Chelsea are in almost the exact situation they were in one year ago. If only they gave us hope that it will not happen against next January.
The oxy-addled monkeys who write this ridiculous simulation we live in are getting lazy. Chelsea’s move for Gonzalo Higuain has been held up at least until next week, giving the Blues almost a day-by-day repeat of what happened last season.
Last January, Chelsea were unhappy with Alvaro Morata’s performance and sought a proven, physical, target man striker who could step in immediately and punch in goals. Their eyes settled on Olivier Giroud, unused and increasingly out of place at Arsenal. But Arsenal would not sell Giroud until they had a replacement, and they wanted Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang. Borussia Dortmund also did not want to give up a striker without getting one in return, so Chelsea satisfied the Germans by sending them Michy Batshuayi on loan.
Only a few details are different this time around. The Blues are after Higuain, who AC Milan do not particularly want but are not willing to lose until they have a replacement. They want this season’s leading contender for Serie A one-hit-wonder striker, Krzysztof Piatek of Genoa. Genoa, though, want more than just money. They would like midfielder Alen Halilovic from Milan, as well.
So whereas last year was a three-way striker shuffle, January 2019 has Chelsea awaiting a striker pending a striker-for-cash-and-midfielder swap.
In true Chelsea fashion, they are even more helpless now than last January. At least last year they had someone one of the parties wanted, Michy Batshuayi. This year they are fully passive, awaiting a necessary outcome in Italy.
Perhaps the Monday meeting between Milan and Genoa will produce a demand for a player to go from Stamford Bridge to Genoa in order to pry Higuain out of Milan. Hopefully not, though, as Chelsea ended up benefitting the least from last year’s go-’round.
In his 14 games with Borussia Dortmund before suffering an injury, Michy Batshuayi scored nine goals. Olivier Giroud has scored 10 goals in three times as many games. Aubameyang, on the other hand, has played one fewer game than Giroud (41) and has scored 26 goals for the Gunners.
The 2018 three-way is a perfect example of what Travis wrote about earlier in the week: the teams Chelsea deal with usually have a better read of the situation than Chelsea, which almost guarantees Chelsea end up on the losing end of what should be business to mutual advantage. The Blues helped one of their rivals secure their leading goalscorer. In return, they gained a useful stop-gap super sub, but not the goal machine they needed then and not the goal machine they still need now. That should be a sackable offence, but Chelsea have no one to sack for poor transfer business (437 days).
The best thing the Blues could do as a matter of transfer strategy is use their interest as bait to see who they should really be pursuing. If Chelsea put the word out they are looking for a striker, for example, let other teams offer their has-been’s. The Blues should then watch to see who those clubs pursue to replenish their roster, and then swoop in.
In this case, if Milan are going for Krzysztof Piatek to replace Higuain, Chelsea should cut out the middle man and buy Krzysztof Piatek. He is a risk inasmuch as he is 23 years old, has only this one season on anyone’s radar and Serie A has a habit of one-season-wonder strikers. But even if Piatek flopped at Chelsea – which at Chelsea could be defined by 24 goals in 72 appearances – his transfer value would not decrease that much. The Blues could sell him for a minimal loss, if not break even. They will have no such ability to break even financially on Gonzalo Higuain.
The worst case scenario with Piatek or anyone like him is the near-certainty with Gonzalo Higuain. The best case scenario with someone like Piatek is truly impossible with Higuain: Chelsea solve their recurring No. 9 crisis and have a goal-scoring striker for the next 4-6 years.
But there is nothing farcical about that ending, and Chelsea are at the farce stage of repetitive history.