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.

Yeah, fair enough it could turn into a comedy of errors.

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)

F/S bidding is before trade week. The mini-draft is at the end of trade week.

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?)

Trade week comes after F/S bidding.

Cannot happen.

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

No it won't be.

If you have, say, pick #8 and a compo pick at #9, and you trade #8 plus a player for, say #3, you still get your compo pick at #9.

Billy, it's us who are held by the balls.

I don't know...

I think our balls are being cupped.

I'll explain:

Our ineptitude is the only reason why Viney is even a chance of being called out in the second round of the draft.

As 1858 outlined - we have been pushed into a decision on Viney we didn't think we would have.

We would have spent Pick 8 on him. And had Pick 9, 14 and 24(ish).

Now we are looking at Viney at Pick 3. And have Pick 4, Pick 12, and 24(ish).

Our draft lot has shot up significantly even if we don't get Viney in the second round...

But it would be very good to get him in the second round...

What happened to his "groin problems"?

Can't we, I dunno, exaggerate the problem?

Nobody wants a kid with OP.

I don't know...

I think our balls are being cupped.

I'll explain:

Our ineptitude is the only reason why Viney is even a chance of being called out in the second round of the draft.

As 1858 outlined - we have been pushed into a decision on Viney we didn't think we would have.

We would have spent Pick 8 on him. And had Pick 9, 14 and 24(ish).

Now we are looking at Viney at Pick 3. And have Pick 4, Pick 12, and 24(ish).

Our draft lot has shot up significantly even if we don't get Viney in the second round...

But it would be very good to get him in the second round...

with respect only to getting Jack as a second rounder we are held by our balls i.e. we are at a disadvantage

our only chance of pulling it off is to negotiate with GWS/GCS (assuming we finish 16th) It could be done but it would cost

with respect only to getting Jack as a second rounder we are held by our balls i.e. we are at a disadvantage

our only chance of pulling it off is to negotiate with GWS/GCS (assuming we finish 16th) It could be done but it would cost

Yes, but my point remains that GWS and GC represent the only way we would get Jack in the second round AND have two top 5 picks.

Crisi-tunity!

I blame Jack Watts for pretentious restaurants who make it impossible to book. Bastard!

Wrong thread.

And mindset.

Yes, but my point remains that GWS and GC represent the only way we would get Jack in the second round AND have two top 5 picks.

Crisi-tunity!

what i said

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)

Not a terrible scenario.

I like.

What about GC though?

edit:

that is, if what you mean is to agree a deal with GWS pre-F/S bidding & trade period, to give them pick 3 in return for pick 1 in the minidraft and not nominating Viney.

This would be an equitable deal, because I doubt any club will offer even close to pick 3 for either of the minidraft picks, so a good deal for both clubs.

That would mean we get: pick 4, minidraft pick 1, approx pick 12, Viney with 2nd round pick.

Of course, we'd need to do something to sort out GC too...

Nobody has considered the obvious risk to GWS bidding for Jack V in the first round of him doing a "Scully-in-reverse" and ending up at Melbourne the nanosecond his 2-year contract expires ... minus the compo picks we got for Scully.

Scully has laid down the path, and it's been given the Vlad seal of approval. All Jack has to do is walk it by giving them 2 years of ordinary service, including exaggerating an injury (Scully's knee 2010 = Jack's OP 2012), and getting his teammates (including Scully) to take the heat for him from the press. We could even start an "I believe Jack" thread on the GWS website.

On the other hand, I'm persuaded by the poster who says the club will take him first pick whatever happens. In other words, MFC considers Jack as #1 pick because we place such high value on contested-ball ability, even if the "experts" have him well down their lists. This is the "no-risk" option, and th3ere's much to be said for it.

It's just that something in me - and I'm sure I'm not alone - would love to see GWS on the wrong end of a "Scully-in-reverse" play.

Nobody has considered the obvious risk to GWS bidding for Jack V in the first round of him doing a "Scully-in-reverse" and ending up at Melbourne the nanosecond his 2-year contract expires ... minus the compo picks we got for Scully.

Scully has laid down the path, and it's been given the Vlad seal of approval. All Jack has to do is walk it by giving them 2 years of ordinary service, including exaggerating an injury (Scully's knee 2010 = Jack's OP 2012), and getting his teammates (including Scully) to take the heat for him from the press. We could even start an "I believe Jack" thread on the GWS website.

On the other hand, I'm persuaded by the poster who says the club will take him first pick whatever happens. In other words, MFC considers Jack as #1 pick because we place such high value on contested-ball ability, even if the "experts" have him well down their lists. This is the "no-risk" option, and th3ere's much to be said for it.

It's just that something in me - and I'm sure I'm not alone - would love to see GWS on the wrong end of a "Scully-in-reverse" play.

yes that scenario has been canvassed by a few posters

it certainly appeals to the vengeance gene................but it won't happen

No it won't be.

If you have, say, pick #8 and a compo pick at #9, and you trade #8 plus a player for, say #3, you still get your compo pick at #9.

What are you talking about?

I said if we are forced to take Viney at #3, then there will be an extra player to pick from then the bulldogs get there pick. If theyre pick is after ours then they will have pick 5 (First round) and 6(Compo) and will get better players as we were forced to take viney rather then another high pick player. I never said anything about trading.

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?)

I think the father/son election has to be made before trade week, so any trade would occur after it has already had to happen.

I think the father/son election has to be made before trade week, so any trade would occur after it has already had to happen.

I think someone was suggesting a 'trade' made by 'mutual agreement' before f/s bidding but then 'executed' at normal trading time

I don't think this is illegal, just contains a degree of mutual trust

FWIW, last year during trade week Terry Wallace was asked about Melbourne getting involved in the O'Meara stuff. He said he didn't think they'd try too hard because they were getting a certain Top 5 pick in Jack Viney as a F/S the next year. He said Viney is very much in the same bracket as O'Meara and Crouch. Different style but same quality! The reality is we will be paying about what he is worth.

I don't think there is much risk for GWS or GC in bidding for Jack. I think we will definately use pick 3 on him if necessary.

I am wondering (hoping!) if there is a PR angle to consider. By nominating Jack, aren't GWS and GC are saying that the players they eventually choose (Whitfield and ?) aren't really the rightful #1 and #2. Given the intensive media/PR around the draft these days will that be a factor?

What about GC though?

Of course, we'd need to do something to sort out GC too...

That will come later in the year - wonder if they are struggling with anything at the moment?

Watch this space. Patience my friend patience!

PS I'm off to google & check their website LMAO - oh but thats right AFL clubs dont detail everything on their sites -dash

Perhaps I'm being too naive (after all, I did take $cumbag on his word), but if we have Pick 3, unless the teams with Pick 1 & 2 believe Jack is rated between 1-10, why would they risk it?

There is no risk, except the one that you and others keep fabricating. We'll take Viney. End of story. At least one of the clubs lower than us will nominate him, just to make sure we don't get a bonus in the second round, and in full knowledge that we'll take him first round if we have to.

Viney is already effectively a Melbourne player, and any other scenario is just straight from fantasyland.

Someone should start a thread mid year"Viney with chronic OP, may need operation to fix problem" suggest it comes from reliable sources inthe club,etc.

Our friend at the HUn will dutifully replicate it.

Someone should start a thread mid year"Viney with chronic OP, may need operation to fix problem" suggest it comes from reliable sources inthe club,etc.

Our friend at the HUn will dutifully replicate it.

Plus the Weagles Darling factor. Suspended because not turning up to training and staying out partying. That should do it, it did for Darling.

Gee,people need to get it out of their thick skulls. We are going to get Viney next year regardless. We signed him up for 5 years already, we lured his Father (a melbourne legend) down from Adelaide specifically to get Jack Viney at the club. And now people are suggesting that we might tell Todd Viney that we are willing to let his son move away from him for 2 years. Laughable.

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 guess the issue is not getting him so early but announcing it. If we'd contracted him and not told anyone then when we nominated him as a F/S at the end of the year there is no way we would be worrying about GWS or GC as they wouldn't take the risk of putting up their picks for him if they didnt' know we were committed. Whoever the genius was who decided to announce it to the world has cost us a no. 3-5 pick. No team would have risked those picks ahead of us if they didnt' know we were already committed.

I guess the issue is not getting him so early but announcing it. If we'd contracted him and not told anyone then when we nominated him as a F/S at the end of the year there is no way we would be worrying about GWS or GC as they wouldn't take the risk of putting up their picks for him if they didnt' know we were committed. Whoever the genius was who decided to announce it to the world has cost us a no. 3-5 pick. No team would have risked those picks ahead of us if they didnt' know we were already committed.

Yeah no-one would've asked us what we're going to do and no-one would've noticed him training with the club.

We'll take Viney with our first pick, the kids worth it and will be streets ahead of other kids we could potentially pick due to his work within the club over the past 2 years. There is no option of not taking Viney and calling GWS/GC bluff. We know what we're getting, and I couldn't be more happy. Seen him play numerous times, including the under 18 carnival and TAC gf last year. Watch him absolutely tear this competition to shreds at the end of the year, then there will be no doubt he's top 3 ilk.