List Mgmt. Tim Kelly - Welcome to West Coast

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shooshka

Team Captain
Oct 7, 2011
510
834
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
We're not doing you any favours, you aren't doing us any favours. Pick 20, 22 and a future first rounder was his trade value at the end of 2018 (my opinion). Geelong were willing to accept that but West Coast weren't willing to part with that. Given his 2019 form and what the subsequent trade become, that initial valuation was unders. I've got no idea why you're bringing up Judd. I, nor does anyone, think he should cost more than Judd. pick 20, pick 22 and a late first isn't anywhere close to pick 3, pick 4 and pick 20.



We're right back on the same page with the bolded. equal responsibility to act in good faith, equal responsibility to get the trade done, but absolutely 0 responsibility to accept less, or pay more, than what you value a player at. Although given you think we acted in bad faith, it's good to know you're on Geelong's side with the Jack Steven trade.
It's also been well established Geelong weren't unwilling to let him go. Extremely hesitant, yes, but unwilling? Both clubs have confirmed that wasn't the case. This "constant shifting the goal posts" narrative has come primarily from the West in an effort to save some embarrassment for not getting the trade done.



I won't be searching for articles. I don't find the public back and fourth to show any more or less empathy from either club. Given both clubs agree, and all the reporters agree there was an offer on the table West Coast could have accepted, I'm happy with that.
Wait a minute. We did not get pick 4 in a trade for Judd, just like we didn't just trade 14, 24, 33 and a 2019 1st round for pick 24 returning.

JK had less value at the time of the trade (obviously hindsight shows that was incorrect, but he certainly wasn't valued at pick 4). TK has much more value than 24 now.

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Tugga27

Club Legend
Jun 19, 2017
1,926
2,725
AFL Club
West Coast
Valid points with it not being our only issue.. but the picks we gave up probably aren’t going to fix the forward pressure and 1v1 defending, at least not within the next 3-5 years. Forward pressure and backline defending won’t be as much of an issue when we’re potentially winning clearances and inside 50s by 10+ per game. We’re backing ourselves in, if we don’t get a flag it’s a fail, if we do it was the right call. I remember what happened last time we backed ourselves in...
You can't really say if we don't win a flag, it's been a bust IMO.
One player won't be the difference.
Just ask Sydney.

A lot has got to go right to win a flag.
Especially for an interstate club.
Finish top 4 and you're a chance.
 

CM9000

BigFooty Optimist
Aug 19, 2016
2,303
4,911
Perth, WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
We're not doing you any favours, you aren't doing us any favours. Pick 20, 22 and a future first rounder was his trade value at the end of 2018 (my opinion). Geelong were willing to accept that but West Coast weren't willing to part with that. Given his 2019 form and what the subsequent trade become, that initial valuation was unders. I've got no idea why you're bringing up Judd. I, nor does anyone, think he should cost more than Judd. pick 20, pick 22 and a late first isn't anywhere close to pick 3, pick 4 and pick 20.



We're right back on the same page with the bolded. equal responsibility to act in good faith, equal responsibility to get the trade done, but absolutely 0 responsibility to accept less, or pay more, than what you value a player at. Although given you think we acted in bad faith, it's good to know you're on Geelong's side with the Jack Steven trade.
It's also been well established Geelong weren't unwilling to let him go. Extremely hesitant, yes, but unwilling? Both clubs have confirmed that wasn't the case. This "constant shifting the goal posts" narrative has come primarily from the West in an effort to save some embarrassment for not getting the trade done.



I won't be searching for articles. I don't find the public back and fourth to show any more or less empathy from either club. Given both clubs agree, and all the reporters agree there was an offer on the table West Coast could have accepted, I'm happy with that.
You're making a connection that isn't really there. There's only equal responsibility in a situation like this when both clubs are acting in good faith, not just because a trade is being done. It's not our fault that you were constantly changing the price and deadset against him leaving. And yes, you didn't want him to leave, just look at my post where I linked 5 articles that illustrated as such - show me where the clubs have said this isn't the case. Geelong said they didn't want to make a contender stronger, and in the end, didn't trade Kelly, which seems to lead credence to the idea you weren't letting him leave to begin with.

And I wouldn't be on Geelong's side in the Jack Steven trade, because it is incredibly hypocritical. You want a gun contracted player for cheap from St Kilda for compassionate reasons, yet you weren't willing to let an uncontracted Kelly go for anything less than massive overs? Come on.

The initial valuation at the time was overs, really, for a first year player. Only with hindsight can you say it was unders. You wanted us to give you our hand in the first round of two drafts, which is quite a lot for any player. Don't act like you were ever willing to accept "unders" ever.

And the initial price didn't stay consistent throughout the trade period, as you seem to be implying. Here's an article from the beginning of the trade period (8th October, 2018):
IF West Coast want to land Tim Kelly in the trade period they are going to have to find a top 10 draft pick to exchange for him.

The Geelong midfielder last week asked to be traded to the reigning premiers after starring in his debut season at the Cats. But with one year remaining on his contract, the Cats are taking a hardline approach to his request.

Speaking on Trade Radio this afternoon, Geelong list manager Stephen Wells said the club wanted a top 10 pick in return for the mature-aged recruit and runner up in their club best and fairest.

“His value has increased enormously and it’s going to have to be an exceptional deal for us to even consider it,” Wells said.

“He’s worth a top 10 pick I would have thought and perhaps more.

“Our intention at the moment is that unless we’re totally satisfied, he’ll be playing with us in 2019.”


The problem with this demand is that no clubs were willing to let top 10 picks go in a strong draft. Than, finally, you set a realistic price at the end of the trade period (17 October, 2018):
Kelly could not be traded in the dying moments of the 2018 trade period, failing to complete his desire to return home to Western Australia.

The Eagles had reportedly offered up pick 20, pick 22 and their 2019 second round pick for Kelly, which the Cats denied.

Geelong’s demand reportedly included West Coast’s future first round pick.

It wasn't simply a case of "paying the price".

You wanted 20, 22 and pick 15-19 in a strong draft (that made them more valuable). That is already quite a hefty price, and (arguably) worth more than a single top 10 pick (multiple hits in a deep draft, not just because of the points equation). The reason you wanted more this year isn't just because Kelly's price rose - the draft in 2019 is considered weaker. Really, we should've gotten him cheaper, given he was OOC.

And the Judd trade was never pick 3, 4 and 20 - that included Josh Kennedy. It didn't look like he was going to be as good as he turned out at the time. It was 3 and 20 with a rookie forward who was a top 4 pick.

You wanted two first round picks plus more this year. That means he might cost 10, 14 and 24, going on your list manager's comments - which is (arguably) more than the Judd trade. Fortunately, instead of that, we just gave the first round of two drafts, more than last year. You didn't say this, but your list manager did.

And tell me how you're club was just "unwilling" to trade Kelly. How do you explain all the comments from your club, and especially your coach?

You're really just making the connection to justify your club's actions. Just because we didn't make the trade, doesn't mean we failed Kelly. We trade multiple times to meet your price, and you wouldn't come to the table. As Coasters7 said, it's a bit like saying if Wells asked for Yeo + Naitanui, and we didn't give them to you for Kelly, then we "treated him like a commodity".

One clubs actions here were morally repulsive, and it was yours. Don't act like the fact we couldn't meet your ridiculous demands excuses what Geelong chose to do.
 
Last edited:

equiv_clearly

Club Legend
Apr 30, 2013
1,779
3,761
Stockholm
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
South Fremantle
Some people are saying with no Danger or Selwood he will get more attention which I do not believe one bit. At WC a team will either put attention to one of Shuey, Yeo or Gaff with the other two having a decent game. With Kelly that makes it even better!
Mmmm in 2019 you'd routinely see opposition teams dedicate 2 or 3 players to limit J Selwood's 15 touches off a wing.

How will Kelly survive in our wasteland of a Midfield? Is it just me or is it no Menegola no Kelly?
 

Coasters7

Premiership Player
Nov 27, 2014
3,867
4,859
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Chelsea
You can't really say if we don't win a flag, it's been a bust IMO.
One player won't be the difference.
Just ask Sydney.

A lot has got to go right to win a flag.
Especially for an interstate club.
Finish top 4 and you're a chance.
Depends how you look at it. We’re in the business of winning flags so technically every year 17 teams fail. With our trade we’ve said we’re going hard for the next 2-3 years before potentially tapering off (how much remains to be seen with Allen and Brander and co).

I’d say even without Kelly, not delivering another flag with this list before our window shuts could be seen as a failure of sorts, the same way as Collingwood or Geelong not delivering before crashing down the ladder would be a failure. The Kelly trade just amplifies it, improves our list dramatically but also potentially bottoms us out properly when the time comes, which in all honesty is the best way to do it. I’d just be disappointed if we didn’t at least make another GF from here. Not that we’re entitled to one, like you say, everything has to go right.. but I’d still be disappointed.
 

Coasters7

Premiership Player
Nov 27, 2014
3,867
4,859
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Chelsea
The next time I see someone use that draft points equation in an argument I'll slap a small child. It's literally a meaningless number unless you're talking about NGA players.
Wait.. you’re telling me we can’t trade picks 40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48 to Gold Coast for pick 1?

59832F78-DFCE-4BD2-9D95-F75F440CBB37.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shooshka

Team Captain
Oct 7, 2011
510
834
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
The next time I see someone use that draft points equation in an argument I'll slap a small child. It's literally a meaningless number unless you're talking about NGA players.
I think it works really well in the middle range (say picks 15-50) but above 15 it is no use unless for points, and junk picks with points attached are pretty much a rort (with thanks to Brisbane while I am on that issue)

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Ricky Vaughn

Premiership Player
Feb 9, 2015
3,402
6,280
AFL Club
Geelong
And I wouldn't be on Geelong's side in the Jack Steven trade, because it is incredibly hypocritical. You want a gun contracted player for cheap from St Kilda for compassionate reasons, yet you weren't willing to let an uncontracted Kelly go for anything less than massive overs? Come on.
I’ll leave the rest, West Coast good, Geelong bad.

I’m really intrigued on the Jack Steven thing though. In the case of Tim Kelly, in your opinion, Geelong refusing to trade contracted player for under his value was acting in bad faith. However, you also think that Geelong refusing to pay over what they value Steven is in bad faith.

Which is it?
What makes you the bad guy?

Refusing to pay overvalue for a contracted player on compassionate grounds, or refusing to release a contacted player for under value on compassionate grounds?

In which case are we in the wrong? Given your previous arguments on hypocrisy, we simply can’t be wrong in both cases.
 

FKASC

Account Deleted
May 28, 2017
11,620
20,670
AFL Club
West Coast
The next time I see someone use that draft points equation in an argument I'll slap a small child. It's literally a meaningless number unless you're talking about NGA players.
Thank you! This over-quantification of footy has pervaded every aspect these days. People get so obsessed over numbers they become an end in itself
 

ghostbat12

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
1,463
1,177
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
The next time I see someone use that draft points equation in an argument I'll slap a small child. It's literally a meaningless number unless you're talking about NGA players.
No it’s not meaningless. The points are based on some facts. They aren’t just made up.

Fans judge them based on some sentiment and feel good factor thinking they will get a superstar. Then they can romantically look at that young player and pray every night, before bed, that he becomes no.1 player in comp and all that.

Reason teams purely don’t trade on points is mainly to do with number of players you can get on your list. Yes you can trade 3x pick 20s for a number one but then you have to provide extra space on list. It’s why then teams pay a premium when trading up.

Plus the picks after 20 don’t drop off on points as fast and you still have all those picks to go through during the draft.

Think points are based on salary (I think).

However it is historical and drafting used to be a bit more all over the place back then. Would be interesting to see if salaries would yield same points if only the last 15-20 years were counted.

It’s a moneyball thing.
 

TY24

Mining Magnate
Mar 21, 2017
2,802
5,094
The absolute middle of nowhere
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal, Scorchers, Glory, Wildcats
No it’s not meaningless. The points are based on some facts. They aren’t just made up.

Fans judge them based on some sentiment and feel good factor thinking they will get a superstar. Then they can romantically look at that young player and pray every night, before bed, that he becomes no.1 player in comp and all that.

Reason teams purely don’t trade on points is mainly to do with number of players you can get on your list. Yes you can trade 3x pick 20s for a number one but then you have to provide extra space on list. It’s why then teams pay a premium when trading up.

Plus the picks after 20 don’t drop off on points as fast and you still have all those picks to go through during the draft.

Think points are based on salary (I think).

However it is historical and drafting used to be a bit more all over the place back then. Would be interesting to see if salaries would yield same points if only the last 15-20 years were counted.

It’s a moneyball thing.
As pointed out earlier, according to the draft index picks 41 through 47 (or whatever it was frankly I can’t be arsed checking) is worth more in points than pick 1 is.

find me a club that will happily hand over pick 1 for a handful of 3rd rounders.


The index system is used to work out what picks clubs need to sacrifice in order to draft someone out of their academy, that’s all it’s for.
 

shooshka

Team Captain
Oct 7, 2011
510
834
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
I’ll leave the rest, West Coast good, Geelong bad.

I’m really intrigued on the Jack Steven thing though. In the case of Tim Kelly, in your opinion, Geelong refusing to trade contracted player for under his value was acting in bad faith. However, you also think that Geelong refusing to pay over what they value Steven is in bad faith.

Which is it?
What makes you the bad guy?

Refusing to pay overvalue for a contracted player on compassionate grounds, or refusing to release a contacted player for under value on compassionate grounds?

In which case are we in the wrong? Given your previous arguments on hypocrisy, we simply can’t be wrong in both cases.
I think you're right that Geelong are probably unfairly maligned on the TK trade.

But on Jack Steven trade Wells really is acting like a flog (when put in light of some of the comments on TK). Steven is worth more than a late 30's pick. To hold out because he has requested only Geelong, in the hope of picking up a bargain (when the guy wants to go to your club due to mental health difficulties) is a crap thing to do.

4 x b&f, 29 (turning 30), kicked 3 and had 20 touches while 10kg overweight in his first game back this year. He's not as good as Ablett or Gibbs, but have a look at the value they still held at a similar age or older, 37 is genuinely a bargain (and when you have 4 picks prior also the case is only stronger)

Say what you will about wc/geel/TK but the asking price was offered at least twice (once in 2018 when it was changed, and in 2019 obviously), whereas Wells seems intent on publicly devaluing (in trade terms) a player with off-field struggles.

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Ricky Vaughn

Premiership Player
Feb 9, 2015
3,402
6,280
AFL Club
Geelong
I think you're right that Geelong are probably unfairly maligned on the TK trade.

But on Jack Steven trade Wells really is acting like a flog (when put in light of some of the comments on TK). Steven is worth more than a late 30's pick. To hold out because he has requested only Geelong, in the hope of picking up a bargain (when the guy wants to go to your club due to mental health difficulties) is a crap thing to do.

4 x b&f, 29 (turning 30), kicked 3 and had 20 touches while 10kg overweight in his first game back this year. He's not as good as Ablett or Gibbs, but have a look at the value they still held at a similar age or older, 37 is genuinely a bargain (and when you have 4 picks prior also the case is only stronger)

Say what you will about wc/geel/TK but the asking price was offered at least twice (once in 2018 when it was changed, and in 2019 obviously), whereas Wells seems intent on publicly devaluing (in trade terms) a player with off-field struggles.

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
That’s a fair way to look at it.

I don’t agree entirely, but Wells has certainly made himself available in this trade period, and he’s been honest with how he sees the value of players. With Steven he could have handled it better. Even though I think he was right, I wouldn’t want to give up anything earlier than 37, or want to be paying Steven more than 400k at that pick.

I didn’t initially come here to derail this thread, I just wanted to talk about TK, still my favourite player in the comp. Despite what it meant for the Cats, seeing the joy of him and his family at joining the Eagles was great.

He’ll be better again next year IMO, and looks like a bloke whose game will age brilliantly.
 

Top Bottom