WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - JACK VINEY

[Jordie_tackles 354]

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.

This is a point but an 18yo could just as easily be the best kid, in 2012 i believe they only receive 1 pick, and will as such not miss out on any of the 17yo if an 18yo is the best kid

I am still a little confused weather they trade players or a pick in a draft for these players... im pretty sure its a pick in a mini draft

I would assume all 17yo will not have an option but to accept the offer when it comes

[Guest Artie Bucco]

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.

What?

Jack Watts would have been one of these kids when he was drafted.

O'Meara has been likened to Cotchin as a surefire gun midfielder.

These picks have serious value and every club will be researching options to acquire one, and as a result the cost to acquire one will be high.

So you think that GWS would not trade these picks that they themselves cannot use, and essentially get a very valuable something for no loss, just because they will likely have a single high draft pick in 2012 and they'd like to have a shot at getting one of those players themselves?

So passing up what they would get in return for the rights to 4 extremely talented youngsters, for the chance to maybe draft one of these kids themselves, even though if they are not there, they'll still get a talented kid anyway with more exposed form?

I just don't understand your logic and I'm concerned you still don't properly understand the situation.

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

He's in the Vic Metro team this Saturday:-

The game is against Queensland at Visy Park at 2:30 pm.

1. Seb Gotch Oakleigh Chargers/Caulfield Grammar

2. Toby Greene Oakleigh Chargers/Wesley College

3. Alex Greenwood Eastern Ranges/Vermont

4. Adam Kennedy Western Jets/Melton

5. Liam Sumner Sandringham Dragons/St Paul's JFC

6. Tim Totevski Northern Knights/Mill Park

7. Jack Viney Oakleigh Chargers/Carey Baptist

12. Alex Brown Oakleigh Chargers/Doncaster Heights JFC

13. Michael Bussey Eastern Ranges/Rowville

15. Hayden Crozier Eastern Ranges/Rowville

16. Tom Curran Oakleigh Chargers/Wesley College

19. Hal Hunter Calder Cannons/Wesley College

21. Daniel Markworth Calder Cannons/Macedon

23. Thomas Sheridan Calder Cannons/Riddells Creek

25. Lachlan Plowman Calder Cannons/Macedon

26. Xavier Richards Sandringham Dragons/Xavier

27. Michael Talia Calder Cannons/Greenvale

28. Adam Tomlinson Oakleigh Chargers/Trinity Grammar

29. Dom Tyson Oakleigh Chargers/Trinity Grammar

32. Brandon Ellis Calder Cannons/West Coburg

35. Sam Frost Sandringham Dragons/Wesley College

37. Ben Darrou Sandringham Dragons/Wesley College

38. Jonathon Patton Eastern Ranges/Scoresby

39. Leif Cope Eastern Ranges/Yarra Valley GS

40. Billy Longer Northern Knights/MacLeod

[Guest hangon007]

What?

Jack Watts would have been one of these kids when he was drafted.

O'Meara has been likened to Cotchin as a surefire gun midfielder.

These picks have serious value and every club will be researching options to acquire one, and as a result the cost to acquire one will be high.

So you think that GWS would not trade these picks that they themselves cannot use, and essentially get a very valuable something for no loss, just because they will likely have a single high draft pick in 2012 and they'd like to have a shot at getting one of those players themselves?

So passing up what they would get in return for the rights to 4 extremely talented youngsters, for the chance to maybe draft one of these kids themselves, even though if they are not there, they'll still get a talented kid anyway with more exposed form?

I just don't understand your logic and I'm concerned you still don't properly understand the situation.

Ok I hear what you are saying.

All I'm trying to say ...rather badly it appears. That a possible option for GWS & us in this upcoming draft is to take advantage of a unintended loophole, GWS get something for a player they had no chance of ever getting ie ... hence the something for nothing quote.

Taking your own example if the trade/exchange for "O'Meara has been likened to Cotchin as a surefire gun midfielder." Can they draft him the following year? No they have lost him. So by your own example they potentially give up an O'Meara & marginally compromise the next draft where you would expect them still to be a important player, especially if they use the GC trick of getting compensation picks back.

Plus look at it from the other side ie the team they would have to deal with, they would have to declare their interest in player x, trying to pick drafts 12 months out is a very tricky little game. However, the eventual winner has to beware of the 12 months clause. Lets take the last two drafts as an example. In 2009 the most probably the cost of "underage 17YO" Jack Darling would have been a pick in the top 3-5 ... yet 12 months later in the 2010 draft when he was fully eligible you get him for pick 23ish. Drafts go both ways.

Why in year 1 would GWS not trade for player x from Melbourne, obtain a compensation pick, give up a player they never had any chance to obtain and leave in yout own words "O'Meara has been likened to Cotchin as a surefire gun midfielder." on the table when they have "more exposed form"?

"So you think that GWS would not trade these picks that they themselves cannot use"

... No! what I'm saying is your first port of call should be with the clubs that already have declared interests and set values on players in the 2012 draft. GWS could win both ways. (Again I was being somewhat factious with my 3rd round offer)

Breaking this down ...

So passing up what they would get in return for the rights to 4 extremely talented youngsters, for the chance to maybe draft one of these kids themselves, even though if they are not there,

First you deal with the known they you start dealing with the "gamblers & the risk takers" IMHO risk goes both ways.

"they'll still get a talented kid anyway with more exposed form?" Very good point. Why would I also not wait?

Plus are they in theory not just very marginally compromising the next draft?

I just don't understand your logic and I'm concerned you still don't properly understand the situation.

No problems. I accept my "logic" is hard to explain. I'm trying to look at it from both sides of the fence. Look I agree its a good little extra but both parties have to enter into risk.

Thank-you for your time. I honestly have just tried to put an alternative way of thinking ... I'm not trying to be difficult. I accept I could be wrong ... GWS might just do as others say. IMHO you have a very good understanding of what you are talking about & I did not mean to offend or frustrate you ... I'm just trying to learn.

Please sincerely ... Again thank-you for your time.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I really don't understand the logic of what you're saying.

Either it's rubbish, or it's way over my head.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

I really don't understand the logic of what you're saying.

Either it's rubbish, or it's way over my head.

I think that he is saying that GWS "may" be inclined to trade the 17yo picks with MFC because:

-They cannot get Jack Viney under any circumstances

-And this means that the 2012 draft where they will most likely have the first or second pick will be stronger

-Keeping an extra 17yo in that draft while still receiving compensation from MFC

If they trade other wise it draws 17yo talent out of the next draft where they will have 1 high pick, could O'Meara be that pick will the extra player picked be that pick?

They would effectively trade one less 17yo if the trade Viney to MFC

is this the point?

[Guest hangon007]

I really don't understand the logic of what you're saying.

Either it's rubbish, or it's way over my head.

Ok ... Its somewhat based on a more mature drafting system ... the NFL. IMHO the Australian system is very immature & overvalues "perceived" early draft picks.

Its very, very counter intuitive. Yet results suggest when you actually trade early draft picks or players, cost very, very rarely equates to return. IMHO "immature" systems lack the history hence the data to draw good quality selections. So in practice the more immature the system the more the system is based somewhat on luck. So hence you are more likely to have a winner & a loser.

... How do you propose it will work? How much information would you want clubs to divulge to one another 12 months in advance. Us on the other hand have declared our intention 12-24 months in advance because of the father & son rule.

Now even more importantly ... you are basically asking team x to make GWS an offer 12 months in advance of knowing more of the facts ie exposed form. Its hard enough to get AFL clubs to do that 3-4 weeks in advance because of the "unkown rogue" pick which upsets the expected order. The best recent example of that "unkown rogue" pick is ... the Tigers taking the "rogue" pick of Conca last year. Plus many many more unknowns. Top that all off with the added difficulty they must wait 12 months to place the player on their list, hence forgo the opportunity to develop another player.

I'm suggesting GWS may be better considering dealing with the known. Because we have set our value on a player that they never can get, we have declared an interest and set our price. Hence its far easier for GWS to create a win-win scenario. Plus they still leave a player on the table that they then can access. However, you are right about one thing ...if they trade the player away they will never have the ability to access them.

So IMHO GWS then must find a player that they have no interest in, yet another club does and they must then both be prepared to divulge that information 12 months in advance.

You are also asking for both them and their trading partner to determine an order order in advance, which they then must both agree is correct and deliver one another fair compensation. However, thats very, very risky. Sure they can take a risk and win big ... but hey they could lose big. As they say the more you bet the more you win!

IMHO GWS are better stock piling picks to use on as many kids as possible ala Gold Coast did last year which some clubs picked up on and some missed an opportunity .... Than giving up quality kids in advance that they may want to access. So in practice they are having more cracks at 17YO or 16YO maybe even 15YO. Unless the kid was never accessible in the first place.

Again looking at Gold Coast they where very smart trading away experienced players. They traded experience players to get more picks in upcoming drafts not reducing their number of choices in fact increasing them.

Many, will pooh pooh its all rubbish. I have no problems with that. I'm sorry I'm just crap at explaining things on paper.

Edited June 8, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

I think that he is saying that GWS "may" be inclined to trade the 17yo picks with MFC because:

-They cannot get Jack Viney under any circumstances

-And this means that the 2012 draft where they will most likely have the first or second pick will be stronger

-Keeping an extra 17yo in that draft while still receiving compensation from MFC

If they trade other wise it draws 17yo talent out of the next draft where they will have 1 high pick, could O'Meara be that pick will the extra player picked be that pick?

They would effectively trade one less 17yo if the trade Viney to MFC

is this the point?

Yes. But I should add two points I made badly above.

1/ Its only an "additional" pick IMHO if GWS have no interest in the player. If they do have an interest in them they would be mad to trade them because they are gone. As I said above IMHO they should be leaving or trying to gain access to as many 17YO as possible not reducing the number available. Especially 12 months out.

2/ IMHO your points are good. I'm trying to say ... think we have an unique opportunity in an un-intended loop hole.

Drafts go both ways ... risks go both ways. In fact its not out of the question that they could end up trading two players they could get the next year as per my Darling example. or Inversely the trading partner could in theory over pay for a player they could also get next year for a lessor price. Its risky. IMHO we over value "perceived" early draft picks.

However, we have declared our price. We are prepared to pay a first round draft pick for a kid they can never access. Gives them a strong starting position. However, as I said above there also has to be something in it for us ... because we can get him anyway. Essentially we are biding against ourselves.

Edited June 8, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Ok, so you're saying...

GWS should trade one of the picks to us, cheaper than what the other teams may offer, because they would be making the assumption we'd use the pick on Viney, who they can't get anyway.

Thereby not reducing the prospective pool to choose from in the 2012 draft.

If that's right, then ok, I do get it now.

But that's based on the assumption we'd use the pick on Viney.

Personally I'd much rather we bluff them to get a pick, then not use it on Viney.

Use it on another kid like O'Meara, because we'll still be able to take Viney F/S the following year, and both Viney and another 17 year old kid are likely to be more valuable than either of those 1st round picks (here I've made the assumption we'd trade our 1st round pick in 2011 to get the under-age pick).

Edited June 8, 2011 by Artie Bucco

[Guest hangon007]

But that's based on the assumption we'd use the pick on Viney.

Personally I'd much rather we bluff them to get a pick, then not use it on Viney.

Use it on another kid like O'Meara, because we'll still be able to take Viney F/S the following year, and both Viney and another 17 year old kid are likely to be more valuable than either of those 1st round picks (here I've made the assumption we'd trade our 1st round pick in 2011 to get the under-age pick).

Ok ... my understanding is you cant "bluff" so to speak. You must declare your interest in player x. GWS then access that player and on-trade them to you, assuming they have no intention of taking him in the following years draft. I thought the pick was not transferable or "bluffable" ... but if they are "half-smart" they will leak the deal to get a bidding war going. But in our case they dont have to leak its common knowledge plus we are the only club that has access to Viney ... Hence, we are bidding against ourself.

Bit similar, but not exactly the same as to what you had to do with GC17 last year except the player had to have previously been on an AFL list or nominated for a draft. IMHO GC17 only used that "trick" to allow other clubs to take players they GC17 had no interest in or extract a player who was already on another list they where interested in. Then they had the upper hand to ask for the "compensation" pick back. Nice information to have prior to a draft.

Except the "additional" process GWS have is the kid is "one draft in advance so to speak". If they dont use them this year they can reapply. Essentially they have the ability to on trade kids from a draft 1 year out who would other words be not eligible for that draft ... I'm making the assumption they would have no interest in the kid. Which IMHO is fair because why would you trade a kid you could access later ... ? But again the downside is they are taking a risk as is their trading partner. But in our case we have already declared our interest and our price.

But my point is GWS want more picks and increase the pool of available choices not reduce them.

However, IMHO its only useable if they have no interest in the mentioned player, or they are trying to gain leverage to a player in advance who they want from another sides list. But again I reckon the really value is for them to try to obtain 5 year bankable picks or gain/ improve their picks in this draft.

Ok I hear the argument from others. But if the dont trade the kids they lose access to them. Yes, but if they do trade them they also lose access to them so you would think they would only deal on kids they a dont want or b/ deal with the gamblers and risk takers .. but they then have a chance of shooting themselves in the foot.

Edited June 8, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest Artie Bucco]

...

Except the "additional" process GWS have is the kid is "one draft in advance so to speak". If they dont use them this year they can reapply. Essentially they have the ability to on trade kids from a draft 1 year out who would other words be not eligible for that draft ... I'm making the assumption they would have no interest in the kid. Which IMHO is fair because why would you trade a kid you could access later ... ? But again the downside is they are taking a risk as is their trading partner. But in our case we have already declared our interest and our price.

But my point is GWS want more picks and increase the pool of available choices not reduce them.

However, IMHO its only useable if they have no interest in the mentioned player, or they are trying to gain leverage to a player in advance who they want from another sides list. But again I reckon the really value is for them to try to obtain 5 year bankable picks or gain/ improve their picks in this draft.

Ok I hear the argument from others. But if the dont trade the kids they lose access to them. Yes, but if they do trade them they also lose access to them so you would think they would only deal on kids they a dont want or b/ deal with the gamblers and risk takers .. but they then have a chance of shooting themselves in the foot.

I don't understand what you're talking about from here onwards.

This is where I think you have the rules confused (or maybe I do...)

Edited June 9, 2011 by Artie Bucco

[Guest hangon007]

What?

Jack Watts would have been one of these kids when he was drafted.

So passing up what they would get in return for the rights to 4 extremely talented youngsters, for the chance to maybe draft one of these kids themselves, even though if they are not there, they'll still get a talented kid anyway with more exposed form?

I just don't understand your logic and I'm concerned you still don't properly understand the situation.

I've thought about this a little more maybe this would explain my position better.

Taking your Watts example - 18 months prior to that "Watts" draft in theory the position we are in now, say just around championships time.

Who was the higher rated player a/ Jack Watts? or b/ Daniel Rich?

Then we move to trade period 3 months later, neither are eligible for this draft so you are trading for the next draft. Who do you trade for?

or lets go back 18 months prior to the last draft, say around championships time.?

Who was the higher rated player a/ Jack Darling? or b/ 1 off Andrew Gaff, Reece Conca Or Dyson Heppell ... Atley maybe?

Then we move to trade period 3 months later, none are eligible for this draft so you are trading for the next draft. Who do you trade for?

Do 18YO championships ever change the rankings?

Plus ... Do my needs as a club ever change? Ie Are players ever taken on a needs basis over best available? Do players taken in previous drafts grow and fill a hole I no longer need filled?

But wait their is an alternative. Club M has declared an interest in kid y that I can never get. They have set their price or the market is smart enough to set it for them. I can somewhat manipulate the deal & set it that I take player x from them they receive a compensation pick which in turn returns to me. Player x maybe somewhat lessor but I got holes all over the ground does it really matter which one I fill first? OK Club M may not be as motivated as others, but will the others want to hedge their bets? Depends how much of a gambler they want to be.

Then you move forward.

Are all the then 17 YO now eligible for the draft still available? Yes. Ok what else do I have ... another accumulated draft pick that now I have more knowledge I can put to better use. What have I lost ... nothing?

Edited June 9, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Under the current rules we wouldnt have been able to draft Watts.

He would have had to wait til the next draft.

One of these under-age picks would have been able to secure Watts at the same time as when we selected him, deeming him to be better than all the other kids in the draft.

So effectively one of these picks could be equal to a number 1 pick.

Darling's rating fell mainly due to perceived off-field issues, but his current form would indicate he shouldnt have, that the early signs were correct.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

We don't know that Gaff, Conca, Heppell, etc weren't as highly rated as Darling.

They could have been, by recruiters.

They just didn't get the press that he did.

As a whole, players ineligible to be drafted are generally out of the spotlight.

You're going on hype and a perception created by the football media.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Needs change, but this is largely irrelevant.

These picks are at least equivalent to a first round pick - in the first round you should always choose best available.

It might be personal choice, but I find there's a general consensus on that.

[mordja 187]

Are the U18 Champs televised at all?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I think you're assuming I can't see things from GWS' perspective, but that is the only perspective I am considering in this.

You're raising a strange cryptic hypothetical in which we lose a player, then send our compensation pick to GWS (not back to) in return for the right to select Viney a year early.

Doesn't work for me.

Where does anyone hedging their bets come into it?

How is anyone a gambler?

Gambling just as much as we did drafting Watts and Blease as underage players?

That's just recruiting, not gambling.

MFC are hedging their bets in selecting Viney, but even moreso, using logic.

Seriously, I'm being kind in saying that maybe I dont understand.

You're living in a fantasy land.

[Guest hangon007]

I don't understand what you're talking about from here onwards.

This is where I think you have the rules confused (or maybe I do...)

Sorry I'm crap at explaining this on paper. IMHO GC17 were very smart last year and gave us a "road map" to this year, some clubs picked up on it some clubs didnt. Over value "perceived" early draft picks at your own peril.

IMHO the Brennan deal is a stroke of genius. (IMHO this is a win - loss trade - with GC17 winning ... However, the real value is in the detail)

IMHO the Krakouer/Ceglar deal is a stroke of two genius. Who both IMHO understand that principle that its not what you do with your early picks that counts its how you can improve your late picks that will make the real difference ... then how & when you use those late picks. (IMHO this is a win - win trade)

However, in Australia some clubs over value early picks. Just a thought.

Edited June 9, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Needs change, but this is largely irrelevant.

These picks are at least equivalent to a first round pick - in the first round you should always choose best available.

It might be personal choice, but I find there's a general consensus on that.

General consensus in Australia ... yes I agree. Elsewhere hummmmm! I'm not so sure.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

The Brennan deal of course, because Brisbane only really upgraded their first pick by 5 places, and from memory got another pick around 25.

That's a loss.

Then again, Brennan is not the greatest player.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything though.

Your previous posts are still riddled with gibberish and the logic is flawed.

[Guest hangon007]

You're living in a fantasy land.

hehe ... Yip I think your right. Sorry about that.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

General consensus in Australia ... yes I agree. Elsewhere hummmmm! I'm not so sure.

You're talking about completely different games, so where is the relevance?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I just can't see where you're going with all this...

There doesn't seem to be a clear point that you are making.

If there is, please just sum it up in a sentence or 2?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Are the U18 Champs televised at all?

On Foxtel, I believe.

They were last year.

[Guest hangon007]

The Brennan deal of course, because Brisbane only really upgraded their first pick by 5 places, and from memory got another pick around 25.

That's a loss.

Then again, Brennan is not the greatest player.

Brennan is just the icing on the cake. Look I hate rating trades after 6 months something I would normally never do.

However, who would you rather have Polec or Lynch? I have a feeling the longer this trade goes the more pear shape it goes for Brisbane.

But, as you say I just talking "jibberish" sorry about that.