It's immaterial where he rated in the 1st round - we're committed to taking him and GWS can force us to do so at pick 3. It's all about us upgrading pick 25 to pick 3.

We also need to acknowledge that if we did end up 16th (and assuming no dodgy 1st round PPs are handed out) it will essentially be our pick 4 that we use on Viney not our pick 3 due to the fact we have consecutive picks. It's a minor point but when we talk of "paying overs" for a player possibly in the 5-10 range it gives some perspective. Obviously using our 2nd rounder is highly preferential but it is our pick 4 not our pick 3 on the line here.

Maurie, the only way GWS/GC will force our hand is if they believe he is potentially worth a 1-5 pick. They will not force us to take him if he is rated at 5+, because there is far too much risk for them.

Again, the MFC need to ensure this happens. Obviously I'm of the opposite view of some on this thread - I believe we have got GWS & GC by the balls, because we can actually control what the experts think Viney is worth.

Here's the question that will make it clearer, would GWS be willing to risk losing Whitfield just to try and force us to take Viney with Pick 3? Who is a better player - Whitfield or Viney?

Billy, it's us who are held by the balls. We've already shown our hand. No risk for GWS and GCS

We'd be better off going into the meeting and saying "Don't bother bidding folks 'cos we're taking him with our first round pick"

That way GWS don't get any satisfaction or kudos

Old, I know that. It would be good if no-one bid for him and we got him for #25, or on the outside chance we could do some sort of later pick deal..

But the idea of not taking him at #3 if GWS or GCS force our hand is fanciful.

Daisycutter - I can't find any great explanation of how the process works, my assumption was that the meeting went by players and not picks.

And that is to say: 'I have a bid for Daniher' says one club, they move through the teams in order and then the club with F/S rights makes their decision.

The reason I have come to this conclusion is because all we would need to do if teams couldn't bid twice is find another F/S prospect as good as Daniher and GWS and GC would make their bids on them - leaving us to get Viney in the second round.

That is why I think it is done by player and that teams can bid on more than one player with the same pick assuming they lost out on the previous player.

Yeah it probably is done separately by each player, makes sense. And according to afl site in reverse ladder position

Ok..heres my 5c... Ive noidea as to the actual construct of bidding as it plays out other than I understand we dont have to beat anyones bid.. just near -match it.

If we have to use up a high pick..so be it ffs. ...Just do it. Everyones trying to have their cakke and eat it too. Nice if you can , but hey.. so what. When was the last time weve had a chance to pick a player who IS ready to go and we KNOW.. , categorically KNOW he is the goods and a goer. So many picks have been speculative in themain. Here we have a certainty. Just live with it.

and we move on then to whomever we can get with next pick....its not that hard really

Ok..heres my 5c... Ive noidea as to the actual construct of bidding as it plays out other than I understand we dont have to beat anyones bid.. just near -match it.

If we have to use up a high pick..so be it ffs. ...Just do it. Everyones trying to have their cakke and eat it too. Nice if you can , but hey.. so what. When was the last time weve had a chance to pick a player who IS ready to go and we KNOW.. , categorically KNOW he is the goods and a goer. So many picks have been speculative in themain. Here we have a certainty. Just live with it.

and we move on then to whomever we can get with next pick....its not that hard really

Exactly right B59, and what you have posted is worst-case scenario. Best case is that we can hold him back and GC/GWS don't bid for him.

We will lose if we have to do a secret deal with GWS/GC in the way of trading later picks so that they end up better off in that regard. We owe them nothing.

I don't know if this has been covered before but did MFC jump the gun by committing to him so early. Are we going to pay a higher price than he is worth. ie pick 3 when he is only a pick 9 or lower. Seems to be some debate about what pick he's worth. Are we going to now sacrifice a much better player because we committed to him too early.

good overview of potential top 50

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=931219

I don't know if this has been covered before but did MFC jump the gun by committing to him so early. Are we going to pay a higher price than he is worth. ie pick 3 when he is only a pick 9 or lower. Seems to be some debate about what pick he's worth. Are we going to now sacrifice a much better player because we committed to him too early.

Probably.

But the reason we went so early was that the Crows were in Todd's ear about using the GWS 17 year old draft system to get him to the Crows.

We put a stop to that.

Exactly right B59, and what you have posted is worst-case scenario. Best case is that we can hold him back and GC/GWS don't bid for him.

We will lose if we have to do a secret deal with GWS/GC in the way of trading later picks so that they end up better off in that regard. We owe them nothing.

That is irrelevant.

The rules have put them in a position of power of us and if we wish to maximise our draft lot, and it will mean effectively getting another top 3 player (!), then we will have to play ball with both GWS and GC.

We are in Dire Straits and we are going to have to give Sheedy Money For Nothing if we want our chicks for free.

Whose saying the Western Bulldogs wont playball with GWS and GC and offer them something to bid for Viney which will bump there first rounder and compo up by 1.

Your first-round compo pick can't be 'bumped up'. It's directly after your original pick.

Your first-round compo pick can't be 'bumped up'. It's directly after your original pick.

It will be bumped up if your original pick is bumped up

Technically it wont be bumped up, but there will be 1 better play left in the pool for each of those picks if we are forced to take Viney

Probably.

But the reason we went so early was that the Crows were in Todd's ear about using the GWS 17 year old draft system to get him to the Crows.

We put a stop to that.

I think it is also fair to say that at the time the club made that deal they would have projected us to be performing much better in 2012 than a possible 16th. At the time they probably thought a potential bargain was in store down the track (knowing the development they were about to put into Jack).

We are in Dire Straits and we are going to have to give Sheedy Money For Nothing if we want our chicks for free.

You were so close to pun perfection then. If you'd said "Money For Nothing if we want our picks for free", I'd have scored it a 10/10,

I imagine Viney's height also skews his perceived draft position at this stage, as physical attributes always tend to get overvalued in these rankings.

Sam Mitchell is the same size, and it hasn't stopped him.

But when you see Jack is 179cm and there's a decent 190cm or 185cm mid next to him, there's a tendency to go for the slightly more appealing physical attributes and ignore things, like the fact he's already spent 2 years in a professional football environment and has proven to have an aptitude for learning and playing the game at AFL level.

I think it is also fair to say that at the time the club made that deal they would have projected us to be performing much better in 2012 than a possible 16th. At the time they probably thought a potential bargain was in store down the track (knowing the development they were about to put into Jack).

On the flipside - when they said we will have our compo picks this year they didn't think it might get us the third best kid in the draft...

Swings and roundabouts.

You were so close to pun perfection then. If you'd said "Money For Nothing if we want our picks for free", I'd have scored it a 10/10,

I was thinking along the lines of 'chicks' as baby chickens - the kids we will pick...

On the flipside - when they said we will have our compo picks this year they didn't think it might get us the third best kid in the draft...

Swings and roundabouts.

Not sure why you said this as I was supporting your original point but yes this is also true.

Whose saying the Western Bulldogs wont playball with GWS and GC and offer them something to bid for Viney which will bump there first rounder and compo up by 1.

That's a very good point, but there's also a very good chance they wouldn't have to.

We're looking for mids, mids, mids.

They have an abundance of mids and ruckmen, but need KPPs.

If we're not seriously looking to be selecting the same players, I doubt the doggies would mind being another pick behind us.

Chances are we won't take the players they have their eyes on anyway.

And, in the end, we'd be willing to give more than the doggies.

It's not really worth giving up anything of value to move up ONE spot in the draft, but we'd be moving up approx. 20 spots.

Not sure why you said this as I was supporting your original point but yes this is also true.

I was agreeing with you.

It's just a strange twist because our ineptitude will see us overpay for Viney but garner a top 5 aswell.

We are bickering over whether we can make our ineptitude a win-win and get two top 5 talents aswell as Viney.

Just a strange twist is all.

I say Trade our first round pick for the #1 17 yr old in mini draft.

GWS will take our pick 3 in a heartbeat, we still get 2 first rounders, Viney and next years #1

(This will need to be organized prior to bidding/trade season)

If we traded out of pick 3, and Viney is bidded for, are we able to use the second rounder on him?

I.e. If a club wanted pick 3 for a decent player, wouldn't we be killing two birds with one stone? (getting Viney at a below value price and getting a decent player of value?)

Nasher, this is another point I continue to raise. None of us have seen the contract, but surely there is a clause in there regarding where we are to take Jack, just as there would be a get out clause of some type that if Jack were to suffer serious injury that could resrtict his playing ability, that we are able to terminate said contract. Or if there are offield incidents that could tarnish the Club, etc, or if Jack's performance/form/development didn't see him as a genuine first round-type, then we would use our own disgression on where we can select him.

I'm not trying to be a smart ar$e, but there has to be things in place to protect not only the player, but the Football Club also.

I'm totally amazed that I am in the minority on this subject. If Jack is rated in the Top 5 at the end of the season, I'm happy to pick him up at Pick 3, but if other players have come on and he slides to a market value of Pick 10, I'd be livid if we have to use our Pick 3 on him.

I am sure we can terminate the contract if hespends the rest of the year with drugs, hookers, and fur flying.

But to have a 'this contract is voided if the MFC is forced to use a pick approx.7 places higher in the draft than expected' clause is unworkable. The rule is designed so that clubs pay a price more akin to the talent of the player, if that is slightly overs then it is overs.

The idea of secret deals with GWS and GC stinks in my book. I don't want our Club to have anything to do with them. We should put ourselves in a situation where we don't have to (ie ensure that Jack is not rated as a Top 5 prospect).

Of course, it stinks. But it is irrelevant. They are the beneficiary of the rules that we wish to circumvent, and I would see getting another top 3 Pick as incentive enough to do these Demon Deals with the Expansionary Devils ©.