I'm curious.

Edited November 23, 200915 yr by Barry Dawson

I'm curious.

It's great when you're the first to vote. Everyone agrees with you!~

It's great when you're the first to vote. Everyone agrees with you!~

I was beaten to the punch on this one!

Some people have voted....

No, I don't think he'd be as valuable as a young prospect would be.

But then have voted....

Yes. Take him if he is the best player available at that pick.

Interesting..

Some people have voted....

No, I don't think he'd be as valuable as a young prospect would be.

But then have voted....

Yes. Take him if he is the best player available at that pick.

Interesting..

Maybe it reflects that people expect a good prospect to be available at pick 11 but less likely at pick 18. Not sure...

I am honestly more excited about getting a young player, preferably someone like Griffiths or Vardy at 18 than I am at the thought of getting Ball. I can see where his advocates are coming from and it's very true that we are short on experience to help shape the young players, but I just don't rate him that highly and don't think he'll be there for our premiership tilt. I think that people are being unduly harsh on this draft because of the lack of really top players, but the way I see it the depth is very impressive and there are a raft of "risky" players who could turn into genuine stars given the opportunity.

At this stage, there are two emerging points on which the majority (of not many voters yet) agree.

1. Luke Ball is regarded as a very solid player.

2. We'd be happy for him to be selected at pick 18 if he's the best available, but not at pick 11.

I'm mildly surprised. I've taken umbrage to the way Ball has not responded to requests to speak to our FD, has nominated for the ND forcing us to miss a well-earned top 20 pick to take him. I feel he's really given us the finger, and he thinks that if he behaves like a prat, he'll be allowed to slide through to Collingwood and undermine the integrity of the entire drafting process. Apart from those minor details, sure... I'd love to have him wear the jumper that our previous players have worn as a matter of pride and privilege. He's also going to walk in the door on more coin than any of our top ten players, of whom, according to this poll, five or more have higher value than Ball.

But, it would seem that I need to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Nothing a few beers on a Saturday afternoon at the MCG won't fix.

At this stage, there are two emerging points on which the majority (of not many voters yet) agree.

1. Luke Ball is regarded as a very solid player.

2. We'd be happy for him to be selected at pick 18 if he's the best available, but not at pick 11.

I'm mildly surprised. I've taken umbrage to the way Ball has not responded to requests to speak to our FD, has nominated for the ND forcing us to miss a well-earned top 20 pick to take him. I feel he's really given us the finger, and he thinks that if he behaves like a prat, he'll be allowed to slide through to Collingwood and undermine the integrity of the entire drafting process. Apart from those minor details, sure... I'd love to have him wear the jumper that our previous players have worn as a matter of pride and privilege. He's also going to walk in the door on more coin than any of our top ten players, of whom, according to this poll, five or more have higher value than Ball.

But, it would seem that I need to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Nothing a few beers on a Saturday afternoon at the MCG won't fix.

Agree 100% on the wages issue. He's reported to have asked for a three year deal with the first two years set at $500K and a substantial reduction after that, so I guess we can say he'd end up on around $400k per season. I think this would be a huge slap in the face to the rest of our players, especially to Davey and Green who have both stayed with the club despite more lucrative offers from elsewhere and who are regarded as strong leaders. That the club would bring in Ball for his leadership and pay him more than these long-term players would be making a statement that his leadership is more highly valued/regarded than that of the current leadership group.

Maybe it reflects that people expect a good prospect to be available at pick 11 but less likely at pick 18. Not sure...

The Poll does not address that.

Agree 100% on the wages issue. He's reported to have asked for a three year deal with the first two years set at $500K and a substantial reduction after that, so I guess we can say he'd end up on around $400k per season. I think this would be a huge slap in the face to the rest of our players, especially to Davey and Green who have both stayed with the club despite more lucrative offers from elsewhere and who are regarded as strong leaders. That the club would bring in Ball for his leadership and pay him more than these long-term players would be making a statement that his leadership is more highly valued/regarded than that of the current leadership group.

No it isn't at all.

Green went to market last year and he could not do better than he was offered at MFC.

Davey was offered and accepted a 4 year deal more than any other player. He chose to refuse the more lucrative Freo deal.

Both players know where MFC is at. They know we are paying well below the salary cap. They do know we will recruit players to suit our LT ambitions.

If Ball is recruited he will be as a experienced player in the midfield with ball winning ability. At 25, he is also able to provide leadership support.

Its more a recognition that our leadership group needs support. And yes Green and Davey would be well aware of that too.

Agree 100% on the wages issue. He's reported to have asked for a three year deal with the first two years set at $500K and a substantial reduction after that, so I guess we can say he'd end up on around $400k per season. I think this would be a huge slap in the face to the rest of our players, especially to Davey and Green who have both stayed with the club despite more lucrative offers from elsewhere and who are regarded as strong leaders. That the club would bring in Ball for his leadership and pay him more than these long-term players would be making a statement that his leadership is more highly valued/regarded than that of the current leadership group.

Football is business now, & if the MFC wish to taste success & more to the point be a dictator of trends, we as a club need to pay Top coin for certain players. If Luke Ball ends up wearing a Melbourne Jumper, and plays good football for us helping the team win games i don't think anyone within the club will begrudge his wage. (That goes for any player btw), but we as a club must demand a top effort from all our list.

Having Jim Stynes as President is going to make that last point more poignant. If Jim can do it, so can everyone. What he said sitting at that camp fire was inspirational to say the least.

........

Green went to market last year and he could not do better than he was offered at MFC.

Davey was offered and accepted a 4 year deal more than any other player. He chose to refuse the more lucrative Freo deal.

Both players know where MFC is at. They know we are paying well below the salary cap. They do know we will recruit players to suit our LT ambitions.

If Ball is recruited he will be as a experienced player in the midfield with ball winning ability. At 25, he is also able to provide leadership support.

Its more a recognition that our leadership group needs support. And yes Green and Davey would be well aware of that too.

Agreed.

And about the $500K, $500K and $75K he wants respectively for 3 years. This equates to about $350k per yr on average, and is nicely front end weighted.

We are reportedly $500k shy of the 92.5% minimum SC. So Ball's $500K would fix that up nicely, and he would be headed to $75K just as we would need to up the $'s for our developing youth.

Hmmmmm

I cant see why you wouldn't take Luke Ball. A good footballer. At least we get a good player with pick 11 if we take Ball. Considering Dunn, Bell, and a lesser extent Jones were all taken around there, i'd much rather Luke Ball. I know he has had his injury troubles but is an A grade player when fit. Seems pretty simple to me get Ball

The Poll does not address that.

True, the poll does not address that, and it wasn't intended to.

I was just inferring that from the 'interesting' result you noticed. If people are worried about overlooking young talent at pick 11, but are not so worried at pick 18, I think it is reasonable to postulate that they believe whichever youngster is available at 11 will be too good to pass up, but that by 18 that will no longer be the case.

Agreed.

And about the $500K, $500K and $75K he wants respectively for 3 years. This equates to about $350k per yr on average, and is nicely front end weighted.

We are reportedly $500k shy of the 92.5% minimum SC. So Ball's $500K would fix that up nicely, and he would be headed to $75K just as we would need to up the $'s for our developing youth.

Hmmmmm

Agreed and something most have overlooked

I think Ball is a good footballer and proven leader and i would find it hard to pass him up after the cream of this years draft have been picked prior to pick 18

Its always advisable to pick the best available each time its your turn unless your policy is 100% kids

Edited November 23, 200915 yr by Swampfox

An excellent, and thorough, poll BD. Well done.

I am sure that if Luke Ball is the best option at 18 we will take him, and that is all I wanted from the MFC.

An excellent, and thorough, poll BD. Well done.

I am sure that if Luke Ball is the best option at 18 we will take him, and that is all I wanted from the MFC.

Aw shucks. Thanks mate. My first poll. It was on line for approximately 30 seconds before I realised I'd balls something up. We live and learn.

I think this draft is deep enough that the first 20 players are worth taking, then there is the wildcard picks which allow players to slide a little further than they probably deserve to. At pick 18, I am 100% CERTAIN there will a kid worth taking, absolutely no doubts about it. A kid who could potentially play 12 years for us (and actually WANTS to come to our club), as opposed to a disgruntled Luke Ball who due to injury and general wear & tear, has the the body of a 40 year old.

What we think of the Luke Ball scenario (so far):

We wouldn't pick him at 11 b/c we'd rather a younger draft pick, but we'd take him at 18 if he were the best available, and we'd be happy to have him.

We think he's a very solid player, but not a superstar, in fact, most of us wouldn't have him in our top five.

We think he'll play until he's 30 or so years old, so we think his body will hold together, and that he'll be worthy of a selection in four years time despite the presence of Scully, Trengove, Moloney, Jones, Grimes, Blease, Strauss, Davey, and a few more.

There's enough I agree with there to overlook what I don't agree with. Fair enough.

Edit:

There's a small band of recalcitrants who will hate his guts, at least initially.

There's someone who will feel sorry for him as he receives $500k per year for a job when he didn't deign to reply to an interview offer.

The majority of us don't mind the way he basically held the MFC up in front of the football community, took a sniff, and then screwed up his face and vomited. We're still happy if he comes on board.

Edited November 23, 200915 yr by Barry Dawson

I think this draft is deep enough that the first 20 players are worth taking, then there is the wildcard picks which allow players to slide a little further than they probably deserve to. At pick 18, I am 100% CERTAIN there will a kid worth taking, absolutely no doubts about it. A kid who could potentially play 12 years for us (and actually WANTS to come to our club), as opposed to a disgruntled Luke Ball who due to injury and general wear & tear, has the the body of a 40 year old.

very nice poll bd! Secondly on the above statement has anyone got the research to share the last 10 years pick 11 and 18 as a point of interest it may show us a trend on the value of players picked at these points in the draft from a historical point of view. Or should we be looking at picks 16 and 23 given players that would normally have been available if not for gcoast?

Either way that might give us some more data to help bp db and cc with their decision. I know they have been reading and are counting on us to be thorough!

A good way to do it would be for posters in the know to post their top 20-25 kids in the draft and from there decide if more than 17 of them would be better than Ball

A good way to do it would be for posters in the know to post their top 20-25 kids in the draft and from there decide if more than 17 of them would be better than Ball

Well, get on it.

I know next to nothing about the hopefuly draftees and have never claimed to, as such I will not participate in this type of activity.

I know next to nothing about the hopefuly draftees and have never claimed to, as such I will not participate in this type of activity.

Oh.

Then don't worry about it.

Someone name 18 kids that are a better prospect than Ball is for 5 years and you will have a very good point.

Oh.

Then don't worry about it.

Someone name 18 kids that are a better prospect than Ball is for 5 years and you will have a very good point.

I now have a thread on history of picks - you can decide if you would have rather those that were picked during the last ten years or take ball....

If you read it, I wasn't making a point, I was suggesting a way to determine whether one would want him at 18 or not.