2017 Round 5: Post Game Prognostications: Carlton vs Port Adelaide

[LP]

Well someone best explain to me how trading out Gibbs, Murphy and Kreuzer guarantees us excellent replacements from 1/2 the number of low draft picks, while trading out Cripps and Weitering for 2x as many low draft picks gives us less chance of find suitable replacements. Because that is basically the rationale many posters on here are arguing and it's a flat out contradiction, an error in logic, just plain wrong!

In summary this is what many were arguing about Gibbs, Murphy and Kreuzer before I raised the Cripps / Weitering trade option;[table]
[tr][td]-[/td][td]-[/td][td]-[/td]
[td]Trading out Player A, B or C will give us valuable low picks we need to draft quality replacements. Young players equal or better in value than those players we let go with good long term prospects.[/td][/tr][/table]

then after I raised the Cripps /Weitering subject the tune changed;
[table][tr][td]-[/td][td]-[/td][td]-[/td]
[td]You can't trade out Player A or B for low draft picks, the success of finding an equal or equivalent long term prospect is too low. Getting draft picks won't guarantee finding a successful replacement, Trading away Player A or B is trading away the clubs future![/td][/tr][/table]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

The long term prospects of draftees and the chance of draft success are not variables dependant on which players you trade away for the pick!

The only variable draft success depends on is really the number of picks, the more low picks you have the greater the chance of success, and that seems to be the SOS strategy.

So if you want to be logical about it, the best trade option is to trade the players that get you the most low draft picks! ;D

It's the logic of Moneyball people, math does not lie and your opinions makes no difference to it's result!

[kruddler]

Well someone best explain to me how trading out Gibbs, Murphy and Kreuzer guarantees us excellent replacements from 1/2 the number of low draft picks, while trading out Cripps and Weitering for 2x as many low draft picks gives us less chance of find suitable replacements. Because that is basically the rationale many posters on here are arguing and it's a flat out contradiction, an error in logic, just plain wrong!

In summary this is what many were arguing about Gibbs, Murphy and Kreuzer before I raised the Cripps / Weitering trade option;[table]
[tr][td]-[/td][td]-[/td][td]-[/td]
[td]Trading out Player A, B or C will give us valuable low picks we need to draft quality replacements. Young players equal or better in value than those players we let go with good long term prospects.[/td][/tr][/table]

then after I raised the Cripps /Weitering subject the tune changed;
[table][tr][td]-[/td][td]-[/td][td]-[/td]
[td]You can't trade out Player A or B for low draft picks, the success of finding an equal or equivalent long term prospect is too low. Getting draft picks won't guarantee finding a successful replacement, Trading away Player A or B is trading away the clubs future![/td][/tr][/table]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

The long term prospects of draftees and the chance of draft success are not variables dependant on which players you trade way! The only variable draft success depends on is the number of picks, the more picks you have the greater the chance of success. So if you want to be logical about it the best trade option is to trade the players that get you the most picks! ;D

I think you're exaggeratting a touch ('guaranteed' and what not).

Without derailing this thread...come over here -> http://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=3416.0
....and i'll explain.

[PaulP]

There's someone consistently in the top 5 B+F in the local underage club. Doesn't make them elite AFL players.
Someone will always finish top 5 in the B+F, they just haven't had a great load of competition.

This argument is always just around the corner. I never said either of them were elite. The point being made is that both have been consistent performers for our club under mostly trying conditions. Their potential has never been realized in part because of the poor quality around them. If the club thought they were sh1t, they would have moved them on by now. We all wish they were Dangerfield, Selwood, Hodge etc. But they're not - doesn't make them crap.

Can you recall any occasion when either player has been dropped to the 2's, for bad attitude, loss of form, off field indiscretions, anything at all ? I draw your attention to Jack Watts at the Demons, who has been publicly admonished for poor attitude, and I also draw your attention to the plethora of players on our list who have suffered this fate.

Can you recall any occasion when either player has been put up for trade ? Can you recall what happened last season, and the club's stance on trading Gibbs ? Can you tell me how many players the club has traded / delisted during the playing careers of these two ?

Can you explain why MM, a coach of 30 years standing in the game, referred to Gibbs as untouchable ?

Can you explain why under the Bolton-led reset, Murph was reelected captain ?

Can you tell me why these two allegedly soft players, do not suffer the same fate as their soft colleagues, i.e relegated to the 2's (Boeky, KJ and others), or delisted (Everitt) ? The club is clearly capable of taking that action when it sees fit.

I'll tell you why - because even though they're not out and out champions, they are in fact very decent players, and the club treats them accordingly. 

[kruddler]

I'll tell you why - because even though they're not out and out champions, they are in fact very decent players, and the club treats them accordingly.

...and i've never said any different.

Doesn't change anything i've said though.

[PaulP]

...and i've never said any different.

Doesn't change anything i've said though.

What is it that you've said ? That they should be traded if a beneficial deal comes along ? If so, I agree 100%.

[LP]

@PaulP, thanks for that post, it is excellent and highlights the case without being as derogatory as my own posts. I've basically labelled them morons that cannot see their own contradictions!

Do you think your post will change any attitudes?

I think you are wasting your time, the posters making the case are entrenched in their opinion.

Haters just gotta hate!

[PaulP]

@PaulP, thanks for that post, it is excellent and highlights the case without being as derogatory as my own posts. I've basically labelled them morons that cannot see their own contradictions!

Do you think your post will change any attitudes?

I think you are wasting your time, the posters making the case are entrenched in their opinion.

Haters just gotta hate!

All of us want what's best for the club, and we will have different opinions on how that should occur.

The fact that a number of different individuals and regimes are hanging on to these two means that they must be doing something right, even if they're not showered in accolades, awards etc.

[JonHenry]

I am a hater.
When we invest THE best draft pick on a guy that says 8 years later he has not really put the most he has into his career then yes I hate.
He performs exactly as he says, like he is just happy to be an AFL footballer.
I do not believe that is the type of player you want mentoring your elite talent.
If you believe the young guys don't hear and see that lack of 100% commitment then there is something wrong.
Gibbs and Murphy have had a huge opportunity to take the club forward but it simply hasn't happened.

I believe they both had terrible role models at Carlton and their careers have suffered accordingly.

Let's move em on at years end and start with a new group

[PaulP]

I am a hater.
When we invest THE best draft pick on a guy that says 8 years later he has not really put the most he has into his career then yes I hate.
He performs exactly as he says, like he is just happy to be an AFL footballer.
I do not believe that is the type of player you want mentoring your elite talent.
If you believe the young guys don't hear and see that lack of 100% commitment then there is something wrong.
Gibbs and Murphy have had a huge opportunity to take the club forward but it simply hasn't happened.

I believe they both had terrible role models at Carlton and their careers have suffered accordingly.

Let's move em on at years end and start with a new group

You've been steadfast in your position on these two, and you are, like all of us, welcome to your opinion. If you believe that we are now on the right track, and that we have the right people in place making the right decisions, how will you feel if these two are still on our list in 2019, 2020 ? 

[LP]

I am a hater.
When we invest THE best draft pick on a guy that says 8 years later he has not really put the most he has into his career then yes I hate.
He performs exactly as he says, like he is just happy to be an AFL footballer.
I do not believe that is the type of player you want mentoring your elite talent.
If you believe the young guys don't hear and see that lack of 100% commitment then there is something wrong.
Gibbs and Murphy have had a huge opportunity to take the club forward but it simply hasn't happened.

I believe they both had terrible role models at Carlton and their careers have suffered accordingly.

Let's move em on at years end and start with a new group

If we extend your logic to all players on the list, then the list can only go backwards. Simply because the likelihood a replacement will be a Kane Lucas type is far greater than the likelihood a replacement will be an equivalent of the better players.

I made the Cripps / Weitering argument to expose this flaw in the logic, yet the flawed logic persists!

In reality Gibbs, Murphy and Kreuzer are above average draft picks, they have the runs on the board and in that respect are even more valuable than Cripps or Weitering because despite injuries they are proven to have sufficient longevity and durability to reach significant milestones at the AFL level. Cripps and Weitering are yet to do that!

To have a 50/50 or better chance of finding equivalent replacements for Cripps, Weitering, Gibbs, Murphy or Kreuzer you will need at least 3 picks below 10 in the draft for each player of that type you trade away. The players age is irrelevant, because it takes years to get that many 1st round picks. The AFL knows this, which is why they give GWS so many picks, you cannot avoid the math!

The logic of your argument is being applied at Hawthorn, a club that players want to move to, yet they will most likely fail! One media scribe described the Dawks strategy as "Doing their very best to beat the system!" The warning for other clubs is this, despite the Dawks being seen as a more favourable destination by players which is a purely human influence, the Dawks are unlikely to succeed! You cannot beat the math, your opinion, human opinions makes no difference! The Dawks are going down the same flawed path as a gambler playing the lottery, roulette or a poker machine! The Gambler's Fallacy!

If a club tries to shortcut the process they must eventually be overtaken by the clubs with the most low draft picks, because the club trying the shortcut runs out of players to trade for low draft picks, which is the only way to get low draft picks if you don't finish on the bottom!

In fact the Dawks best chance of success are to stay down were they are now and get the low draft picks with Norp and Freo! Which by the way would reduce our chances of success in the long term!