Its the business end of things.. Time to cease the waffle and play serious ball ( npi ) . CCI think is stacking our deck. If we get him its a win of sorts..If we coerce others into their plan B desision aloowing us a better than expected selection (s) at those given picks then that is also a major win.

Were watching big boys playing poker for keeps. Conolly dint say categorically we WOULD take him only that he would be considered and aken regardless if that was our choice. Splitting hairs possibly but the meaning is there between the words ;

Youv'e been sucked in. Don't live in fantasy land and think that if a player has a choice that they would choose a bottom of the ladder team we would never get a good player thinking that way.

Sucked into what?

Read what I said properly before you comment!

I dont want Ball and did'nt expect him to pick us. I liked this article because CC is 'pumping the Ball up' so other clubs might take him sooner rather than later which will improve our chances of getting another highly rated draftee to slip to our Pick 18.

May 'Ball' = 'Turley'?

May 'Ball' = 'Turley'?

Oh, yeah.

They are exactly the same...

He's only got three games in him...

Are you going to stand by that?

Hyperbolic nonsense.

May 'Ball' = 'Turley'?

Not a great analogy Bazz & way too much info in your previous post !

I'm thinking we'll likely get a $500K Chris Heffernan. Won't be happy if we use either of 11 or 18 on him. Not for a player that the 'Pies thought worth no more than pick 30 & a fringe player.

Furious_d makes some valid points about Ball's value from a leadership & age-group perspective but I don't see he, Moloney & Jones (let alone Junior) in the same team. Same problem we were facing when Brock buggered off.

Hope it's a bluff. Even more, I hope it works.

Not a great analogy Bazz & way too much info in your previous post !

I'm thinking we'll likely get a $500K Chris Heffernan. Won't be happy if we use either of 11 or 18 on him. Not for a player that the 'Pies thought worth no more than pick 30 & a fringe player.

Furious_d makes some valid points about Ball's value from a leadership & age-group perspective but I don't see he, Moloney & Jones (let alone Junior) in the same team. Same problem we were facing when Brock buggered off.

Hope it's a bluff. Even more, I hope it works.

I don't really want him either GTB, but I can certainly understand why the FD might. My draft wet dream would be Butcher sliding to 11 and Vardy at 18. If Butch is gone I'd go best available at 11, hopefully a Melksham, Lucas or Jetta, and pray that big Griffiths is still there at 18. But I was disappointed we got Grimes ahead of Rance a few years ago, so what the hell would I know

What makes you think that? If Black, Butcher or Talia were still there you would take Griffiths over them. I note he is due to undego another shoulder operation and is considered injury prone.

I seriously doubt Butcher or Talia will be there and Griffiths looks more power forward than Black. If the club seriously want a forward I think we will jump at 11 rather than risk him not being there at 18. I have only seen limited vision and granted have not seen Butcher at his best but if they were all there I would take Talia ahead of Griffiths but not the other two. I think clubs have learnt that injuries (unless debilitating) should only be a minor consideration when drafting a player.

Right now that I'm completely beyond caring whether Luke Ball ends up with us or not, but I am glad to see that we're not going to stand aside and just watch him manipulate the process for his own ends. Even if coming out like this provokes another team into doing something rash and taking him early (Port with 9 or Essendon with 10) that's still really good for us.

Either way, I can't see him making it to Collingwood at 30 and that's gotta be good for everybody concerned.

If we do take him well so be it and he has to make the choice to grin and bear it and get in and play footy or sit out for a smidgen under 2 years and probably miss his chance altogether. We then gazump the Pies and that has to be a good thing, doesnt it? I just wonder tho, if we are wasting a pick. People are saying once he is picked he will get on and play well for the club, but I am wondering if that will be so and, once his contract is up, he will be out the door. Wasted pick.

I guess u dont know with any player that this wont happen but with him stating he wants to be a Pie, that they wont be in his ear in a year and a bit to ask for a trade. Perhaps tho, he will break down and we lose again.. it's just not a situation I really care for . Let's hope the bombers panic and take him at 10!!

I love Chris Connolly, he's awesome.

Great guy, but not sure if he should be too involved in drafting decisions, afterall he does have the worst list management record in the history of the game i my opinion while at Freo.

Great work by CC.

If we think Ball is the best player at our pick we should take him. If someone else is the best choice then pick them. There's a lot of factors that go into deciding who is the best player at a particular pick and often very different players are being compared - it's not easy but that's what BP is paid to do. One factor that wouldn't come into it for me is Ball's preference to play elsewhere. There is no way he'd sit out for 2 years and as CC says he'd give his all.

Ball is guaranteed to give us 60 games minimum, that means an 18yo alternative would need to give 100 games minimum given the first 40 would be learning curve. I'm not committed to Ball in any way but I can see how he would be a legitimate selection.

The risk that Ball would look elsewhere in 2012 is low - if things go according to plan MFC will be the exciting club on the rise to be at then.

Still think this is about conning Essendon...they need more Mid strength. Ball would suit them very well. Will they consider him a better pick at 10...thats the real question. Whatever they pick at 10 may effect our 11. If there at 18 I suppose youd have to take Ball...if the best offering

Oh, yeah.

They are exactly the same...

He's only got three games in him...

Are you going to stand by that?

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Rudeness is a weak person's imitation of strength.

Yeh it was hyperbolic (so I don't know why you included literal comparisons in your argument...) so sue me! In stating the Ball and Turley have similarities in my mind, I didn't try to present any facts or misleading information, just an opinion, which I will explain in a moment when I have finished bickering futilely with you.

rpfc, people other than you are allowed to present opinions on this site. Forums such as this one exist for that purpose. I very much enjoy reading most of your contributions, and when I don't enjoy them, I just note the difference of opinion and move on. I think that sometimes you use your intellect to bully other contributors. You should keep in mind that having the verbal ability to tear someone to pieces does not always necessitate the use of that ability. It would be far more impressive to see you display some emotional control, a step which occurred for most of us as we rounded out our teenage years.

Now, Ball and Turley. Use of the '=' symbol was a disgraceful exaggeration for which I have been duly chastised by you. What I should have said is: I won't be at all surprised if for pick 18 and $500k pa we end up with a bloke whose contribution turns out to far less than what was widely anticipated.

rpfc, people other than you are allowed to present opinions on this site. Forums such as this one exist for that purpose. I very much enjoy reading most of your contributions, and when I don't enjoy them, I just note the difference of opinion and move on. I think that sometimes you use your intellect to bully other contributors. You should keep in mind that having the verbal ability to tear someone to pieces does not always necessitate the use of that ability. It would be far more impressive to see you display some emotional control, a step which occurred for most of us as we rounded out our teenage years.

Have to agree with Barry here, rpfc.

You may well be smarter, you may well have much stronger arguments than others, and you may well be right (you usually are). But that does not give you the right to make fun of and talk down to others, which you seem to take pride in doing.

It seems to me (and Barry I guess) that every second or third post of yours comes across as rude.

Rudeness is a weak person's imitation of strength.

Yeh it was hyperbolic (so I don't know why you included literal comparisons in your argument...) so sue me! In stating the Ball and Turley have similarities in my mind, I didn't try to present any facts or misleading information, just an opinion, which I will explain in a moment when I have finished bickering futilely with you.

rpfc, people other than you are allowed to present opinions on this site. Forums such as this one exist for that purpose. I very much enjoy reading most of your contributions, and when I don't enjoy them, I just note the difference of opinion and move on. I think that sometimes you use your intellect to bully other contributors. You should keep in mind that having the verbal ability to tear someone to pieces does not always necessitate the use of that ability. It would be far more impressive to see you display some emotional control, a step which occurred for most of us as we rounded out our teenage years.

Now, Ball and Turley. Use of the '=' symbol was a disgraceful exaggeration for which I have been duly chastised by you. What I should have said is: I won't be at all surprised if for pick 18 and $500k pa we end up with a bloke whose contribution turns out to far less than what was widely anticipated.

Now, I like you BD. But I always say - give me an argument. Give me something more than what you gave me, and I know you were being flippant, but I put higher expectations on some more than others, like we all do.

Your last paragraph meant you had a point, but because you didn't give that in your previous post, I couldn't infer that you had nuance in your post.

I really don't think I am rude, I think indifference is the worst thing I could do. I am blunt, and I understand that that can grate.

And I certainly don't think I bully posters, I have had this discussion with other posters before. Maybe I stand by my arguments but I rarely get personal, if ever.

Hyperbolic nonsense is something we are all guilty of from time to time, I really don't believe that to be as cutting as you claim. It certainly wasn't meant as a personal jibe.

Have to agree with Barry here, rpfc.

You may well be smarter, you may well have much stronger arguments than others, and you may well be right (you usually are). But that does not give you the right to make fun of and talk down to others, which you seem to take pride in doing.

It seems to me (and Barry I guess) that every second or third post of yours comes across as rude.

I reject that.

Every third post is incredibly blunt, but rude? I don't see it that way at all.

You can't see tone in writing as you can in speech, and I rarely write anything with malice, I apologise if it comes off the screen as rudeness or bullying.

Again, I still say the worst thing I can do is show indifference by not writing anything.

Now, I like you BD. But I always say - give me an argument. Give me something more than what you gave me, and I know you were being flippant, but I put higher expectations on some more than others, like we all do.

Your last paragraph meant you had a point, but because you didn't give that in your previous post, I couldn't infer that you had nuance in your post.

I really don't think I am rude, I think indifference is the worst thing I could do. I am blunt, and I understand that that can grate.

And I certainly don't think I bully posters, I have had this discussion with other posters before. Maybe I stand by my arguments but I rarely get personal, if ever.

Hyperbolic nonsense is something we are all guilty of from time to time, I really don't believe that to be as cutting as you claim. It certainly wasn't meant as a personal jibe.

OK noted, and thank you. My initial post was well below par. Now that you've explained the motives behind your style I'm more comfortable with copping some criticism from you. I'll bear it in mind when I'm interpreting your posts. I was also likely being a little sensitive as I'm prone to be when hung over...

Apologies on over-reacting.

OK noted, and thank you. My initial post was well below par. Now that you've explained the motives behind your style I'm more comfortable with copping some criticism from you. I'll bear it in mind when I'm interpreting your posts. I was also likely being a little sensitive as I'm prone to be when hung over...

Apologies on over-reacting.

No worries. I can be blunt, facetious, sarcastic, glib, and 'unreadable', so I get on the nerves of many.

Back on topic:

There is a good summation on another thread by Demonland.

I'm happy now, if we pick him or not, I just wanted there to be no outright rejection of his recruitment by the MFC.

Every third post is incredibly blunt, but rude? I don't see it that way at all.

You can't see tone in writing as you can in speech, and I rarely write anything with malice, I apologise if it comes off the screen as rudeness or bullying.

I disagree with that. You can see tone in writing easily.

But apology accepted.

The last thing I want is for you to stop giving your opinions, but sometimes you force them down others' throats.

I disagree with that. You can see tone in writing easily.

You really can't.

Sorry rpfc,

I didn't intend for this to evolve into an intervention!

I think the best and most ironic punishment for any contributor who takes pride in their prose would be to enforce the use of an emoticon after every sentence.

Sorry rpfc,

I didn't intend for this to evolve into an intervention!

I think the best and most ironic punishment for any contributor who takes pride in their prose would be to enforce the use of an emoticon after every sentence.

I'm good.

For those that have been regulars on here would know (and partake in) I get this 'intervention' bi-annually so I have a lot of practice.

I know that the AFL have said that if Ball does not sign up with the team that drafts him, then he will be ineligible to play for 23 months.

But what happens to the Dees if we select him and he refuses to sign up?

We could end up one short on our list, and below the minimum salary cap.

Clearly we don't wan't to be short on our list, but if we could save $500K per year for the next 2 years with a let off from the AFL because it wasn't our fault due to draft tampering, that wouldn't be too bad.

I know that the AFL have said that if Ball does not sign up with the team that drafts him, then he will be ineligible to play for 23 months.

But what happens to the Dees if we select him and he refuses to sign up?

We could end up one short on our list, and below the minimum salary cap.

Clearly we don't wan't to be short on our list, but if we could save $500K per year for the next 2 years with a let off from the AFL because it wasn't our fault due to draft tampering, that wouldn't be too bad.

It`s an interesting question which I have also wondered recently. Would we get an extra pick in the PSD??Possibly picks 1 n 2?? Dunno?

Actually... what are the repercussions for us to not reach the minimum level of the salary cap?

I understand we have been given special permission to meet a lower level than normally required, but what is the penalty for not even reaching that?

Some posters would have you believe that we need to take Ball in order to reach the special minimum (92.5% from memory)

Either that, or Joel MacDonald could get one hell of a pay-day (in which case its no wonder he by-passed the National Draft)