Swans offer Kerr 5 years

[Robbo]

Recruiting Kerr would be very dumb. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

[chalbilto]

It wouldn't be dumb recruiting Kerr, what would be dumb is the 2 top 10 draft picks wanted for him. Too much of a sacrifice.

[ROK Lobster]

Get him. Then when he has a bad game I will be able to use the line "Paul's Kerr".

[satchmopugdog]

Get him. Then when he has a bad game I will be able to use the line "Paul's Kerr".

Kerr and Canberra...I'm sure there is a link there somewhere.

[Dogzbody]

the biggest thing that concerns me about that article is not the Kerr talk...more so the fact that Roos isn't sure about O'Keefe staying

[Bear]

Kerr is an absolute gun, but i can't see how we could get him without robbing Peter to pay Paul (Roos).

[ROK Lobster]

the biggest thing that concerns me about that article is not the Kerr talk...more so the fact that Roos isn't sure about O'Keefe staying

Roos not knowing/seeing/hearing/caring is Roos speak for I don't want to talk about it.

[Bas]

Who do we lose? Pick 11 and O"Keefe.

Normally that would be OK lose quality to get quality BUT it's Kerr we're talking about. He would make an enormous on field difference but off field baggage is not good.

[CureTheSane]

What do recreational drugs have to do with sports integrity any more so than domestic violence?

There was no need to go on with this conversation.

You've already won this battle, presenting a definitive and conclusive example of an absolute contradiction.

Well done

[connolly]

That's hypocrisy of the highest order. I usually let it go when you crap on about Bevan but in this case, pull your head in.

You can't advocate one of these guys being OK and entitled to an opportunity with the Swans, and then say the other is not. There is no difference between the two as far as I can see. The only difference is that Kerr is a better, proven player.

FWIW, I say go get Kerr!

i'm really honoured that you have stirred to comment on my modest contribution. i can (can't -is this a rule???) make a distinction between off field violence and drug use and their relative affects on sport. The difference is not that Kerr is a better player but that drugs and sport, whether so-called recreational or performance enhancing destroy the integrity of the game. That's why there is an organization called WADA. It is such a boring old piece of rag to accuse someone of hypocracy in argument. The old ad hominem argument, doesn't prove anything. To accuse someone of hypocracy in an argument is really pretty hopeless. I think you mean inconsistent?

[BSA5]

i'm really honoured that you have stirred to comment on my modest contribution. i can (can't -is this a rule???) make a distinction between off field violence and drug use and their relative affects on sport. The difference is not that Kerr is a better player but that drugs and sport, whether so-called recreational or performance enhancing destroy the integrity of the game. That's why there is an organization called WADA. It is such a boring old piece of rag to accuse someone of hypocracy in argument. The old ad hominem argument, doesn't prove anything. To accuse someone of hypocracy in an argument is really pretty hopeless. I think you mean inconsistent?

Why? You've given no reason for that opinion.

[Bas]

If we're going for Kerr, we might as well make a place for Cousens. Don't want either of them to get lonely. After all I'm sure they have contacts in Sydney.

We don't have to give anybody up for Benny boy.