I can't see how that works - the pick we have will be after their picks anyway so who we take with it doesn't impact them.

No we'd need to offer them a player they want at a decent pick discount or a later pick trade that favours them.

The point is we could get viney with a second round pick instead of a pick 3. That is an ENORMOUS advantage (to us) and anyone negotiating with us would know that and would demand a BIG favour.

Plus if we finish 3rd last we have to negotiate with TWO other clubs

Try and come up with some win-win examples and we can discuss them

We're not saying it will be easy but it is the only way we take Viney in the second round.

Option 1 - GWS or GC bid for Viney, MFC take him at 3.

MFC Result: Pays abstract overs for a player we really need.

GWS and GC: They make a competitor pay more than full price for a player. No direct benefit.

Option 2 - Enable handshake agreements on trades prior to F/S bidding. Mid to late picks on table. Some fringe players on table.

MFC Result: Ensure Viney is in the second round. Give nothing trades a few weeks later that idiot fans decry and The Footy World © call 'gaming of the system.'

GWS and GC : Get an overbalanced trade for absolutely nothing. Direct benefit.

These are the only options.

Examples: Bennell/McDonald/Davis/Martin/Tapscott/Cook for Pick 75, or Pick 40 for Pick 75 as trading picks for picks is legal now.

You're not making any sense - we won't get a chance to take Whitfield.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC=Viney, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team

If we finish 16th and they don't nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team .... Round 2 MFC: Viney

Our picks are after their picks either way, they'll take Whitfield either way.

Whitfield is not involved unless we're lucky enough for him to still be available at our pick.

Nothing to stop GC from taking him.

^That will all be thrown on it's head, if we end up with you know what people....

Wash your mouth out H_T !

I honestly can't believe all the tripe I'm reading on this thread about us doing deals with GWS/GC, and anything else that has been mentioned.

At the end of the day, if we finish 16th (as per the current ladder), we have pick 3. If GWS or GC wish to pick Viney with either Pick 1 or 2, then we have to use our Pick 3 on him. If the MFC believe he is worth that, they spend it, quite simple.

The solution is simple. We could be in a fantastic position to go in to this draft with pick 3, 4, 11(ish) and get Viney with our 2nd round pick. We MUST do whatever we can to ensure GWS/GC don't want to use Pick 1 or 2, but one thing is for sure, this DOESN'T involve some secret deal - give these bastards nothing. If they still want to try and backdoor us by putting in a dummy bid, I'm all for calling their bluff and letting them have him. We will get either Whitfield or whoever else is rated a top 2 pick - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

I honestly don't think GWS or GC would risk missing out on a true, potential pick 1 or 2, just to shaft us by trying to force our hand on a potential pick 5-15. Anyone thining otherwise really is jumping at shadows.

You are probably correct. But there is one shadow i jump at - I have a feeling that Sheedy will be keen to shaft MFC (partly based on Sheedy not getting Bailey's job and him then paying over-the-odds for $cully).

Will Sheedy have any say in GWS plans after this season?

^That will all be thrown on it's head, if we end up with you know what people....

Wash your mouth out H_T !

go on ht say it.......the w........ s......... - sh!t I can't say it either

i love how everyone assumes we are going to beat gold coast and gws this year.

i love how everyone assumes we are going to beat gold coast and gws this year.

I love how you rope "everyone" into the same basket.

Can you support this ?

I'll save you the work....

"No"

go on ht say it.......the w........ s......... - sh!t I can't say it either

At the risk of grinding your gears on two separate threads today, this is why it wouldn't biother me at this stage if we happened to finish last this year considering what we theoretically have to gain. I'm not necessarily saying tank and I don't think we will finish last but if we did it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. We would then have pick 1, 2, 12(ish) & Viney. Won't happen but I'm not gonna slit my wrists if it does.

I love how you rope "everyone" into the same basket.

Can you support this ?

I'll save you the work....

"No"

this thread is up to 30 pages...it's easier to say everyone. ha

At the risk of grinding your gears on two separate threads today, this is why it wouldn't biother me at this stage if we happened to finish last this year considering what we theoretically have to gain. I'm not necessarily saying tank and I don't think we will finish last but if we did it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. We would then have pick 1, 2, 12(ish) & Viney. Won't happen but I'm not gonna slit my wrists if it does.

The thing is, I don't think we'd finish much worse off having Viney, pick 4, pick 12 and pick 22, such is the depth.

Buddy went at 5, Bartel went at 8, Rioli at 12, Fyfe at 20, Sam Reid at 39.

I know it gives us the best chance, but the highest picks aren't always the answer.

2011

Freo: picks 38 & 56 to Hawks

Hawks: picks 29, 58 & 71 to Freo

Geelong: pick 26 to GC

GC: picks 32 & 34 to Geelong

Adelaide: pick 24 to GC

GC: picks 27, 31 & 68 to Adelaide

2009

Swans: pick 47 to Lions

Lions: pick 39 to Swans

Essendon: pick 58 to Hawthorn.

Hawthorn: pick 89 to Essendon.

The Mark Williams / Burgoyne deal:

Geelong got involved and gave up picks 33 & 97

to receive picks 40, 42 & 56

I said 2 picks without any further trades ie a pick for a pick ala my example in post 709 which you initially replied to.

Your 2011 examples involve more than 2 picks.

Your 2009 examples are part of either a 3 way trade, a 4 way trade or involve more than 2 picks - non of which are applicable to my point. Swans Lions wasn't even a direct trade.

My point was in the context of a simple pick for pick trade in isolation and then GWS not bidding on JV as a return favour (which is obviously a non trade period benefit).

Lawyered!

lol

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by 1858

That's silly. Did Carlton and West Coast and Collingwood not force him to deny tanking? Were they any more subtle? Or are you suggesting that Vlad didn't realise tanking was going on until we came along? The whole argument that we somehow 'embarrassed' vlad is just ludicrous

btw i'm not trying to justify tanking but I can't see how vlad could hold a grudge over us and not the others

and on a slightly different tack how could vlad defend the f/s bidding process if Tom is ranked outside the top 5 or even the top 10 and we are forced to use a pick 3 (under his rules)

This is my point - the AFL will not be happy or supportive of a club that puts the whole FS bidding system under major scrutiny.

The key thing is that Melbourne at seasons end (assuming they finish with pick 3) need to come out formally and say we rate Tom pick (say) 7 and we will not be bidding higher than this. That way the clubs know. If GWS or GC take him, then so be it. Otherwise we will be screwed (yet again!).

I said 2 picks without any further trades ie a pick for a pick ala my example in post 709 which you initially replied to.

Your 2011 examples involve more than 2 picks.

Your 2009 examples are part of either a 3 way trade a 4 way tradeor involve multiple picks.

My point was in the context of a simple pick for pick trade in isolation and then GWS not bidding on JV as a return favour (which is obviously a non trade period benefit).

lol

Uhh... No.

2009 examples were independent trades of 2 picks.

The geelong one was just thrown in for good measure.

Maybe you don't remember it, but I did, because at the time I couldn't figure out why teams would do it & even questioned Emma Quayle on it.

She said it was done to generate good faith and relations between the clubs, or something along those lines.

I don't buy it.

Uhh... No.

2009 examples were independent trades of 2 picks.

The geelong one was just thrown in for good measure.

Maybe you don't remember it, but I did, because at the time I couldn't figure out why teams would do it & even questioned Emma Quayle on it.

She said it was done to generate good faith and relations between the clubs, or something along those lines.

I don't buy it.

Swans Lions was not a direct trade.

As for the Hawks Bombers it was part of a 4 way unless you are asserting they did it for no other reason. Ergo further trades were involved.

As for Geelong that involves more than 2 picks as well.

That's silly. Did Carlton and West Coast and Collingwood not force him to deny tanking? Were they any more subtle? Or are you suggesting that Vlad didn't realise tanking was going on until we came along? The whole argument that we somehow 'embarrassed' vlad is just ludicrous

btw i'm not trying to justify tanking but I can't see how vlad could hold a grudge over us and not the others

and on a slightly different tack how could vlad defend the f/s bidding process if Tom is ranked outside the top 5 or even the top 10 and we are forced to use a pick 3 (under his rules)

This is my point - the AFL will not be happy or supportive of a club that puts the whole FS bidding system under major scrutiny.

The key thing is that Melbourne at seasons end (assuming they finish with pick 3) need to come out formally and say we rate Tom pick (say) 7 and we will not be bidding higher than this. That way the clubs know. If GWS or GC take him, then so be it. Otherwise we will be screwed (yet again!).

It's Jack, not Tom

I honestly can't believe all the tripe I'm reading on this thread about us doing deals with GWS/GC, and anything else that has been mentioned.

At the end of the day, if we finish 16th (as per the current ladder), we have pick 3. If GWS or GC wish to pick Viney with either Pick 1 or 2, then we have to use our Pick 3 on him. If the MFC believe he is worth that, they spend it, quite simple.

The solution is simple. We could be in a fantastic position to go in to this draft with pick 3, 4, 11(ish) and get Viney with our 2nd round pick. We MUST do whatever we can to ensure GWS/GC don't want to use Pick 1 or 2, but one thing is for sure, this DOESN'T involve some secret deal - give these bastards nothing. If they still want to try and backdoor us by putting in a dummy bid, I'm all for calling their bluff and letting them have him. We will get either Whitfield or whoever else is rated a top 2 pick - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

I honestly don't think GWS or GC would risk missing out on a true, potential pick 1 or 2, just to shaft us by trying to force our hand on a potential pick 5-15. Anyone thining otherwise really is jumping at shadows.

desperate for "Dislike" button

Swans Lions was not a direct trade.

As for the Hawks Bombers it was part of a 4 way unless you are asserting they did it for no other reason. Ergo further trades were involved.

As for Geelong that involves more than 2 picks as well.

Both were a subsequent trades done days after the initial trades had gone through.

The geelong trade is clearly not being discussed as per the criteria you've now set.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by José Mourinho

desperate for "Dislike" button

Yep.

I'm all for giving those teams a little something, if in the end we come out with a better net result.

It's Jack, not Tom

my bad.......GWS does that to you

Third youngest in Vic Metro, pretty good - he'll get another shot next season (unless GWS do the 17-year-old-trade-to-Dees thing) I think?

He's a Melbourne supporter who trains with the senior Melbourne list almost weekly. Why would he go to GWS? He's already spoken to Neeld about where he'll fit into the side and he's given the club the heads up on the personality and performance of every kid going into the draft next year. He's old man ain't shipping him off to NSW.

Lol all this would be a non issue if we werent so [censored]. But such is MFC life. We need every step up we can get in drafts because we suck at them. I want Viney with a second round pick. And I want to make essendon use their first rounder on that daniher kid.

Both were a subsequent trades done days after the initial trades had gone through.

They may have been "lodged" as individual trades fine, but they were obviously made in conjunction with further trades. They would not have simply been made in isolation without any other trade consideration which is what I was clearly getting at.

The geelong trade is clearly not being discussed as per the criteria you've now set.

Your Geelong trade example is just a cluster****.

They may have been "lodged" as individual trades fine, but they were obviously made in conjunction with further trades. They would not have simply been made in isolation without any other trade consideration which is what I was clearly getting at.

Your Geelong trade example is just a cluster****.

How?

Geelong getting involved and benefiting from facilitating a deal for other clubs.

There's nothing wrong with it. It might not fit your criteria, but it's an example of a club just getting involved purely for extra later picks.

It's purely as an example of how GC and/or GWS might be happy to let us take Viney 2nd round, so they can get another 3rd round pick, instead of having to wait til the 4th round. It's not of great benefit to them, but it's a cherry for nothing on their part.

desperate for "Dislike" button

Could we have a "I dont understand" button?

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by Dr Who

Geelong getting involved and benefiting from facilitating a deal for other clubs.

It might not fit your criteria, but it's an example of a club just getting involved purely for extra later picks.

It's purely as an example of how GC and/or GWS might be happy to let us take Viney 2nd round, so they can get another 3rd round pick, instead of having to wait til the 4th round. It's not of great benefit to them, but it's a cherry for nothing on their part.

No worries, you've raised a genuine example of how the club can try and negotiate a better position. Lets hope something like that can eventuate if we try to go down that road.

What if we nominate our first rounder to daniher. Then we dont have a first rounder left nd can use our second rounder on Viney.

Or if we tell GWS we ll absorb the risk of nominating to take Daniher so they dont have to, as long as they dont bid for Viney. And hell if somehow we end up with Daniher for pick 3 then i dont see it as a loss.

I can't buy that GWS or GC would use their first pick on Viney, just to 'force' us to use pick 3....it's way too risky, unless Viney is actually worthy of pick 1 or 2. They can't be 100% certain we wouldn't just let him go and then just find a way to trade/draft him back for f/all in two years time.

There's several far more powerful clubs in the competition than us for GWS to worry about.