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

[Carbine Chaos]

This argument is more pointless than season 9 of Scrubs.

Stahp.

 

[SpaceClef]

Better overall outcome from the whole scenario? Yeah, maybe. Better outcome from the trade itself? No.

This is all just going around in circles. I think the trade needs to be looked at in isolation, whereas others think that you don't know the full value of the trade until several years later.

I guess what it shows is that it easier to assess the value of a swap of players than a trade for a pick. At least when you know what you're getting you can predict the outcome of what will happen several years later.

 

[bodazoka]

There's no such thing as "true value". It's all relative.

The players picked are irrelevant. The good players picked at 2 were available at 1, weren't they?

So we come back to this truism: the value of picks is determined by the quality of opportunity they afford. That is what determines the value of pick 1, relative to pick 2 and so on down the line.

You are saying 1 has more value then 2 because it is before 2 I understand that. All I am saying is whilst that is true the value of 1 is not that much greater then the value of 2 for there to be a significant difference when determining a trade.

Therefore you can not definitely say that we lost a trade because of the difference in one spot in the draft.

 

[Ian Dargie]

What's your opinion on the value of pick 18 in comparison to Wellingham?

About right, I reckon.

Given he was uncontracted and nominated us, we could have screwed it down a little, and Collingwood would probably have had to accept a pick in the early 20s is that's what we had.

At worst, pick 18 was reasonable compensation when we were perhaps in a position to be unreasonable.

I can see where boda is coming from in that people often compare what has previously constituted a pick to gauge the value of the opportunity, as you put it. But you seem to be advocating a sort of objective value of a pick, independent to whatever that pick is used for (or has been used for previously).

I would say that value is relative rather than objective and it's not determined by the players picked at that selection.

Pick 1, by definition, is worth more than pick 2, which is worth more than pick 3. The Watts-Naitanui scenario doesn't alter that. It just means Melbourne stuffed up that year.

Varying interpretations of pick value (independent to needs/relative to needs/relative to past picks/relative to draft strength) were at the heart of the Wellingham trade debate. It seems difficult to separate trade value from other factors.

In that case, you have to look at the going rate for a best 22 player who's 24 and has 100 games under his belt at a good team.

Late first-rounder? There's no fixed scale or currency converter that allows you to check draft picks against players but it's probably about right, especially when you consider what we gave up for Chick and Stenglein in the past. Not perfect analogies but you start to get an idea.

 

[Ian Dargie]

You are saying 1 has more value then 2 because it is before 2 I understand that. All I am saying is whilst that is true the value of 1 is not that much greater then the value of 2 for there to be a significant difference when determining a trade.

Sure.

As long as you understand that pick 1 is, by definition, more valuable than pick 2, regardless of the players picked there.

Therefore you can not definitely say that we lost a trade because of the difference in one spot in the draft.

Huh? What trade is this?

 

[bodazoka]

Sure.

As long as you understand that pick 1 is, by definition, more valuable than pick 2, regardless of the players picked there.

Huh? What trade is this?

You dont agree with that general point (made in my previous post) in a non specific trade?

 

[SpaceClef]

Late first-rounder? There's no objective scale or currency converter that allows you to check draft picks against players but it's probably about right, especially when you consider what we gave up for Chick and Stenglein in the past. Not perfect analogies but you start to get an idea.

A Gillette Trade Currency Converter would be pretty sweet.

Find out the best a man can get with your draft pick today!

 

[the harry]

This argument is more pointless than season 9 of Scrubs.

Stahp.

The med school one? Because I would agree.

 

[keviewiggle]

What a load of Horse S#it.
Lucky in the real football world the recruiting and football departments don't have such irrelevant discussions.
It is what it is.
Get the best deal you can get and move on.
No one deal determines the overall success of any club.
What determines success is what you do to develop your picks and the culture you develop.
Procrastinating over who won what deal is a load of tripe and proves nothing as there is absolutely no way to measure it.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Huh? Did I read this right?

He was pretty damn versatile at WC. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he was the most complete midfielder I've ever seen during his peak years.

Nah. You didn't read it right, im talking in his inherit abilities as a footballer as Judd doesn't exist in two forms but one.
I didn't think at the time that Judd was capable of playing as a hard ball get midfielder, as he has now shown. He was defensively weak both in his positioning, running, and in his 1%ers and tackles. Not that it mattered, back then he had that extra yard of pace on every single midfielder in the game.

He's also probably not as skilled under physical duress as we thought he was, given he had that exceptional break away pace and protection he received from our midfielders.
Id say it's perfectly fair to reassess Judd as the footballer 2004-2007 in light of his games from 2008-2012. It doesn't detract from the football he played with us, it allows us to better understand him as a footballer and produce a more accurate picture of him in the all time standings.

Perhaps if he never lost his pace then he might have taken his game to another level as some suggest he was doing in early 2007, but he didn't get that opportunity at Carlton. He's had to become a very different player to the one he was at Westcoast and that’s the versatility.

 

[keviewiggle]

Leigh Matthews is the most complete footballer to ever play the game.

 

[Truckosaurus]

Oranges are much better than apples.

 

[keviewiggle]

Oranges are much better than apples.

What if you swap the apple for an apricot?

 

[Ian Dargie]

You dont agree with that general point (made in my previous post) in a non specific trade?

Not sure what you're asking me here.

 

[Ian Dargie]

What a load of Horse S#it.
Lucky in the real football world the recruiting and football departments don't have such irrelevant discussions.
It is what it is.
Get the best deal you can get and move on.
No one deal determines the overall success of any club.
What determines success is what you do to develop your picks and the culture you develop.

I'm looking for a skerrick of substance here but can't find one.

You forgot to say that "if you believe in yourselves, you can accomplish your dreams".

Procrastinating over who won what deal is a load of tripe and proves nothing as there is absolutely no way to measure it.

But at least you will learn something today.

Does a discussion need a measurement or an attempt to prove something to be worthwhile?

There is no way to measure who is the Eagles' best ever player. And it doesn't prove anything either. But we'll still talk about it.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

That won't change the fact we got unders for our player.

What's your reason for this? Id suggested at the time that it would be because Ebert was clearly a better player than he got to show at Westcoast. But that doesn't necessarily translate through into his trade value, if his true quality whatever that may be, cant be agreed upon by two parties then a compromise must be made to ensure some return.

You have to also consider that there is no such thing as an “open market" when it comes to trading players. The value of a player is relative to each club because of a myriad of factors and therefore giving a player a value from the position of some objective third party is clearly absurd.

I think people shouldn't compartmentalise their assessments of trades and player movements by assessing them at any one level. Which you do as much as anyone else. The reason you do this is essentially an attempt to control the parameters around any discussion and stifle the opinions of people at look at things differently from yourself.

 

[keviewiggle]

D

I'm looking for a skerrick of substance here but can't find one.

You forgot to say that "if you believe in yourselves, you can accomplish your dreams".

But at least you will learn something today.

Does a discussion need a measurement or an attempt to prove something to be worthwhile?

There is no way to measure who is the Eagles' best ever player. And it doesn't prove anything either. But we'll still talk about it.

Discussion to be worthwhile needs to be interesting.
This discussion was very boring.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Nah. You didn't read it right, im talking in his inherit abilities as a footballer as Judd doesn't exist in two forms but one.

Huh?

I didn't think at the time that Judd was capable of playing as a hard ball get midfielder, as he has now shown.

Are you high?

At WC, Judd was one of the premier contested ball players in the league. How do you reckon he went so well in those finals against the Swans if he couldn't win a hard ball?

Bit of a head-scratcher. Judd was a gun inside player - I think he was second only to Scott West in 2006 for contested possessions and was right up there for clearances as well. In the top 4-5 in the league.

He was defensively weak both in his positioning, running, and in his 1%ers and tackles. Not that it mattered, back then he had that extra yard of pace on every single midfielder in the game.

I'm actually a bit surprised to hear this from an Eagles supporter.

Opposition fans who only saw the flashy runs and great goals used to say Judd didn't do the hard stuff. West Coast fans, I thought, knew better and were fully aware of the shitload of inside work Judd did, the tackling and the clearances and the contested ball. He was, for example, 7th in the league for total tackles in 2006. So he was a genuine inside-outside player. It wasn't just his pace that made him a great player. That's why I say he was the most complete midfielder I've seen.

Like I said, I'm actually a bit surprised to hear an Eagles fans offer up this rather lopsided analysis of Judd i.e. 'sure he was quick but didn't do the inside work'. It's simply not acurate.

Id say it's perfectly fair to reassess Judd as the footballer 2004-2007 in light of his games from 2008-2012.

That makes no sense.

I am very comfortable with my analysis of Judd as an Eagles player. His more limited, less attacking role at the Blues is irrelevant.

Perhaps if he never lost his pace then he might have taken his game to another level as some suggest he was doing in early 2007, but he didn't get that opportunity at Carlton. He's had to become a very different player to the one he was at Westcoast and that’s the versatility.

This is just a weird thing to say.

At Carlton, he plays a less varied role than he did at West Coast. At West Coast, he was genuinely inside-outside while he is almost exclusively inside at Carlton. I don't know how, from that, you conclude that he has been more versatile at Carlton. The opposite is true.

 

[Ian Dargie]

What's your reason for this? Id suggested at the time that it would be because Ebert was clearly a better player than he got to show at Westcoast. But that doesn't necessarily translate through into his trade value, if his true quality whatever that may be, cant be agreed upon by two parties then a compromise must be made to ensure some return.

You have to also consider that there is no such thing as an “open market" when it comes to trading players. The value of a player is relative to each club because of a myriad of factors and therefore giving a player a value from the position of some objective third party is clearly absurd.

I think people shouldn't compartmentalise their assessments of trades and player movements by assessing them at any one level. Which you do as much as anyone else. The reason you do this is essentially an attempt to control the parameters around any discussion and stifle the opinions of people at look at things differently from yourself.

I'm sorry but I can't pick out a single cogent point to respond to.

The first paragraph, in particular, is complete waffle.

Assessing player movements 'at one level'? What the hell does that mean? How many levels are you on?

I am assessing the balance of a trade based on the actual trade. That is exactly what we would all do if a club comes knocking next year and offers a pick for one of our players.

Pick 30 for Shuey? No thanks. Pick 30 for McGinnity? Yeah, possibly. We're not making that evaluation based on the player we will draft with that pick, but on some established idea of what that pick is worth and how it matches up against the value we place on the player.

If people want to assess a trade based on other stuff that comes later and actually has nothing to do with the trade, then I guess that's up to them. But it is illogical.

If you can find a specific fault with this, I'd love to hear about it. But your above post, with all due respect, is simply too woolly to have any real traction.

 

[Ian Dargie]

D
Discussion to be worthwhile needs to be interesting.
This discussion was very boring.

So go away.

 

[Ian Dargie]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people go on and list the past 10 number 18 picks when trying to determine if the trade was of value. This same goes with everything.

It has nothing to do with those selected at pick 18. It has everything to do with those who were AVAILABLE at pick 18 in each draft, which is obviously hundreds of players.

That's exactly right.

It is the value of the opportunity.

 

[keviewiggle]

So go away.

Sorry.
I meant to say your imput was boring.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Sorry.
I meant to say your imput was boring.

And yours is as insightful as always.

You're like a little kid who has been forced to accompany his mum to the supermarket so decides to whine the whole way through. We have rooms full of balls for people like you.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I get the feeling that Ian Dargie is suggesting that fair compensation for Judd at the time was somewhat of an impossibility. Which makes this discussion totally pointless for anything looking for a little of nuance.

-You can look at how just compensation was in the short term for each club.
-You can look at how just compensation was in the long term for each club.
-You can look at alternative scenarios had Carlton not been the club to get Judd.
-You can look at the alternative scenarios had Judd never left the eagles. Ect...

Ian Dargie's brutally honest assessment is that Judd trade was a loss particularly in the short term and perhaps in the medium to long term. That even prior to the 2007 draft that the Judd trade was probably going to be a loss and it's not totally wrong.

The club did the best they could with cards handed too them and moved on, we are in a relatively good shape and we got a “solid” return from the Judd trade as far as best twenty two contributors go. Now the question should be. Did Carlton win the Judd trade?

 

[keviewiggle]

And yours is as insightful as always.

You're like a little kid who has been forced to accompany his mum to the supermarket so decides to whine the whole way through. We have rooms full of balls for people like you.

Your insults don't make them any less boring.
You need to get over this superiority thing.
There is no need to bully the posters on this board and attempt to make them look stupid.
People are on this board because they like WCE and Footy.
The majority aren't looking for a fight.