Chris Judd Trade... Good or bad thing for MFC?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Thanks to Nicolasmia over at Bigfooty (don't judge me, I had a few hours to burn)...

This made me feel kind of good.

"If carlton didnt get Judd,

They would of gotten Kruezer and Palmer/Morton ( they rated Morton/palmer equally third

They would of kept Kennedy

They would have gotten Selwood/Ward at pick 20 last year.

Without judd this year they would of won 4-5 less games, which would of qualified them for pick 1 and 2 in this years draft.

So they would of gotten Watts and Natanui, furthermore they would have gotten Warnock for free in PSD, or Okeefe for free, or both and would of cost them a round 2 pick.

Therefore the choice is

Judd

Armfield

or

Palmer/Morton

Selwood/Ward

Kennedy

O'Keefe

Naitanui

Watts

who would you choose

In hindsight big mistake IMHO, they would be set with the best group of young players in the league. Big opportunity missed "

Thoughts? I don't know if I agree completely, but it's an interesting point. They certainly did lose a LOT in the recruiting stage making the choice they have. Also, they have a lot of time left before it's too late for Judd. Also, spare a thought for where we will be in two or so years. We will have the best young list going around, teenagers to burn, and we may be looking at a similar scenario. One would assume that if a star 23 yr old midfielder wanted out of a club, we would have the picks and players to have the most clout...

[pitmaster 3,560]

Normally I wouldn't bother but it is too distracting in your post so can we get this straight...it's WOULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE...

You might think it sounds liks would OF or should Of but think about it and the word you're using is HAVE

If you want to write is as you say it then it's would've or should've. OK?

A grammarian would call would've or should've a contraction and your post a distraction.

[H_T 3,047]

interesting but its all a should of would of could of type scenario. Lets not forget Judd is Judd!

[praha 11,240]

The fact is that they hadn't made the finals for 6 years and weren't prepared to risk it, draft a whole bunch of prospects and HOPE they turn out to be superstars. Even still, they would have been out of the finals still till about 2011, which would have made it 10 or whatever years since their last finals appearance.

With Judd, they are a finals team within 2 years, and get rid of the risk of drafting prospects that may turn out to be nothing.

So yes, I think Carlton did the right thing. We really don't know what Watts/Morton are going to become, and considering they already had 3 No. 1 draft picks, they thought that it was better to build around a superstar like Judd, instead of fill a team with No. 1 draft picks, where the risk is that they won't make the finals for another 4-5 years. I guess they were sick of losing, and if we're still in the same situation in 2012, having still not made the finals, I would trade for a superstar like Judd, instead of drafting and losing for another 4 years just to get some good draft picks.

[Adelaide Demon 0]

Normally I wouldn't bother but it is too distracting in your post so can we get this straight...it's WOULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE...

You might think it sounds liks would OF or should Of but think about it and the word you're using is HAVE

If you want to write is as you say it then it's would've or should've. OK?

A grammarian would call would've or should've a contraction and your post a distraction.

Yes! This is becomming one of the most common mistakes these days. It really shits me.

It is an interesting topic. Imagine having Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer, Watts, Naitanui, Palmer, Morton all coming in to their own in a year or two, exciting prospect.

[rpfc 28,441]

Judd is Judd. The best player until Ablett got going in '07.

I will say this though, Carlton better win one in the next 3 or 4 years because Fevola is 28.

And, personally, I don't think their backline is good enough. Nor will it be inside the 3 to 4 year timeframe.

[sylvinator 96]

HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE victory for Carlton.

Got the best player in the competition for virtually only draft picks. Draft picks sometimes turn good, sometimes not, but very rarely turn into a pure champion. Judd is a pure champion.

You can't keep rebuilding forever through draft picks. At one stage you have to suck it up and give the top 4 a go... carlton will do that this season and they wouldn't have a chance for another 3-4 years if they didn't have Judd.

Actually it is:

Judd

Armfield

OR

Masten

Kennedy

Notte

Jeez I know i'd take Judd any day or the week and then some

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

how did you come up with that dappa, judd before the lot, the blues will never win a flag with that defence, half the picks you mentioned have barely played a game.

[james1977 0]

In terms of on-field success we'll never know for sure. In Judd's favour is the positive influence he would have on the other Carlton players. Putting aside what would have happened on the field I think it was worth it for Carlton to pick up Judd. Along with Richard Pratt he has helped restore confidence in Carlton's brand, restored optimism for the supporters, boosted memberships and sponsorship dollars. I wonder what would happen in Melbourne got Judd: that gives me a idea for a thread!

[Adelaide Demon 0]

HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE victory for Carlton.

Got the best player in the competition for virtually only draft picks. Draft picks sometimes turn good, sometimes not, but very rarely turn into a pure champion. Judd is a pure champion.

Every champion player was once a draft pick. Every year there will be great players coming out of the draft and most years there will be a player who becomes a champion. Even a 'pure' champion!!

[The Backyard Charizard 1,202]

Every champion player was once a draft pick. Every year there will be great players coming out of the draft and most years there will be a player who becomes a champion. Even a 'pure' champion!!

So true.....

Just a quick look through your fav player list bears truth to your statement....

Allen Jakovich was indeed once a draft pick.....

1990 Pick No. 6 from Woodville

He had just kicked 101 goals in 1989 for Woodville after coming off 104 goals for Southern Districts in the NTFL.

Then after demolishing backmen for the Melbourne reserves side, he was promoted to the senior side... the rest my friends, was history!

What a legend....

Sorry.... just re-living some glorious memories.....

[Adelaide Demon 0]

Allen Jakovich

My point was directed at the fact that sylvinator said that draft picks very rarely turn in to champions. It's a redundant statement. Every player who will ever play AFL from now on will come from a draft. Every champion has to be drafted. You're not going to get 70 champions from every draft - look at 2003 - but that statement is just redundant: we have to participate in every draft, and that's where our new players come from. It sounded like sylvinator doesn't trust the draft or something.

And Mr Jakovich is half the reason I started going for Melbourne so he will always be a legend in my eyes. Jakovich at pick 6 gave us more than Sylvia at 3 ever will!

[sylvinator 96]

My point was directed at the fact that sylvinator said that draft picks very rarely turn in to champions. It's a redundant statement. Every player who will ever play AFL from now on will come from a draft. Every champion has to be drafted. You're not going to get 70 champions from every draft - look at 2003 - but that statement is just redundant: we have to participate in every draft, and that's where our new players come from. It sounded like sylvinator doesn't trust the draft or something.

And Mr Jakovich is half the reason I started going for Melbourne so he will always be a legend in my eyes. Jakovich at pick 6 gave us more than Sylvia at 3 ever will!

My point was simply that if I had the choice between a current champion, in their prime and only 24 years old... and i had to exchange draft picks... which are unknown... could turn a champion, probably won't, might turn in to a dud.... i would DEFINITELY prefer the known champion who is in the top 3 players in the league.

I mean honestly, my logic makes perfect sense. Yes, all champions were once draft picks. but if you swap a top3 player in the afl who is still young for an unknown quantity then you are making a HUGE win.

[Adelaide Demon 0]

My point was simply that if I had the choice between a current champion, in their prime and only 24 years old... and i had to exchange draft picks... which are unknown... could turn a champion, probably won't, might turn in to a dud.... i would DEFINITELY prefer the known champion who is in the top 3 players in the league.

I mean honestly, my logic makes perfect sense. Yes, all champions were once draft picks. but if you swap a top3 player in the afl who is still young for an unknown quantity then you are making a HUGE win.

Yeah I agree with that. My point is more that it is not always possible to 'rebuild' by trading picks for a Judd. Rebuilding almost always depends on the draft and the draft alone. Carlton were in a unique position. For us, we have to rely on the draft and have faith in our picks. Getting in the game's premier player wouldn't do much for us right now. We need them in 4-5 years. Hopefully they will be Watts, Grimes, Morton, Martin, etc. etc..

[H_T 3,047]

thats not to say that we will not be targeting someone say late next year. Because we Might with the same intent.

[Rivers Run Red 187]

Big win for Carlton, Juddy is a star on and off the field. Carlton got arguably the best player in the league, and on and off field leader.

Think about the confidence boost all the other Blues would have got knowing they would be playing beside Judd.

[The Emblem 1]

Big win for Carlton, Juddy is a star on and off the field. Carlton got arguably the best player in the league, and on and off field leader.

Think about the confidence boost all the other Blues would have got knowing they would be playing beside Judd.

For Carltank, perhaps going with Judd was the right choice, because they already had the nucleus of a high quality midfield in place. I say perhaps because I still think their backline is a little suspect - in terms of winning a premiership.

For Melbourne, as exciting as it would be to have Judd in the red & blue # 3, what we would have probably traded away to get him may not have suited our aspiration to build a premiership list...and for that you need both class and depth.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

For Carltank, perhaps going with Judd was the right choice, because they already had the nucleus of a high quality midfield in place. I say perhaps because I still think their backline is a little suspect - in terms of winning a premiership.

For Melbourne, as exciting as it would be to have Judd in the red & blue # 3, what we would have probably traded away to get him may not have suited our aspiration to build a premiership list...and for that you need both class and depth.

Fear not Judd would have Made a Huge Difference to this club particularly with

stynes as the Prez. Anyway i can't think about it too much as i get to Pi$$ed off that he went to Carltank after following G Lyon as a kid....Grr. Judd will regret his decision. (Fingers Crossed!)

[H_T 3,047]

You can't keep rebuilding forever through draft picks. At one stage you have to suck it up and give the top 4 a go... carlton will do that this season and they wouldn't have a chance for another 3-4 years if they didn't have Judd.

Whilst they will 'aim' to give the top 4 a show this season. I don't think they can do it. The Hawks, Cats, Saints and Dogs for me.

They have a vulnerable backline, as Essendon showed. They're midfield is the strength. They will however make the eight.

[w00dy 146]

I look at it this way for the MFC...

Carlton traded Pick 3, Pick 20 and Josh Kennedy for Pick 46 and Judd...

If he wanted to come to Melbourne we would've had to have traded Pick 4, Pick 21 and Trav Johnstone for Judd and pick 46...

Essentially we would've lost Morton, Grimes, Maric, and got Judd and Armfield (or whoever else we took @ 46)...

Would we be happy with that now, given where we are at?

[MikeyJ 60]

Normally I wouldn't bother but it is too distracting in your post so can we get this straight...it's WOULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE...

You might think it sounds liks would OF or should Of but think about it and the word you're using is HAVE

If you want to write is as you say it then it's would've or should've. OK?

A grammarian would call would've or should've a contraction and your post a distraction.

Agree with all you say about the misuse of the contraction, but given that Dapp hasn't been around to defend himself, I thought I would...

You're aware that he was simply quoting someone else's post from Bigfooty, aren't you?