Analysis Danger on Tim Kelly + his 2020 contract

[Pure_Ownage]

If Freo make it clear they are capable of drafting him and intend to draft him if a deal falls thru ..I can only hope they make that clear while a deal is still able to be done. If so Freo do us huge favour.

But would they really beat WC to Kelly. Going by the same table based on last years position.. Freo has 5 , 23 and 77 ... so one would have to say IF they have cap space that they have kept clear specifically ie at least 1/2 a M of room compared to draft a fresh kid.. I guess they would be happy to use P23 on him. , but would WC use 18 ? on him . If we are requiring that we want their R1 pick ... how is using their R1 pick in draft any different than them trading their R1 pick. I can not see Freo using their R1 pick (p5)on Kelly. I cant see a non WA club picking him.

Would WC really care if Freo beat them to the punch. It would be hardly be surprising if they do treat Kelly in such a way...again.

As I said I believe it will not come to that.. and a deal will most likely get done ...but it will be less than some feel it will be ... (early R1picks etc). Maybe we get WC R1 and we trade a pick back to them? Maybe WC trade their P30 and P36 and we get two R2 picks which while not ideal ..SW would probably get a couple of handy kids from. Maybe its a player WC are happy to move with Kelly coming in.
Im not sure what it would be... its too early..and if WC fall in a hole this year the numbers are obviously different (pick numbers etc)

Theres a bit to be played out with draft order etc but remember Kellys managerr was selling how close he was with then Freo director Bell so Freo would have known Kelly wasnt keen yet they still offered big $ and a R1 plus in a trade. Why would they not take him now at a potential free cost (PSD) or less picks cost than last year (ND). Logic says they will.

The advent of live trading changes things but unless WCE think they can trade into earlier picks than Freo they wont get him on the draft imo.

In reality i think its irrelevant if the WCE deal looks like stalling a player who has been passed offer as many times as Kelly wont risk the draft he will go back to his partner and say 'wce deal falling over both geelong and freo have offered 5 years which one do you want me to sign' and i think youll find her opposition to freo will lessen and theyll be traded there. Its still the most likely outcome IMO.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If Freo make it clear they are capable of drafting him and intend to draft him if a deal falls thru ..I can only hope they make that clear while a deal is still able to be done. If so Freo do us huge favour.

But would they really beat WC to Kelly. Going by the same table based on last years position.. Freo has 5 , 23 and 77 ... so one would have to say IF they have cap space that they have kept clear specifically ie at least 1/2 a M of room compared to draft a fresh kid.. I guess they would be happy to use P23 on him. , but would WC use 18 ? on him . If we are requiring that we want their R1 pick ... how is using their R1 pick in draft any different than them trading their R1 pick. I can not see Freo using their R1 pick (p5)on Kelly. I cant see a non WA club picking him.

Would WC really care if Freo beat them to the punch. It would be hardly be surprising if they do treat Kelly in such a way...again.

As I said I believe it will not come to that.. and a deal will most likely get done ...but it will be less than some feel it will be ... (early R1picks etc). Maybe we get WC R1 and we trade a pick back to them? Maybe WC trade their P30 and P36 and we get two R2 picks which while not ideal ..SW would probably get a couple of handy kids from. Maybe its a player WC are happy to move with Kelly coming in.
Im not sure what it would be... its too early..and if WC fall in a hole this year the numbers are obviously different (pick numbers etc)

Freo has the option of putting their first down for other things back which they wouldn't have if they drafted him so trading gives flexibility that trying push him to the draft doesn't. Ditto WCE.

I wouldn't be basing our midfield around Kelly. He'll probably leave and the structure will become redundant and set us back a season. Build the midfield around Selwood/Danger/Duncan with Kelly/Menegola as supports. I'll be annoyed if I see Kelly playing Danger/Selwood/Duncans role and they're pushed out the middle.

I don't really rate him, he's elite but crashes packs and creates too many stoppages and causes the ball to spill out to anyone too often. Would rather a player have control of the ball and clear it to the forward line securely. If he's going to be one of our main ball users and going to crash into a a contest that's already occurring he needs to make sure he wins the ball, and ideally clear the ball safely after.

Too often he just flies in like lightning when Selwood or Danger are already on the the man. He just rambos in and creates a ball up or spills it out and leaves it to chance.

Kelly i think was never here to be the Patrick Dangerfield replacement. He's here to be the link between our current midfield and the future one. Tom Stewart was a link (among others) that held the backline together between a Boris/Mackie/Domsy led backline and the backline we have today. Kelly i think was the 4-5 year link between Paddy/Sels/Duncan/Ablett and the Constable/Parfitt/maybe Fogarty/maybe draftee led midfield. Losing Kelly I think is a big strategic setback that won't be bridged by draft picks unless that draft pick is immediately good to go.

 

[foxdog50]

My biggest problem is that a player after 1 or 2 years playing AFL shouldn't be able to pick and choose if you want to play at another club... A player should at least give a minimum of 4 years to any club then they can ask for a trade but only if the club gets what they want for the player...
Yes a player can get given the boot after 2 years but if they are good enough they will get picked up from another team..

 

[CatToTheFuture]

My biggest problem is that a player after 1 or 2 years playing AFL shouldn't be able to pick and choose if you want to play at another club... A player should at least give a minimum of 4 years to any club then they can ask for a trade but only if the club gets what they want for the player...
Yes a player can get given the boot after 2 years but if they are good enough they will get picked up from another team..

It's a starting point for discussion i think but 4 years is probably too long too. I think you can incentivise mutually beneficial trading at any stage if you make a single change. The change would be:

Where a player asks for a trade then elects to leave the club they cannot nominate for the draft again for 12 months from the end of their contract date.

For instance, let's hypothesize that maybe Ben King has indicated he wants a trade and he nominates the saints. Suns want more than saints are offering. Ben can go out and tell clubs anything he wants. All parties know that the only way a trade happens is if everyone is satisfied.

If Ben truly needs to go home he can still get to the draft but has an incentive to see out his contract and ensure that any trade he asks for has a reasonable chance of a positive resolution for all parties. If he asks for a trade to a club that will not likely have the trade capital after the first year he could be facing two years out of footy but then gets to his club. If he sees out his contract it's one. Obviously free agency rules apply once eligible.

 

[Turbocat]

My biggest problem is that a player after 1 or 2 years playing AFL shouldn't be able to pick and choose if you want to play at another club... A player should at least give a minimum of 4 years to any club then they can ask for a trade but only if the club gets what they want for the player...
Yes a player can get given the boot after 2 years but if they are good enough they will get picked up from another team..

A contracted player is restricted .. a non contracted player is less restricted... but having already gone thru the process of being drafted to a club they did not have any choice about I can see the fairness in a player wanting that choice. Like it or not players have far more control now over where they play. There would be very few clubs that would be willing to agree to 4 year contracts for drafted players.. look at the players geelong have drafted recently ..a lot of them a long shots. Should we give Buzza 4 year after his drafting or Simpson or whoever?

If a player is happy , they generally stay. Should we force unhappy players to stay where they are not happy? Id say if a club can not convince a player to stay after 2 years they probably have to trade and let him go.

 

[Ray Donovan]

This was WCE's top 2 from last year:
west coast eagles (john worsfold medal)
1 – Elliot Yeo (197 votes)
2 – Jeremy McGovern (191)

Think it's safe to suggest they'd be wanting a heap for McGovern, who was set to be a sought after free agent at the end of last season until he signed a 5-year deal. No doubt had he remained a FA WCE would have matched any offer & then forced a trade, and I'd bet they'd want more for him than we paid for Danger

All Australian best centre half back in the league.... well best intercept player anyway.

Would be more expensive than danger but danger is a freak scenario. That really never happens that a top 3 player in the league will take under a million in salary and won't entertain other offers. He literally would have got at least 1.6-1.8 million if he wanted just money.

If I was to speculate what it would cost for McGovern

( 2 x First Round ) 2020, 2021
Perhaps a swap of 2nds or 3rds depending.

J.Henry, J.Clark ( one of those two) would be my guess and they could even want more.

The one thing with the Tim Kelly trade is of west coast really wanted him a deal with geelong was on the table. They rejected it I think it says a fair bit about how they rate him in the big scheme he looks a nice complimentary peice but he isn't moving the needle or terms of compromising the list and salary cap.

 

[Ray Donovan]

It's a starting point for discussion i think but 4 years is probably too long too. I think you can incentivise mutually beneficial trading at any stage if you make a single change. The change would be:

Where a player asks for a trade then elects to leave the club they cannot nominate for the draft again for 12 months from the end of their contract date.

For instance, let's hypothesize that maybe Ben King has indicated he wants a trade and he nominates the saints. Suns want more than saints are offering. Ben can go out and tell clubs anything he wants. All parties know that the only way a trade happens is if everyone is satisfied.

If Ben truly needs to go home he can still get to the draft but has an incentive to see out his contract and ensure that any trade he asks for has a reasonable chance of a positive resolution for all parties. If he asks for a trade to a club that will not likely have the trade capital after the first year he could be facing two years out of footy but then gets to his club. If he sees out his contract it's one. Obviously free agency rules apply once eligible.

I'm not 100% on the way the rookie contracts work outside of the 2 initial years.

My feeling is I would like to see 3 year rookie deals with some tweaks.

First 2 years normal contract
Restricted rookie 3rd year ( team option ) matching ability current club. And if they want out force a trade. Or give the player the ability to sign the same contract with current club as the offer.

In other codes they can offer more money and max extensions others can't.

It would just help clubs with retention issues interstate clubs. And put a more pure value on the kids in terms of market.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Id say if a club can not convince a player to stay after 2 years they probably have to trade and let him go.

If a player wants to leave you show them the door but that doesn't mean letting first year draftees go for nothing. This is just about bargaining position and closing the loop on the Luke Ball scenario. If you block them from the draft for 12 months the player has incentive to ensure that the trade he's asking for is feasible. It doesn't stop anyone asking for any trade, it just transfers some risk away from the club to the one with the power to initiate a trade. Right now players can demand trades but bear little of the risk that a fair trade isn't offered

 

[Landgraft]

All Australian best centre half back in the league.... well best intercept player anyway.

Would be more expensive than danger but danger is a freak scenario. That really never happens that a top 3 player in the league will take under a million in salary and won't entertain other offers. He literally would have got at least 1.6-1.8 million if he wanted just money.

If I was to speculate what it would cost for McGovern

( 2 x First Round ) 2020, 2021
Perhaps a swap of 2nds or 3rds depending.

J.Henry, J.Clark ( one of those two) would be my guess and they could even want more.

The one thing with the Tim Kelly trade is of west coast really wanted him a deal with geelong was on the table. They rejected it I think it says a fair bit about how they rate him in the big scheme he looks a nice complimentary peice but he isn't moving the needle or terms of compromising the list and salary cap.

Good post, agree with it in the main.

One thing though is that (iirc) the West Coast offer to TK was three years at 1.4 - but this year he still has to be on the draftee ~200k, so they were offering him 700k/year over the back end of the contract. Probably just because they had the cap space to fit him in at that level without sacrificing anyone, but they did clearly want to get him in.

 

[you pick one]

Theres a bit to be played out with draft order etc but remember Kellys managerr was selling how close he was with then Freo director Bell so Freo would have known Kelly wasnt keen yet they still offered big $ and a R1 plus in a trade. Why would they not take him now at a potential free cost (PSD) or less picks cost than last year (ND). Logic says they will.

The advent of live trading changes things but unless WCE think they can trade into earlier picks than Freo they wont get him on the draft imo.

In reality i think its irrelevant if the WCE deal looks like stalling a player who has been passed offer as many times as Kelly wont risk the draft he will go back to his partner and say 'wce deal falling over both geelong and freo have offered 5 years which one do you want me to sign' and i think youll find her opposition to freo will lessen and theyll be traded there. Its still the most likely outcome IMO.

My feeling is it's only Geelong and WC in the running,I think back to Tippett and his push to get from the Crows to Swans,he breaches AFL rules and was sent to the draft and every other club backed off him and allowed him to get to the club of his choice anyway.Froe won't waste anymore time on Kelly imo.

 

[bulletproof]

We should have the money to offer him a very large salary, and we should get a big number on the table if his form improves again, at a minimum it will put pressure on Eagles to at least partially match it.

 

[Iago]

I am sure this may have been mentioned before. Even though I am not overly familiar with West Coast's list but I would be pretty confident to say they don't even need him. I also imagine they would have quite a few blokes on decent coin. So not sure he would get a massive pay day there either.

 

[Down at K Park]

I am sure this may have been mentioned before. Even though I am not overly familiar with West Coast's list but I would be pretty confident to say they don't even need him. I also imagine they would have quite a few blokes on decent coin. So not sure he would get a massive pay day there either.

Thats why the didn’t go that hard at him imo. They only want him if they can get him in a cheap trade. They don’t really need him but they would take him if it costs them bugger all.

Tim needs a reality check here. I can see them offering a second round pick for him and nothing more. Especially if tim goes backwards.

 

[Iago]

His manager is really poor, isn't he. I hope he isn't taking too big a cut. He should probably be paying Tim so he can hang around him.

 

[Turbocat]

Theres a bit to be played out with draft order etc but remember Kellys managerr was selling how close he was with then Freo director Bell so Freo would have known Kelly wasnt keen yet they still offered big $ and a R1 plus in a trade. Why would they not take him now at a potential free cost (PSD) or less picks cost than last year (ND). Logic says they will.

The advent of live trading changes things but unless WCE think they can trade into earlier picks than Freo they wont get him on the draft imo.

In reality i think its irrelevant if the WCE deal looks like stalling a player who has been passed offer as many times as Kelly wont risk the draft he will go back to his partner and say 'wce deal falling over both geelong and freo have offered 5 years which one do you want me to sign' and i think youll find her opposition to freo will lessen and theyll be traded there. Its still the most likely outcome IMO.

Could you imagine if players could get traded up to and including the draft. In this situation it could happen as a player has already signalled an intent to move.

Just to be clear ..you think he ends up at Freo? I think he will end up at WC if he is traded ..as I dont think the deal will fall over.

 

[Kwality]

I'm not 100% on the way the rookie contracts work outside of the 2 initial years.

My feeling is I would like to see 3 year rookie deals with some tweaks.

First 2 years normal contract
Restricted rookie 3rd year ( team option ) matching ability current club. And if they want out force a trade. Or give the player the ability to sign the same contract with current club as the offer.

In other codes they can offer more money and max extensions others can't.

It would just help clubs with retention issues interstate clubs. And put a more pure value on the kids in terms of market.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, are mature age players any different, like got a family ... Sam Menegola comes to mind, great pick up by the Cats.
Willie Rioli ? Tell you Eagles fans would be spewing if Willie (or Liam Ryan) went down the same path as Tim Kelly.

 

[Turbocat]

I'm not 100% on the way the rookie contracts work outside of the 2 initial years.

My feeling is I would like to see 3 year rookie deals with some tweaks.

First 2 years normal contract
Restricted rookie 3rd year ( team option ) matching ability current club. And if they want out force a trade. Or give the player the ability to sign the same contract with current club as the offer.

In other codes they can offer more money and max extensions others can't.

It would just help clubs with retention issues interstate clubs. And put a more pure value on the kids in terms of market.

Rookie ? Kelly was not a Rookie .. Personally I think they only Rookies should be ones like Blitz or MOC that are really special cases that did not have to be drafted.

 

[cats_09]

Rookie ? Kelly was not a Rookie .. Personally I think they only Rookies should be ones like Blitz or MOC that are really special cases that did not have to be drafted.

I think he meant rookie more as in newly drafted player on their first contract (rookie player as they are called in a lot of other sports), not necessarily a player drafted/added to the rookie list

 

[Turbocat]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, are mature age players any different, like got a family ... Sam Menegola comes to mind, great pick up by the Cats.
Willie Rioli ? Tell you Eagles fans would be spewing if Willie (or Liam Ryan) went down the same path as Tim Kelly.

Are both of those guys not from WA? I guess WA is a big place maybe not from Perth. Im sure Haw would like their Rioli still there.

Every club sooner or later will have a "go home" situation.. wheher its actually go home or numerous other reasons. Wc have been good at holding players ..I cant remember you losing too many you wanted to keep. Would Gaff have gone if he had not had that issue at the end of last year? Success obviously helps but sometimes even that means little. Cant remember too any Falcons wanting to come back but you only need a Danger type and it will happen.

Generally Geelong has a very strong history with WA players , a very high percentage have enjoyed and stayed... even going back decades Denis Marshall back in the 60's stayed for 4 years before going home at 28.Many come and are happy as we are not Melb. I doubt we will change our methods , we will continue to look at guys who may have been missed or mature late where ever they are playing , but we will probably have a bias towards ones on our VFL list... and occasionally we will just have to accept churn as it doesn't always work out.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Rookie ? Kelly was not a Rookie .. Personally I think they only Rookies should be ones like Blitz or MOC that are really special cases that did not have to be drafted.

Rookie as in american version drafted player

A first year player in the pros

 

[Turbocat]

I think he meant rookie more as in newly drafted player on their first contract (rookie player as they are called in a lot of other sports), not necessarily a player drafted/added to the rookie list

Perhaps but it gets blurred when one list is called Rookie. A Rookie as in just in their first year list Clarke... not Atkins who is a Rookie in his first year and a Rookie listed player

 

[Ray Donovan]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, are mature age players any different, like got a family ... Sam Menegola comes to mind, great pick up by the Cats.
Willie Rioli ? Tell you Eagles fans would be spewing if Willie (or Liam Ryan) went down the same path as Tim Kelly.

Yeah I watch to much american sport rookie is what I call first year players

 

[Kwality]

Are both of those guys not from WA? I guess WA is a big place maybe not from Perth. Im sure Haw would like their Rioli still there.

Every club sooner or later will have a "go home" situation.. wheher its actually go home or numerous other reasons. Wc have been good at holding players ..I cant remember you losing too many you wanted to keep. Would Gaff have gone if he had not had that issue at the end of last year? Success obviously helps but sometimes even that means little. Cant remember too any Falcons wanting to come back but you only need a Danger type and it will happen.

Generally Geelong has a very strong history with WA players , a very high percentage have enjoyed and stayed... even going back decades Denis Marshall back in the 60's stayed for 4 years before going home at 28.Many come and are happy as we are not Melb. I doubt we will change our methods , we will continue to look at guys who may have been missed or mature late where ever they are playing , but we will probably have a bias towards ones on our VFL list... and occasionally we will just have to accept churn as it doesn't always work out.

Only Willie not from WA, Liam Ryan is from Geraldton like Harry Taylor.
Willie is from the Tiwis, boarded in Ballarat, drafted from SA ... chasing his footy dream.

By the bye, Polly lived in the same street as my family before he was enticed to sleepy hollow - yeh, I'm old. saw my first VFL game at Kardinia Park.

 

[Kwality]

Only Willie not from WA, Liam Ryan is from Geraldton like Harry Taylor.
Willie is from the Tiwis, boarded in Ballarat, drafted from SA ... chasing his footy dream.

By the bye, Polly lived in the same street as my family before he was enticed to sleepy hollow - yeh, I'm old. saw my first VFL game at Kardinia Park.

We lost a bloke named Judd going home. No complaints, he 'd served us well. Scotty Lycett has gone home, premiership medal & all.
No complaints though we couldnt get Buddy to come home.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I am sure this may have been mentioned before. Even though I am not overly familiar with West Coast's list but I would be pretty confident to say they don't even need him. I also imagine they would have quite a few blokes on decent coin. So not sure he would get a massive pay day there either.

550 a year I would assume in that ball park closer to 500 is possible.

Geelongs deal would be pretty similar maybe with less years. It's really hard to offer him any more at the moment. Anything above 600 over 4 years is way too much