Uncontracted Tim Kelly

Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
18,387
Likes
8,695
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
geelong
If Brander is so shit why would Geelong even want him? Just ask for 3 first round picks. Hell why not 4 or 5?
There are many other key forwards I would prefer but since it’s trying to be arranged with west coast I’m not sure who else there is.

We wouldn’t want Jake waterman and we wouldn’t want venables.

Unless you are prepared to move on someone like dom sheed since you have a few midfielders, then I don’t know who exactly would be there to help the deal?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
18,336
Likes
11,404
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm not going to go around pulling up every dumb trade suggestion but the idea of not doing a direct swap of Brander for Kelly is ridiculous given your list balance
List balance.

Like Kennedy and Schofield with one more year left in all likelihood.

With Barrass out with a foot again and JK not playing a full season in how long?

The other talls are project talls younger than Brander.

List planning is not about tommorrow its about the next two to five years especially with 20 year old kp players.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
18,336
Likes
11,404
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
It wont happen because Stephen Wells would be fired on the spot if he tried to do that trade. Unfortunately, the Eagles drafting and development history doesnt factor into what Branders value is and you dont get to value at what he MIGHT be in 2-3 years. Trades are done based on player value now, taking into account the potential for growth as well as the potential to be a spud.

I would imagine almost every club would value Coniglio > Kelly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brander, including the Eagles whether you like to admit it or not.

You can stick to completely ridiculous opinion though, its entirely your right
Completelty ridiculous?

Go and ask some Carlton supporters about trading a young developing 20 yr old gun kp forward instead of just using picks.

Eagles have more than enough picks to do any deal. Why on earth would they even think about trading Kennedy's replacement? THAT is ridiculous.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Posts
2,312
Likes
6,449
AFL Club
Fremantle
Completelty ridiculous?

Go and ask some Carlton supporters about trading a young developing 20 yr old gun kp forward instead of just using picks.

Eagles have more than enough picks to do any deal. Why on earth would they even think about trading Kennedy's replacement? THAT is ridiculous.
Your draft picks are completely beside the point of the original post which is you wouldnt do a straight swap of Kelly for Brander.

If Geelong quite rightly dont want two shit firsts for Kelly but would settle for just Brander (which would never happen, but that is the hypothetical), all you Eagles supporter in your amazing list balance knowledge wouldnt then just keep the draft picks and use them the get the best KPP available at those picks and get Kelly while you are firmly in a premiership window?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,636
Likes
30,871
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
Would I trade brander for kelly straight swap . No way

Geelong would be so lucky . Its way harder to get talented key forwards than mids .

Kelly would be lucky to have 100 games of good footy left after this year without injuries. Brander could have double that .
I am a Brander fan but Kelly has miles more trade value than him.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,636
Likes
30,871
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
Except that Adelaide were steadfast that they would match any offer.

So your point is more of a old chestnut!

How many times must this point be clarified. Need to stop rewriting history to suit your own agenda.
Look at the players we had leave in 2015 and what $ they were on. We had the room in our cap to structure an RFA offer that Adelaide would not or could not match. But we had other deals to do that trade week and we clearly valued the certainty of getting a deal done quickly and not jeopardising our other deals over what picks we traded for Danger.

Kelly is not the same because he cant go FA he has to go in the draft (which i doubt he is even willing to risk) if not traded and even if he did you are not in the SC position to put a price on his head that Freo cant accomodate if they pick him up in the draft. This is why WCE will trade for Kelly and probably trade more than they want to.

Ftr i am not saying Kelly has the same trade value as Dangerfield i am just saying its an apples and oranges comparison which it is.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,636
Likes
30,871
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
I agree with pretty much everything except it was close to a deal being done .
Geelong never intended to trade kelly and should have just said no and not strung us along all trade period .

But that would have made them look like campaigners and its easier to just keep moving the goal posts and say we couldnt reach an agreement
Geelong never moved the goalposts they said they wanted 1 top 10 pick.
If your assertion that 3 R2s are worth a top 10 pick you would have just traded them to a 3rd club for a top 10 pick and Kelly would be playing for you now. There is a reason 16 clubs werent willing to do that deal with you because no one rates 3 R2s as worth a top 10 pick let alone a top 5 one. Points values are irrelevant.

Your logic is poor.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,272
Likes
1,000
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Sorry you must not have followed the conversation, I didnt list every single thing a trade is based on, I purely said that trades are based on value now, not some mythical best case scenario in 2-3 years.

Just to be clear, there are now a bunch of West Coast supporters who would not trade Brander for Kelly in a straight swap
Meh whatever, it all goes in the mix. According to you, kelly has more value than, say Rozee.

As for brander, i am one of those. That trade will not happen. What we have seen so far is enough to know the talent. Not some mythical thing u believe in.

Plus, as your fans keep telling us, you have Krueger. So you don’t need him.

You will have picks as you do not have enough leverage for anything else.

Facts of life.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,272
Likes
1,000
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Geelong never moved the goalposts they said they wanted 1 top 10 pick.
If your assertion that 3 R2s are worth a top 10 pick you would have just traded them to a 3rd club for a top 10 pick and Kelly would be playing for you now. There is a reason 16 clubs werent willing to do that deal with you because no one rates 3 R2s as worth a top 10 pick let alone a top 5 one. Points values are irrelevant.

Your logic is poor.
According to WCE, Geelong never communicated to WCE that’s what they wanted. And according to Information, trade was nearly done until Scott at last minute pleaded.

Therefore there was an agreement. There will be an agreement again. You make BIG assumptions that WCE wasn’t even close and you think what was in media was correct.

A reporter asked Wells if a top 10 is needed. What was he going to say? No? Reporter out words in his mouth and he went with it. Imagine him saying “nah we won’t need a top 10”.

And Geelong fans took that to mean that It’s what Geelong communicated to WCE. Because obviously, there were no other discussions. *sarcasm*

Come on. He is out of contract now. Leverage has shifted. Don’t be naive.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Posts
2,312
Likes
6,449
AFL Club
Fremantle
Meh whatever, it all goes in the mix. According to you, kelly has more value than, say Rozee.

As for brander, i am one of those. That trade will not happen. What we have seen so far is enough to know the talent. Not some mythical thing u believe in.

Plus, as your fans keep telling us, you have Krueger. So you don’t need him.

You will have picks as you do not have enough leverage for anything else.

Facts of life.
Check my team flair

Rozee has done more at AFL level than Brander has done at WAFL level and is 6 months out from his draft, its hardly a good comparison. He keeps his draft value because he has performed at AFL level and its closer to draft date. Geelong supporters (Pure_Ownage) would probably take Rozee if Kelly was definitely leaving and would be pretty happy about it all things considered
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Posts
3,734
Likes
2,841
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Australia (Cricket)
According to WCE, Geelong never communicated to WCE that’s what they wanted. And according to Information, trade was nearly done until Scott at last minute pleaded.

Therefore there was an agreement. There will be an agreement again. You make BIG assumptions that WCE wasn’t even close and you think what was in media was correct.

A reporter asked Wells if a top 10 is needed. What was he going to say? No? Reporter out words in his mouth and he went with it. Imagine him saying “nah we won’t need a top 10”.

And Geelong fans took that to mean that It’s what Geelong communicated to WCE. Because obviously, there were no other discussions. *sarcasm*

Come on. He is out of contract now. Leverage has shifted. Don’t be naive.
So in your eyes, what do you think is a fair and even deal is?
 

Yamumluvsbigcox

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Posts
6,295
Likes
8,786
Location
Trapped in a glass box of emotion
AFL Club
West Coast
I am a Brander fan but Kelly has miles more trade value than him.
Sure i agree kelly is also 5 years older . Doesnt change the fact that i wouldnt trade him for kelly . Best KPP in his draft year . Freak talent who needs a few years development.
Why would we trade him if he doesnt want to go ?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,636
Likes
30,871
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
Sure i agree kelly is also 5 years older . Doesnt change the fact that i wouldnt trade him for kelly . Best KPP in his draft year . Freak talent who needs a few years development.
Why would we trade him if he doesnt want to go ?
You wouldnt but equally why would Geelong trade Kelly for a fringe tall? They wouldnt.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
18,336
Likes
11,404
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
Your draft picks are completely beside the point of the original post which is you wouldnt do a straight swap of Kelly for Brander.

If Geelong quite rightly dont want two shit firsts for Kelly but would settle for just Brander (which would never happen, but that is the hypothetical), all you Eagles supporter in your amazing list balance knowledge wouldnt then just keep the draft picks and use them the get the best KPP available at those picks and get Kelly while you are firmly in a premiership window?
Well hypothetically now its gone from two shit 2nd rounders not being good enough to two shit 1 st rounders not being good enough. Like really?

I think Ive been pretty clear. No to Brander. I expect the Eagles to say the same.

If Geelong want to play it tough we keep the picks and throw Kelly's contract plus some at Coniglio. If Giants force a trade two firsts is better than one.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,636
Likes
30,871
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
According to WCE, Geelong never communicated to WCE that’s what they wanted. And according to Information, trade was nearly done until Scott at last minute pleaded.

Therefore there was an agreement. There will be an agreement again. You make BIG assumptions that WCE wasn’t even close and you think what was in media was correct.

A reporter asked Wells if a top 10 is needed. What was he going to say? No? Reporter out words in his mouth and he went with it. Imagine him saying “nah we won’t need a top 10”.

And Geelong fans took that to mean that It’s what Geelong communicated to WCE. Because obviously, there were no other discussions. *sarcasm*

Come on. He is out of contract now. Leverage has shifted. Don’t be naive.
So you have no information other than WCE spin that Geelong never communicated what they wanted? Try again then.

Its also absolutely irrelevant to the point that no club ever trades pick 5 for 20 22 and 40. Since when has that ever happened? It doesnt.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Posts
2,312
Likes
6,449
AFL Club
Fremantle
Well hypothetically now its gone from two shit 2nd rounders not being good enough to two shit 1 st rounders not being good enough. Like really?

I think Ive been pretty clear. No to Brander. I expect the Eagles to say the same.

If Geelong want to play it tough we keep the picks and throw Kelly's contract plus some at Coniglio. If Giants force a trade two firsts is better than one.
I'm not changing any goal posts with regards to draft picks FWIW since I havent engaged on this before, you would have to expect to be giving up at least this and next years first, and I'd argue that two picks that are about 15 + (especially when they inevitably get pushed out with academy and f/s) is serious unders for Kelly but maybe none of you rate him that highly but the guy is killing it this year

If nothing else, you guys that wouldnt do Brander for Kelly, I value the loyalty
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,272
Likes
1,000
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
So you have no information other than WCE spin that Geelong never communicated what they wanted? Try again then.

Its also absolutely irrelevant to the point that no club ever trades pick 5 for 20 22 and 40. Since when has that ever happened? It doesnt.
Top 5 pick now?

F-me. Although you guys have at least given up on whole no1 pick thing.

Except our first this year was offered. But keep inventing what was actually offered.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom