Kerr...

[JeffDunne]

I wasn't talking about you Dan.

It was directed at the people that criticised previous decisions along this line.

.

Yes Kerr is obviously no where near the player that Brooks or Watts are......

One has proven ability...the others the much vaunted 'potential".....

LMFAO

The entire national draft - especially 1st rounders - are picked on nothing other than that much vaunted "potential".

Sycophants like yourself have been bleating on the past 18 months how we've mismanaged the list . . . actually I should say how one man mismanaged our list . . . and now you're suggesting we should trade our 1st round pick on a bloke with questionable character whose getting long in tooth?

The hypocrisy is quite astounding really.

When we lose or perform poorly it’s the list.

When we win it’s our new ‘defensive’ game plan.

A couple of wins and now forget the rebuild – we’re going to top up by trading away 1st round picks.

I suspect after the next loss we’ll be back to blaming the list.

I don’t know if you get tired performing these back flips, but I get tired just watching them.

[St DAC]

If 24 is "long in the tooth" why would any player ever be traded? At 24 (and a midfielder) barring injury you could reasonably expect 5+ years of very good service. If you think you could challange for a flag within that period, and all other factors are positive, why not?

Note I am not talking Kerr specifically here, just the general proposition of trading a 24 year old.

I'd take Kerr for a 1st round pick and a GOP. He's a gun, and you can't have too many guns. The question would be whether we could afford him in the SC, and whether we have what WC would want that we'd be prepared to forgo player-wise.

[JeffDunne]

St Dac, I haven't passed an opinion on whether we should trade for him or not. Simply highlighting the usual hypocrisy shown but the forum's biggest spammers.

I think he's highly unlikely for a variety of reasons and TBH think this discussion is nothing more than pissing into the wind. If WC wants to trade him for what we'd have to offer, he wants to leave WC and probably more importantly wants to come to St Kilda, and we can fit him under the cap without other casualties, then of course you'd look at him.

However I doubt any of those scenarios are likely.

[TimeToShineFellas]

Not in a million years.

He is a really troubled person who we just don't need near our kids.

Far too ill-disciplined both on and off the field - we don't need it.

Let Carlton have him.

Wasn't this the same argument people were using against Michael Gardiner when we picked him up?

I haven't heard any reports of him leading the youngsters down the wrong path since he's been here.....

[WayneJudson42]

Agree, JB about the hypocracy part. I'm not 100% on who said what in the past, but if some have lambasted past decisions and are now stating that we should swap a 1st rounder... then yes, they are hypocrites.

Pissing in the wind? This thread is more of a supposition, so why not discuss it? It's a bit like knowing that Paris Hilton is single, and was looking for a new lover. If the opportunity arose, would you sleep with her... and what would you give up to do so? Ain't gunna happen, but boy, it's fun to talk about

Extreme example, I know. But you get my drift.

[WayneJudson42]

The hypocrisy is quite astounding really.

When we lose or perform poorly it’s the list.

When we win it’s our new ‘defensive’ game plan.

A couple of wins and now forget the rebuild – we’re going to top up by trading away 1st round picks.

I suspect after the next loss we’ll be back to blaming the list.

Farking GOLD. Hammer, nail, head!

Can I use this in my sig?

[saintsRrising]

I wasn't talking about you Dan.

It was directed at the people that criticised previous decisions along this line.

.

Yes Kerr is obviously no where near the player that Brooks or Watts are......

One has proven ability...the others the much vaunted 'potential".....

LMFAO

The entire national draft - especially 1st rounders - are picked on nothing other than that much vaunted "potential".

Sycophants like yourself have been bleating on the past 18 months how we've mismanaged the list . . . actually I should say how one man mismanaged our list . . . and now you're suggesting we should trade our 1st round pick on a bloke with questionable character whose getting long in tooth?

The hypocrisy is quite astounding really.

.

I think if you read my posts you will see that I posted that I think he is off to the Blues....but then facts are not your strong point.



By the way...what did we swap Hamill for?????

Mismangement of the list comes from constantly getting your trades/drafts wrong.

You can be succesful by trading or by drafting or by a combination.

One can aquire a Ferrari (Hamill)...or a Volkswagon (Voss)...or a lemon (McGough, Brooks etc).

Now the first two are good value if they are what you need and the price is right.

But a lemon is always a lemon.

My criticism of GT's list mismangement is not from any one draft pick or trade as no one gets a 100% strike rate. Bur rather is from a sustained poor record of GT over several years were his trades were mainly dibalocal and his draft selections ordinary.

Good ball-skills and pace were also well underweigthed as a criteria under GT's watch.

[saintsRrising]

Agree, JB about the hypocracy part. I'm not 100% on who said what in the past, but if some have lambasted past decisions and are now stating that we should swap a 1st rounder... then yes, they are hypocrites.

.

I would not rely on JD then as I have had to take him to task several times for misrepresenting what I have posted.


You need to consider what was actually said...not what JB has reworked it as.

The criticism on Watts, was why draft a a big slow forward when we had several and the game was changing...but lacked fast mids and a key defender. Coincidence that he was the then CEO's son?

With Brooks it was the high price paid with 2 draft picks exchanged. He had ability yes, but always had a casual attitude.

Gram you would say was one of GT's better deals, but such instances are few and far between.


With Hamiill, the price paid was to our advantage.

As I have posted in the past, our drafting /trading record under the previous coach once BW left the club was poor.

[WayneJudson42]

Like I said, not sure who said what in the past.

[saintsRrising]

Like I said, not sure who said what in the past.

Yes I noted...so no issues for me with what you said.

[plugger66]

I wasn't talking about you Dan.

It was directed at the people that criticised previous decisions along this line.

.

Yes Kerr is obviously no where near the player that Brooks or Watts are......

One has proven ability...the others the much vaunted 'potential".....

LMFAO

The entire national draft - especially 1st rounders - are picked on nothing other than that much vaunted "potential".

Sycophants like yourself have been bleating on the past 18 months how we've mismanaged the list . . . actually I should say how one man mismanaged our list . . . and now you're suggesting we should trade our 1st round pick on a bloke with questionable character whose getting long in tooth?

The hypocrisy is quite astounding really.

.

I think if you read my posts you will see that I posted that I think he is off to the Blues....but then facts are not your strong point.



By the way...what did we swap Hamill for?????

Mismangement of the list comes from constantly getting your trades/drafts wrong.

You can be succesful by trading or by drafting or by a combination.

One can aquire a Ferrari (Hamill)...or a Volkswagon (Voss)...or a lemon (McGough, Brooks etc).

Now the first two are good value if they are what you need and the price is right.

But a lemon is always a lemon.

My criticism of GT's list mismangement is not from any one draft pick or trade as no one gets a 100% strike rate. Bur rather is from a sustained poor record of GT over several years were his trades were mainly dibalocal and his draft selections ordinary.

Good ball-skills and pace were also well underweigthed as a criteria under GT's watch.

His drafting. That is very funny. So it is JB drafting when in one draft we got Ball, Dal, X, Joey and Goose. When they are good it is JB and when they are ordinary it is GT. Also the year Watts I think Jb thought there wasnt much around at that pick so it was worth trading. Yes Brooks turned out to be a bad trade no one can argue that but who may known what would have happened had he not done his leg afterall I think he played something like the first 6 games in the ones that year in his second year of footy.

The other thing everyone forgets is we finished in the top 4 2 years in a row so our top picks the next years following were much higher than they have been in the last 2 years.

[St DAC]

However I doubt any of those scenarios are likely.

I too very much doubt it would come to fruition. If he's available, we should have a crack. I doubt we could make a suitable deal that would satisfy WC though.

I actually don't think he'll end up moving. But I've been wrong plenty of times before!

[WayneJudson42]

Where's Barks4Eva when you need him

[Mr Magic]

I don't think anybody is in any doubt that when it came to the drafting of 'virgin' players (those that have not played AFL football previously) JB had the major input into the decisions made.
Yes GT would have 'rubber-stamped' JB's picks (as Head Coach, Head of Football Operations etc, etc,) but I believe he would have gone ahead with JB's evaluations on these players.

BUT there is much difference of opinion on whose decision was the ultimate one when we chose to trade draft picks for 'recycleds'.

I would think that it defies logic to claim that JB would have had any more than a minor input in these decisions.
Let's face it, we are told that his (JB's) department was seriously underfunded and undermanned so where on earth would he have had the time to not only look out for all the young 'up and coming' players around the country but also all those on AFL lists who were playing in the AFL, VFL, WAFL, SANFL and anywhere else.

I would think the best that JB could offer on those players (Black/Brooks/Watts/McGough/Ackland/Gram/Fiora etc) is his opinion on what they were like in the year(s) he was watching them prior to their original drafting.
He would have had little, if any, knowledge of what had happened to them once they were drafted by their original clubs.

Therefore if you accept this premise then the only logical conclusion you can come to is that people other than JB made the decisions to trade for these 'recycleds'. Only 2 people come to mind GT and Bundy.

I'm sure that JB would have been asked what the prospective trade picks might produce (no-one could know for sure because the picks were traded before the drafts) but I believe that the decisions were ultimately made by GT/MR, and therefore they should take the responsibility for the success/failure of those trades.

Similarly RL must take responsibility for trading the picks for Clarke/MG/Schneider/Dempster/King/CGardiner as I feel JB would have been in the exact same postion on these as the earlier ones when GT was the Coach.

[plugger66]

I don't think anybody is in any doubt that when it came to the drafting of 'virgin' players (those that have not played AFL football previously) JB had the major input into the decisions made.
Yes GT would have 'rubber-stamped' JB's picks (as Head Coach, Head of Football Operations etc, etc,) but I believe he would have gone ahead with JB's evaluations on these players.

BUT there is much difference of opinion on whose decision was the ultimate one when we chose to trade draft picks for 'recycleds'.

I would think that it defies logic to claim that JB would have had any more than a minor input in these decisions.
Let's face it, we are told that his (JB's) department was seriously underfunded and undermanned so where on earth would he have had the time to not only look out for all the young 'up and coming' players around the country but also all those on AFL lists who were playing in the AFL, VFL, WAFL, SANFL and anywhere else.

I would think the best that JB could offer on those players (Black/Brooks/Watts/McGough/Ackland/Gram/Fiora etc) is his opinion on what they were like in the year(s) he was watching them prior to their original drafting.
He would have had little, if any, knowledge of what had happened to them once they were drafted by their original clubs.

Therefore if you accept this premise then the only logical conclusion you can come to is that people other than JB made the decisions to trade for these 'recycleds'. Only 2 people come to mind GT and Bundy.

I'm sure that JB would have been asked what the prospective trade picks might produce (no-one could know for sure because the picks were traded before the drafts) but I believe that the decisions were ultimately made by GT/MR, and therefore they should take the responsibility for the success/failure of those trades.

Similarly RL must take responsibility for trading the picks for Clarke/MG/Schneider/Dempster/King/CGardiner as I feel JB would have been in the exact same postion on these as the earlier ones when GT was the Coach.

I actually doubt he had any input in to the traded players but he did say that the picks around Watts number would struggle that year and if we could get a good trade we should go for it. As I said Brooks didnt work and ended up a bad trade but I would love to know if JB was right about say picks 17-22 in Watts year. Was any of those picks good players?

[JeffDunne]

I think if you read my posts you will see that I posted that I think he is off to the Blues....but then facts are not your strong point.

WTF?

Would you or would you not trade our first round pick for Kerr?

I posted in regards to people being hypocritical for taking this position and you replied to that post. I presume that means yes?

Rather than getting into your usual debates on symantics can we at least try and stick to the topic?

I presume you would be willing to trade at least a first rounder for him?

Yes?

[saintsRrising]

Similarly RL must take responsibility for trading the picks for Clarke/MG/Schneider/Dempster/King/CGardiner as I feel JB would have been in the exact same postion on these as the earlier ones when GT was the Coach.

Indeed...however note that we had a new head recruiter (from the Cats)for the last draft with Bevo acting as a consultant.

With Clarke/MG/Schneider/Dempster/King/CGardiner you would imagine that Lyon was the main driver here.

Birrs we understand was on the trade table when he took over, but he rubber stamped it, while taking Milne off the trade table.

With the rookies and kiddie picks I would imagine that RL would have overseen the shopping list and influenced the selection process...as a head coach should.....with the recuiters putting up their recommendations.

Re-drafting GTrain would again IMO have been Lyon's call.

[WayneJudson42]

GT's gone. Let's move on, shall we?

Are we that precious, that when someone states an opion (right or wrong) some others take it personally?

FFS, lighten up.

[saintsRrising]

I think if you read my posts you will see that I posted that I think he is off to the Blues....but then facts are not your strong point.

WTF?

Would you or would you not trade our first round pick for Kerr?

I posted in regards to people being hypocritical for taking this position and you replied to that post. I presume that means yes?

Rather than getting into your usual debates on symantics can we at least try and stick to the topic?

I presume you would be willing to trade at least a first rounder for him?

Yes?

I am always happy to answer a queston.


As I have posted you would need to look at value....and need.

On need; Could we use a midfielder with his ability = yes.

So there is a need.


On Price

Would I trade picks 1 to 3 for him = no

Would I trade pick 17 for him = yes.

On me advocating a deal to get Kerr:

No I am not advocating it. My personal preference is to keep your first round pick. But having said that if you can get a Hamill at the right price then you do.

[JeffDunne]

You've got as much chance of getting him for pick 17 as I have as being coach next year.

Why even mention it?

At the minimum he'd command the equivalent of two top 10 picks and at least one top 5. Even then you'd probably be struggling to get the deal done.

Can I ask, why on earth did you respond to my post if you're not advocating that we trade for him?

[saintsRrising]

Can I ask, why on earth did you respond to my post if you're not advocating that we trade for him?

What I replied to was:

It was directed at the people that criticised previous decisions along this line.

ie your comment was not just about Kerr only and specifically was about previous decisions...and so my reply was about two of those previous decisions of trading of first round draft picks....and not Kerr only.

I have been critical of the trading for Watts and Brooks. Hence I responded to your post.

[Beekay]

west coast would want way to much, 1st round draft pick & a gun to much,

That's pretty fair in my opinion.

That is not asking for too much at all.

We'd want the same for Dal Santo and Kerr is a much better player.

[evertonfc]

For Kerr, knowing the value of the draft this year, I'd be prepared to hold our breaths for a year and give up our first two picks.

Let's not forget, his value has taken a hammering, but with a good pre-season behind him, I think he could be quite awesome once more.

And has probably 7-8 elite seasons in him. Daniel Kerr elite seasons.

He is worth the risk ten fold.

[JeffDunne]

Can I ask, why on earth did you respond to my post if you're not advocating that we trade for him?

What I replied to was:

It was directed at the people that criticised previous decisions along this line.

ie your comment was not just about Kerr only and specifically was about previous decisions...and so my reply was about two of those previous decisions of trading of first round draft picks....and not Kerr only.

I have been critical of the trading for Watts and Brooks. Hence I responded to your post.

Why am I not surprised this debate would so quickly become one on semantics?

Yeah ok, you're not a hypocrite because you'd trade Kerr for pick 17.

[IluvHarvey]

Considering the bloke he hit on the weekend is a mate of mine, i don't really want him at our club at the moment. Ask me in a few weeks and i'm sure my opinion will change.