List Mgmt. Tim Kelly - Welcome to West Coast

Necessary Evil

Brownlow Medalist
Oct 12, 2019
45
130
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.
Nailed it all. It's good to finally have a Cats fan you'd rather have a beer with than strangle to death.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ghostbat12

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
1,463
1,177
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
Read my post as to reasons why they wouldn’t. Which you conveniently ignored and made same point.

Index is based on real historical information on a career a player is expected to have based on draft position. Those are all based on facts.

Another fact, pick 1 is ibased on almost 9 picks from 41 to 49. Now let’s say this trade occurred, odds are you will find one player that has a salary similar to a pick 1 through their career.

As I said, this doesn’t happen because then a team has to find extra 9 spots on the list. So from practical point of view, it doesn’t work. So these deals are not done.

Also it’s to do with politics, backlash and selling memberships and hope by having a no1. But it has nothing to do with real value.
 

CM9000

BigFooty Optimist
Aug 19, 2016
2,303
4,911
Perth, WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
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.
It's a bit odd that you disregard everything I said because you've labeled it as too biased and not "objective" enough, despite the fact you're literally doing the exact same thing. I've linked some articles to demonstrate what I've said, while you just refuse to back up anything.

In regards to your question, that all depends on how you value Steven. Personally, I don't think Pick 37 for a four time BnF and contracted player is enough, and how your list manager is trying to undercut St Kilda on compassionate grounds (with Steven saying it can only be Geelong), while demanding the world for Kelly, is a bit hypocritical.

Why must a team necessarily have the same responsibility to bring a player home, just because the club with the player in question names a price at the very last minute? The fact it's a trade (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you) doesn't suddenly mean you can apply the same considerations to both teams - that is, just because there was a price, it doesn't mean the criticisms of Geelong can be applied to us in equal measure. You were ultimately the ones who can hold a player to contract, so, really, that gives you a greater responsibility. The actions of Geelong hold much greater weight in regards to blame - it's only an equal share by virtue of a trade if both teams could make that choice. As that isn't the case, than good faith is required for things to work, and I'm saying Geelong didn't do that.

I wish we payed what you requested at the time, but we weren't the ones who were being difficult. You're saying that the fact it's trade itself means we hold equal blame; it that's true, then you could've requested Naitanui and Yeo, and if we didn't give you that, then we'd have "failed" Kelly. I thought we actually did 12 months ago, just so you know. That doesn't mean Geelong's actions any less severe.

How should I be approaching this, in your opinion?
 

Balls In

Premiership Player
May 25, 2018
4,548
6,103
AFL Club
West Coast
I have a feeling Tim will be nothing short of transformative to this WCE team. The perfect embodiment of what we are missing from the midfield puzzle being an silky, elite contested ball winner. I don't care what we paid this move should see us arse deep in the premiership race for at least 3-5 years. Make hay while the sun shines.
 

Ricky Vaughn

Premiership Player
Feb 9, 2015
3,402
6,280
AFL Club
Geelong
It's a bit odd that you disregard everything I said because you've labeled it as too biased and not "objective" enough, despite the fact you're literally doing the exact same thing. I've linked some articles to demonstrate what I've said, while you just refuse to back up anything.
I realised we were going back in circles. You are still keen on appropriating blame, while I believe trading in the AFL very rarely gets to a "good faith bad faith" dynamic. It's usually just differing opinions and negotiations. I don't believe there are sides to "blame" in this case, while you think it's Geelong.

In regards to your question, that all depends on how you value Steven. Personally, I don't think Pick 37 for a four time BnF and contracted player is enough, and how your list manager is trying to undercut St Kilda on compassionate grounds (with Steven saying it can only be Geelong), while demanding the world for Kelly, is a bit hypocritical.
Your value of Steven is fair enough, but Geelong aren't trying to undercut on compassionate grounds. Geelong are trying to understand the value of a player earning 800k next season and carries significant risk. Keep in mind we aren't trading for what he's done, we're trading for he's going to do. St. Kilda are obviously looking to shed his contract, which further affects his value. I don't see it as hypocritical. 2 different players, 2 different situations, 2 different values.

Why must a team necessarily have the same responsibility to bring a player home, just because the club with the player in question names a price at the very last minute? The fact it's a trade (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you) doesn't suddenly mean you can apply the same considerations to both teams - that is, just because there was a price, it doesn't mean the criticisms of Geelong can be applied to us in equal measure. You were ultimately the ones who can hold a player to contract, so, really, that gives you a greater responsibility. The actions of Geelong hold much greater weight in regards to blame - it's only an equal share by virtue of a trade if both teams could make that choice. As that isn't the case, than good faith is required for things to work, and I'm saying Geelong didn't do that.
Both teams within a trade do have the same responsibility. I will always apply the same considerations to both teams, except in very rare circumstances (Jonathon Hay, Chris Yarren for example).

I wish we payed what you requested at the time, but we weren't the ones who were being difficult. You're saying that the fact it's trade itself means we hold equal blame; it that's true, then you could've requested Naitanui and Yeo, and if we didn't give you that, then we'd have "failed" Kelly. I thought we actually did 12 months ago, just so you know. That doesn't mean Geelong's actions any less severe.
This hypothetical actually would change everything. If Geelong were requesting in contract highly valuable players, who can simply refuse to move, and refusing to do a deal without one of them, I would agree that Geelong weren't approaching the trade in a reasonable manner. That didn't happen, so it's a bit pointless to discuss.

How should I be approaching this, in your opinion?
However you choose. I'd only suggest that, given relationships between the 2 clubs weren't fractured post 2018 (highlighted by the quick trade in 2019), Kelly didn't hold any ill will to Geelong (highlighted by his form in 2019, and his comments throughout the season), you could consider that neither side have done the wrong thing here. A second year of Tim Kelly at AFL was needed so both sides could better understand his value, which meant they were more closely aligned, and the trade could get done. Some situations are just difficult to work through and don't have the easy answer we want.
 

CM9000

BigFooty Optimist
Aug 19, 2016
2,303
4,911
Perth, WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
I realised we were going back in circles. You are still keen on appropriating blame, while I believe trading in the AFL very rarely gets to a "good faith bad faith" dynamic. It's usually just differing opinions and negotiations. I don't believe there are sides to "blame" in this case, while you think it's Geelong.



Your value of Steven is fair enough, but Geelong aren't trying to undercut on compassionate grounds. Geelong are trying to understand the value of a player earning 800k next season and carries significant risk. Keep in mind we aren't trading for what he's done, we're trading for he's going to do. St. Kilda are obviously looking to shed his contract, which further affects his value. I don't see it as hypocritical. 2 different players, 2 different situations, 2 different values.



Both teams within a trade do have the same responsibility. I will always apply the same considerations to both teams, except in very rare circumstances (Jonathon Hay, Chris Yarren for example).



This hypothetical actually would change everything. If Geelong were requesting in contract highly valuable players, who can simply refuse to move, and refusing to do a deal without one of them, I would agree that Geelong weren't approaching the trade in a reasonable manner. That didn't happen, so it's a bit pointless to discuss.



However you choose. I'd only suggest that, given relationships between the 2 clubs weren't fractured post 2018 (highlighted by the quick trade in 2019), Kelly didn't hold any ill will to Geelong (highlighted by his form in 2019, and his comments throughout the season), you could consider that neither side have done the wrong thing here. A second year of Tim Kelly at AFL was needed so both sides could better understand his value, which meant they were more closely aligned, and the trade could get done. Some situations are just difficult to work through and don't have the easy answer we want.
I'm not really a fan of this Gunnar style of replying. I think I'll leave it here, since you don't seem to be recognsing the fact that Kelly's case shouldn't be treated the same as any other, given the circumstances. We did fail Kelly in 2018 (at least from my point of view), I'm not arguing that, but the issue at hand is the fact Geelong behaved in a way that was contrary to good conduct, which was much worse than us not getting a trade done. It doesn't have to be so black and white as "either both are in the wrong, or both aren't to blame", it is possible for one of the clubs to act morally wrong.

Geelong shouldn't have released all those articles saying you "don't want to make a contender stronger", your coach shouldn't have said you'd "keep Kelly under any circumstances", and, overall, you shouldn't have been overlooking Kelly's personal situation in favour of competitive advantage. The comments of your fans have been even worse, as well. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'm not really keen to begin a multi-quoting adventure.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kranky al

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2009
16,169
19,679
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
We still arguing over this?

Its done don't see the point of going over what ifs.

Prefer to spend time making fun of the purples future midfield.
Fyfe handballs it to fyfe... someone blocks for him, fyfe paddles it forward to his own advantage as someone else takes a crunching hip and shouder meant for fyfe who handballs over the top to fyfe who sees lobb leading out and pinpoints a pass to jeremy mcgovern
 

equiv_clearly

Club Legend
Apr 30, 2013
1,779
3,761
Stockholm
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
South Fremantle
I'm having a hard time reconciling these passionate well-articulated paragraphs from CM9000 with his (their?) usual err machine-'like' output.

I hope those stonehearted Geelong Niccolo's haven't broken our resident optimist. :(

Take solace CM in the fact that Dangerfield will never win a premiership and Kelly is back home, snug in Simmo's enraptured embrace. It makes me happy.
 

kranky al

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2009
16,169
19,679
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
I'm having a hard time reconciling these passionate well-articulated paragraphs from CM9000 with his (their?) usual err machine-'like' output.

I hope those stonehearted Geelong Niccolo's haven't broken our resident optimist. :(

Take solace CM in the fact that Dangerfield will never win a premiership and Kelly is back home, snug in Simmo's enraptured embrace. It makes me happy.
This happy?

3316DFB5-8224-4355-BB25-8A9E6EAE1D97.jpeg
 

Here2tellyouwhy

SA GREAT
Sep 3, 2005
28,244
71,542
Adelaide
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Coast Eagles
I have a feeling Tim will be nothing short of transformative to this WCE team. The perfect embodiment of what we are missing from the midfield puzzle being an silky, elite contested ball winner. I don't care what we paid this move should see us arse deep in the premiership race for at least 3-5 years. Make hay while the sun shines.
Checks out user name...

1571316334414.png
 

Carbine Chaos

Blue Tree Project
Apr 1, 2009
48,134
55,676
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
I've now trained both of my young children to tell people they wanna be Tim Kelly when they grow up. Haven't been so hyped for a season since never!
I’ve asked the missus to cry out Kelly’s name during intimate moments.

Makes a nice change from my best friend’s name, anyway.
 

Top Bottom