Daniel Kerr

[daics cousin]

Pendlebury for Kerr would be incredibly stupid. Just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

100% agreed.Stop panicking about making stupid deals.
Cousins would be my priority,and then go for a gun in the draft.
Don't forget next year,Thomas,Pendlebury and co will be better and more experienced again.
The problem with snaring KERR would be that he is still under contract,and the eagles would want heaps for him.Keep to our youth recruiting policy.
Story goes that the first 25 picks are gun players.Take this road and see if we can get Cousins cheap.Let the other turkey's from other clubs chase Kerr and Brown.Let them sell off their farms to get dudded in the end.
Carlton are after Kerr.Ha! Do you think that west coast will deal with carlton after the judd trade.Plus carlton cannot fit kerr into their salary cap unless they do something under handed and we all know what will happen to carlton if that happens.They'll get the book thrown at them especially because they have already been caught once.Imagine twice!
In the end Kerr will stay an eagle and Brown a lion.

 

[sydney eagle]

Oh I think that the Eagles would deal with Carlton at the end of this season if they want Kerr. Of course the PRICE that the Eagles would demand might well be out of Carlton's (and anyone else's) reach !

 

[Lazyboy]

lol reid for kerr no way, in 3-4 years we will get kerr and a top 5 pick for this kid, stop being so impatient.

 

[3066]

kerr will not leave the eagles

Actually IMO I think both he and the Eagles would be mutual on him leaving especially if they got value in return. Wasn't he internally dropped this year because he missed training or something? ... plus he's had the odd brain fade and got pinged on the field too. He might simply need a change and West Coast might be better off taking care of players that are a bit more committed to their club.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

So we lose 2 midfielders (1st round and Davis) for one elite midfielder with issues

The key to winning this trade is giving something we already have a lot of, ie: key forwards, it has to be Reid and 1st round.. otherwise stick with the kids

That's one reason why I think Collingwood is an unlikely place for Kerr. We already have a lot of KPP, including forwards, and on top of that I can't imagine Collingwood's pick interesting us compared to what we could get.

Then you consider that any player you trade to us would have to want to come to WA and be fairly young, and it seems like an unlikely trade.

 

[MarkT]

So you'd trade us out of the first two rounds of the last uncompromised draft in years;

In a heartbeat.

If we were at the top end of list managers we’d get picks from the new clubs and back ourselves to do it. This whole last uncompromised draft thing drives me nuts. Essendon got Lloyd when Freo came in by managing the rules. In any case, if all the established clubs are in the same boat draft wise we are no worse off for not having early picks over the next 5 years. This so called last uncompromised draft does not produce more valuable picks by definition. The value is determined by the quality of the payers at the draft position in question and if anything the media is overvaluing them. This is possibly the best time to trade picks for specific needs.

plus offer Fraser, who, for all his fallibilities, is still clearly our number one ruckman;

Yeh and that has to change. Win-win.

and THEN throw another player in on top of it?

How is the number of players relevant? We have a compulsory cull anyway. The issue is who not how many.

They'd want a better deal than that.

I suspect so but you seem to think it is high price so you are being a bit contradictory.

Would you be prepared to trade Pendlebury for Kerr?

Probably not. I think you are completely missing what I am on about. I am trying to address a deficiency that is stopping us winning premierships. Adding a quality mid for one out doesn’t do that. Adding one for an injury prone underperformed ruckman, a battling semi-key defender who makes too many mistakes, albeit he is a great clubman, or a quick marking forward who has injury, kicking and versatility queries is a dead set bargain for us. We would need to get another 2 rucks but we need to do that anyway. We have the forwards covered and we won’t miss Maxwell all that much. The picks are bit more subjective. I don’t study the u/18s.

Or Brown and our first-rounder?.

No. Brown we would struggle for 5 years to replace.



Look, at the end of the day we are trying to put together a list that will win a premiership. We haven’t been able to do while pissing around at trade to date. Why on earth would doing the same thing for another decade change the result? Being conservative has failed us time and again. I can go all the way back to the board not taking Quinlan when Hafey had him but some who are older than I am can go back further. The only time we pulled our ears back and had a real ping was when we were run by people who knew more about headlines than football and it imploded. I am not advocating a New Magpies type drug crazed recruiting spree. I am advocating a specifically targeted player acquisition in order to win premierships over the next 1 to 5 years. If you are advocating steady as she goes then I am strongly opposed.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

If we were at the top end of list managers we’d get picks from the new clubs and back ourselves to do it.

Presumably, the new clubs would want something decent in return for picks. Trading into these drafts will come at cost. Maybe we will manipulate the trades to our benefit -- but then everyone will be trying to do so.

This so called last uncompromised draft does not produce more valuable picks by definition.

No, but it will give us a better draft position than we're likely to get in subsequent years.

The value is determined by the quality of the payers at the draft position in question and if anything the media is overvaluing them.

How do you know that?

Yeh and that has to change. Win-win.

How is trading Fraser away and replacing him with alternatives who are (at least presently) less capable than him a 'win'?

How is the number of players relevant? We have a compulsory cull anyway. The issue is who not how many.

Depending on the players, trading two is probably a higher price than trading one.

I suspect so but you seem to think it is high price so you are being a bit contradictory.

Not contradictory at all. The price I'd pay doesn't have to match the price I anticipate the Eagles will ask for.

Probably not. I think you are completely missing what I am on about. I am trying to address a deficiency that is stopping us winning premierships. Adding a quality mid for one out doesn’t do that. Adding one for an injury prone underperformed ruckman, a battling semi-key defender who makes too many mistakes, albeit he is a great clubman, or a quick marking forward who has injury, kicking and versatility queries is a dead set bargain for us.

Maxwell's a dud -- no one's gonna want him. However trading our first two picks and our number one ruckman for a midfielder who has a record of suspension and substance-abuse problems is over the odds IMO. My view is that, whatever their fallibilities, Rusling and Fraser are probably of more value to us than they are to the Eagles. Hence my feeling that you sacrificing too much to get Kerr, but offering too little to the Eagles to persuade them to release him. I may be wrong, but that's what I think.

We would need to get another 2 rucks but we need to do that anyway. We have the forwards covered and we won’t miss Maxwell all that much. The picks are bit more subjective. I don’t study the u/18s. No. Brown we would struggle for 5 years to replace.

And after you've traded away our first two picks and possibly Rusling, Maxwell and Fraser how do you propose to get two rucks of a higher standard than our current number-one ruck?

Look, at the end of the day we are trying to put together a list that will win a premiership. We haven’t been able to do while pissing around at trade to date. Why on earth would doing the same thing for another decade change the result?

Which players on our list are gonna be the basis of our team going forward? And how did we get them? We got most of them (omitting f/s) via the draft: Brown, Thomas, Pendlebury, Goldsack, Clarke, O'Brien, Wellinghams (rookies x 3), McCarthy, Anthony, Swan. We're where we are now largely via drafting. I don't discount trading at all. Not by a long shot. But I'm content to let the recruiting dept (the best resourced in the AFL) do what they're paid for. Trade by all means. But don't get so desperate for a 'hail Mary' trade that you end up overpaying.

Being conservative has failed us time and again. I can go all the way back to the board not taking Quinlan when Hafey had him but some who are older than I am can go back further.

That's so far back I fail to see the relevance.

I am advocating a specifically targeted player acquisition in order to win premierships over the next 1 to 5 years. If you are advocating steady as she goes then I am strongly opposed.

Everyone wants to win premierships, Mark. And I'm in favour of targetted player acquisition too. Where our difference lies is in what we're prepared to pay in this particular instance.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I'd absolutely love Kerr at the Pies, but I can't see what we can offer that we'd be happy to lose...