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.