
Carrazzo Jamison Thornton
Bower Waite Scotland
Stevens Gibbs Walker
Russell Fisher Simpson
Kreuzer Fevola Betts
Hampson Judd Murphy
Cloke Bentick Grigg Bannister
BUT, replace Carrazzo with Browne and Scotland with Grigg or Armfield and you really dont lose much at all IMO
Some might say that following my logic you could call Russell trade bait, but I think he has more upside and less trade value as he does not have the runs on the board of a 29 or 44.
As for the rest of our list, I just dont see any tradeable material - I would categorise them as
No trade value
Saddington
Ackland
Blackwell
Hartlett
Houlihan (harsh, but I really dont think anyone would want him)
Aisake
Jackson
Developing
Benjamin
Austin
Anderson
Pfeiffer
Edwards
Important Depth Players
Setanta
Hadley
Wiggins (and even if he's not, very minimal trade value)
So eric's back of the envelope analysis is that Carrots and Scotto are our 2 most tradeable commodities.
I think houlihan is a much better half forward than what russell is and is also a much better player all together but russell works and constantly tries harder than what houlihan does and thats something houlihan needs to improve on.
WeninRome
9 Jun 2008, 18:33
Point taken but going by your theorem IMO Fisher also falls under the same catagory as Scotland and Carrazzo. He is not going to develop any more as a player and IMO, Edwards could develop into playing the lead up foward better than Fisher ever will. Fisher cannot kick up to AFL standered as a foward as he has miss goal on several occasions in simple conversion range. I believe he has good trade value to a team looking for a third tall or marking foward. Possible solution Fisher for Kennedy(WCE) i wish. With the departure of Kennedy we have missed his big precence and acting as a decoy for Fevola.
Bentick doesn't deserve to start in your line up. Yes he gets plenty of the ball but what does he do with it, is another question. He has minor trade value but again is taking up space for our youth to develop. He is not going to get any better than he is while some of our younger players have the potential of becoming better play than he ever will. These players consist of Anderson, Benji, Pfiffer, Jackson and Blackwell.
Is there anyone else out there who doesn't think Edwards is going to develop at all?
I can't see him really on our list a year or two.
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 18:34
I think houlihan is a much better half forward than what russell is and is also a much better player all together but russell works and constantly tries harder than what houlihan does and thats something houlihan needs to improve on.
Disagree. Houlihan has more ability, but he is too casual for today's game. I think his days as an AFL player are as good as over
Why is it that when we lose everyone wants to sack players and identify all these players from other clubs we should have.
Then when we win everyone wants to trade off our experienced players.
If you go about things that way you will never have a happy combination of youth and experience.
Lets just settle down.
We only need 2 players.
(1) A strong CHF
(2) A strong CHB
If we can some how beg, steal or borrow these KPP's we will be a top contender.
Without obtaining these two type of players we are always going to be "pretenders"
Our only hope is that somehow Hartlett can get over his injury streak and hold down CHF
;11313336']It's a good analysis, but I don't understand why they need to be traded. If guys like Army and Browne keep Carrots and Scotland out of the 22 then good on them I say. It's better than giving a young player a token game. There should exist competition for spots. That's how a good team works.
If we trade them, what are we going to get for them? Not a lot me thinks, 2nd or 3rd rounders? Is it really worth trading off experienced players for less than they're probably worth for more young kids, when we are already the youngest list in the AFL and fairly devoid of leadership and experience? In my opinion, its not.
now way in the World Would Carlton Trade Heath Scotland that be the biggest ever ____ up he'll be a blue until the Day he retires we don't want to go backwards why would ya trade ya good players only trade players who dont get many games or none at all my tip won't be too many trades as in the past :thumbsu:
Team Mo'
9 Jun 2008, 19:06
Is there anyone else out there who doesn't think Edwards is going to develop at all?
I can't see him really on our list a year or two.
I can't see him developing at all. Has showed little to nothing except for a few goals here and there. I think we should trade a few lads to either get more draft picks or a promosing young KP
ericpascoe
9 Jun 2008, 19:07
now way in the World Would Carlton Trade Heath Scotland that be the biggest ever ____ up he'll be a blue until the Day he retires we don't want to go backwards why would ya trade ya good players only trade players who dont get many games or none at all my tip won't be too many trades as in the past :thumbsu:
Because nobody else wants them either. Look, I'm not saying trade them. I am saying they are they are the 2 players that (a) we could afford to lose, that (b) another club might want.
WeninRome
9 Jun 2008, 19:12
we wouldn't get anything worthy of these two.
Scotland is too old and Carrots would only warrant a second round selection at best.
I say wait till the GC17 starts up and then unload on them to get draft picks