Why would GWS nominate Viney over Daniher?

Isnt Daniher touted as being higher valued player?, if there going to risk messing up a team then wouldn't they be more likely to try to mess up Essendon?

We can leave someone else to bid for Daniher - Im sure there will be no shortage of bidders closer to where they finish at seasons end.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by Dr Who

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.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney and we choose not to take him with our pick #3 then it could be #1 GWS (Viney), #2 GC, #3 MFC (Whitfield)

That direct benefit is simply giving them another name to call out in the late teens that might be slightly better than the one they would call out. I believe it is a negligible benefit, especially in this Teenage Lottery Draft © that we have in the AFL.

Fair enough but I doubt a football club would concur.

Looking at the lottery like results doesn't come into calculation during the screening and drafting process. Irrespective of how players turn out down the track clubs value picks at draft time (or even as trading options) and even a 1 spot bump in the first round and early 2nd could be significant to GWS depending on how they rate the draft.

What we don't know is how the AFLs compo pick system will work - that could effect things. It is discretionary now, pretty dodgy tbh. Did they rule out giving 1st round PPs under the new system (which we don't know about)? - I'm not sure on that.

This is the power play that Dr Gonzo is looking for, not a bluff that won't be bought. Sheedy would agree, given enough benefit, maybe the GC could be coaxed into it...

For sure. Given our standard picks would follow GWS closely we would need to bring in a seperate pick via a different trade you'd think otherwise we'd be trading picks with a massive gap.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by 1858

adding to that

the afl said bidding will be in reverse ladder order

so

GWS Daniher (sheeds gets back at Essendon)

Essendon then commit to use their next higher pick i.e. their 1st round pick in this example

GCS pass (nice guys)

MFC sit

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

Coll Viney

At this stage MFC commit to take Viney on their next pick after Coll's first i.e. MFC's 2nd Round

What a load of bollocks. It's all about getting the best player.

Define "best player".

PS Thanks for your eloquent response.

No that's not right, there'll still be the same number of picks before their pick, someone else will take Viney with one of those picks and quite possibly before the Adelaide pick. Viney will absolutely go in the first round so there's no "bringing their 2nd round pick forward" it's still pick 21 and Viney goes in an earlier pick to either us or someone else. Even if your logic was right - say Viney went after the Adelaide pick - that advantage they're getting is a 1 pick upgrade - bfd - we'd need to offer them something better than that.

In your scenario Viney is taken by us F/S with our 2nd rounder which frees up our 1st rounder to take another kid from the remaining pool.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney and we choose not to take him with our pick #3 then it could be #1 GWS (Viney), #2 GC, #3 MFC (Whitfield)

Yes, no kidding!

But in that scenario how does us offering not to take Whitfield at pick 3 benefit GWS and influence them not to bid for Viney? You're having a major logic failure there. The only club that would benefit is the club who finishes 15th and has pick 5.

We could do something less obvious like give them our 3rd rounder for their 5th and 6th rounder which they have no intention of using anyway. We don't have to use the picks we trade for either.

Quite true, but something blatant like a pick 35 (intraded for a player) to GWS for say a pick 40+ (as an arbitrary example) would be give me great delight. Vlad would be ropable.

In your scenario Viney is taken by us F/S with our 2nd rounder which frees up our 1st rounder to take another kid from the remaining pool.

Yes OK - so we'd need to trump a 1 pick upgrade.

Quite true, but something blatant like a pick 35 (intraded for a player) to GWS for say a pick 40+ (as an arbitrary example) would be give me great delight. Vlad would be ropable.

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

Yes OK - so we'd need to trump a 1 pick upgrade.

We'd need to trump 2 1 pick upgrades but it's not the point. I never contended that would be a difficult task. I merely pointed out the fact that there is more value to GWS in your scenario than simply dicking us around.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney and we choose not to take him with our pick #3 then it could be #1 GWS (Viney), #2 GC, #3 MFC (Whitfield)

What the hell are you talking about??

Go back and look at the rules.

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.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney and we choose not to take him with our pick #3 then it could be #1 GWS (Viney), #2 GC, #3 MFC (Whitfield)

Interesting so we "could" end up with the best player in the draft at pick 3! Geez GWS might be a little embarrassed - plus the added bonus we only have to have a "little chat" with one club Hello GC17. Its all in the timelines. Plus they could end up with a "kid" that would be very "homesick."

Interesting times ahead

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by Dr Who

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

From the club's pov you're right but you must admit the look on Vlad's face would be priceless.

Quite true, but something blatant like a pick 35 (intraded for a player) to GWS for say a pick 40+ (as an arbitrary example) would be give me great delight. Vlad would be ropable.

Would he?

Geelong have been involved in trades in recent years as just a facilitator for GWS & GC, getting free picks out of it.

It's not against the rules.

The Veale deal went through too.

I'm scared that we are creating too much hype around the poor kid (Jack Viney).

Will he become the next Jack Watts next year if he doesn't perform up to our elevated standards we are unfairly setting for him?

I can see threads full of hundreds of comments from us arguing, bickering and verbally slaying one another (just like the Watts thread) about whether Jacks gonna make it or not, and what draft pick we should have used to pick him up in light of how he is/isn't performing on the field.

eeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkk!

I agree with this

If we're forced to take him with a low pick (a la 3) and he doesn't perform, we'll cop it left right and centre

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

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 Jack is ranked outside the top 5 or even the top 10 and we are forced to use a pick 3 (under his rules)

Edit: Jack for Tom....get T$ on the brain when thinking gws

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by daisycutter

Interestingly, we can already see that it is in our best interests if:

- Essendon miss finals (mid 1st rnd compo pick effectively moves up/down 1 spot)

- Adeliade makes finals (mid 1st rnd compo pick effectively moves up/down 1 spot)

Also - Doggies make finals (same again, but won't happen)

Would he?

Geelong have been involved in trades in recent years as just a facilitator for GWS & GC, getting free picks out of it.

It's not against the rules.

The Veale deal went through too.

When was the last time we ever saw a straight out swap of 2 picks (excluding compo picks) and nothing else between the respective teams in the same trade period?

Hey rpfc

got a sauce on the double bidding scenario you outlined

Yes, no kidding!

But in that scenario how does us offering not to take Whitfield at pick 3 benefit GWS and influence them not to bid for Viney? You're having a major logic failure there. The only club that would benefit is the club who finishes 15th and has pick 5.

I was being sarcastic in my earlier post to someone elses post saying we should negotiate.

MFC should walk in and just tell them 'If you dont take Viney, we wont take Whitfield' implying to them that we will take Whitfield if they take Viney

Will make them think twice before risking using a #1 pick on a player who isnt a #1 pick.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by olisik

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.

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.

I agree with this also

If we have to use (going by current ladder position) pick 3, and the club thinks is worthwhile, then great, if we get him for a 2nd rounder, even better

I can't see teams potentially squandering a # 1 or # 2 pick in a supposed super draft merely on spite, purely because of the potential to backfire

Personally, I'd rather see some bloody wins and end up with a lower pick in the 1st round - i'm sick of losing

When was the last time we ever saw a straight out swap of 2 picks (excluding compo picks) and nothing else between the respective teams in the same trade period?

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

Lawyered!

I think it's unlikely we'll be able to go to GWS with offers - we'll probably have them come to us and say: "we'll make you take viney with pick 3, unless you give us X"

Then we weigh it up.

Of course, this entire premise relies on us finishing above only GC & GWS, and then both of them being willing participants in some sort of deal where they only benefit marginally.

Satisfying 2 teams in this manner would be difficult - 3 near impossible.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by José Mourinho