Rumour Bulldogs show interest in Gumbleton

[VogonProsthetnic]

They don't want them to. They either want a side to overpay, or to convince Caddy to stay.
No way to that deal. GC would take it in a second, but most 'Dogs supporters would scream bloody murder. Not a good deal.

Guess GC have nothing to lose by playing hard ball- but if they don't accept Geel's 14th pick they may be stuck with a player that does not want to be there. I haven't seen any of Mayes/Stringer/Wines/Toumpas in action, so I wouldn't know but Caddy does sem like he is going to be a topliner. What he is worth will depend upon how good the draft is this year.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Guess GC have nothing to lose by playing hard ball- but if they don't accept Geel's 14th pick they may be stuck with a player that does not want to be there. I haven't seen any of Mayes/Stringer/Wines/Toumpas in action, so I wouldn't know but Caddy does sem like he is going to be a topliner. What he is worth will depend upon how good the draft is this year.

I think that for some reason, they're convinced they can get Caddy to want to stay - after chasing a deal for two seasons, if they're still playing hard ball then they're either idiots or geniuses.

Fair enough, I'd rate all of those miles ahead of where Caddy is at the moment, but then again my knowledge on Caddy is limited to only a few matches. Think he could be a great player but I just haven't seen as much as I have from the 1-15 draft range this year.

 

[ossie_21]

Surely, you jest?!

Well, I'm not the first person suggesting Marko as trade bait. With Lake closer to the end of his career than the start it would make sense to keep him, but as I said we have players coming through that could all play that role. But, I don't think that will happen for us getting him for a few reasons. Essendon wants to get him & he wants to go there, obviously they have work to do though. With Geelong not getting Boak they may try too

Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion though. As far as Gumbleton goes, this was the first season he's been able to string games together, but just cos he was a number 2 pick I can't see any club giving up anything decent, which means they will be better off just keeping him

 

[BRG93]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gumbletons-bomber-future-clouded/story-fndv7pj3-1226472924554

It is believed the Western Bulldogs will not pursue Gumbleton, despite his connection with Dogs coach Brendan McCartney, a former key assistant at Essendon.

The Dogs are content to continue to give opportunities to their emerging key forwards.

 

[immortalmike]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gumbletons-bomber-future-clouded/story-fndv7pj3-1226472924554

Thank Joe Pesci for that!

 

[VitalDread]

Here is my 2cents about this topic, why pay a injuried prone player even more money when we have Tom hill in the waiting ti play a game that is younger and will provided more imput them gumbleon

 

[cammo78]

Well, I'm not the first person suggesting Marko as trade bait.

If he can make this happen, I will forthwith consider Fantasia the world's greatest genius.

 

[Mofra]

Here is my 2cents about this topic, why pay a injuried prone player even more money when we have Tom hill in the waiting ti play a game that is younger and will provided more imput them gumbleon

Simple - Gumbleton is better.
Talent beats youth.

 

[Bulldogsnm1]

Simple - Gumbleton is better.
Talent beats youth.

Gumbleton is an injury prone lumbering forward with no speed or sideways movement capability. Haven't seen Tom Hill play so won't comment on him.
In an era where the tall forwards are more about power, speed and movement. Look at Darling, Kennedy, Cloke, Buddy, Roughhead, Brown etc.
Leave me out of Gumbleton, last thing we want is another slow forward.

 

[Mofra]

Gumbleton has the aerobic capcity of a midfielder and presents all day - we desperately lack a forward to kick to when bringing the ball off the HB line.

We need someone like that, and ruling a bloke out simply because we have a kid who has looked ok playing some VFL level football is to close our options off. Hill moves ok but has alot of work to get to AFL level, especially considering we handed out debuts like tic tacs this year and Hill wasn't even in selection consideration (Panos was at least named as an emergency).

Don't think for a second in the draft proper if a KPF is seen as the best available player at our pick, we wouldn't take them.

 

[Gghippo]

I don't want Gumbleton.

But if he nominates for the pre-season draft and we get him for nothing. Then I'll happily cheer on the boy for his 2 year contract!!

 

[Royale]

Gumby can play.

But too injury prone to consider.

 

[paulveed]

This saying really aggrevates me. As long as the reasoning behind the decision is sound than the result might be down to pure chance.

Using this theory the Bulldogs should simply never draft tall forwards because we've only ever wasted our draft picks trying this. Does that mean we miss the next Buddy?

If I flip a coin 3 times and it comes up heads 3 times that doesn't mean I'm insane to think that there is 50% it'll be tails the next time.

People under-rate luck or 'chance'.

The stoic would say that as long as you believe the decision to be beneficial than you should make it and not be encumbered by previous failures just because they were failures.

Yes well, perhaps that comes down to whether or not one believes in chance. I for one doubt that such a thing exists, but that is me and beside the point entirely. There are causal relationships to everything. Just because we fail to understand them, we use the term 'chance'. Anyway , as I said that is beside the point.

It is a fact, that Sydney for instance has a far greater record of success with trading in 'fringe' players from other clubs than we do. I am certain that has nothing what ever to do with 'chance'.
If we want to go down that path with a degree of success, perhaps our first recruiting effort should be to recruit the Sydney recruiting boffins. Then perhaps it might become a viable option for us too.
In the interim however, why don't we just stick with what we appear to be ok at. Our selection over the last couple of seasons from the drafts appears to have born better fruits than our trading in of players unwanted by their own clubs.
For heavens sake we already have enough 'crocks' on our list, lets not trade in any more problems.

 

[Chadley]

I laugh how people say how he is no good... He would almost be our best forward... which is quite sad but the truth.

 

[BWFC]

Not almost. He would definitely be our best forward. Just not sure he can stay on the field. If he can then I'd give up a high pick. But it's a big IF

 

[ossie_21]

If he can make this happen, I will forthwith consider Fantasia the world's greatest genius.

Ooohhhhhh, I get you now. I thought you were saying about putting him up for a trade, not as a trade for Caddy. Made the mistake of not thinking you were being a dick about it. Caddy is out of contract, so Gold Coast don't have much to bargain with. Of course it seems silly to just swap someone like a defender for him, but when you weigh up a key defender is someone they really need, other clubs may or may not be wanting to offer a higher pick...do I think it will happen? No, but there is a possibility of a deal just like that, even if it's not the dogs involved. If a Vic club can offer a first rounder, they will get him. Just a 2nd round may not, but 2nd round plus a player ready to go they could use doesn't sound as stupid as you try to make it look

 

[Butane]

Yes well, perhaps that comes down to whether or not one believes in chance. I for one doubt that such a thing exists, but that is me and beside the point entirely. There are causal relationships to everything. Just because we fail to understand them, we use the term 'chance'. Anyway , as I said that is beside the point.

It is a fact, that Sydney for instance has a far greater record of success with trading in 'fringe' players from other clubs than we do. I am certain that has nothing what ever to do with 'chance'.
If we want to go down that path with a degree of success, perhaps our first recruiting effort should be to recruit the Sydney recruiting boffins. Then perhaps it might become a viable option for us too.
In the interim however, why don't we just stick with what we appear to be ok at. Our selection over the last couple of seasons from the drafts appears to have born better fruits than our trading in of players unwanted by their own clubs.
For heavens sake we already have enough 'crocks' on our list, lets not trade in any more problems.

I think we agree then. I think a good start to improving our chances of trading in some gems would be to chase who ever is in charge of the Sydney recruiting. They seemingly have better knowledge and have an improved chance of increasing our odds.

 

[cammo78]

Of course it seems silly to just swap someone like a defender for him, but when you weigh up a key defender is someone they really need, other clubs may or may not be wanting to offer a higher pick...do I think it will happen? No, but there is a possibility of a deal just like that, even if it's not the dogs involved. If a Vic club can offer a first rounder, they will get him. Just a 2nd round may not, but 2nd round plus a player ready to go they could use doesn't sound as stupid as you try to make it look

Mate - with all due respect.

Markovic doesn't belong on ANY AFL list. He is a VFL-standard player at best.

No club in their right mind would trade anything for him. Even as a set of the proverbial "steak knives". He is clearly not up to it.

 

[Tommycash]

Still reckon this Tom Lee guy who is kicking regular bags for Claremont should be our target with a third rounder.

It's possible that Tommy will last beyond that, It's just question of how many picks we have. If we can get Gumbleton on the cheap it'd be nice, but i'd be more then happy with Lee. Especially as Lee has no history of injuries, and is 3 years younger at 21. Lee just seems like he's really worth taking a punt on for me. Gumbleton may be a little more skilled, but what I have seen of Lee, he'd definitely be in the side ahead of Jones.

 

[Tommycash]

Decent player but injured to often. Would prefer Williams up forward.

That comment is so ironic, you could start a mine.

 

[Slattery_20]

Hah, I suppose you're right.

I wouldn't want to part with a draft pick for him, it's too risky - all I'm saying is that if Essendon shows interest in someone like Sherman or DJ (who, honestly, wouldn't be bad moves for them) and we can get a trade done, it's better than delisting them or keeping deadweight on our list.

Why in the name of heck would we want either of them?
Let alone consider trading a young, genuine key forward for a likely-delisted-flanker worth giving away a pick for?

 

[Slattery_20]

High risk, high reward. From what I've seen this year he looks talented, strong and could be a FF option for us.

Comes down to value. I would give him a spot on the list if he came dirt cheap (third rounder may be too much) but I'd prefer to bid for Hogan or draft a VFL / WAFL tall.

I can understand why Scott might want to move (Hurley, Ryder, Daniher) but he also owes the Dons a lot.

Very much so.

 

[binround]

Here is my 2cents about this topic, why pay a injuried prone player even more money when we have Tom hill in the waiting ti play a game that is younger and will provided more imput them gumbleon

Totally agree with this one, 200 cm playing ten minutes per quarter in the ruck each week with willy and a further ten rotating off the bench seems to have none of the body issues has had in the past and is either one or two in willys goal kicking. Absolute no brainer if Mcartney is fair dinkum about developing from within

 

[Mofra]

Markovic doesn't belong on ANY AFL list. He is a VFL-standard player at best.

He was in our B&F top-ten last year

 

[ANGEL DARK]

I laugh how people say how he is no good... He would almost be our best forward... which is quite sad but the truth.

He is no good and the resaon why he would be your best forward is because you have no quality forwards to speak of