It's worth bearing in mind that the risk is all on GWS and GC and the benefit is all on those after us in the draft.

Unless Viney is genuinely worth pick 1 or 2 I would not want my club making taking a risk that largely benefited others and not us.

If GC bid for Viney at #2 then that is the best indicator out there of his worth in the market. Which means if we get him at #3 then we will have paid unders for him.

Dave Allen would have been inpressed !!! lol

...Life is what you make of it......the lucky make their own luck...

What ever happens I feel more confident of the current FD to at least make a really good fist of things as opposed to some previous lamentable [censored]-ups !!

Totally agree BB, but this matter is totally out of our hands.

If GC nominate then we either match with a No. 3 pick or if they don't then we take him Round 2.

The real question we should be asking is whether Viney is better than Whitfield and whoever the second best player in the draft is. If he is there should be no debate. To answer this question you would need to do a full analysis as to what else is out there. Not just watch a few of Viney's games and note he has talent.

Well, if GC make that determination, than it is likely we will make a similar determination.

And after that full analysis - we will take him at whatever pick is asked of us.

Do deals and this can all be moot.

Yes but pick #4 we would have had anyway if the compensation and f/s rule changes had not been introduced

If Scully still played for us our only pick would be pick 3.

This chest beating by other clubs reminds me of the chest beating we did around Ball. I remember before the draft us saying "we don't care if Ball wants to go to Collingwood only ,we will look seriously taking him before Collingwoods pick". and we ...... passed.

I dont believe GWS or GC would risk us backing away from Viney by making us bid up to no 3 if they are not going to be happy with getting Viney at no 1 or 2.

That's exactly right nuts, and I'm sure our Club sees it the same way. Jack will be viewed by all clubs as being a legitimate 5 to 10 pick on draft day, but not in the absolute top echelon.

It seems to me that some Melbourne supporters have kind of slipped into a welfare mentality where we think we haven't been afforded enough by the system. We want it all but don't want to have to pay for it.

We have been massively overcompensated for Scully, something which we all acknowledge. We've had priority picks and bail outs by the AFL but it's still not enough. Obviously we all hope we can snag young Jack in the second round, but suggestions that we should not take the bloke simply because we have to pay about what his worth is just indicative of the handout mentality we have fallen into.

If you'd told me at the start of the year thy we were going to have the picks we have now I would have laughed at you. Even after all of our failed recruiting and our questionable culture we have an opportunity to capitalise on ANOTHER draft.

We have the opportunity to draft a heart and soul player. The son of a Demon great. We know better than anyone that there are no guarantees come draft time. Viney is the surest thing we've had come our way in a decade and the idea that some people want a bargain more than they want this animal on our side is unfathomable.

Pay up people, I'm going to love watching this bloke play footy and I reckon you are too. Especially alongside his fellow draftees who are bought in under a new regime destined to take this side away from the dark place where we have resided for far too long.

Whilst I totally agree with the crux of your argument about the 'welfare mentality', I really don't think that posters who want JV in the second round or don't think we should pick him at 3 unless we actually value him third best (or better) in the draft are necessarily exhibiting this mentality.

If he is not rated top 3, and we are forced to pick him there because another team is able to use of the vagaries of the father-son system against us, then what some have said here is true; we are going to be the first team ever to be disadvantaged by our own father-son pick in the draft! Fact! (and I'm not talking about what JV might end up being. Nobody knows that for sure. I'm saying, if he is rated 5 - 8 now (hypothetical, I know, but a reasonably accurate interpretation of everything that's been written about him by those who should know) and we pick him at 3, we are paying slightly overs). The fact that we would be paying slightly overs for a player that, historically speaking and by the nature and intention of the rule under which we are getting him, we should be getting at unders, is just further salt in the wound. No welfare mentality there. Just a legitimate gripe!

Even in this very same draft, another team is paying well-unders for a future father-son gun (Daniher). Imagine if the Bombers finished last and were forced to take him at pick 1, when he is generally rated around pick 2-5. They would be having the same conversation on BomberBlitz. They'd be livid that they aren't getting him in the second round. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that the have a welfare mentality over there.

That's exactly right nuts, and I'm sure our Club sees it the same way. Jack will be viewed by all clubs as being a legitimate 5 to 10 pick on draft day, but not in the absolute top echelon.

You don't know that, and again, he is widely regarded as being the hardest player in a generation - certainly in this draft class (By Emma Q's sources in that article, and buy the often quoted Knightmare on BF, who seems to be a deity when it coems to internet discussion of draft scenarios) - and has terrific intangibles that takes away any doubt as to whether he will get the most out of himself.

We have lucked out in having the compensation for HWFUA arriving in a year in which we were terrible - we can take Viney and we will still have a top 3 pick if it comes to that.

Try and get a deal done of course, but take the hardest kid in a generation and smile like an [censored] while you are doing it - because he will be very good.

It seems to me that some Melbourne supporters have kind of slipped into a welfare mentality where we think we haven't been afforded enough by the system. We want it all but don't want to have to pay for it.

We have been massively overcompensated for Scully, something which we all acknowledge. We've had priority picks and bail outs by the AFL but it's still not enough. Obviously we all hope we can snag young Jack in the second round, but suggestions that we should not take the bloke simply because we have to pay about what his worth is just indicative of the handout mentality we have fallen into.

If you'd told me at the start of the year thy we were going to have the picks we have now I would have laughed at you. Even after all of our failed recruiting and our questionable culture we have an opportunity to capitalise on ANOTHER draft.

We have the opportunity to draft a heart and soul player. The son of a Demon great. We know better than anyone that there are no guarantees come draft time. Viney is the surest thing we've had come our way in a decade and the idea that some people want a bargain more than they want this animal on our side is unfathomable.

Pay up people, I'm going to love watching this bloke play footy and I reckon you are too. Especially alongside his fellow draftees who are bought in under a new regime destined to take this side away from the dark place where we have resided for far too long.

Couldn't be more spot on. If we are forced to take Viney at 3 so be it, this is the type of heart that the team needs & more importantly us supporters need. I can't imagine what would hurt more than seeing Viney in a Suns jumper driving a Melbourne player into the turf.

I know its draft tampering but if we really wanted to see Viney slip to 2nd round we should tell GC we will trade P3 or P4 for Caddy if they don't bid on Viney in the F/S noms. We then have P3 or P4 to on trade for a mini draft pick or just use in the ND.

My Brother sat next to Garry Lyon 10 years ago at a dinner. He'd managed property for Lyon so knew him quite well. He asked whether any of his 3 boys could be potential F/S's. He said no, but keep your eye on young Jack Viney, he's an absolute gun. Viney was 8 at the time. It's fair to say that my Brother and I have been tracking him for a long time, right through 4 B&F's in a row at Ashburton Junior Football Club, when he played with and was better than Toby Greene. He's always been better than Toby Greene.

Viney is the best inside mid in the draft and the hardest junior midfielder most observers have ever seen. We're lucky he'll be at Melbourne next year. And it will be the beginning of a new era at the club.

If he is not rated top 3, and we are forced to pick him there because another team is able to use of the vagaries of the father-son system against us, then what some have said here is true; we are going to be the first team ever to be disadvantaged by our own father-son pick in the draft! Fact! (and I'm not talking about what JV might end up being. Nobody knows that for sure. I'm saying, if he is rated 5 - 8 now (hypothetical, I know, but a reasonably accurate interpretation of everything that's been written about him by those who should know) and we pick him at 3, we are paying slightly overs).

So we are being disadvantaged, but only 'hypothetically'?

Phew.

The rule was changed to keep teams from getting a massive advantage from a F/S pick - like taking a player rated in the top 5 or 6 picks at 30. Scarlett, Ablett, Cloke, Hawkins, et al.

The rule will mean that some times teams will be forced to take a kid at overs or let him go.

I still refuse to 'hypothetically' believe that we are disadvantaged by haivng dibs on the hardest player in a generation.

What is being forgotten is the value in him being in our system already unlike the others. No doubt he has been on a Mission devised training plan. He will have been learning our game plans. That changes the equation a bit because our coaches know when he will be ready and I suspect he is ahead of many others in the draft.

So the question is not, is he number 3, 5, or 8? If he is really not a first round pick then we wouldn't take him. If he is then we do.

I find the whole debate about which number a bit strange history tells us that pick order does not always determine what you will get.

Our recruiters may not know how serious the operation on Toumpas is and how long he will need in preseasons to get it right. (what is that worth is risking a pick?)

In any event I think what we saw when he broke his jaw said a lot, it will be hard to keep this young man anything than motivated and hard at it. You have to like that.

Totally agree BB, but this matter is totally out of our hands.

If GC nominate then we either match with a No. 3 pick or if they don't then we take him Round 2.

yep..and it is because much is out of our hands we just watch and wait.

if no one bids.. we smile and walk away

if some one does , we cough up.

We dont have to make the first move. That works in our favour I feel. Its not whether we blink, its does anyone else blink.

Or for that matter; Can anyone else blink ?. I refer back to the notion of priorities. Depnding very much on how other clubs are situated with what they want/need for trades etc are GC or GWS likely take chances. Other clubs will be ensuring they get the very best players for their prescribed needs as opposed to forcing us to do anything..

As a few have mentioned we will take him with the draft pick we have to, whether it is 3 or 2nd round. The club knows exactly the player we are getting with Viney, they know he will play round 1 and will most likely be favourite for the NAB rising star at years end. With our recent drafting history the club needs a safe bet, and this guy is a safe bet, we can't afford to have another first round flop. If we use pick 3, considering we have pick 4, it esentially if any be only 2-5 picks earlier than maybe he should be picked.

If Scully still played for us our only pick would be pick 3.

Yes it would have been.

Our pick #4 will be pick #3 anyway if we take Viney with our pick #3 rather then the pick in the 20s. So its the same thing. Pick #4 will be used to take the 3rd best kid.

So still in theory the F/s rule has cancelled out our first round compensation pick. Meaning pick #13 was what we got for Scully. (Assuming GC/GWS bid)

Some argue if he isn't being valued in the top 5 don't take him. What we need is a gun inside mid who is professional and tough as nails with skills to match. He should be valued from us as a number 1 pick. If we needed a ruckman but had plenty of mids then Grundy would be number 1 for us. Horses for courses. We need Jack Viney.

Yes it would have been.

Our pick #4 will be pick #3 anyway if we take Viney with our pick #3 rather then the pick in the 20s. So its the same thing. Pick #4 will be used to take the 3rd best kid.

So still in theory the F/s rule has cancelled out our first round compensation pick. Meaning pick #13 was what we got for Scully. (Assuming GC/GWS bid)

No, it means we got Jack Viney and Pick #13 for Scully. Viney will be better than Scully and we can then add a good kid at Pick #13 as well, not to mention Pick #4 as well. Win.

Remember if we pass on JV then we will ideally have picks #2, #3, #11 and #23ish (Daniher and Viney bump these down by 1 each)

Wines might be available at 11

Toumpas #3, Hogan#4, Wines #11 and a Mid at 23 could also be a good possible outcome. Oh and to slap GC in the face.

Yes it would have been.

Our pick #4 will be pick #3 anyway if we take Viney with our pick #3 rather then the pick in the 20s. So its the same thing. Pick #4 will be used to take the 3rd best kid.

So still in theory the F/s rule has cancelled out our first round compensation pick. Meaning pick #13 was what we got for Scully. (Assuming GC/GWS bid)

I think the error of your stance is the tying of an early pick to being only thatof compensation.

We have an event..Its the changing of the F/S rules. It may or may not cause us to use a high pick. Its not happened yet. You also have the issue of compensation for which we got 4 and 13.

If the father son issue forces us to use a high pick its actually pick 3...not 4 as it happens. So neither of the comp picks are used for that purpose. Whats happend is weve been forced to use a higher pick than historically required. Its a separate issue but yor making it one. we wont have had a comp pick nullified we will simply have had to use a higher pick than wed prefer.

You can have it possibly as they say... All circles are round, but not all rounds are circles !!

There is a subtle difference in all of this, but t difference no less.

No, it means we got Jack Viney and Pick #13 for Scully. Viney will be better than Scully and we can then add a good kid at Pick #13 as well, not to mention Pick #4 as well. Win.

No it doesn't we were gonna get JV with our later pick regardless before the rule changed. We got pick #13 and a 3rd round pick for Scully.

Olisik - your logic is FUBAR.

No it doesn't we were gonna get JV with our later pick regardless before the rule changed. We got pick #13 and a 3rd round pick for Scully.

We lost Scully and we got pick 4 and pick 13.

If we're forced to draft Viney at 3, we will still have pick 4 and pick 13.

How does logic seem to fail some people?

We lost Scully and we got pick 4 and pick 13.

If we're forced to draft Viney at 3, we will still have pick 4 and pick 13.

How does logic seem to fail some people?

fiik !!

I'm thinking we do a back room deal with the Suns , and give them really good value trades for Caddy..pick 13 and a good player

Iike Stef Martin.(on the proviso they don't bid for Viney) no one will beat that.

This way we will get Toumpas and another goodie like Wines pick 3 and 4 , Viney and Caddy .

Free agency will hopefully land us another couple of solid experienced types, and it's a great result.

Olisik - your logic is FUBAR.

Its called factoring in everything.

Some people don't seem to be able to do that here or want to turn a blind eye to things that factor the final outcome.

I sure hope our recruiters don't try to dismiss anything like that and review every combination and calculation possible to get the best outcome.