Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Super-mega-ultrathread

[Slash136]

But that is hindsight which, in fairness, I think is relevant but not definitive.
We wanted pick 1 for Cotchin. We were not given pick 1.
Regardless of all other trades from that point (or AFL compensations) Chris Judd was worth JK + pick. 1.
A young forward and an untried and still somewhat speculative kid for the best player of the previous 2-3 yrs.
Sure a pick no. 1 has a good opportunity to be a good good footballer.
But the chance that he'd be as good as Judd was unlikely still.
Of course, if we had have got pick 1 we would have a player who may indeed have a similar career as Judd (though perhaps without the premiership accolades).

True, hindsight is a big part of my argument, I am of the opinion that if Judd had stayed we would have floundered round the middle of the table the last few years instead of bottoming out and coming around again now. Losing cousins and Judd killed us, but now every gun we have bar glass, cox, Kerr and embley have come on post Judd/cousins era

 

[eaglespremiers]

True, hindsight is a big part of my argument, I am of the opinion that if Judd had stayed we would have floundered round the middle of the table the last few years instead of bottoming out and coming around again now. Losing cousins and Judd killed us, but now every gun we have bar glass, cox, Kerr and embley have come on post Judd/cousins era

It is true that we may have been unlikely to get somebody like Naitanui if Judd had stayed.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Should Glass does retire, if all Brown wants is more game time and does not care about moving back to Victoria, he shouldn't have any reason to leave unless we recruit another ready made KPD or he really hates being at our club.
If Brown does want to leave, we definitely won't get as good a deal as this year since he's uncontracted.

Depends. If StKilda finish lower on the ladder they would be forced to offer a more reasonable pick than they did.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Firstly I think Kennedy and masten for Judd is about break even. We got the best out of Judd and now we are getting the best out of those two.

Honestly, I think that to conclude that the Judd trade was anything but a win for Carlton, you have to really want to come to that conclusion.

You can spin it and say that Masten and Kennedy are pretty good – neither are elite – so we did OK. Hell, it could have been worse. He could have nominated Collingwood and then we would have been really screwed. Pick 14 and Leon Davis?

But, at the time, was it a break even? That is, after all, what we're talking about. Were we able to get properly compensated when our out-of-contract player asked to be traded? Break it down and look at the aspects of that trade.

On one hand, Judd, at 24, was a premiership captain and a proven finals performer. He was the best midfielder in the game and an absolute champion.

On the other hand, we got picks 3 and 20 and Josh Kennedy, at the time, a highly rated but fundamentally unproven key forward who had played a couple of seasons without really doing much. Now, Kennedy looks like justifying that billing and Masten at pick 3, should be at least serviceable. But that's still not a break even trade, not for the best midfielder in the league, who was 24 at the time.

Imagine if a club wanted to poach Scott Pendlebury or Joel Selwood. What do you reckon they'd have to give up? Do you reckon pick 3, pick 20 and, for example, Sam Day would be a fair trade? Or would it be considerable unders for an elite 24-year-old mid?

Sure, Sam Day might kick on and become a good player and pick 3 might turn out pretty good as well. But, on the face of it, those elements would not constitute a break even in return for Selwood or Pendlebury. Nor did they constitute a break even for Judd in 2007.

And while I agree that Judd's best footy was played at WC, he still won three B&Fs and a Brownlow at Carlton and remains their most important player by a country mile.

Secondly even if we do get a second rounder for brown we will on trade it for someone who wants to play for us, Harry Taylor perhaps.

Well, that assumes that Brown and Taylor are of roughly equal value, when they clearly are not.

Also, I reckon that a second-rounder would be the best-case scenario should Brown ask to leave and nominate a club.

What should we do if Brown wants to leave, nominates the Saints and they offer us their third-rounder and say 'take it or leave it'?

We are one of the top clubs in the league and we are in premiership mode. I think more players would want to come play for us than leave us.

But Brown has already said he wanted to leave.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Quote deleted - larri

My points were more about our prospects of getting something good in return if Brown decides to walk at the end of next year. I think we will get a shitty deal if he asks to be traded and nominates a club. This idea that we are some kind of trade ninja who can extract value even when dealing with an uncontracted player is, I think, fanciful.

But I'll try to answer your question anyway, even if it is slightly unlettered. I think there is some chance we can convince Brown to stay. But the two variables are the amount of opportunity he gets in 2013 and whether Glass retires at the end of the season.

It's hard to see him being best 22 in 2013. He's needs a door to open through injury. And if he is denied opportunity, as he was this year, then I think there's a pretty good chance he will walk. If he plays 6-7 games, I think he is more likely to go than to stay.

Maybe Glass retires at the end of 2013 and that persuades Brown to stay put. Maybe not. Maybe he wants a fresh start instead. Maybe he likes the Saints and is by then free to demand a trade.

I obviously don't know the guy, but I think it is significant that he had essentially agreed to terms with St Kilda. The wheels were turning in October and I think something will need to change dramatically for him to stay in Perth beyond next season. Barring injury, I don't think he will get a substantial increase in opportunity next year and, if he decided he's sick of waiting around at the end of 2012, another year of playing third-fiddle might be the last nail in the coffin, even if Glass retires.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Depends. If StKilda finish lower on the ladder they would be forced to offer a more reasonable pick than they did.

You reckon?

What pick were the Saints offering this year? Wasn't something in the early 20s being floated?

Can't see any pick that high being on the table for Brown if he's uncontracted, regardless of where St Kilda finish.

 

[new breed]

Thorne will be happy Reimers has joined Perth FC !!

 

[mattyc75]

i think i remember someone saying that browns GF only signed a 1 year contract so could be getting ready for a move after that,or just playing it safe incase he heads back east.
I reckon if he goes he will be part of a deal for harry taylor.We should try to get as many games into him as possible and hope it drives his value up

 

[the harry]

Playing him might drive his value down if he plays crap....

 

[Shupe]

Still, Brown either re-signs, or he asks to leave and nominates a club, which will probably end with us getting a shitty deal.

Is there some delicate nuance that I'm missing here?

No. My post was clearly about for preparing for his potential departure. We now know that it is a distinct possibility and have 12 months to prepare for the fact we may be without Glass and Brown for 2014.

 

[QS]

Honestly, I think that to conclude that the Judd trade was anything but a win for Carlton, you have to really want to come to that conclusion.

That would appear, prima facie, to be the case if it is viewed against a backdrop of pure talent alone.
What is arguable is whether our need to rebuild was greater than our need to retain a star player who wasn't going to sign a new contract anyway - the situation as you described re: Brown.

What is also interesting is whilst Carlton received a damn good player, at what cost did it do so? Could they have used the extra picks and available salary cap $ for players that would develop? All hard to quantify.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing though, at the time of the trade I was of the same opinion; that we had been screwed, the sky was falling, the curtains will fade etc. It is of some utility to look at where we are now in contrast to where we would have been had it not happened. We didn't really want to lose him, so did Judd do us a favour?

Let us put the tin foil hat on for a moment, was Judd secretly a Carlton-hater? Did he know his best was behind him? Did he think falling on his sword, i.e., going to Carlton to prise a couple of higher picks for his beloved Eagles (smirk) would set them up for the future? Did he know he could earn good money and media adoration irrespective of whether he was the superstar he once was with us as he was playing for a Victorian club?

It is an interesting discussion to be had in any case.

 

[bodazoka]

But that is hindsight which, in fairness, I think is relevant but not definitive.
We wanted pick 1 for Cotchin. We were not given pick 1.
Regardless of all other trades from that point (or AFL compensations) Chris Judd was worth JK + pick. 1.
A young forward and an untried and still somewhat speculative kid for the best player of the previous 2-3 yrs.
Sure a pick no. 1 has a good opportunity to be a good good footballer.
But the chance that he'd be as good as Judd was unlikely still.
Of course, if we had have got pick 1 we would have a player who may indeed have a similar career as Judd (though perhaps without the premiership accolades).

Yeah but then you start looking at the what if Cotchin had of won us 1 extra game in any season between now and then? No PP for Shuey? no Darling? mabye we dont pick up Gaff? Cotchin is good enough to have done that over Masten who took allot more time.

 

[larrikin]

i think i remember someone saying that browns GF only signed a 1 year contract so could be getting ready for a move after that,or just playing it safe incase he heads back east.
I reckon if he goes he will be part of a deal for harry taylor.We should try to get as many games into him as possible and hope it drives his value up

I would suggest that given the relative value of contracts she would be signing short term to keep options open. Also, what's the usual length on contracts in the Netball - I would presume 1-2 years would be normal.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Yeah but then you start looking at the what if Cotchin had of won us 1 extra game in any season between now and then? No PP for Shuey? no Darling? mabye we dont pick up Gaff? Cotchin is good enough to have done that over Masten who took allot more time.

Certainly, but that is all hindsight.

 

[bodazoka]

Let us put the tin foil hat on for a moment.

You know the tin foil hat is to protect the secrets from being suck out of your brain?

Which doesnt work when you go and tell said secrets to people on internet forums?

 

[bodazoka]

Certainly, but that is all hindsight.

Agreed.

Youd need a few super computers to have a crack at quantifying it.

 

[eaglespremiers]

You know the tin foil hat is to protect the secrets from being suck out of your brain?

Which doesnt work when you go and tell said secrets to people on internet forums?

It might stop you from spilling such secrets on said internet forum, no?

 

[QS]

You know the tin foil hat is to protect the secrets from being suck out of your brain?

Which doesnt work when you go and tell said secrets to people on internet forums?

I can't tell you the secret about my tin foil hat's powers

 

[Marlin01]

Yeah but then you start looking at the what if Cotchin had of won us 1 extra game in any season between now and then? No PP for Shuey? no Darling? mabye we dont pick up Gaff? Cotchin is good enough to have done that over Masten who took allot more time.

Actually Masten and Cotchin were pretty level pegging before WC decided they needed to work on Masten's outside game.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/cotchin-vs-masten.613675/

 

[bodazoka]

Actually Masten and Cotchin were pretty level pegging before WC decided they needed to work on Masten's outside game.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/cotchin-vs-masten.613675/

Yeah na..

Cotchin has always been a much better player, from day one he just had it. He was injured allot early though which pushed him back, but everytime he played you could see his class.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

You reckon?

What pick were the Saints offering this year? Wasn't something in the early 20s being floated?

Can't see any pick that high being on the table for Brown if he's uncontracted, regardless of where St Kilda finish.

For a contracted player.

If StKilda finnish lower on the ladder they would still be looking to trade out that second pick.

 

[Ian Dargie]

For a contracted player.

If StKilda finnish lower on the ladder they would still be looking to trade out that second pick.

I don't follow.

You reckon that if St Kilda have a second-rounder in the 20s they will happily set it aside for Brown?

I doubt it. If he's uncontracted and has nominated them, surely they would offer their third-rounder instead.

 

[Ian Dargie]

That would appear, prima facie, to be the case if it is viewed against a backdrop of pure talent alone.

I'm sorry but I don't know what this means.

What is arguable is whether our need to rebuild was greater than our need to retain a star player who wasn't going to sign a new contract anyway - the situation as you described re: Brown.

We had no need to rebuild at that stage. Had we retained Judd we would still have been a contender.

Our rebuild was triggered by the loss of Cousins and Judd. It meant we had to reload our midfield.

What is also interesting is whilst Carlton received a damn good player, at what cost did it do so?

Relatively low cost given Judd was the best midfielder in the comp at the time.

Consider what you'd have to give up today to get Pendlebury or Selwood. Judd was ahead of those guys at the same age.

Could they have used the extra picks and available salary cap $ for players that would develop? All hard to quantify.

Of course they could have used those picks and that cap space elsewhere. The point is that they got an elite midfielder, a proven champion, and it didn't cost them that much.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing though, at the time of the trade I was of the same opinion; that we had been screwed, the sky was falling, the curtains will fade etc. It is of some utility to look at where we are now in contrast to where we would have been had it not happened. We didn't really want to lose him, so did Judd do us a favour?

Is hindsight really a factor here?

It was a win for Carlton at the time and still appears that way five years later.

I'm not going to pretend we've gone through a wormhole and start mapping the parallel universe in which Judd stayed. All I'm saying is that the Judd trade – both on the value of the elements at the time and in hindsight – was a win for Carlton. I don't really see how anyone could disagree.

I know it's fashionable for WC fans to revise it all and peddle this idea that it has actually ended with us ahead but it was a clear win for Carlton. Sorry, but it's that simple.

You don't get to trace every bit of progress we've made since and retroactively attribute it to the Judd trade. You don't get to factor in that we subsequently bottomed out and recruited Naitanui, Darling, Shuey etc. Those guys weren't part of the Judd trade. That trade got us Masten, Kennedy and Notte. Carlton win.

Let us put the tin foil hat on for a moment, was Judd secretly a Carlton-hater? Did he know his best was behind him? Did he think falling on his sword, i.e., going to Carlton to prise a couple of higher picks for his beloved Eagles (smirk) would set them up for the future? Did he know he could earn good money and media adoration irrespective of whether he was the superstar he once was with us as he was playing for a Victorian club?

I'll leave the tin foil hat to you.

All I will say is that Judd did us a small favour by nominating Carlton, who were actually best-placed to 'satisfy' us in a trade.

Had he nominated Collingwood, it would have been even uglier.

 

[QS]

I'm sorry but I don't know what this means.

At first blush, and in the absence of any further thought, i.e., factoring in needs etc, it appears that should be the only conclusion one could draw.

We had no need to rebuild at that stage. Had we retained Judd we would still have been a contender.

Our rebuild was triggered by the loss of Cousins and Judd. It meant we had to reload our midfield.

Correct. That's not in dispute, but we had no control over the loss of Judd. Taking that and the Cousins departure into consideration, we had more to gain by bringing in young talent and effectively rebuilding. Bear in mind our 2007 seasons was poor compared to 2005 and 2006 - it's arguable we were on the decline anyway.

Relatively low cost given Judd was the best midfielder in the comp at the time.

Consider what you'd have to give up today to get Pendlebury or Selwood. Judd was ahead of those guys at the same age.

Point is moot. Both those guys are well on the way to having a better career than Judd, i.e., he was a quick developer then stalled and declined. Since the move he's been half the player he was - I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise.

Of course they could have used those picks and that cap space elsewhere. The point is that they got an elite midfielder, a proven champion, and it didn't cost them that much.

Who they pay very well, and has contributed to 0 premierships.

Even in hindsight, it was a win for Carlton. You're not seriously disputing that, are you?

Was it? In the short term, no. In 2012, yes.

I'm not going to pretend we've gone through a wormhole and start mapping the parallel universe in which Judd stayed.

Good, that would be of little utility in this discussion.

All I'm saying is that the Judd trade – both on the value of the elements at the time and in hindsight – was a win for Carlton. I don't really see how anyone could disagree.

Again, how many premierships has Judd helped them to? I dare say both Masten and Kennedy should, all things going well, help us to one, maybe two. I know which one I'd prefer should it come to fruition.

I know it's fashionable for WC fans to revise it all and peddle this idea that it has actually ended with us ahead but it was a clear win for Carlton. Sorry, but it's that simple.

I'm not fashionable, but I wouldn't say we were ahead, simply it's not a Black Caviar races 1-21 type win to Carlton, more a Royal Ascot win, if a win at all. We had no control over what happened and were clearly in the backseat; however, it could be a proverbial 'blessing in disguise'.

You don't get to trace every bit of progress we've made since and retroactively attribute it to the Judd trade. You don't get to factor in that we subsequently bottomed out and recruited Naitanui, Darling, Shuey etc. Those guys weren't part of the Judd trade. That trade got us Masten, Kennedy and Notte. Carlton win.

So, Gunnar, would you prefer we have Judd in our side for 2013 sans Kennedy and Masten?

I'll leave the tin foil hat to you.

It's very becoming on you.

All I will say is that Judd did us a small favour by nominating Carlton, who were actually best-placed to 'satisfy' us in a trade. Had he nominated Collingwood, it would have been even uglier.

Carlton had the best picks, yes, but nobody would ever know what Collingwood may have offered. It may have been Swan for all we know.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Correct. That's not in dispute, but we had no control over the loss of Judd. Taking that and the Cousins departure into consideration, we had more to gain by bringing in young talent and effectively rebuilding. Bear in mind our 2007 seasons was poor compared to 2005 and 2006 - it's arguable we were on the decline anyway.

We were, on paper, still the second-best side in 2007. We were smack-bang in contention and could have stayed there had we retained our best players.

We weren't rebuilding. We were forced to rebuild when Judd and Cousins left as we no longer had the cattle to challenge.

Point is moot. Both those guys are well on the way to having a better career than Judd, i.e., he was a quick developer then stalled and declined. Since the move he's been half the player he was - I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise.

The point isn't moot at all.

Pendlebury and Selwood are the closest current equivalents in terms of trade value to Judd at the end of 2007 i.e elite 24-year-old midfielders considered leaders at their clubs. Can you suggest better analogies? And if you wanted to poach Pendlebury and Selwood, what we got for Judd would be considered unders, as it was for Judd five years ago.

The fact that Judd has not been as good at Carlton as he was at West Coast is the moot point. That has nothing to do with his trade value at the end of 2007.

Besides, he's still won three B&Fs and a Brownlow and remains Carlton's most important player. So let's not overstate his decline.

Who they pay very well, and has contributed to 0 premierships.

That's a specious way to frame it.

Carlton haven't won any flags with Judd so the trade was automatically less worthwhile for them?

That's crazy talk. Trading for Judd was the best thing they've done in the past 15 years. The fact that they haven't been able to build a premiership-winning side around him is a separate issue.

Was it? In the short term, no. In 2012, yes.

What do you mean?

In 2012, it wasn't a win for Carlton?

I don't follow.

Again, how many premierships has Judd helped them to? I dare say both Masten and Kennedy should, all things going well, help us to one, maybe two. I know which one I'd prefer should it come to fruition.

Again, that is a flawed way of framing it.

If we win a flag with Masten and Kennedy, it will be for a bunch of reasons. It's not like these two will be our best two players. Will Masten be top 10? And just because Carlton haven't won a flag with Judd, it doesn't mean the trade was anything other than a good deal for them. He was the driving force behind their rise up the ladder.

Hell, Carlton got Nick Stevens for free. Was that a bad deal for Carlton because they didn't win a flag with him? And I suppose it was a good deal for Port because they won a flag shortly after? In reality, it was a free kick for Carlton and a shit sandwich for Port. The subsequent results of the two teams don't alter that.

What about when Paul Salmon went to Hawthorn in 1996? He played 100 games, won two B&Fs and was eventually named in their Team of the Century. But they didn't win a flag with Salmon and Essendon went on and became awesome, so no good for the Hawks?

What about when Collingwood went and got James Clement and Brodie Holland from Freo for picks 8 and 39? Some Pies fans consider that one of the best bits of business their club has done in recent times. Clement, in particular, was fantastic for Collingwood, but they didn't win a flag with those players, so not worth it?

Come on, this is absurd. You can't just look at the teams' subsequent results to determine who got the better of a trade. There are too many other variables. You need to assess the trade in isolation.

If Masten and Kennedy play in a flag for us, that will be awesome. But it won't automatically mean we won the Judd trade should our results in coming years exceed Carlton's. Flag = win Judd trade? Nah. We will likely have still lost the Judd trade but leapfrogged Carlton for other reasons.

I'm not fashionable, but I wouldn't say we were ahead, simply it's not a Black Caviar races 1-21 type win to Carlton, more a Royal Ascot win, if a win at all. We had no control over what happened and were clearly in the backseat; however, it could be a proverbial 'blessing in disguise'.

So you agree that we're not ahead in the Judd trade?

We weren't in the short-term and we aren't in hindsight. It was a win for Carlton. Period.

I'm afraid this 'blessing in disguise' line is a little nibble at the wormhole scenario. You're looking at our team now and the recent progress we've made and fallaciously linking it to the events post-2007. Really, that's what you're saying when you call it a 'blessing in disguise'. Because we bottomed out and rebounded well and now look strong again. And it's all a butterfly effect of Judd leaving. Wormhole?

It still doesn't mean the Judd trade was anything other than a win for Carlton.

So, Gunnar, would you prefer we have Judd in our side for 2013 sans Kennedy and Masten?

If we wipe out the past five years and start right now, I would rather have Masten and Kennedy. But that takes into account that they'll hopefully be around for another five years after Judd retires.

For the past five years, I'd rather have had Judd. So Carlton have a fair lead. If Kennedy and Masten (and Notte) become really awesome players, I'm sure this discussion will be revisited.

Carlton had the best picks, yes, but nobody would ever know what Collingwood may have offered. It may have been Swan for all we know.

We just never know - I think we can do better than that.

If Judd had nominated Collingwood, they would have had us by the balls, just as Carlton did.

One account I read in The Age further down the track explored Judd's decision-making process when nominating a club. He didn't want to be stuck in limbo during trade week so he asked Carlton and Collingwood how they would get the deal done. According to this account - by Tim Lane, I think - Carlton immediately explained that they would offer pick 3 and Kennedy, which Judd thought sounded fair enough. Collingwood, on the other hand, simply said, 'don't worry - you leave that to us'.

In other words, we were fortunate that Judd nominated Carlton, who had two early picks and a young key forward from WA. Given Collingwood didn't really have any similar bargaining chips, I doubt we would have done better dealing with them.