i guess we got some of those players because we were a shite team after losing judd and cousins so yes judd leaving would have been a win ,long term.
You don't get to attribute every good thing that has happened to the club since Judd left to Judd leaving.
Judd left. We bottomed out and that allowed us to draft Naitanui and Gaff. But those are separate events. The addition of those players through early picks in subsequent years doesn't retroactively improve the lukewarm deal we got for Judd.
Or do we just add up every good player we've drafted in the past five years and conclude that we mightn't have drafted them had Judd stayed, so even though we were forced to accept unders for the best mid in the comp, it was somehow a win for us?
That makes no sense.
The actual trade tho is tougher to judge
But it's the 'actual trade' that we're discussing, isn't it? And is it really so tough to judge?
Judd aged 24 for Masten and Kennedy and pick 20, which we blew on Notte?
I am optimistic about both Masten and Kennedy but neither have yet shown they are top-liners. Kennedy has done more than Masten and I believe his best footy is ahead of him but he's still only had two good seasons at West Coast. Masten probably doesn't even have that much under his belt.
Masten and Kennedy have both played 70-odd games in five seasons at West Coast and have both shown glimpses – Kennedy in particular – but you wouldn't talk about either as AA contenders or being among our best 5 players. Judd, meanwhile, went to Carlton and won three B&Fs, four AAs and a Brownlow and remains their most important player.
So can you really argue – based on stuff that has actually happened and not on some pipedream where Masten and Kennedy become superstars next season – that it's anything other than a clear win for Carlton? Both at the time and in hindsight?