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

[Blue_Steel89]

all this Betts debating taking place and I'm over here like

 

[Macca43]

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.

Yes that assuming he is in the draft pool because that is how you assess value. What we pay is different

And I am not assuming a best case scenario, I am stating I would take the greater likelihood (80% not 100%) that betts kicks 30 goals a year (far from his best) in 20 games a year (again not his best) than pretty poor odds (between 17 & 30%) of finding a successful player at pick 39.

 

[Macca43]

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.

DFA gave us nothing for WAite, do you think Waite's value was 0?

 

[Blue__Balls]

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.

It's not about the percentages, mate, it's about the available players.

Why pay Pick 39 for Betts when he could be had for a late pick we wouldn't even use? Then we still get the 40% or whatever chance at a handy player.

I'm also not sure where you arrive at the 80% chance of Betts playing 40 games, given you clearly haven't bothered to do any analysis into what historical percentage of 33-34yos manage 20 games a year. You're at a point now where you're cherry picking numbers you like, and then plucking some others out of thin air to try and create credibility.

Your argument is, at best, pointless. You've admitted that. All you're trying to argue is that Eddie is statistically more likely to player more games for us than other players taken at Pick 39, which completely misses the point that that doesn't indicate his market value or what we should be prepared to give up for him when viewed in context.

Here's one for you - what are the odds Eddie plays 100 games for us from next year? 5 years of footy with next to no injuries. I think we could safely put that at 0%, he ain't playing to 38.

I'd take the 17% chance of a 100-game player over a 0% chance.

Thoughts?

 

[Blue__Balls]

DFA gave us nothing for WAite, do you think Waite's value was 0?

What does that even mean, Macca? Waite has nothing to do with it.

Arrow said he'd be happy to have Betts as a DFA, I'm just clarifying whether he'd also be happy to give up a 5th rounder for Betts given the net result is the same (with Betts as a DFA, taking up a list spot, we wouldn't use our last pick in the draft).

 

[Blue__Balls]

Yes that assuming he is in the draft pool because that is how you assess value. What we pay is different

And I am not assuming a best case scenario, I am stating I would take the greater likelihood (80% not 100%) that betts kicks 30 goals a year (far from his best) in 20 games a year (again not his best) than pretty poor odds (between 17 & 30%) of finding a successful player at pick 39.

You've lost the plot

What we pay is his value. That is how value works.

Again - Pick 6 is a statistically poor pick, therefore he's worth Pick 6. No?

 

[BigFrizz36]

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

You mean substitute the name Betts for puopolo?

 

[Monkey King]

It's not about the percentages, mate, it's about the available players.

James Worpel went at pick 45.

Eddie’s given the Crows great service and they paid nothing but salary to get him. You’d hope they wouldn’t hinder an end of career move by asking for too much in return.

 

[Macca43]

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

Sorry I thought we wanted to beat the likes of West Coast, Richmond and Geelong - I didn't realise we were aiming for just getting out of the bottom 6.

Teague improved us but we have a long way to go, having a player the quality of Betts in the forward pocket will mean we won't have games where we our score and inside 50 count is almost identical.

As for between the Arcs, I am seeing Martin and Papley playing as high half forwards which will help between the arcs and Betts playing deep forward which will help increase our scoring capacity and inside 50 conversion.

As for chasing Cameron, what were we going to give up for him? Not much. We half a reasonable ruck division for now and we will be able to grab someone like Cameron for very little at some point before things get critical.

"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?" Declining small forwards that would have won our goal kicking by a mile this year, yes. We don't have a decent small forward so we don't have to pay as much to get an improvement but we do have a very good (young) midfield, a cheap midfielder won't improve our midfield and likely won't get a game, we need to pay more for a midfielder to get an improvement.

 

[BluesTragic]

Just because our recent history in late picks has been atrocious (apart from Tom Williamson) doesn’t mean we give up pick 39 for Eddie.

So we’re saying that Tom Williamson has been a successful draft pick Agro?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Macca43]

You mean substitute the name Betts for puopolo?

Puopolo kicked 10 goals this year so no.

 

[Macca43]

James Worpel went at pick 45.

Eddie’s given the Crows great service and they paid nothing but salary to get him. You’d hope they wouldn’t hinder an end of career move by asking for too much in return.

So 1 player was successful in that range so every we are guaranteed of success?

 

[Blue__Balls]

So we’re saying that Tom Williamson has been a successful draft pick Agro?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Jury still out for me. Clearly has the talent and the desire, just a question of whether they can get his body right. Latest word was that he could have played some minutes late in the year but Russell held him out to focus on getting him ready for 2020. Make or break next season. Don't really care if he doesn't play seniors at all, as long as he can get 15+ games under his belt without any serious setbacks. 5 games, rest, 5 games, rest, 5 games, on ice for 2021 works for me.

 

[Macca43]

It's not about the percentages, mate, it's about the available players.

Why pay Pick 39 for Betts when he could be had for a late pick we wouldn't even use? Then we still get the 40% or whatever chance at a handy player.

I'm also not sure where you arrive at the 80% chance of Betts playing 40 games, given you clearly haven't bothered to do any analysis into what historical percentage of 33-34yos manage 20 games a year. You're at a point now where you're cherry picking numbers you like, and then plucking some others out of thin air to try and create credibility.

Your argument is, at best, pointless. You've admitted that. All you're trying to argue is that Eddie is statistically more likely to player more games for us than other players taken at Pick 39, which completely misses the point that that doesn't indicate his market value or what we should be prepared to give up for him when viewed in context.

Here's one for you - what are the odds Eddie plays 100 games for us from next year? 5 years of footy with next to no injuries. I think we could safely put that at 0%, he ain't playing to 38.

I'd take the 17% chance of a 100-game player over a 0% chance.

Thoughts?

Again, I am talking value not what we actually pay. He is value at 39.

"All you're trying to argue is that Eddie is statistically more likely to player more games for us to be better value than other players taken at Pick 39" which is exactly the point.

"I'd take the 17% chance of a 100-game player over a 0% chance." You are ignoring the odds of playing less than 10.

I will more than happily take out my 4 iron and punt it down the middle and take my par you seem happy to take the driver to take a 17% chance of a birdie and a 50% chance of a bogey.

 

[Macca43]

You've lost the plot

What we pay is his value. That is how value works.

Again - Pick 6 is a statistically poor pick, therefore he's worth Pick 6. No?

What we pay is the "price" or "cost" which is different to "value".

BASIS FOR COMPARISON	PRICE	COST	VALUE
Meaning	Price is the amount paid for acquiring any product or service.	Cost is the amount incurred in producing and maintaining something.	Value is the utility of a good or service

 

[Macca43]

What does that even mean, Macca? Waite has nothing to do with it.

Arrow said he'd be happy to have Betts as a DFA, I'm just clarifying whether he'd also be happy to give up a 5th rounder for Betts given the net result is the same (with Betts as a DFA, taking up a list spot, we wouldn't use our last pick in the draft).

My point is DFA compensation is a ridiculous measure to assess "value", as evidenced by Waite.

 

[Ciccio]

There is no way SOS would agree to giving up pick 39 for Betts. I can’t see it happening unless the crows are throwing some other player we want or pick into the mix.

For mine IF Betts happens then it will be for a token late pick, I will be greatly annoyed if otherwise.

I see Betts recruitment advantageous from a marketing and mentoring prospective, but would have minimal expectations from a playing viewpoint.

 

[OldBlueFan]

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

Sigh ...

I wasn't using it as justification for Betts. I'm saying that a club (and us as supporters of that club) that sees value in a 36yo Simmo shouldn't assume that a 34/35 yo Betts would not be capable of a similar contribution. Take Daisy out of the equation if you like, the argument is the same.

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

Ummm, the two halves of this sentence seem to contradict each other. You're "more than happy to add Betts", but you would "rather win one or two less games without Betts (while developing other players)".

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

Why wouldn't additional scoring power, not to mention a wealth of experience in the area of forward craft, help a young team rise? Did you hear Teague during the year comment that he probably played McGovern for too long (while knowing he needed to work on his fitness) because of the value he placed on having his experience in the forward line?

And where in any of my posts (which you are quoting, so seem to be arguing with) have I discussed the question in the context of the romance of it?

I have read a lot of your discussions with other posters Arrow, and for the most part think that your contributions are valuable. But I've also seen posters express frustration with your approach. I'm beginning to see why.

Let's just agree to disagree. Cheers

 

[ferrisb]

I'd pay pick 39 to make this Betts argument stop....

 

[agro]

So we’re saying that Tom Williamson has been a successful draft pick Agro?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Crueled by injury but a great (and rare) late pick by our Recruiting Team.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Again, I am talking value not what we actually pay. He is value at 39.

"All you're trying to argue is that Eddie is statistically more likely to player more games for us to be better value than other players taken at Pick 39" which is exactly the point.

"I'd take the 17% chance of a 100-game player over a 0% chance." You are ignoring the odds of playing less than 10.

I will more than happily take out my 4 iron and punt it down the middle and take my par you seem happy to take the driver to take a 17% chance of a birdie and a 50% chance of a bogey.

Do you even read what you write before hitting post?

I'm taking the "17% chance of a birdie" because my Ambrose partner just flushed one down the middle. If Betts comes to Carlton it's as a gift, for something we wouldn't have used. That is his value. Not Pick 39 because we happen to have it and Pick 39's have a whatever percentage of working out.

Why are you trying to argue that Betts' value is equal to our pick when that's clearly not what we need to give up? Again - pointless argument. Why isn't his value pick 35? Or Pick 30? Or Pick 6?

Betts' market value is what we need to pay to get him. Simple.

You don't pay $20,000 for a car with $10,000 on the sticker, just because you have $20,000 in your account and you like the car.

 

[Blue__Balls]

My point is DFA compensation is a ridiculous measure to assess "value", as evidenced by Waite.

That was never even mentioned...

DFA or token pick, the "cost" to Carlton is the same in terms of what usable assets we are left with. I can draw you a picture if it helps?

 

[BringBackSimmo]

I'd pay pick 39 to make this Betts argument stop....

Can you determine that without a spreadsheet?

 

[footyfan1978]

 

[therubbernub]

Exactly - from a list management perspective he’s better than a rookie pick which is what our alternative is. It’s then up to the match committee next season to determine if he’s best 22 each week.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

If we think of eddie as a type of hodge lite for our forwards. He can be onfield teaching them positioning etc whilst still being able to do the odd miraculous thing