Bluemour Melting Pot XIX - Give Me Ed Baby - Return of the Prodigal Son

[Robbo's my hero]

I knew this would go over the heads of some posters...

The horse’s name is Brackets FFS...

I didn’t know it was a test. I’ve failed!

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Papley came 4th in the Swans BNF

Pathetic effort. He's shit. Do not want.

 

[Macca43]

It is in the context that he could easily be had for Pick 80.

He is almost 33.
He wants out of Adelaide.
He wants to come to Carlton.
Adelaide don't want to play him in the seniors.
Adelaide don't want to pay him $600k next year.
Carlton have other small forward options that can be acquired.

All signs point to it being a mutually beneficial trade for a token pick. The pick itself isn't what is important to Adelaide, it's the cap relief. They won't get that cap relief if they demand a top 50 pick (or even a top 70 pick) for a 33yo small forward.

Might even be done for a minor pick swap that suits both parties - ie. Adelaide only have 3 picks in this draft, 3, 21 and 26, they may swap a future third rounder and Betts for one of our third rounders, freeing them up to package 21 and 26 for a higher draft pick.

End of the day - just because you'd be happy to get a Betts-type return for Pick 39, that doesn't make it a smart trade in the circumstances. We can absolutely have our cake and eat it too.

If we can get him for less thats great, if we have to pay pick 39 for a contracted player who is being offered much more money at the Suns and will get much more to stay put then I am happy to pay that given the likelihood of doing better in the draft.

My point is simply that even at pick 39 he is value.

 

[footyfan1978]

7 from 33 or 21% have got past 100 games, only 3 of 33 or 9% have been AA. Battle or Cameron could improve that but even if you removed them the percentages aren't great.

Have not been following too closely but if you are looking into historic stats of value of picks from draft pools in past, you should only be using less than two decades worth of picks. Draft pools before mid 1990's are fairly worthless to count as draft pools were missing all the best under 19 players for most part and had a lot of compromised draft pools so fairly worthless looking that far back. From after Port joined to just a few years Gold Coast started is probably all you can use as a good sample.
That will give you little more than a dozen draft pools to look into and players been around long enough to have had near full career to analyse.

Year		Club	Player	Games	Goals	Votes	Honours
1997		Melbourne	Matthew Blake	0	0	0
1998		Port Adelaide	Toby Thurstans	110	55	2	Prem: 2004
1999		Richmond	Scott Homewood	0	0	0
2000		Fremantle	Adam McPhee	223 (81)	112	26	AA: 2004; B&F: 2004
2001		Carlton	Justin Davies	41	20	0
2002		Melbourne	Gary Moorcroft	3	2	0
2003		Port Adelaide	Robert Forster-Knight	0	0	0
2004	FS	Collingwood	Travis Cloke	256 (246)	452	48	AA: 2011, 2013; B&F: 2007; Prem: 2010
2005	FS	Essendon	Jay Neagle	28	41	0
2006		Port Adelaide	Nathan Krakouer	82 (69)	24	0
2007	FS	Essendon	Darcy Daniher	6	0	0
2008		Geelong	Steven Motlop	170 (135)	193	21	AA40: 2013

 

[BringBackSimmo]

Pathetic effort. He's s**t. Do not want.

Plus he has never gotten any Brownlow votes.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

It's funny that some people are dismissing 12 of Eddie's goals because they were against the Gold Coast.
After having a look, these are the highest individual goals scored against the Suns thus year.

Jeremy Cameron - 9
Jarryd Roughead - 6
Charlie Cameron - 6
Eddie Betts - 6 x 2

If it's so easy to kick goals against the Suns then why isn't every doing it.

it doesnt suit the narrative some people are running.

 

[footyfan1978]

I count that about 5 good players from 12 draft pools for pick 39.
Maybe around 42% strike rate ....

Thurstans, McPhee, Moorcroft, Cloke and Motlop...

 

[Macca43]

No. You should look at pick 39 and later to for that analysis to actually be worthwhile. As you're comparing Betts to all players available at pick 39.

Fine with that, do the figures but I am tipping for every 1 great player there will be 5-10 duds so the percentages won't change. Betts is the safer bet.

 

[Macca43]

I count that about 5 good players from 12 draft pools for pick 39.
Maybe around 42% strike rate ....

Thurstans, McPhee, Moorcroft, Cloke and Motlop...

Moorcroft only played 3 games after that draft.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Fine with that, do the figures but I am tipping for every 1 great player there will be 5-10 duds so the percentages won't change. Betts is the safer bet.

I'll let the experts do it, I would trade Eddie in. Don't think it costs pick 39 and I'd be annoyed if it did. Does tipping == guessing...?

 

[agro]

Maybe not, but if we did pay that the stats suggest we would be unlikely to lose out. I believe we only need 2 solid years from Betts to beat the probable return on a third round pick.

No.

Adelaide can cop a 4th rounder (at best) I’d give them less if possible- and let’s take our chance at finding a valuable nugget at Pick 39.

They’re out there, we just have to pick them.

If our Recruiting Team is as good as everyone in this Board says it is then I’ll wear a Mohawk or become a Ballerina.

 

[Macca43]

Have not been following too closely but if you are looking into historic stats of value of picks from draft pools in past, you should only be using less than two decades worth of picks. Draft pools before mid 1990's are fairly worthless to count as draft pools were missing all the best under 19 players for most part and had a lot of compromised draft pools so fairly worthless looking that far back. From after Port joined to just a few years Gold Coast started is probably all you can use as a good sample.
That will give you little more than a dozen draft pools to look into and players been around long enough to have had near full career to analyse.

Year		Club	Player	Games	Goals	Votes	Honours
1997		Melbourne	Matthew Blake	0	0	0
1998		Port Adelaide	Toby Thurstans	110	55	2	Prem: 2004
1999		Richmond	Scott Homewood	0	0	0
2000		Fremantle	Adam McPhee	223 (81)	112	26	AA: 2004; B&F: 2004
2001		Carlton	Justin Davies	41	20	0
2002		Melbourne	Gary Moorcroft	3	2	0
2003		Port Adelaide	Robert Forster-Knight	0	0	0
2004	FS	Collingwood	Travis Cloke	256 (246)	452	48	AA: 2011, 2013; B&F: 2007; Prem: 2010
2005	FS	Essendon	Jay Neagle	28	41	0
2006		Port Adelaide	Nathan Krakouer	82 (69)	24	0
2007	FS	Essendon	Darcy Daniher	6	0	0
2008		Geelong	Steven Motlop	170 (135)	193	21	AA40: 2013

SO 4 from 12 made it to 100 games while 5 from 12 didn't make it to 10. Once again it points to Betts being the better bet.

 

[footyfan1978]

Moorcroft only played 3 games after that draft.

oh, is that after he left dons ? so might romantic veteran Betts...
if so, then that takes it back to 4 from 12.. 33.3% strike rate.... seems about how I feel such a pick is worth...

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Eddie also got dropped because there's quite a bit he doesn't/can't do anymore. It's fine for everyone to have differing opinions, but personally, i don't think we're in the space to be bringing a 33yo small forward into the team next year.

If a lot goes wrong(not getting our other targets) and a lot goes right(Eddie takes a big paycut and Adelaide let him go for next to nothing) then ok. But he would be, and should be, Plan C imo.

With Teague reportedly keen to bring him in, against SOS's wishes reportedly, I highly doubt he is a Plan C in Teague's eyes. Teague doesn't want him for a feel good story.

 

[footyfan1978]

Betts probably worth a pick around 50 if doing a trade now.

 

[Macca43]

No.

Adelaide can cop a 4th rounder (at best) I’d give them less if possible- and let’s take our chance at finding a valuable nugget at Pick 39.

They’re out there, we just have to pick them.

If our Recruiting Team is as good as everyone in this Board says it is then I’ll wear a Mohawk or become a Ballerina.

His value and what we pay are 2 different things. I am saying even at 39 he is good value.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

All this talk of Betts coming back is great..

But has it been mentioned anywhere here that 12 of his goals last season was against Gold Coast??

Nope, tell us about it. Could be interesting.

 

[bmaurizio]

It is in the context that he could easily be had for Pick 80.

He is almost 33.
He wants out of Adelaide.
He wants to come to Carlton.
Adelaide don't want to play him in the seniors.
Adelaide don't want to pay him $600k next year.
Carlton have other small forward options that can be acquired.

All signs point to it being a mutually beneficial trade for a token pick. The pick itself isn't what is important to Adelaide, it's the cap relief. They won't get that cap relief if they demand a top 50 pick (or even a top 70 pick) for a 33yo small forward.

Might even be done for a minor pick swap that suits both parties - ie. Adelaide only have 3 picks in this draft, 3, 21 and 26, they may swap a future third rounder and Betts for one of our third rounders, freeing them up to package 21 and 26 for a higher draft pick.

End of the day - just because you'd be happy to get a Betts-type return for Pick 39, that doesn't make it a smart trade in the circumstances. We can absolutely have our cake and eat it too.

Agree with you, succinctly written.

 

[Diamond Jim 007]

No.

Adelaide can cop a 4th rounder (at best) I’d give them less if possible- and let’s take our chance at finding a valuable nugget at Pick 39.

They’re out there, we just have to pick them.

If our Recruiting Team is as good as everyone in this Board says it is then I’ll wear a Mohawk or become a Ballerina.

Better get the shaver out Rudolf Nureyev

 

[Blue__Balls]

If we can get him for less thats great, if we have to pay pick 39 for a contracted player who is being offered much more money at the Suns and will get much more to stay put then I am happy to pay that given the likelihood of doing better in the draft.

My point is simply that even at pick 39 he is value.

What the Suns offer is irrelevant - if he's coming to Carlton it's because he's requested a trade to Carlton, and GC don't get to say "but wait, Adelaide, we'll pay him more"...

I can see what you're getting at. Yes, it's possible he'd do more for the club than whichever player we'd select at Pick 39. It's also possible Pick 39 goes on to play 100-150 games for the club. There are always players available late who exceed expectations.

2017: Pettruccelle (38), Worpel (45), Baker (48), Miers (57)
2016: Battle (39), Stewart (40), Ratugolea (43), Hannan (46), Graham (53), Ryan (66)
2015: Mathieson (39), Hardwick (44), Silvagni (53), Phillips (58), Menegola (66)

Sure, the strike rate is less than 50% from Pick 40 onwards. But there's no reason to make it a 0% chance by throwing away a reasonably pick on a player whose market value is, effectively, nothing.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

My younger daughter is just starting to read. Might start her on...

This is Doch.

Doch can run.

See Doch run.

 

[Arr0w]

After beating the Crows in round 19 we scored 75,45,78 & 61 from 48, 43, 58 & 48 inside 50's. I don't think that is particularly free scoring.

On top of that I see Betts playing a very different role from Papley & Martin, I don't really see the ruck as a significant issue with Kreuzer, TDK and Phillips and I don't see us getting a midfielder that will make a difference for the price we will take Betts for.

Macca, I am only going to do this once, given you keep accusing me of strawman arguments, yet your response has done exactly that. Apart from the Saints game, where we won, why would you only highlight 3 other games where we played against top 4 sides? I clearly stated a number of times, "2nd half of the season". Our scoring and inside 50 increased from the time Teague took over, our conversion versus forward 50 entries compares favourably against other sides, yet it is between the arcs where we suffer, the stats are clear regarding this.

As for a ruckman, if it wasn't an issue moving forward, why was the club chasing Darcy Cameron? Why is it that people just continue to see the now rather than what is needed beyond the week to week results, it's impatience

As for what Betts will cost us compared to getting a midfielder, does that mean we should just target other declining small forwards, despite needing mids, because it is cheaper?

Let's be totally honest here, if Betts was another name, but the same age and declining output, would you or others still fell so strongly as to his acquisition ?

Lastly, I have already stated that I would be happy to add him as a DFA, so not sure why the debate continues

I thought we are. According to all reports, we are prioritizing Papley (mid-fwd) and Martin (mid-flank) and talking to other mids and ruckmen.

Eddie will only occupy a single list spot. No-one is advocating that we get more than one 30+ year old small forward. Eddie doesn't negate our endeavours in relation to what you choose to classify as our "greatest needs", and he helps in an area that most people on this board feel is an "important" need.

As for our window, I don't think a team that has a 36 yo Kade running around and still performing well enough to be preferred over Daisy, should be assuming that a 34/35 yo Eddie wouldn't be able to provide a valuable contribution.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a back-and-forth on this. In the end we'll see what the club decides.

We all know the factors of why Simmo was kept over Thomas, let's not use that as justification regarding Betts. More than happy to add Betts as a DFA, we are not a flag contender and if we win one or 2 less games because we are developing others to play as a small forward, I would rather that than finish 9th and Eddie playing all year then departing as the game has gone past him

It is been reported that SOS is against the idea of targeting Betts, which I believe is the right call, at some stage supporters need to let go of the romance as that wont help as rise

 

[Blue__Balls]

His value and what we pay are 2 different things. I am saying even at 39 he is good value.

That assumes he's in the draft pool for anyone to take.

He's not.

You're trying to compare the value of a draft pick, via historical strike rate of players taken, against your assumed output for a single player in the next 1-2 years. They're completely different measuring sticks.

You're assuming best case scenario for Betts (no injuries, similar output at 33yo to previous years in a new system with a less experienced team) but a applying a law of averages to a single draft pick. By that measure he's worth pick 6, seeing as only 3 out of 23 players selected with Pick 6 have made it to 100 games.

 

[Macca43]

What the Suns offer is irrelevant - if he's coming to Carlton it's because he's requested a trade to Carlton, and GC don't get to say "but wait, Adelaide, we'll pay him more"...

I can see what you're getting at. Yes, it's possible he'd do more for the club than whichever player we'd select at Pick 39. It's also possible Pick 39 goes on to play 100-150 games for the club. There are always players available late who exceed expectations.

2017: Pettruccelle (38), Worpel (45), Baker (48), Miers (57)
2016: Battle (39), Stewart (40), Ratugolea (43), Hannan (46), Graham (53), Ryan (66)
2015: Mathieson (39), Hardwick (44), Silvagni (53), Phillips (58), Menegola (66)

Sure, the strike rate is less than 50% from Pick 40 onwards. But there's no reason to make it a 0% chance by throwing away a reasonably pick on a player whose market value is, effectively, nothing.

The strike rate is significantly less than 50%, between 38 and 66 there are 29 picks over 3 years is 87 picks and you have 15 players who you rate as a success, that is a 17% strike rate (and I suspect Mathieson won't be rated a success in 5 years).

Iw ould take the 80% odd that Betts plays 40 games that the 17% chance of a 100 game player but the 50% chance they play less than 10.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Macca, I am only going to do this once, given you keep accusing me of strawman arguments, yet your response has done exactly that. Apart from the Saints game, where we won, why would you only highlight 3 other games where we played against top 4 sides? I clearly stated a number of times, "2nd half of the season". Our scoring and inside 50 increased from the time Teague took over, our conversion versus forward 50 entries compares favourably against other sides, yet it is between the arcs where we suffer, the stats are clear regarding this.

As for a ruckman, if it wasn't an issue moving forward, why was the club chasing Darcy Cameron? Why is it that people just continue to see the now rather than what is needed beyond the week to week results, it's impatience

As for what Betts will cost us compared to getting a midfielder, does that mean we should just target other declining small forwards, despite needing mids, because it is cheaper?

Let's be totally honest here, if Betts was another name, but the same age and declining output, would you or others still fell so strongly as to his acquisition ?

Lastly, I have already stated that I would be happy to add him as a DFA, so not sure why the debate continues



We all know the factors of why Simmo was kept over Thomas, let's not use that as justification regarding Betts. More than happy to add Betts as a DFA, we are not a flag contender and if we win one or 2 less games because we are developing others to play as a small forward, I would rather that than finish 9th and Eddie playing all year then departing as the game has gone past him

It is been reported that SOS is against the idea of targeting Betts, which I believe is the right call, at some stage supporters need to let go of the romance as that wont help as rise

Would I be right in assuming that DFA status would be equivalent to a token draft pick or pick swap price, in your eyes. It's effectively the same result, yes? Eddie as a DFA and we don't use Pick 80 at the draft, or Eddie for Pick 80.