Hindsight: Josh Kelly & Pick 20 - for - Dom Tyson & Pick 9/Christian Salem

This was always going to be a fascinating a trade for the 2013 draft, and looking back upon it.

Tom Boyd, Josh Kelly, Jack Billings & Marcus Bontempelli made up the top 4. A minimum of three which will be at the Western Bulldogs next year.

Melbourne had pick 2. Therefore access to Kelly, Billings or Bontempelli. They chose to trade picks 2 & 20 for Dom Tyson and pick 9, used on Christian Salem.

At the time most pundits drunk on 'Roos Juice' thought it was a master stroke to help build the Melbourne list. Tyson was decried a gun and a bargain for only a drop down from pick 2 to pick 9. Pick 20 being thrown in by Melbourne was not really factored into general discussion, and pick 53 went back but was nothing compared to the talent pool at 20.

The market has made clear at least the financial worth of the best 3 from the 2013 Draft as already Million Dollar players. No doubting Tyson & Salem are players in their own right. With the power of hindsight, should Melbourne have stuck firm and landed one of Bontempelli/Kelly/Billings? Or has time vindicated the decision as the net worth of Tyson & Salem is worth more than B/K/B and pick 20 (Which was Jack Leslie, then Impey, Gardiner, Crouch, Hartung, McStay, Z. Merrett, Lemmens, L. Taylor, R. Lobb)?

Having my own view, with hindsight, they land most likely Kelly (considered #2 at the time) and then with pick 20 and with ruck stocks thin in 2013 and Mitch Clark doubtful still, they reach to take Rory Lobb a few spots higher as a much needed ruck/forward. So to me the power of hindsight says this is the debate:

Josh Kelly & Rory Lobb - vs - Dom Tyson & Christian Salem.

As good as Tyson & Salem may be, having access to the Kelly & Lobb combo and passing on it might be a decision they regret one day if this list doesn't net them a flag.

Bont is worth way more than Salem & Tyson combined. Kelly will prove to be too, if his development continues its trend. Even Billings is coming good. Imagine Bont & Lobb at Melbourne right now, along with Hogan, Gawn, Viney, Hunt, Petracca etc. Instead Tyson is on the fringe and Salem is a very solid best 18 player, but not a game breaker.

Just goes to show that picks in the top 3 are like absolute gold (or bitcoin - seriously it is going off!) and should only ever be traded for absolute superstars which Tyson is not and never was.

Bont was undoubtedly the steal of the 4 so a miss by GWS, Melbourne and St Kilda and a win for us.
Kelly is and will for a long time be elite talent so a gain for GWS and a miss for Melbourne in gaining Tyson and Salem.
I was always keen on Billings but has been a slow bloomer at the level, certainly not at the Bont level - but then who is.

So with hindsight I would've taken Bont. or Kelly over TBoyd, but TBoyd over Billings.

For mine Bont, Kelly or TBoyd clearly better value than a combined Tyson/Salem and I'd go so far to say Billings alone is still better value than Tyson/Salem combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

This was always going to be a fascinating a trade for the 2013 draft, and looking back upon it.

Tom Boyd, Josh Kelly, Jack Billings & Marcus Bontempelli made up the top 4. A minimum of three which will be at the Western Bulldogs next year.

Melbourne had pick 2. Therefore access to Kelly, Billings or Bontempelli. They chose to trade picks 2 & 20 for Dom Tyson and pick 9, used on Christian Salem.

At the time most pundits drunk on 'Roos Juice' thought it was a master stroke to help build the Melbourne list. Tyson was decried a gun and a bargain for only a drop down from pick 2 to pick 9. Pick 20 being thrown in by Melbourne was not really factored into general discussion, and pick 53 went back but was nothing compared to the talent pool at 20.

The market has made clear at least the financial worth of the best 3 from the 2013 Draft as already Million Dollar players. No doubting Tyson & Salem are players in their own right. With the power of hindsight, should Melbourne have stuck firm and landed one of Bontempelli/Kelly/Billings? Or has time vindicated the decision as the net worth of Tyson & Salem is worth more than B/K/B and pick 20 (Which was Jack Leslie, then Impey, Gardiner, Crouch, Hartung, McStay, Z. Merrett, Lemmens, L. Taylor, R. Lobb)?

---

Are you planning on pulling off another Boyd like coup?

Thought at the time Melbourne made a mistake, and still do.
Roos waffled on about wanting more depth , but Kelly is going to be a Champion .
Tyson is a good player , and Saleem is just a player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratsmac

Are you planning on pulling off another Boyd like coup?

---

Maybe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

Maybe...

---

Billings is good but I don't know how hard I'd chase...;)

The one issue I have with trying to compare the value of each trading option is that what we can't know is how the respective players would have developed at the other club. Whilst generally in any trade the winner is the club who gets the star player, we can't be sure that Kelly would be as good as he is now if he was playing at Melbourne.

Kelly certainly wins his own ball but he is something of an icing on the cake type player and at the time Melbourne just didn't really have enough of a cake, which is the reason they were trying for more depth in the first place. Looking at Melbourne's list now though, with Viney, Petracca, Oliver etc, you'd think that Kelly would be a perfect complement to it and so if you knew you were going to get those picks and take those players, then absolutely, you'd go for Kelly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by divvydan

The one issue I have with trying to compare the value of each trading option is that what we can't know is how the respective players would have developed at the other club. Whilst generally in any trade the winner is the club who gets the star player, we can't be sure that Kelly would be as good as he is now if he was playing at Melbourne.

Kelly certainly wins his own ball but he is something of an icing on the cake type player and at the time Melbourne just didn't really have enough of a cake, which is the reason they were trying for more depth in the first place. Looking at Melbourne's list now though, with Viney, Petracca, Oliver etc, you'd think that Kelly would be a perfect complement to it and so if you knew you were going to get those picks and take those players, then absolutely, you'd go for Kelly.

---

Absolutely true, plus we don't know what Melbourne would have done with pick 2 and 20. Melbourne could have chosen The Bont, so they have done us a favour. :)

Kind of tangental to this thread, but IIRC in 2015 we gave up pick 11 to Carlton to get Adams & Collins.

Who did Carton get with our pick, and how do you rate this outcome for both clubs?

...and we gave up pick 26 (Zac Merrett) for Crameri....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

...and we gave up pick 26 (Zac Merrett) for Crameri....

---

But think of all the equity we got by playing fair for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

...and we gave up pick 26 (Zac Merrett) for Crameri....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Days

But think of all the equity we got by playing fair for some reason.

---

Have started a new specific thread on same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

...and we gave up pick 26 (Zac Merrett) for Crameri....

---

What Essendon did with the pick is irrelevant in the discussion of whether it was a good or bad deal for us. Could have easily been Malcolm Karpany or Tom Cutler.