Lets not get carried away. He didnt even play for SA in their first game. Rotation schmotation, if you were in the top dozen players you'd be playing. Give him time

Nothing random about it.

With all the talk on this forum and elsewhere, how could you not have realised some or all of the following: Jack Viney is living in Melbourne, with his family, attending Carey Grammar, zoned to the Oakleigh Chargers and playing for Vic Metro in the U18 titles?

Lets not get carried away. He didnt even play for SA in their first game. Rotation schmotation, if you were in the top dozen players you'd be playing. Give him time

Vic Metro are taking a squad of 35 into the championships and rotating most through the Division 2 games.

As a bottom ager he has done extremely well to even make the final 35.

Maybe because he is playing for Vic Metro?

That made me giggle. Classic Freak.

Lets not get carried away. He didnt even play for SA in their first game. Rotation schmotation, if you were in the top dozen players you'd be playing. Give him time

Maybe because he is playing for Vic Metro?

really? damn, i thought he was a SA player?

Classic Freak.

I'd trade our 1st round pick this year for an underage pick, and then still select Jack Viney next year.

The underage pick is worth more than our 1st round pick in either year, just as Viney will be (if reports are accurate).

That's why I wouldn't use it on him.

Yeah i've been thinking about that option too. Would suck at the end of this year, but at the end of 2012 we would get Viney and the underage player.

Lets look at it from a GWS point of view. This year they get something .... next year the get nothing.

Think we are in the driving seat here. Suggest we should start much, much lower than our first round pick.

I'm thinking more like a 3rd rounder ...

NO, quite the opposite, there are 4 picks in the underage draft, not 17, so there will be 17 clubs offering i would imagine a first rounder and some for a shot at these kids,

They are considered to be top tens, like Watts when he was draft number 1 as a 17yo thats the talent some of these kids have, i would assume its first rounder which this year is likely to be 15+ for most clubs and a good fringe player/best 22 player such as a Blease, Strauss or good 23-26yo player (maybe more likely).

The rules arent design for the current clubs to have power like the rest of the rules they are design for GWS to win the transaction/do extremely well

I am a fan of trading for the kids not Viney who we will steal anyway for what ever pick 10+

for instance O'Meara from WA is considered in the same class as Swallow last year

One thing im unsure of is if the 17yo need s to want to be traded

Yeah, that's a murky area.

My understanding is that you trade for the pick, then select the player, meaning a player like O'Meara who purportedly wants to remain in WA, would need to agree to come to the club.

Of course, he needs to also assess his other options.

If he refuses to go to a club a year early as an underage, surely there must be some sort of repercussions?

Just as there are if a player were to be drafted to a team, and then refused to go.

Where it becomes difficult is where the player declares for the draft - as they are underage, they would by all rights be nominating the following year (in 2012) to go in their normal draft, and you cant FORCE a player to nominate this year, for next year's draft, and then sort of which ones fall into this special age bracket.

Maybe the nomination date could be brought forward, but a year early is a stretch.

So there can't really be any repercussions, unless a refusal to go means that they cannot then nominate for the 2012 draft and must wait a year (or some version of this).

Even if there's not, the player would have to understand the likelihood, that if he is actually that good, is that he'll end up going in the next year's draft to a club not in WA.

GWS would be favourite to win the spoon and both WA teams are likely to be in the top 8.

Surely a kid would be silly to turn down a year's earnings even on a draftee salary, when they are likely to still be attending high school.

And O'Meara may look the goods, but surely there are other comparable kids floating around, possibly even a few better.

A player like Bate and our 1st round pick would be worth it in my opinion, even if it were the 2nd of 2 picks (as they'll likely trade 2 picks this year and next).

The only question is whether it would get the deal over the line.

Edited June 7, 201114 yr by Artie Bucco

If he refuses to go to a club a year early as an underage, surely there must be repercussions.

Even if there's not, he'd have to understand the likelihood, that if he is actually that good, is that he'll end up going in the next year's draft to a club not in WA.

GWS would be favourite to win the spoon and both WA teams are likely to be in the top 8.

A player like Bate and our 1st round pick would be worth it in my opinion, even if it were the 2nd of 2 picks (as they'll likely trade 2 picks this year and next).

The only question is whether it would get the deal over the line.

This is it, one O'Meara is rumoured to want to stay in WA, BF posters also said Matera who went as a 17yo wanted to stay in WA etc.... i assume this is where you know O'Meara from Artie?

Also a Dunn or Bate may help GWS alot, Forwards taking time to develop and GC having a lacking in this department imo, strong defence and midfield in comparison

Strong bodies being the Key for them early, and both players fitting the age bracket, the first rounder being the sweetener in a way...i doubt they would bite maybe though

Cant wait to see what is offered

Can't remember where I've heard about O'Meara, but pretty sure it wasn't BigFooty.

Don't read it much, it's mostly rubbish.

NO, quite the opposite, there are 4 picks in the underage draft, not 17, so there will be 17 clubs offering i would imagine a first rounder and some for a shot at these kids,

They are considered to be top tens, like Watts when he was draft number 1 as a 17yo thats the talent some of these kids have, i would assume its first rounder which this year is likely to be 15+ for most clubs and a good fringe player/best 22 player such as a Blease, Strauss or good 23-26yo player (maybe more likely).

The rules arent design for the current clubs to have power like the rest of the rules they are design for GWS to win the transaction/do extremely well

I am a fan of trading for the kids not Viney who we will steal anyway for what ever pick 10+

for instance O'Meara from WA is considered in the same class as Swallow last year

One thing im unsure of is if the 17yo need s to want to be traded

Good point. However, what you are not considering is the player/s in question. Both us and Essendon (Daniher son) have a loophole in the system because of the father and son rule. GWS will and can never place Viney & Daniher on their list.

So essentially we are bidding against ourselves. One way or another Essendon & us have those kids rapt up.

If we dont take Viney this year and keep our first round pick, all be it in a compromised draft, we get 1 year of development into that pick and still get Viney next year. Plus lets not forget next years draft could easily be equally compromised with a swag of compensation picks still to be used. Also lets not forget if we move up the ladder a few spots the difference becomes even less.

Again looking it from a GWS point of view if the 17 YO is that good why will they trade them, especially if they are "They are considered to be top tens?" How many 17 yo did GC17 trade?

IMHO "if" the deal is likely to go thru I suggest it might be a manipulated deal. Possible something along the lines of we allow a player to go to GWS receive a compensation pick and we then trade that "bankable" compensation pick back to GWS for Viney. Then both sides can ensure its a "win-win" deal, lets not forget GWS determine the value of the compensation pick via the rate of pay they are willing to pay the player.

Just a thought.

PS I was being a little facetious with my offer of a 3rd rounder. But you got to start the ball rolling somewhere. In the case of Viney GWS also must make it attractive for us.

Edited June 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

...

Again looking it from a GWS point of view if the 17 YO is that good why will they trade them, especially if they are "They are considered to be top tens?" How many 17 yo did GC17 trade?

...

You seem to have this confused.

GWS has a concession that GC never had.

GWS have access to 4 draft picks which they cannot use themselves, but may trade to other teams.

These picks are to be used on kids in that 17 year old age bracket that GWS and GC were able to select from the year before their selections in the national draft, directly preceding their entry into the AFL.

GWS must trade these picks. The clubs then get to use them on whichever player they like in that age bracket (provided the players agree).

My understanding is that draft order is determined by ladder position.

GWS has 2 years to do this, just like poaching out of contract players.

Common sense would determine they'll trade 2 each year, to increase the value of the picks, in turn increasing the value of the return.

The idea is that it is harder for GWS to entice players, so this means other teams will trade players of value to them for "nothing" (as far as GWS is concerned).

Of course, they'll probably use it to stockpile picks instead.

You seem to have this confused.

GWS has a concession that GC never had.

GWS have access to 4 draft picks which they cannot use themselves, but may trade to other teams.

These picks are to be used on kids in that 17 year old age bracket that GWS and GC were able to select from the year before their selections in the national draft, directly preceding their entry into the AFL.

Exactly, these kids will normally be in the 2012 draft so GWS will only get one of them if they finish low enough in the inaugural season, so they wont weaken their selection by much at all while gaining alot.

The point im making is that we can get Viney next year, we wont be able to get the same quality kid next year as we can with the compensation picks thats where i see the advantage being at.

You seem to have this confused.

GWS has a concession that GC never had.

GWS have access to 4 draft picks which they cannot use themselves, but may trade to other teams.

These picks are to be used on kids in that 17 year old age bracket that GWS and GC were able to select from the year before their selections in the national draft, directly preceding their entry into the AFL.

GWS must trade these picks. The clubs then get to use them on whichever player they like in that age bracket (provided the players agree).

My understanding is that draft order is determined by ladder position.

GWS has 2 years to do this, just like poaching out of contract players.

Common sense would determine they'll trade 2 each year, to increase the value of the picks, in turn increasing the value of the return.

The idea is that it is harder for GWS to entice players, so this means other teams will trade players of value to them for "nothing" (as far as GWS is concerned).

Of course, they'll probably use it to stockpile picks instead.

Ok. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

"GWS has a concession that GC never had." Yip I understand that.

My understanding is that its only an "additional" 4. GWS still need the other clubs to have an interest in those players & GWS must not want to take them ... GWS still have the right to draft 12 17YO as per GC.

So essentially you are talking about 17YO GWS ranked positions 13 and above ... if "They are considered to be top tens?" GWS would be mad not to take them. Very important to note if GWS want them they can bind them. So GWS must not want them or ... wait ... Imagine you have a scenario where they would be top 10 yet GWS are still not eligible to take them because of the father and son rule loophole. Hello Jack Viney.

or alternatively

Club A wants the 17 YO and GWS dont rank them top 12 ... yeah then sure they can trade them. However, Club A takes the risk because they dont have access to them straight away.

Think its generally accepted that GWS will use the "additional 4" to try and attract a deal I outlined ie "IMHO "if" the deal is likely to go thru I suggest it might be a manipulated deal. Possible something along the lines of we allow a player to go to GWS receive a compensation pick and we then trade that "bankable" compensation pick back to GWS for Viney. Then both sides can ensure its a "win-win" deal, lets not forget GWS determine the value of the compensation pick via the rate of pay they are willing to pay the player."

Lets call it another small carrot or marginal concession to deal with GWS. However, again I will stress we potentially benefit because we have already declared an interest in a 17YO that GWS can't draft but GWS must make it attractive to us ... we get him anyway.

So its subtle ... but great discussion. thanks

Edited June 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

They get access to 4 kids they must trade.

Simplified.

Nope, the 17 year olds would go into the 2012 draft.

The 17 year olds that would go into the 2011 draft have already been selected by GWS, all 12 of them.

Including kids like Dylan Shiels and Tom Bugg, from memory.

GWS don't get to select any more 17 year olds for themselves.

These 4 tradeable-only picks could equate to the top 4 picks in the draft (or top 2 for 2 years running).

It's not an "additional 4".

The 4 are from the same age bracket, one year later.

Exactly, these kids will normally be in the 2012 draft so GWS will only get one of them if they finish low enough

This is not technically right. GWS has the right to bind 17yo kids if they want to offer them a contract. If the kid does not accept he is then not eligible for the draft if GWS place him on their primary list. He is still bound to them until October 2012!!!!. So in practice he really has only 1 choice if he want to play AFL football.

Just remember who runs this competition and who is bank rolling GWS...

What are you talking about?

The 12 x 17 year old players GWS had a chance to select and have already selected would have been in the 2011 draft.

They essentially come from the same crop in which they have all the draft picks this year.

Done. Finito.

GWS get no more 17 year old selections.

Simply GWS HAS their 17yo's already (from the 2011 draft), they cant get anymore

They can trade 4 picks to clubs for other 17yo's from the (2012 draft)

They get ZERO benefit unless they trade these picks for something of value

This is not technically right. GWS has the right to bind 17yo kids if they want to offer them a contract. If the kid does not accept he is then not eligible for the draft if GWS place him on their primary list. He is still bound to them until October 2012!!!!. So in practice he really has only 1 choice if he want to play AFL football.

Just remember who runs this competition and who is bank rolling GWS...

This was done last year man

soooooooooo this cant be used to get our hands on Jonathan Patton?? ie: possibly as part of a skully going?

This was done last year man

I understand that but I'm not aware of any kid that did not accept a contract.

Nope, the 17 year olds would go into the 2012 draft.

The 17 year olds that would go into the 2011 draft have already been selected by GWS, all 12 of them.

Including kids like Dylan Shiels and Tom Bugg, from memory.

GWS don't get to select any more 17 year olds for themselves.

These 4 tradeable-only picks could equate to the top 4 picks in the draft (or top 2 for 2 years running).

Yeah. Ok I hear what you are saying. But again dont we go back to the point ...

a/ what you are not considering is the player/s in question.

b/ GWS still need the other clubs to have an interest in those players ... or at least be prepared to declare an interest.

Are GWS not just giving up the right to get a 17YO who if they rate top 10 they will never get the opportunity to play for them?

But thank-you for clarifying your points. Look I'm not disagreeing with you all I'm saying is think its a two way street and we are in the "box seat" because we have already declared an interest in those kids ie Jack Viney who GWS can never get. But I think what you are saying is club x will declare an interest in player y ... then GWS will trade. I'm not so sure its that clear cut .... but I accept the point they in "theory" loss them if they dont.

Sorry for the confusion I should have been much, much clearer about the drafts and draft dates I was talking about ... my fault.

Edited June 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

soooooooooo this cant be used to get our hands on Jonathan Patton?? ie: possibly as part of a skully going?

I am not sure how old Patton is but I presume that he is not 17 as he is eligible to be drafted this year.... GWS are only going to trade the four 17yo's at the end of this year that they deem they do not want to draft or that they think they will be able to get more value out of on-trading...

I am not sure how old Patton is but I presume that he is not 17 as he is eligible to be drafted this year.... GWS are only going to trade the four 17yo's at the end of this year that they deem they do not want to draft or that they think they will be able to get more value out of on-trading...

thanks and poo.