Midfield of DeGoey, Crisp, Greenwood

[E]

did you guys notice that the three guys we got out of the Dayne Beams trade all started in the middle together a couple of times!

To get three best 22 players out of one trade is exceptionally cool.

[AN_Inkling]

It is very cool. I like two of them (Crisp, De Goey) better than Beams and would have them in our team ahead of him, though whether they are or will be better players is debatable.

We did surprisingly well out of that deal. I was disappointed at the time that we didn't get Aish as part of it, but Crisp has turned out to be an even better option.

[simon tonna]

Hopefully we can add treloar to the rotations.

[Dave The Man]

Thanks Lions and Beams for those 3.

I still think we ar worst make this Trade a Win-Win

[RudeBoy]

[qldmagpie67]

Everyone knows my love of Beamer but OMG that deal has been a absolute winner for us.
How could Crisp not have been in there best 22 ? They are a team of spuds.
Maybe being around better players, coaches, facilities has rubbed off on him.
DeGoey is a gem I think Bucks has been smart with him. He's played a lot forward and had a couple spells to freshen him up. 2 games in the season to go he thrusts him into the midfield and he stars.
Greenwood was the cherry on the ice cream a older hard body steadying influence to help the kids out with Pendles and Swanny

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

[RudeBoy]

[Dave The Man]

[RudeBoy]

[John Wren]

[Tannin]

The great thing about playing these three in the guts is that we get three extra stars - genuine All-Australian stars - as forwards, relief mids, and half-back runners. That's a massive injection of class which gives us scoring power and incisive delivery coming out of defence.

(Oh, the names of those three great players we get effectively for nothing: Swan, Pendlebury and Sidebottom.)

[Pies4shaw]

Beams is just John Pitura 40 years on, except that the players Collingwood got are, on balance, better than the three Richmond gave up for Pitura.

For those of you too young to understand the reference, Pitura is the cautionary tale that suggests great care be taken before trading-in one "star" for multiple talents.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/former-richmond-figures-reveal-how-obsession-with-john-pitura-in-1970s-sent-tigers-broke/story-fni5f9jb-1226686177052

When Richmond did that deal, they were the best-performed team in the then VFL over the past decade (imagine a time when we worried more about playing them than we presently worry about the match-ups against Hawthorn) and had just come off back-to-back premierships. Instead of improving their team, they actually went into a sharp decline. After they got rid of Pitura, they had the 1980 Dead Cat Bounce but, remarkably, did the same thing again - underpaying their established stars and over-paying their recruits: that second round of idiocy netted them the great Maurice Rioli (one of the most beautiful players to watch that I ever saw play) but cost them their era and the rest, as they say, is history.

Except, of course, that the temptation to make these sorts of idiot deals seems to be too great for some clubs to resist. The Judd and Beams trades spring immediately to mind.

This sort of trading strategy probably works in a game like NFL, where a great quarterback is so central to the game that getting one can take your team from also-rans to instant contenders. It might work in a game like cricket, if trading were even possible at Test level - if you traded in (at their peak) a Lillee or a Warne you might turn an average attack into a world-beating one.

The problem with footy, of course, is that it requires 21 or 22 competent players and the downside to the team of trading in a supposedly better "number 1" in exchange for trading out players around 20 to 22 is given little consideration.

In Beams' case, we seem to have traded out a first 22 Collingwood player for 3 first 22 players (and, maybe, in time, a top 3 player in De Goey), 2 of whom will be hitting their peak as Beams rides off into the distance. Better still, that was achieved without having to give up any of our 3 most important players (however you rank Beams - and even if you think he's better than I ever did, he's not in the same league as any of Pendlebury, Swan or Cloke).

It is almost impossible to avoid chuckling at the thought of this deal. I will remain on the verge of chuckling, even in the unlikely event that Beams wins three Brownlow Medals in a row.

[perthmagpie]

If you looked ahead to 2016 based on 2015 performances and estimated improvement from Crisp (still young), DeGoey (will be only second year) and Greenwood (no broken leg and at new club) and then gave points based on their ranking in best team (e.g. 22 points for Pendlebury as MVP):


Greenwood 12 + Crisp 13 + DeGoey 6 - Beams 19 = 12 points ahead

I've put Greenwood and Crisp just behind Pendlebury, Cloke, Swan, Brown, Sidebottom, Elliott, Adams, Grundy and Varcoe. I've got DeGoey being our 17th best player next year.

So we end up 12 points in front and that is equal to Jack Crisp on these rankings. So yeah you could argue we got Crisp for free!

[roar]

Some of you guys are seriously underselling Beams.

I'm happy with the trade but I reckon the bears are happy with Beams, too. They'd probably want to re-negotiate the terms but he is their best player so really, it's a win-win.