Bombertalk

See in todays paper about the west coke eagles being interested in Gumbleton. I ask the question, would we take Daniel Kerr for Gumbleton, if the rumours are true that Kerr wants out. I know that Gumby is an unknown but we can't get him on the park to find out, however Kerr is known as a gun midfielder which we desperately need. His off field problems are well known too, but he has a go as a player something we also need. Do we take a chance??

I would think that West Coast would want more than a straight swap of Gumbleton for Kerr. They would ask for a draft pick as well and I can't see the sense in giving up picks whilst we are in a rebuilding stage.

You blokes wanna challenge in the next few years?? Cousins AND Kerr? I'd put my house on us winning the flag.

Under normal circumstances 'NO'

However - Gumby has proven nothing - other than a bloke who can't get on the paddock. If we can't get at least a half dozen serviceable games out of him this year - then it's time to offer him as trade bait. This is a professional competition and we've got at least 6 blokes with questionable fitness and durability taking up valuable spots on our list.

As for Kerr and Cousins? Let's first see who is available.

I'd consider Kerr - Cousins would be a definite no go zone.

If Gumbleton wants to go home, and if West Coast can offer up a viable trade, then it should be looked at.

You have to remember though, Gumbleton was second pick in a very strong draft, West Coast will need to offer up something good. Assuming that Essendon finishes below West Coast on the ladder (50-50 at the moment), then we would have all the power because

1) We could be pricks and re-draft Gumbleton in the PSD, or
2) Kerr can just walk straight into the PSD and West Coast will get nothing.

If the only thing we lose is Gumbleton, and if he really wants to go home, and we could lose him for nothing if Fremantle or West Coast fall below us, then we should look at a deal.

Question is, why do they want him?

Answer, coz they clearly know the boy can play. We couldnt possibly trade him until we are sure of his value. As for getting Kerr???!!!! Excuse me whilst I wipe the sick off my shirt.

The real issue is why does Gumby want to go back to the West? What is failing in our medical/player welfare sytem? Can someone give a real answer and not a rumour?

Yours the Doctor

How old is Kerr anyway? Most midfielders these days are past their peak after the 28 year old mark (except for Hirdy who never stopped peaking!). I guess we have to remember that Gumby still has 10 years plus of good footy so whoever gets him is getting a good player for twice as long as we might get in return. If Kerr only had 3 years left in the game (although i'm guessing he has more) he almost wouldn't be worth a 10 year forward.

Anyway, i just reckon when trading you have to take age into consideration.

nmgilbert wrote:How old is Kerr anyway? Most midfielders these days are past their peak after the 28 year old mark (except for Hirdy who never stopped peaking!). I guess we have to remember that Gumby still has 10 years plus of good footy so whoever gets him is getting a good player for twice as long as we might get in return. If Kerr only had 3 years left in the game (although i'm guessing he has more) he almost wouldn't be worth a 10 year forward.

Anyway, i just reckon when trading you have to take age into consideration.

A couple of things. 10 years plus of good footy? I think most AFL players are in and out of the system a lot less than 10 years. Gumbleton seems injury prone...it could be our bad conditioning, but he has struggled consistently to be fit. Very few good 10 year players running around.

But besides all of that, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WC TRADE KERR?

they have just lost Judd and Cousins, and their midfield has been seriously compromised...in fact they are junk without kerr. I hardly think they would trade him.

Gumby will get on the park and then things will improve. I hope he stays and becomes a club champion at Essendon.

Here is my question on this...

Would it be worth giving them Gumby & Johns for Kerr and keeping any draft picks we have?

Crazyman wrote:Here is my question on this...

Would it be worth giving them Gumby & Johns for Kerr and keeping any draft picks we have?

Johns has absolutely zero trade value. Repeat: zero. Gumby is an injury-prone kid, albeit one who is highly rated, who has played less than half a dozen games.

Why would West Coast possibly entertain giving Kerr away for these two players?

Just checked out his birthday - it's in 4 days (the 16th) and he'll be turning 25. Maybe all of us Bomber supporters could send him a birthday card to show our support in him coming across sometime!

so he is only 24 turning 25... give him a contract PLEASE!!!

but WC wont give him up anytime soon

I cant believe anyone is actually considering talking about trading Gumby. He will be a strong part of our future

Kerr may be a proven player but he's also a proven ****stick.

I'd rather a team for of losers who aren't complete pricks, than support a team like WC any day. And if you start looking at taking players like Cousins and Kerr... Sheeds was able to pull players heads in or tell them to f*** off. I don't know if Knights is capable of that, and I'd rather stop the rot before it sets in.

So my vote is no.

Megan wrote:Kerr may be a proven player but he's also a proven ****stick.

I'd rather a team for of losers who aren't complete pricks, than support a team like WC any day. And if you start looking at taking players like Cousins and Kerr... Sheeds was able to pull players heads in or tell them to f*** off. I don't know if Knights is capable of that, and I'd rather stop the rot before it sets in.

So my vote is no.

Oh FFS, they cant all be milk drinkers. This attitude has already cost us at least 1 flag, when we didnt get Martin Pike. He is 25 years old, and EVERYTHING we need in our mid-field. The guy would be the best player at our club by 2 miles, yes Lloyd, Lucas, and anyone else you care to name included.

I don't think Paul Van Der Haar was a milk drinker.

robbie67 wrote:

Megan wrote:Kerr may be a proven player but he's also a proven ****stick.

I'd rather a team for of losers who aren't complete pricks, than support a team like WC any day. And if you start looking at taking players like Cousins and Kerr... Sheeds was able to pull players heads in or tell them to f*** off. I don't know if Knights is capable of that, and I'd rather stop the rot before it sets in.

So my vote is no.

Oh FFS, they cant all be milk drinkers. This attitude has already cost us at least 1 flag, when we didnt get Martin Pike. He is 25 years old, and EVERYTHING we need in our mid-field. The guy would be the best player at our club by 2 miles, yes Lloyd, Lucas, and anyone else you care to name included.

That is beside the point, west coast won't trade him.

I mean has anyone been watching West Coast recently? They are AWFUL and look what happens when they have Kerr out...they get thumped by carlton.

tom9779 wrote:I mean has anyone been watching West Coast recently? They are AWFUL and look what happens when they have Kerr out...they get thumped by carlton.

They've been getting thumped with Kerr also. Losing 4 of their teams best players (Judd,Cousins,Kerr,Priddis) has made them an average side.

Kaan your quote is quoting me quoting things I never quoted

Robbie they dont have to be milk drinkers as you put it, tho they should cause it's good for their bones... I just dont want a team full of utter f****, like WC have