|
| zfooty |  |
Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 403 |
| |
Who got the best of the Judd deal? | |
|
|
 | |
|
| footymoo |  |
Joined: 17/06/2009
Posts: 94 |
| |
Good question! Although he wants to be known for his own skills and not as the trade for Judd, I think Eagles got the better deal, especially a young player with a future in exchange for an ageing star. | |
|
|
| |
|
| wharfeytime | |
 |
Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 123 |
| |
Kennedy looks good and no doubt Carlton could do with him in a post Fev world but, hey your talking about Judd. Carlton got a total bargain. | |
|
|
| |
|
| kfc | |
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 154 |
| |
It really depends, immediate impact, Carlton got the best deal. Future impact? Now that we are seeing the potential of Kennedy maybe the Eagles got the better deal? Who knows right now but the future sure is exciting for both clubs. | |
|
|
| |
|
| ballsup | |
 |
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 132
|
| |
On ladder positions, since the deal Carlton has been appreciating at +4 per year, Eagles have had -8, +3. But before you are drawn too deeply into the trap of assuming that means Carlton are clear winners, the question is who got the best of the Judd deal. So it's not Judd vs Kennedy, it's Judd and Armfield vs Kennedy, Masten and Notte. Clearly too early to call. | |
|
|
| |
|
| bones |  |
 |
Joined: 9/06/2009
Posts: 365 |
| |
I think when the deal was first done the Eagles felt they had been given an awful deal which they had no option but to accept. Looks like it will work out ok, both in terms of renewal at the club and the nature of the guys picked. However, all the risk was on the Eagles as to how our picks went. There are plenty of examples where picks 1-20 have been duds. | |
|
|
| |
|
| ballsup | |
|
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 132
|
| |
And there are plenty of examples where picks 1-20 have worked out well. You say the Eages assumed all the risk, but compared to what? Refusing to trade? Clearly Judd was not happy and Worsfold was well aware that he was facing the big task of rebuilding. The flip side of risk is opportunity. | |
|
|
| |
|
| kfc | |
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 154 |
| |
ballsup wrote
You say the Eages assumed all the risk, but compared to what? Refusing to trade? Clearly Judd was not happy and Worsfold was well aware that he was facing the big task of rebuilding. The flip side of risk is opportunity.
Looking at it from that angle you could say that the Eagles got the best deal. Judd was already lost, they managed to get something for nothing. Well done Eagles! | |
|
|
| |
|
| ballsup | |
|
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 132
|
| |
I'm right with you kfc. Well said. Put that sceptical, cynical old bones in his place :) | |
|
|
| |
|
| bones | |
|
Joined: 9/06/2009
Posts: 365 |
| |
Obviously the Eagles had nowhere to go - that was part of the problem and why they had to accept an inferior deal. Sure there was an opportunity with draft picks, but I repeat my point that the risk was on the Eagles - Carlton got a known quantity, Eagles got opportunity/risk (however u want to couch it).
The current system in the AFL is that players are traded or they go into the draft. So given that Carlton didn't want to risk the draft, getting nothing was not an option.
btw, saw Notte play at the end of 2008. At that stage he was like me - all bones - I was afraid he was going to get broken. | |
|
|
| |
|
| ballsup | |
|
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 132
|
| |
At best you're taking a very short sighted view, Bones.
The question is: who got the better deal?
You agree the Eagles had nowhere to go, and I'll assume you also agree they got the best deal they could. You seem to be arguing that Carlton got the better deal purely because they got a known quality player, whereas Eagles got picks with an associated risk of getting duds. If that's the extent of your reasoning, that greater risk implies inferior, then fine, move along.
But by the nature of the deal the full implications won't be known for some time, so to write it off so unequivocally as inferior is to deny that it might yet work out well for the Eagles. In fact, you've already indicated that you think it looks like it will work out OK.
Stick around, enjoy the ride.
| |
|
|
| |
|
| wharfeytime | |
|
Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 123 |
| |
i thought the question was who "got" the best out of the deal, i.e. who's got the runs on the board so far. Carlton have had two stellar seasons out of Judd and are on the way up the ladder thanks in no small part to that one individual. West coast however only "got" potential in Kennedy and draft picks. so as it stands today Carlton got the better deal by a mile.
and.. if you're talking potential? well Judd is only 26! He probably hasn't even hit his peak and might still have his best years ahead of him. Kennedy/Masten/Notte have a lot of work to do to catch up. Kennedy actually reminds me of Travis Gaspar too... now he had potential too.... but.. we know how that ended. | |
|
|
| |
|
| ballsup | |
|
Joined: 10/06/2009
Posts: 132
|
| |
In one moment, wharfeytime, you are keen to gaze into the future with predictions of the top 8 and speculation on the next target of the game's number one thug. Yet in the next you offer the flimsiest of excuses for revelling in the past. Of course the question is posed in past tense since the object of the sentence, the Judd deal, has long since been completed. And despite your pontification, the full implications, ramifications, extrapolations and consternations of that long since completed deal are yet to play out.
Your narrow minded view presents me with a dilemma. It is no surprise that a Docker fan would make only a superficial evaluation of a trading deal. I find myself reluctant to will you on to broaden your view and deepen your thinking should the true horror of the trading decisions made in your own backyard fully dawn upon you.
But the greatest irony in your ramblings is that your very own final eight prediction places the Blues at seven and the Eagles at eight. Compared to 2009, that's Eagles up by three and Carlton treading water.
I think little of your crystal ball gazing, but if your superstitious nature beckons so strongly, perhaps consider that the number 3 pick from the Judd deal has a name bearing resemblance to that of a legendary number 3 who also happened to debut in round 3.
I remember with fondness a young man so bold,
The memory of whom will never grow old,
The wing was his lane,
With a sandy blonde mane,
Wearing with pride, the blue and the gold.
| |
|
|
| |
|
| wharfeytime | |
|
Joined: 12/06/2009
Posts: 123 |
| |
Oh, ok, i can see i've struck a nerve here. My job is done 
p.s. you can put your dictionary down now and take another sip of chardonnay! | |
|
|