10 hours ago, goodwindees said:

What say we offer Tyson & Salem for Kelly.  Would that get it done?  

Both Tyson and Salem would be very much on the fringes of the GWS team so that deal wouldn't work for them

Conversely Tyson and Salem are worth more to us than having just Kelly 

Probably proves the general consensus that the original trade was a good deal for both sides

21 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

As many have pointed out, as recently as last year with Boyd at Bulldogs. Arguably BOG.

With the new players agreement, $800k won't be a massive amount to pay an A grader (as obscene as that sounds).

Wouldn't want to pay overs, and is clear we must retain or young stars, but IMO Kelly would offer what what we clearly lack: very high end outside polish that can impose upon a game. I've watched a number of GWS games where he has done just that.

I think that is clutching at straws. The Boyd deal is in a category all of its own and he was pretty much useless in the lead up to the GF - and pretty much since.

Yes he had a great game but I am talking Dangerfield, Buddy, Buckley etc. These deals cripple clubs generally.

You'd be better with a Rory Laird / Elliott Yeo type - just below A grade but very solid and 1/3 as much as a Kelly.

 

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I think that is clutching at straws. The Boyd deal is in a category all of its own and he was pretty much useless in the lead up to the GF - and pretty much since.

Yes he had a great game but I am talking Dangerfield, Buddy, Buckley etc. These deals cripple clubs generally.

You'd be better with a Rory Laird / Elliott Yeo type - just below A grade but very solid and 1/3 as much as a Kelly.

 

When things got tough against the Saints where was Kelly?. but im sure if they had their full side in and pumping the saints he would have looked a millions bucks. a very good outside runner but not worth close to a million.

go for a lesser priced fast finisher and throw good money at a key back.

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I think that is clutching at straws. The Boyd deal is in a category all of its own and he was pretty much useless in the lead up to the GF - and pretty much since.

Yes he had a great game but I am talking Dangerfield, Buddy, Buckley etc. These deals cripple clubs generally.

You'd be better with a Rory Laird / Elliott Yeo type - just below A grade but very solid and 1/3 as much as a Kelly.

 

The facts are that very few Laird/Yeo types come on the trade market, whereas Kelly is. Each year there are very few quality players that move clubs, which adds a premium on those that do.

To get Kelly, you initially have to entice him away from GWS, and then outbid all the other Vic clubs. That's what drives his price up. Plus his old man played for North, which could pull at his heartstrings.

9 minutes ago, mo64 said:

The facts are that very few Laird/Yeo types come on the trade market, whereas Kelly is. Each year there are very few quality players that move clubs, which adds a premium on those that do.

To get Kelly, you initially have to entice him away from GWS, and then outbid all the other Vic clubs. That's what drives his price up. Plus his old man played for North, which could pull at his heartstrings.

Don't disagree but how many of those big trades have been successful?

Trades like Mummy to GWS and Lake, Burgoyne or Frawley to Hawthorn seem to have more success than the Judd's or Buddy's. They are less disruptive to the playing list and salary cap.

To match the price touted for Kelly would stuff us for years in terms of salary cap and player payment 'relativity'. And while he's good he is no game changer yet, IMO.

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Don't disagree but how many of those big trades have been successful?

Trades like Mummy to GWS and Lake, Burgoyne or Frawley to Hawthorn seem to have more success than the Judd's or Buddy's. They are less disruptive to the playing list and salary cap.

To match the price touted for Kelly would stuff us for years in terms of salary cap and player payment 'relativity'. And while he's good he is no game changer yet, IMO.

I'm not sure Kelly will ever be a game changer in the mould of an Ablett, Danger, Buddy or Selwood.

He appears to me to be what he looked like in his junior years, a really neat footballer who goes about his business in a very professional manner.

I don't see any of the so called 'x' factor...

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

Two years ago, we gave a bog ordinary player in Melksham a 4 yr deal on between $400-450k, and you don't think that Kelly is now worth more than $600k? And don't get me started on the 3 year deal given to Garland. 

Kelly is worth a minimum $800k once you factor in the impending salary cap increases with the new CBA.

Kelly is not a blue chip. I'm not really concerned about the Melksham comparison. We're not Melbourne of 2 years ago anymore and we've built a list of young talent that will need to be paid. The fact that some would blow $800k on a soft outsider with great skills is mindboggling. Thankfully, I know our list management wouldn't be silly enough to entertain the idea.

Edited May 9, 20177 yr by A F

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I think that is clutching at straws. The Boyd deal is in a category all of its own and he was pretty much useless in the lead up to the GF - and pretty much since.

Yes he had a great game but I am talking Dangerfield, Buddy, Buckley etc. These deals cripple clubs generally.

You'd be better with a Rory Laird / Elliott Yeo type - just below A grade but very solid and 1/3 as much as a Kelly.

 

I'll agree to disagree jnr 

Boyd had a good finals series and I'll go as far as to say that it would have been difficult for them to win the GF had he not been there. Many expected him to win the Norm Smith. I'd be very happy with that if I was a Bulldog fan. He hasn't set the world on fire this year, but he's playing as a full time ruck instead of fwd/ruck. His deal hasn't crippled the Doggies despite reportedly being on over $1mill. But that's is a matter of opinion.

Laird and Yeo would be on $450k easy. To move again they'd now get $650-700. The avg last year was $309, this year probably around $320. With the new deal reportedly adding approx 20% that'd be about $380 avg for 2018. Kelly would want at least $800-900pa.

I think Kelly will be an A grader by end of 2018, if not this year. Paying a bit over twice the avg AFL wage for this type of player will be cheap (as mind boggling as that is). If the media rumours are true and Norf have offered $1mill pa, I'd think that probably overs for him.

I have no insider knowledge that indicates we might consider Kelly or he may be interested in us. He may not fit Goodwin's plans or be asking for too much, so the discussion could very well be moot. 

I certainly believe that if he showed interest and the price was around $850 for 2018 on a 4 yr deal it would be very tempting to consider.

Edited May 9, 20177 yr by Moonshadow

12 minutes ago, A F said:

Kelly is not a blue chip. I'm not really concerned about the Melksham comparison. We're not Melbourne of 2 years ago anymore and we've built a list of young talent that will need to be paid. The fact that some would blow $800k on a soft outsider with great skills is mindboggling. Thankfully, I know our list management wouldn't be silly enough to entertain the idea.

I was just pointing out that our list management were silly enough to trade in Melksham for a top 25 draft pick and sign him for 4 years, and also re-signed Garland with a 3 year extension. Both were poor decisions, and that's not in hindsight.

 

9 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I was just pointing out that our list management were silly enough to trade in Melksham for a top 25 draft pick and sign him for 4 years, and also re-signed Garland with a 3 year extension. Both were poor decisions, and that's not in hindsight.

Fair enough. My point was we've moved on from that though. Melksham was signed in a time when we couldn't attract anyone and we saw him as a role player. Garland was signed simply because we needed defensive depth. I gather he was being targeted by other clubs and so we put a 3 year deal to him, instead of two.

Last season we attracted a four time premiership player who is still an A grader. I hope we can attract a player of Lever's quality. But Kelly isn't the right fit for $800k+, IMO.

Sure Kelly would compliment our midfield beautifully. But The chance of him playing for Melbourne is negligible. He will most likely take the North offer, which is well overs on what he has already produced, and where his father played. Or he will stay with GWS.

46 minutes ago, A F said:

The fact that some would blow $800k on a soft outsider with great skills is mindboggling. 

Disagree majorly.

Kelly is not soft in the slightest for a player of his profile which makes him even more valuable.

He is a gun and would be a top three player in our side immediately.

I reckon the footy department would have no qualms whatsoever about throwing $800k a year at him if he was keen on coming to us, that would be an absolute no-brainer. He is exactly what we're missing.

However, I highly doubt he wants to leave GWS when they're on the brink of winning a flag, let-alone come to the AFL's most yoyo form side being the MFC. 

53 minutes ago, A F said:

The fact that some would blow $800k on a soft outsider with great skills is mindboggling. 

You're right.  Let's stick with tough insiders with terrible skills.

Kelly would be a great pick up. The question is the value. Yes you have to pay up to get silk but IMO its really important not to upset the whole TPP situation. If we do get into a window of success we will need a lot of negotiationg room for our current crop.

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Disagree majorly.

Kelly is not soft in the slightest for a player of his profile which makes him even more valuable.

He is a gun and would be a top three player in our side immediately.

I reckon the footy department would have no qualms whatsoever about throwing $800k a year at him if he was keen on coming to us, that would be an absolute no-brainer. He is exactly what we're missing.

However, I highly doubt he wants to leave GWS when they're on the brink of winning a flag, let-alone come to the AFL's most yoyo form side being the MFC. 

We usually do, Steve.

He is one of the elements we're missing.  But I'd suggest someone like Lever would be much higher on the shopping list and cheaper...

Mmmmmm... I'm having visions of Oliver squirting the ball out to Kelly.

Edited May 9, 20177 yr by Tony Tea
Spolling.

4 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Disagree majorly.

Kelly is not soft in the slightest for a player of his profile which makes him even more valuable.

He is a gun and would be a top three player in our side immediately.

I reckon the footy department would have no qualms whatsoever about throwing $800k a year at him if he was keen on coming to us, that would be an absolute no-brainer. He is exactly what we're missing.

However, I highly doubt he wants to leave GWS when they're on the brink of winning a flag, let-alone come to the AFL's most yoyo form side being the MFC. 

I think the $800K is less of an issue than what we'd have to give up to get him - even if he wanted to come to MFC. Agree though, he is the type of player we need. Relentless outside running, great skills & decision making.
 

It will be fascinating to see what becomes of the GWS squad should they win the flag in the next year or two. How many will stay and build on their success. How many will attempt to cash in and get a fat contract elsewhere.

54 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

Mmmmmm... I'm having visions of Oliver squirting the ball out to Kelly.

That is why we need Kelly. We have so many ineffective mids on the other end of Oliver's sharp handballs - that it is often a waste Oliver getting it out. We need to be more effective as a team. This is our single major issue at the moment. Oliver could get the ball out 25 times a game, but if he is putting it in the hands of someone who just hacks it out, then it is pointless Oliver getting it in the first place. We need a player like Josh Kelly who will not waste the football. Better yet, he would be a good chance of hitting Hogan lace out dead in front. There are plenty of players we could think about culling, or offloading in order to get Josh Kelly. He is what we need at the moment, and there are half of list of players we probably do not need. At present we are looking at a bottom 6 finish. Our draw gets harder here on in. We'll most likely need to make some major changes at seasons end IMO.

Supposedly Carlton are into Josh Schache too, anyone hear anything about that?

Would be nice if just once we could poach one of these young stars instead of them always going to our rivals.

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Supposedly Carlton are into Josh Schache too, anyone hear anything about that?

Would be nice if just once we could poach one of these young stars instead of them always going to our rivals.

I've heard about Richmond and Collingwood having interest (Collingwood usually linked with everybody), hadn't heard about Carlton, but it would make sense for their list.

Schache wouldn't come cheap and not sure he'd fit alongside Hogan and Weideman.

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Supposedly Carlton are into Josh Schache too, anyone hear anything about that?

Would be nice if just once we could poach one of these young stars instead of them always going to our rivals.

So there's a difference between the club having interest and the player...

Bumping this thread. Is there any reason why we would not be going hard for Kelly, I think he is as much what we need as lever? If he wants to come home I think we should be throwing an offer to him.

He has old school mates in Salem and Hunt at the club, salem in particular is close to him. 

With Dusty looking more likely to re-sign with the Toigs, Kelly will become the main AFL mid left OOC. Unless we are prepared to spend $1mill+ pa, he'll be elsewhere in 2018. Can't see it happening, but he is just what we need

What happened to the much vaunted "War Chest" that was rumoured to be on standby?

Yes, we need to pay our young talent appropriately, but if other teams with much stronger lists than us can afford to pay their guys, why can't we attract a high profile star?

All talk it seems.

 

3 hours ago, Bates Mate said:

Bumping this thread. Is there any reason why we would not be going hard for Kelly, I think he is as much what we need as lever? If he wants to come home I think we should be throwing an offer to him.

He has old school mates in Salem and Hunt at the club, salem in particular is close to him.