Keni between them they've scored 26 goals in 60 games (about 30 games each) in two very poor and very uncreative teams. There's a chance that they could score loads more in a better team.....it's just a matter of how much money any team is willing to risk that they're efficacy will rise in line with the improving quality of teammates.
the classic argument that players doing well in poor performing teams and how they will be better off with more quality team mates is something we at liverpool have been stung by far too much.
The bigger question is what is their profile? Then how much are we going to pay.
After the torres debacle, Chelsea seem to adopted the following model with indicative pricing in brackets - and it is arguably working.
Ages 18-21: what is the potential, can they get better (0-10 m) [most of their loanees]
21-24: are they performing at a high-level - are they ready to make the step up to world-class? (10-20m) [salah/schurlle/zouma].
24+: are they world class or thereabouts? (25m+) [costa/faberegas]
Chelsea would not have paid what we paid the prices we paid the likes of: lallana, lovren, lambert, borini, because none of them fall in these categories.
Nothing is full proof though - willian and Cuadrado don't nearly fall into that profile
