I think it depends what he could get for him. I’ll start by saying I wanted him traded a while back because he had value.
This year since the Geelong game he has been outstanding, probably better than his B&F year. However, he is 28 at the start of next season so would it not be worth trading him out IF we could get a good pick/player for him in a younger bracket? (Talking 1st round pick here)
This club has always treated its good players Well don’t get me wrong, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and give up something to get something. We can’t package up Morgan and aim to get Kelly, doesn’t work that way anymore.
We enquired, they came back with our first pick and McGrath.
Which tells me they don’t wanna deal with us and know that deal will ■■■■ us off:
Or
We’re right at the start of negotiations and we will hopefully meet somewhere in between.
Losing Zaka defeats the purpose of acquiring Kelly.
We complained all year about our midfield being shithouse and praying for the recruiting team to land a good midfielder to ‘add’ to our midfield group.
Sure Kelly is a better player but gaining him and losing Zaka (who is currently in the top 3 midfielders of the club based on this year) only improves us slightly and stagnates our midfield depth.
He has got at the very least, a good 3 years left before he starts to decline naturally and is important to balance the list with a player in that 25-30 age bracket with Hurley and Hooker.
Lets ‘entertain’ the ideas of offloading players from a different position rather than one that has been a negative talking point all season.
I don’t see why trading our 2 first rounders of 2017 and 2018 and adding a Hartley (if needed) not being possible.
A lot of people are not aware that the Treloar deal was not only done with two first rounders from Collingwood. Treloar, along with pick 28 went to Collingwood in return for two first rounders. Therefore how is the above trade from us not a logical and similar trade?
It’s completely typical of Essendon Supporters who have grown up with Kevin Sheedy’s mantra of ‘we want gun players and we’re not willing to give anything of value to get it’.
In any culture the word Trade means “exchanging goods of similar value”.
But no, we want the best young player in the competition and we’re not willing to trade something that ideally we want to keep.
I think Connors does what’s best for his pocket. Paul Connors is in the game for Paul Connors. Whether their premiership players or not doesn’t really matter imo, I don’t think guys like matt spangher can suddenly demand more coin at other clubs because they played in a premiership. Good players ie danger, beams, reiwoldt ect are payed overs and well enough regardless.
Connors is just great at extracting the most out of clubs as he can. That’s why the high profile guys get him. That’s why McGrath chose him. He’s the guy you pick if your any good and want to secure yourself financially
LOL great start from their end. They are completely fuming that we took the McGrath who they really wanted and did all the hard yards to move up to pick 2 thinking that would land him.
Can someone please explain to me in a logical and realistic manner, "why and how Kelly would come to us as opposed to staying at GWS or being traded to another team ? "
The same reason a lot of GWS players have left. For money and to be close to his family. While there’s a better chance at GWS, there’s no guarantee of premierships - we might win one before them…probably not.
Why us over another team? Parish, Fantasia, Walla, Joe, Merrett, Mcgrath, Hurley, Heppell, spongy floors and us - the best supporters in the land.
IF he returns home, we can probably go close to matching the remuneration of others, although not the term. And we may be better placed for success than our competitors for his signature.
I know how tempting spongy floors can be but GWS will either want a couple of very low draft picks (that we don’t have) and/or at least one of our untouchables.