Analysis Danger on Tim Kelly + his 2020 contract

[catempire]

I think that's true of an unrestricted FA, but for a restricted FA? I agree that it does promote increased movement of players. But there is quite a bit of difference between RFA and URFA don't you think? Once the originating club matches the contract doesn't it just come down to a normal trade scenario with due consideration of what the originating club would have received as compo had they not matched?

Yes, RFA and UFA quite different. The Dangerfield example which TC raised is obviously RFA.

I think RFA and a "normal trade scenario" would tend to play out differently in terms of the value of the trade and the likelihood of a trade occurring for a few reasons:

1. Once a player wants to leave his "original" club is reasonably inclined to let him go. I.e. you don't want a player around who doesn't want to be there. There's also been a long period of service and a sense of "he has paid his dues".

2. Generally, the original club accepts compensation which either exceeds or roughly approximates the value of a player (with some exceptions - e.g. Buddy). So this narrows the circumstances in which an RFA trade will be needed.

3. But most importantly, when a club is minded to want to trade in an RFA situation they must be confident they will do better from the trade than the compo. The surest way of this occurring is to pre-arrange the trade with the counterparty to the trade. This seems to be what happened in the Dangerfield situation such that he the clubs were in negotiations for weeks before the trade period opened and on the first day of the trade period the deal was lodged. There was no need for the RFA bid to take place. Adelaide agreed to a first round pick, a second round pick and Dean Gore with pick 50 going back to Geelong. I think everyone knew at the time that Geelong was not paying full value there. Why did Geelong not have to pay full value? Because Geelong was willing to come to the table and trade rather than force the RFA path (which carried risk and uncertainty for Adelaide) and Adelaide was happy to get more than the AFL's compensation pick and was able to say so to its fans. Had Adelaide insisted on, say two first round picks (which was speculated in the media at the time), Geelong could have resisted and pursued the RFA path which could have seen Adelaide get less or even nothing in the worst case scenario.

TL;DR - RFA causes clubs to come together and negotiate and reach agreement because there are outside options, albeit riskier ones that it's best to avoid.

 

[dazbroncos]

I think the expression of just 2 Rd1 picks needs to be clarified.

R1 picks can conceivably be 17 and 18 - that with bids get pushed down into the 20's.

I know getting 20 and 22 for example after getting 15 and 18 for TK would be robbery - and not in our favour.

Those RD1's need to be high.

GO Catters

 

[Kwality]

We moved here 20 years ago and were fortunate to settle quickly into a great neighbourhood and meet great people.
We're still here and consider both Perth and Melbourne to be home.
We would not be here if my wife and kids didn't enjoy it so much so I totally understand your post.
As Cats supporters we can only hope that Caitlin is content and the kids are going well - if it's the opposite no amount of help or family visits will fill the void.

& I live in Melbourne with my wife & my kids re here too, here by choice.
It wasnt a money decision, more ego on my behalf, but did go back to Perth for 3 years at my wifes insistence. Having lived in all the mainland cities, kids born in Adelaide & Brisbane, I reckon what your wife thinks is important, & the support around her when you have a time consuming job with overnight travel, is a big issue.
Interesting that Wooshas wife & kids went back to Perth, Johns still here.
Sometimes it not who you barrack for ...

 

[Kwality]

So have I. 4 times in fact. Now we're back again.

And yes, I am married.

There's not a hope in hell Kelly knocks back and extra $400,000 to go back to Perth If that were to be the figure.

So why didnt the Cats up the ante after 10 games, sorry I dont buy the Cats player management is poor, your mob are leaders in player retention along with the Hawks.

See the young kids who clubs seek to re sign early, Jordan Clark did last month:
Clark put pen to paper on a two year deal earlier this month and Geelong’s General Manager of Football Simon Lloyd sang his praises.
https://thewest.com.au/sport/geelon...ong-defender-in-just-12-months-ng-b881175568z

So Cocka I guess we just disagree on where money fits in this.

 

[Baudolino]

I think the expression of just 2 Rd1 picks needs to be clarified.

R1 picks can conceivably be 17 and 18 - that with bids get pushed down into the 20's.

I know getting 20 and 22 for example after getting 15 and 18 for TK would be robbery - and not in our favour.

Those RD1's need to be high.

GO Catters

That rules West Coast out of the equation then. Freo is the only one of the two who will have high first rounders.

I suspect we will just have to live with two picks in the high teens.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

So why didnt the Cats up the ante after 10 games, sorry I dont buy the Cats player management is poor, your mob are leaders in player retention along with the Hawks.

See the young kids who clubs seek to re sign early, Jordan Clark did last month:
Clark put pen to paper on a two year deal earlier this month and Geelong’s General Manager of Football Simon Lloyd sang his praises.
https://thewest.com.au/sport/geelon...ong-defender-in-just-12-months-ng-b881175568z

So Cocka I guess we just disagree on where money fits in this.

You've gone off on a tangent. I was using hypothetical figures.

 

[Turbocat]

I think the expression of just 2 Rd1 picks needs to be clarified.

R1 picks can conceivably be 17 and 18 - that with bids get pushed down into the 20's.

I know getting 20 and 22 for example after getting 15 and 18 for TK would be robbery - and not in our favour.

Those RD1's need to be high.

GO Catters

It the loose media that creates this language... and most of them are so loose with accuracy..

Id say right now... I would take one single R1 for him... if it was P1 or P2... but we all know it will not be the case.

I have posted several recent deals .. Beams , Treloar , Sheil , Gibbs ..on and on and they are all slightly different ..but not one deal is "2 R1's" ...without a massage of the deal.. with something happening on the end of it..which really means its not 2R1's . The Beams deal .. is exactly as you have mentioned.. Collingwoods R1 last year and this year.. could be P18 and P18. and still had some picks swapping in the background.

One would hope one of the picks is under 10.. thats about as early as you could hope for. Very few clubs trade picks that early ..so to ask a WA side to go and find them is a bit unrealistic. Our best hope is that both WA sides have a mid table year.. and it wouldn't hurt if a player or two of theirs wanted to move to a Vic club. Brayshaw to be with his brother at Melb etc. would work well if Melb stays where they are..

 

[year of the cat]

Yes, RFA and UFA quite different. The Dangerfield example which TC raised is obviously RFA.

I think RFA and a "normal trade scenario" would tend to play out differently in terms of the value of the trade and the likelihood of a trade occurring for a few reasons:

1. Once a player wants to leave his "original" club is reasonably inclined to let him go. I.e. you don't want a player around who doesn't want to be there. There's also been a long period of service and a sense of "he has paid his dues".

2. Generally, the original club accepts compensation which either exceeds or roughly approximates the value of a player (with some exceptions - e.g. Buddy). So this narrows the circumstances in which an RFA trade will be needed.

3. But most importantly, when a club is minded to want to trade in an RFA situation they must be confident they will do better from the trade than the compo. The surest way of this occurring is to pre-arrange the trade with the counterparty to the trade. This seems to be what happened in the Dangerfield situation such that he the clubs were in negotiations for weeks before the trade period opened and on the first day of the trade period the deal was lodged. There was no need for the RFA bid to take place. Adelaide agreed to a first round pick, a second round pick and Dean Gore with pick 50 going back to Geelong. I think everyone knew at the time that Geelong was not paying full value there. Why did Geelong not have to pay full value? Because Geelong was willing to come to the table and trade rather than force the RFA path (which carried risk and uncertainty for Adelaide) and Adelaide was happy to get more than the AFL's compensation pick and was able to say so to its fans. Had Adelaide insisted on, say two first round picks (which was speculated in the media at the time), Geelong could have resisted and pursued the RFA path which could have seen Adelaide get less or even nothing in the worst case scenario.

TL;DR - RFA causes clubs to come together and negotiate and reach agreement because there are outside options, albeit riskier ones that it's best to avoid.

Might take me a while to consume all of this! Get back to you.

 

[Kwality]

You've gone off on a tangent. I was using hypothetical figures.

I havent challenged the dollars, I dont believe it comes down to money.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

I havent challenged the dollars, I dont believe it comes down to money.

You said money has zip to do on his decision. I put forward a scenario that could suggest otherwise. I don't believe WC can compete with the monetary terms we are supposedly offering at the moment and if we increase that offer again - let's say to $1m per season) there's not a hope in hell he rejects that if WC can only afford $600,000. I'm not sure you really have much more than that to spend, although I could be wrong.

Money will play a huge part in his decision, and if you know women as well as I do, you'll understand this.

The other monetary example I used was a hypothetical.

 

[Turbocat]

Yes, RFA and UFA quite different. The Dangerfield example which TC raised is obviously RFA.

I think RFA and a "normal trade scenario" would tend to play out differently in terms of the value of the trade and the likelihood of a trade occurring for a few reasons:

1. Once a player wants to leave his "original" club is reasonably inclined to let him go. I.e. you don't want a player around who doesn't want to be there. There's also been a long period of service and a sense of "he has paid his dues".

2. Generally, the original club accepts compensation which either exceeds or roughly approximates the value of a player (with some exceptions - e.g. Buddy). So this narrows the circumstances in which an RFA trade will be needed.

3. But most importantly, when a club is minded to want to trade in an RFA situation they must be confident they will do better from the trade than the compo. The surest way of this occurring is to pre-arrange the trade with the counterparty to the trade. This seems to be what happened in the Dangerfield situation such that he the clubs were in negotiations for weeks before the trade period opened and on the first day of the trade period the deal was lodged. There was no need for the RFA bid to take place. Adelaide agreed to a first round pick, a second round pick and Dean Gore with pick 50 going back to Geelong. I think everyone knew at the time that Geelong was not paying full value there. Why did Geelong not have to pay full value? Because Geelong was willing to come to the table and trade rather than force the RFA path (which carried risk and uncertainty for Adelaide) and Adelaide was happy to get more than the AFL's compensation pick and was able to say so to its fans. Had Adelaide insisted on, say two first round picks (which was speculated in the media at the time), Geelong could have resisted and pursued the RFA path which could have seen Adelaide get less or even nothing in the worst case scenario.

TL;DR - RFA causes clubs to come together and negotiate and reach agreement because there are outside options, albeit riskier ones that it's best to avoid.

An exceedingly good post... but I hold a slightly differnt pov that the circumstances are RFA related only. Leaving aside value for the moment our orignial discussion was simply about ..the better the player , the harder the trade is to be completed.

I agree that FA hanging over a players head sharpens the incentive for action ..but id say its fairly similar to a OOC situation. Geelong knows that if they don't get TK to sign by June or July ... then they probably need to swing into a trade minset. I recently heard Cook already saying something similar to that. Once they know a contract will not be signed... there may even be even more incentive to arrange a trade value asap than in a FA. There is no backstop. If a trade fell over (danger for ex) Geelong and Crows held fast.. Geelong would have paid zero and Crows still would have gotten a R1... as this was all done before an official match.Yes less than we traded them.. but compare it to our kelly situation .. we either keep him , trade him or if he goes we lose him for zero . There is no R1 backstop. So there will be pressure to get a deal agreed on... and depending on what our trade period philosophy is .. if we want to replace kelly we will want that trade done asap so we can move on.

Id say in a RFA situation that we don't have enough data yet to say how often a club accepts the comp.. Id say it looks like the lower a club is on the ladder the more likely they are to accept the comp. As I said earlier in another post I'd trade Kelly for a P1 before 2 P18's and comp of P18 for a Franklin is unlikly to sway resistance. Haw simply could not match the swans deal or refused to. So FA wanting to leave clubs in the top 2 or 4 will test the assumption. Perhaps we will see it with Patton and Cameron?

So while - RFA causes clubs to come together and negotiate , Id say a OOC situation does also.. and the club with the player is even more highly motivated as if it all goes pear shaped.. he leaves and you lose a player for zero.

 

[catempire]

An exceedingly good post... but I hold a slightly differnt pov that the circumstances are RFA related only. Leaving aside value for the moment our orignial discussion was simply about ..the better the player , the harder the trade is to be completed.

I agree that FA hanging over a players head sharpens the incentive for action ..but id say its fairly similar to a OOC situation. Geelong knows that if they don't get TK to sign by June or July ... then they probably need to swing into a trade minset. I recently heard Cook already saying something similar to that. Once they know a contract will not be signed... there may even be even more incentive to arrange a trade value asap than in a FA. There is no backstop. If a trade fell over (danger for ex) Geelong and Crows held fast.. Geelong would have paid zero and Crows still would have gotten a R1... as this was all done before an official match.Yes less than we traded them.. but compare it to our kelly situation .. we either keep him , trade him or if he goes we lose him for zero . There is no R1 backstop. So there will be pressure to get a deal agreed on... and depending on what our trade period philosophy is .. if we want to replace kelly we will want that trade done asap so we can move on.

Id say in a RFA situation that we don't have enough data yet to say how often a club accepts the comp.. Id say it looks like the lower a club is on the ladder the more likely they are to accept the comp. As I said earlier in another post I'd trade Kelly for a P1 before 2 P18's and comp of P18 for a Franklin is unlikly to sway resistance. Haw simply could not match the swans deal or refused to. So FA wanting to leave clubs in the top 2 or 4 will test the assumption. Perhaps we will see it with Patton and Cameron?

So while - RFA causes clubs to come together and negotiate , Id say a OOC situation does also.. and the club with the player is even more highly motivated as if it all goes pear shaped.. he leaves and you lose a player for zero.

I don’t disagree that OOC also sharpens the mind to trade. These are matters of degree. But RFA is an added layer on top of OOC. To put it another way: all RFAs are OOC but not all OOCs are RFA. At the end of the day if RFA means anything it is an additional pathway to player movement and that removal of friction is what I say makes trading easier.

Again, we are getting away a bit from where this started. My premise is simple at its core: the better the player the higher their value and the harder it is to do a trade. Yes, other factors (OOC, RFA, TPP, etc.) are relevant but I haven’t read anything to undermine it as a general proposition so far.

 

[year of the cat]

I don’t disagree that OOC also sharpens the mind to trade. These are matters of degree. But RFA is an added layer on top of OOC. To put it another way: all RFAs are OOC but not all OOCs are RFA. At the end of the day if RFA means anything it is an additional pathway to player movement and that removal of friction is what I say makes trading easier.

Again, we are getting away a bit from where this started. My premise is simple at its core: the better the player the higher their value and the harder it is to do a trade. Yes, other factors (OOC, RFA, TPP, etc.) are relevant but I haven’t read anything to undermine it as a general proposition so far.

I think that sentence is the crux of what you are trying to purvey. And I'm slowly coming round to your point of view (though may need a little more convincing!). I think every situation is actually quite different. As TC has eluded to, there are many variables that determine how a trade will flow. It really depends on the quality of the player involved, the respective ladder positions of the two trading partners and what additional, if any, compensation is available to the team that loses its player. I'm not sure therefore that we can use precedence as an indicator very accurately when predicting what may or may not happen at the end of the year with Tim.

 

[catempire]

I think that sentence is the crux of what you are trying to purvey. And I'm slowly coming round to your point of view (though may need a little more convincing!). I think every situation is actually quite different. As TC has eluded to, there are many variables that determine how a trade will flow. It really depends on the quality of the player involved, the respective ladder positions of the two trading partners and what additional, if any, compensation is available to the team that loses its player. I'm not sure therefore that we can use precedence as an indicator very accurately when predicting what may or may not happen at the end of the year with Tim.

Agree with that. The variables are certainly many and that makes it very hard. What can we say?

Out of contract = won’t get full value
Form brilliant and trending upward = high demand and rising price ($ and trade)
WA teams not down the bottom of the ladder = draft threat minimal so trade value tends higher
Two WA clubs bidding (?) = higher price
Salary cap situation of WC = maybe only Freo bidding
Personal/family situation = ???

Etc!

 

[Ricketz]

Not married mate?
Ever lived interstate with your family & the wife wants to go home?
I have.

400k extra makes a lot of wives happy.

 

[Turbocat]

I don’t disagree that OOC also sharpens the mind to trade. These are matters of degree. But RFA is an added layer on top of OOC. To put it another way: all RFAs are OOC but not all OOCs are RFA. At the end of the day if RFA means anything it is an additional pathway to player movement and that removal of friction is what I say makes trading easier.

Again, we are getting away a bit from where this started. My premise is simple at its core: the better the player the higher their value and the harder it is to do a trade. Yes, other factors (OOC, RFA, TPP, etc.) are relevant but I haven’t read anything to undermine it as a general proposition so far.

.. and I guess this where my thoughts are slightly divergent to yours .. the incentive to get a deal done when the player is of such high value means that its quite possible to get premium trade done quickly.

Let me concede this. A trade at the other end of the spectrum. A Thurlow or what ever. Going back a Chapman or a SJ. A lot of the time there is such a low value on it that the trade in theory has quickly been agreed to ..if not completed. So in comparison trying to trade a TK compared to a Thurlow will take a lot more talk and thought and debate. I suspect most of it will happen pre trade period.. so that if the clubs are somewhere near a do-able agreement then it will be pre-agreed on and done quickly.

Where it gets difficult in neg. if the current club like Geelong wants what the destination club does not have and believe the destination club could and should go an get it. Geelong is no "Head in the Clouds" club but if it was .. and it was to say we want P1 and we are not moving till we get it .. cause he is worth it... and then there follows the 4 horseman. So I see there is incentive for the current club to have a realistic price that is achievable and that the destination club can supply.

What happens if the destination club is so ardent in its tight fistidness.. Geelong you can have our R1 or suck eggs he will go to draft etc. Sure this is another way your difficult trade arrives. .. but i suspect the community mindset that clubs generally have to abide by know that there is a MAD at the back of it. The clubs generally know that there will be other deals , and other players ..and if you drop a anvil today , what will they do to us tomorrow.. drop a baby grand piano on us..? Best to all get it done and walk away letting everyone save a bit of face if possible.

The afl also know the whole trade system is like one of those trucks in "True Lies".. it only needs a seagull to land the wrong way ..and we are in a world of hurt. Imagine how different the afl would be if every OOC player was a FA.. no comp for the club. Players just going to where they want. I dont think any club wants to think about that. The afl will be encouraging a reasonable deal.

So generally. The clubs play the game . It will be a biased deal in favour the destination club ..but they will pay more than they want to ..and we will not get what we feel is fair.. but it will get done ..and we all move on... and the AFL will go to bed knowing the seagull didn't land on their truck ... this time.

 

[year of the cat]

Agree with that. The variables are certainly many and that makes it very hard. What can we say?

Out of contract = won’t get full value
Form brilliant and trending upward = high demand and rising price ($ and trade)
WA teams not down the bottom of the ladder = draft threat minimal so trade value tends higher
Two WA clubs bidding (?) = higher price
Salary cap situation of WC = maybe only Freo bidding
Personal/family situation = ???

Etc!

I'd also add to the the relative goodwill that may exist between two clubs - does WC/Freo screw us over with the knowledge that it may come back with interest next time round?

I don't think the examples of Treloar, Shiel or Dangerfield have any relevance at all as a guide to what we may be able to get for Kelly.

I'm actually starting to think that he may well re-sign with us. We probably are in the best position to offer him the largest contract compared to the two WA clubs. Certainly larger than WC anyway. If Kelly is adamant on leaving then I think best case scenario is probably Freo's 2019 first plus either their 2020 first (unlikely) OR a player such as Langdon or Cerra or Brayshaw. I don't want to even think about a trade with WC as it won't come even close to being satisfactory.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Anyone think he may just sign for an extra year if this all gets too hard? Has shown that it won’t affect his football, placates the missus and he gets to stay at a club he enjoys in a premiership window.

Too risky if he gets injured net year. Needs to bank the $ while performing.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The point you raise is ..the one the Geelong has used when keeping him. He is here in our side , he has established his role ..and , inspite of many media types , our short term future is again looking good ..our kids are promising , our olds are still performing ..and a lot of this sits in his lap as well. He stays , we continue to look good , he goes and what he goes to is questionable and our future is questionable. Its a compelling case for geelong to go full tilt to offer a huge reward for his form , and to encourage him to stay imo

Im pretty sure he wants to stay. Its whether the mrs will agree or not.

 

[you pick one]

Tim has spoiled her with the laser hair remover,so he's buttering her up for the 4 year extension at Cat land.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

In terms of value.. two first rounders will certainly but it also depends on what WC or Freo have.

- if Kelly demands WC only, and they finish top 6, their first pick will be about pick 15. Geelong would not throw anything back for 15 and their 2020 R1.

- if Kelly doesn't mind Freo/WC and Freo offer pick 8 (or WC finish out of the eight and have a top 10 pick) + their 2020 R1, I could see us throwing back a future third round pick or something.

Either way, 2 first rounders are the basis for a trade.

Brander looks like a bust and WC have no other players I'd deem that worthy that they'd break contract for.

Freo have Brayshaw & Cerra but there's a bit of meh about them and I don't think Freo would give them up anyway (unless they wanted to come home).

Best scenarios for us are:

1. WC give Brander & R1 to GWS, Geelong give TK to WC and a future second to GWS, GWS give J Cameron to Geelong

2. Freo give their R1 this year (#7 - #12) + R1 next year for Kelly (we give a late pick back if their R1 this year is below pick 10).

I just dont know if GWS will agree to weaken themselves that much for 2020 they will want players.

Freo still have Langdon and Tucker unsigned and some key forwards as possibilities so there are options.

 

[you pick one]

I just dont know if GWS will agree to weaken themselves that much for 2020 they will want players.

Freo still have Langdon and Tucker unsigned and some key forwards as possibilities so there are options.

I bet Freo would be happy to give us Kersen back.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

.. and I guess this where my thoughts are slightly divergent to yours .. the incentive to get a deal done when the player is of such high value means that its quite possible to get premium trade done quickly.

Let me concede this. A trade at the other end of the spectrum. A Thurlow or what ever. Going back a Chapman or a SJ. A lot of the time there is such a low value on it that the trade in theory has quickly been agreed to ..if not completed. So in comparison trying to trade a TK compared to a Thurlow will take a lot more talk and thought and debate. I suspect most of it will happen pre trade period.. so that if the clubs are somewhere near a do-able agreement then it will be pre-agreed on and done quickly.

Where it gets difficult in neg. if the current club like Geelong wants what the destination club does not have and believe the destination club could and should go an get it. Geelong is no "Head in the Clouds" club but if it was .. and it was to say we want P1 and we are not moving till we get it .. cause he is worth it... and then there follows the 4 horseman. So I see there is incentive for the current club to have a realistic price that is achievable and that the destination club can supply.

What happens if the destination club is so ardent in its tight fistidness.. Geelong you can have our R1 or suck eggs he will go to draft etc. Sure this is another way your difficult trade arrives. .. but i suspect the community mindset that clubs generally have to abide by know that there is a MAD at the back of it. The clubs generally know that there will be other deals , and other players ..and if you drop a anvil today , what will they do to us tomorrow.. drop a baby grand piano on us..? Best to all get it done and walk away letting everyone save a bit of face if possible.

The afl also know the whole trade system is like one of those trucks in "True Lies".. it only needs a seagull to land the wrong way ..and we are in a world of hurt. Imagine how different the afl would be if every OOC player was a FA.. no comp for the club. Players just going to where they want. I dont think any club wants to think about that. The afl will be encouraging a reasonable deal.

So generally. The clubs play the game . It will be a biased deal in favour the destination club ..but they will pay more than they want to ..and we will not get what we feel is fair.. but it will get done ..and we all move on... and the AFL will go to bed knowing the seagull didn't land on their truck ... this time.

It all really depends on whether we think hes prepared to walk into the draft risk going anywhere and leave us with nothing. If we do we will take the best offer that we can get that he accepts if we think he will choose Freo or Geelong over the draft and WCE lowball us we will either cut them out and tell Tim we are dealing with Freo or refuse to trade him at all. In that case hes probably not getting traded unless we get 90 % of what we want (the losing club always takes some haircut). This is really what it hinges on if we can't convince him to stay.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I bet Freo would be happy to give us Kersen back.

No deal.

 

[Ricketz]

It all really depends on whether we think hes prepared to walk into the draft risk going anywhere and leave us with nothing. If we do we will take the best offer that we can get that he accepts if we think he will choose Freo or Geelong over the draft and WCE lowball us we will either cut them out and tell Tim we are dealing with Freo or refuse to trade him at all. In that case hes probably not getting traded unless we get 90 % of what we want (the losing club always takes some haircut). This is really what it hinges on if we can't convince him to stay.

He clearly likes his footy at Geelong. We have cap space to match other suitors unless it is Dusty dollars. He won't go to the draft - it will be WA or stay with us, fair bet I reckon.