Traded Tim Kelly [traded with #57 and future 3rd to West Coast for #14, #24, #33 and future 1st]

[Seeds]

He was traded at the end of 2018, after playing 23 of 24 games for Hawthorn and finishing 18th in the B&F.

Thats tom atkins bad. Now i know why i have never heard of him until this thread.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

This is what your Head of Football said at the time:

"Adelaide's head of football David Noble said the club was pleased to be able to trade for Dangerfield instead of allowing him to leave via free agency - a method that would have seen the Crows get far less in return.

"All along we were intent on doing what was in the best interests of our club, and we have been able to deliver the best possible outcome," Noble said.

"Securing picks nine and 28 allows us to add some more quality talent to our playing list, while Dean is a young man who has the makings of a long-term player.

"I would also like to acknowledge Geelong for the professional manner in which these negotiations were handled."

Dangerfield deal done, Cats send Crows Gore and picks

Geelong and Adelaide have reached an agreement over the trade of Patrick Dangerfield, with 19-year-old Cat Dean Gore the final piece of the puzzle.

www.abc.net.au

Thats Noble just selling the shit sandwich Adelaide were stuck with to their members. I mean serious, Dean Gore with the marking of a long-term player? Did he mean in Amateurs?

 

[Two Planks]

The original post said top 10 - not top 4.

The conversation I was having was that the points system values a combination of picks 14 and 24 to be the equivalent of pick 3 or 4. But in the real world out side of academies it's not realistic.

 

[Two Planks]

Thats Noble just selling the s**t sandwich Adelaide were stuck with to their members. I mean serious, Dean Gore with the marking of a long-term player? Did he mean in Amateurs?

St Mary's is not in the amateurs.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

St Mary's is not in the amateurs.

He's also not playing long term at St Mary's.

 

[strauchnyy]

Can someone explain to me how this isn't the same as the Dangerfield situation? Legit question.

Danger was a RFA. Kelly is not.

Danger gave 8 years of service, Kelly given 2.

Crows were set to get pick 14 as compo. No one else has ever traded for a RFA.

Trade done because we didn't offer massive $.. but there was no way Crows would force Danger to stay.

Danger on the open market would be worth probably 2 x top 10 picks and some.

A trade was done to meet in the middle of 1. his worth (top 10 picks etc.) and the compo (pick 14). This was a handshake understanding between GFC and AFC.

It is understood within the AFL industry that player movement should be free(er) when players reach free agency status. Kelly has not reached FA status.

This was designed to be a trade of a RFA, where the value is diluted but still better than the compo pick.

Kelly is not a RFA, we don't get a compo pick if he leaves, so he leaves at market value.

No one else has ever traded for a RFA and Danger was never going to stay at crows, we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14 (but not full value). Kelly will be traded at full value.

 

[Scotland]

Danger on the open market would be worth probably 2 x top 10 picks and some.

A trade was done to meet in the middle of 1. his worth (top 10 picks etc.) and the compo (pick 14).

Kelly is not a RFA, we don't get a compo pick if he leaves, so he leaves at market value.

No one else has ever traded for a RFA and Danger was never going to stay at crows, we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14 (but not full value). Kelly will be traded at full value.

But it's West Coast fans that are entitled, right? I'm starting to think 90 years of building Fords leached some serious lead into the water.

So basically Geelong didn't want to go down the FA path and pay market salary so traded under market value because that's better than FA compo and they are good guys.

On the flip side Tim Kelly isn't eligible for free agency so Geelong get to determine market value and the one team that Kelly has requested to join must pay said market value no ifs no buts.

Goodness gracious me.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Danger was a RFA. Kelly is not.

Danger gave 8 years of service, Kelly given 2.

Crows were set to get pick 14 as compo. No one else has ever traded for a RFA.

Trade done because we didn't offer massive $.. but there was no way Crows would force Danger to stay.

Danger on the open market would be worth probably 2 x top 10 picks and some.

A trade was done to meet in the middle of 1. his worth (top 10 picks etc.) and the compo (pick 14). This was a handshake understanding between GFC and AFC.

It is understood within the AFL industry that player movement should be free(er) when players reach free agency status. Kelly has not reached FA status.

This was designed to be a trade of a RFA, where the value is diluted but still better than the compo pick.

Kelly is not a RFA, we don't get a compo pick if he leaves, so he leaves at market value.

No one else has ever traded for a RFA and Danger was never going to stay at crows, we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14 (but not full value). Kelly will be traded at full value.

I don't understand how you can spell out this entire argument involving: Cats offered unders what Danger was worth and Adelaide accepted because it was a little more than what they'd get otherwise.

Yet you conclude with a completely bias and hypocritical statement about the Kelly sitation. In reality it's exactly the same.

Eagles will offer a little less than what Kellys worth and the Cats will take it because its more than they'll get otherwise (ie nothing in this scenario).

A contracted Kelly would need a top 10 pick involved I wouldve thought.

An uncontracted Kelly means Eagles get this done with the picks they have (14 + some combination of a Future 1st or 22+).

Eagles have no incentive or need to sacrifice a player or shop around for better picks to appease the 'top dollar' that Cats fans may demand. Ultimately, Kelly's not our player and if he doesn't end up with us it's not our loss.

 

[Doashuey]

Kelly is not a RFA, we don't get a compo pick if he leaves, so he leaves at market value.

No one else has ever traded for a RFA and Danger was never going to stay at crows, we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14 (but not full value). Kelly will be traded at full value.

Pick 14 and 24 it is then.

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

Danger was a RFA. Kelly is not.

Danger gave 8 years of service, Kelly given 2.

Crows were set to get pick 14 as compo. No one else has ever traded for a RFA.

Trade done because we didn't offer massive $.. but there was no way Crows would force Danger to stay.

Danger on the open market would be worth probably 2 x top 10 picks and some.

A trade was done to meet in the middle of 1. his worth (top 10 picks etc.) and the compo (pick 14). This was a handshake understanding between GFC and AFC.

It is understood within the AFL industry that player movement should be free(er) when players reach free agency status. Kelly has not reached FA status.

This was designed to be a trade of a RFA, where the value is diluted but still better than the compo pick.

Kelly is not a RFA, we don't get a compo pick if he leaves, so he leaves at market value.

No one else has ever traded for a RFA and Danger was never going to stay at crows, we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14 (but not full value). Kelly will be traded at full value.

You didn’t trade for a RFA, you didn’t lodge the paperwork.

Monfries was traded to Port Adelaide when he was eligible as a RFA, so keep telling yourself that myth as well.

You can talk about bullshit gentleman’s agreements all you like but the reality is both Danger and Kelly we’re both out of contract and must agree to where they go to. An understanding of free agency or how many arbitrary years of service doesn’t come into it. As a result what they’ll be traded for will be unders of their true value. It’s such a strange quirk of the AFL system but it’s how it’s been.

The similarities with the Danger trade are so palpable it’s amazing to see the untruths people come up with to claim they’re different.

 

[Two Planks]

He's also not playing long term at St Mary's.

Not next year, he was here for 2 injury interrupted years with a sprinkling of a few VFL games as a top up.

 

[strauchnyy]

But it's West Coast fans that are entitled, right? I'm starting to think 90 years of building Fords leached some serious lead into the water.

So basically Geelong didn't want to go down the FA path and pay market salary so traded under market value because that's better than FA compo and they are good guys.

On the flip side Tim Kelly isn't eligible for free agency so Geelong get to determine market value and the one team that Kelly has requested to join must pay said market value no ifs no buts.

Goodness gracious me.

Um no.

We paid for a RFA with draft picks. no one else has done that.

We gave crows something better than 14.. for a player who was RFA level status and had given 8 years of excellent service.

You are trying to low ball geelong for a player who is not RFA status, in fact 2 years.

Cough up or get lost WC.

 

[Scotland]

The similarities with the Danger trade are so palpable it’s amazing to see the untruths people come up with to claim they’re different.

Great line.

People see similarities where they want to and differences where they want to.

Dylan Shiel - 100% the same if you ignore he was under contract, prepared to stay with GWS, speaking to multiple clubs and Essendon had pick 9.
Lachie Neale - 100% the same if you ignore that he was under contract and Brisbane had an early pick that would satisfy Freo's desire to bring in Hogan and Lobb.

Tom Mitchell - totally different.
Patrick Dangerfield - totally different.

 

[Scotland]

Um no.

We paid for a RFA with draft picks. no one else has done that.

We gave crows something better than 14.. for a player who was RFA level status and had given 8 years of excellent service.

You are trying to low ball geelong for a player who is not RFA status, in fact 2 years.

Cough up or get lost WC.

Probably should've just signed him as a free agent then.

 

[strauchnyy]

I don't understand how you can spell out this entire argument involving: Cats offered unders what Danger was worth and Adelaide accepted because it was a little more than what they'd get otherwise.

Yet you conclude with a completely bias and hypocritical statement about the Kelly sitation. In reality it's exactly the same.

Eagles will offer a little less than what Kellys worth and the Cats will take it because its more than they'll get otherwise (ie nothing in this scenario).

A contracted Kelly would need a top 10 pick involved I wouldve thought.

An uncontracted Kelly means Eagles get this done with the picks they have (14 + some combination of a Future 1st or 22+).

Eagles have no incentive or need to sacrifice a player or shop around for better picks to appease the 'top dollar' that Cats fans may demand. Ultimately, Kelly's not our player and if he doesn't end up with us it's not our loss.

Kelly has given 2 years.

The whole argument for danger was he had given 8 years and AFL players association fought hard for free player movement after 8 years etc.

completely different.

You will cough up as you should

 

[arsene wenger1]

Damo is a fool.

Danger was a free agent, but Geelong couldn't or didn't want to buy him that way. As meek as Adelaide are they aren't going to let their best player walk for $800k a year and pick 14 when the team he was going to had pick 9. Adelaide would have been happy to pay Danger $1m a year and still have him today.

Kelly isn't a free agent so there is means for any club to just sign him and no compo on offer to Geelong. No one wants to buy him either, but it is still possible. WC would rather pay him whatever terms they have agreed to and trade than try and put a price on his head in the draft. I imagine other clubs in the same position would be likewise.

He hatred to Adelaide gets in the way of his logic

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The conversation I was having was that the points system values a combination of picks 14 and 24 to be the equivalent of pick 3 or 4. But in the real world out side of academies it's not realistic.

It’s interesting though

Perhaps subjective evaluation of pick 3 is folly and the academics are more accurate

Of course it depends on each individual draft pool

It’d be an interesting exercise to look at over say the last 10-15 drafts

 

[strauchnyy]

You didn’t trade for a RFA, you didn’t lodge the paperwork.

Monfries was traded to Port Adelaide when he was eligible as a RFA, so keep telling yourself that myth as well.

You can talk about bulls**t gentleman’s agreements all you like but the reality is both Danger and Kelly we’re both out of contract and must agree to where they go to. An understanding of free agency or how many arbitrary years of service doesn’t come into it. As a result what they’ll be traded for will be unders of their true value. It’s such a strange quirk of the AFL system but it’s how it’s been.

The similarities with the Danger trade are so palpable it’s amazing to see the untruths people come up with to claim they’re different.

No its not sunshine.

It is more similar to the Treloar trade... who you know, wasn't a RFA.

It's surprising how slow on the uptake eagles fans are.

RFA age is about free player movement.

It is like the treloar deal which was pick 7 and another low pick (2nd coming back).

WC fans so strung up on Danger, when the similar scenario is Treloar.

Go find us a top 10 pick + another R1. That's what Wells will be wanting.

You can argue all you like but you will cough up

 

[strauchnyy]

Probably should've just signed him as a free agent then.

Agree, we shouldve.

We missed out on Curnow as a result

 

[Scotland]

Kelly has given 2 years.

The whole argument for danger was he had given 8 years and AFL players association fought hard for free player movement after 8 years etc.

completely different.

You will cough up as you should

Kelly is the same age.

Maybe you shouldn't have overlooked him for so many years in previous drafts.

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

Kelly has given 2 years.

The whole argument for danger was he had given 8 years and AFL players association fought hard for free player movement after 8 years etc.

completely different.

You will cough up as you should

The AFLPA fought for that if you give eight years of service you are allowed to agree to a contract with another club with the proviso that your original club has the right to match the offer.

Geelong and Dangerfield didn’t exercise this right, therefore Dangerfield was just like Kelly now, an out of contract player refusing to re-sign and nominated one club he wished to be traded to for family reasons.

 

[nameless]

we just played nice by giving them something better than pick 14

The mind is an amazing thing, the way it can completely alter someone's perception based on what they think is true.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Bonkers000]

Why is it the only time “excellent service” get talked about is in relation to dangerfield. There’s heaps of players that give excellent service to their clubs and still get traded at maximum value.

Geelong set their terms for the kelly trade when traded for dangerfield, regardless of how many years either player played.

 

[year of the cat]

But it's West Coast fans that are entitled, right? I'm starting to think 90 years of building Fords leached some serious lead into the water.

So basically Geelong didn't want to go down the FA path and pay market salary so traded under market value because that's better than FA compo and they are good guys.

On the flip side Tim Kelly isn't eligible for free agency so Geelong get to determine market value and the one team that Kelly has requested to join must pay said market value no ifs no buts.

Goodness gracious me.

It’s pretty bloody obvious what his market value is. Only the misguided WC fans (fortunately there are some that acknowledge that the ones on this forum are complete nuffies) think his market value is two ordinary picks.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The suggestion that Geelong willingly gave up pick 9 and more for Dangerfield when they could've just taken him as a free agent and given up nothing, just out of the goodness of their hearts, is seriously mind-boggling. Do people actually believe that?