Yeah, I think we should be considering a deal.

After we find out where we finish!!

But, it calls our bluff if it gets knocked back.

If smart, the GWS wont bid on Viney, leaving us pick 3 - because we will most likely bid for Martin

and it will boast his stocks, Bullies would have to give up their pick 4, another first round pick and maybe more to get him!!

So, GWS leaving us pick 3 probably means that they will get more for Martin - as sides will have to offer a lot to trump us.

I think the side that ends up last wont bid for Viney regardless - as Whitfield is your clear number 1 choice.

Its the second side that will be bidding and they will 100% bid.

I wouldnt be complaining if we ended up second last.

If they bid,,, Make them Honor it!

We'll take the best. And we'll take Jack back, down the track.

If they bid,,, Make them Honor it!

We'll take the best. And we'll take Jack back, down the track.

I think they'll bid.

Viney isn't fooling anyone by not playing much footy.

Toby Greene is killing it this year and the common consensus is that Viney has him covered.

You'd say sides will bid, because Viney adds a lot.

Its a delicate situation, because if we try make a deal earlier - it shows our hand.

Bottom line is, we cant call bluff - otherwise we may aswell of tried to work out a deal.

If we say we aren't taking him and 3 and try to call bluff and then they bid and we take him.

We would look back on it and wish we'd worked out a deal.

Im sure you get what I am saying, Its delicate and there is no room to call bluff - because the risks are costly.

If we do manage to snare a mini-draft pick, it will mean a single-year reprieve for one of our players on the cusp of being delisted.

Petterd? Bennell?

I am absolutely convinced that if GWS or GC bid picks 1 or 2 for JV they will get him. If they are convinced of that as well, they won't bid.

We will act with integrity and do what's right for our members and that is not being blackmailed or bluffed into paying too much for a player.

I am absolutely convinced that if GWS or GC bid picks 1 or 2 for JV they will get him. If they are convinced of that as well, they won't bid.

We will act with integrity and do what's right for our members and that is not being blackmailed or bluffed into paying too much for a player.

I think Viney is worth Pick 3.

BH likes to say he is a 'culture changer' and I agree. We need more Demons with this kids heart and desire.

And I think that GC, should they finish with Pick 2 would look at Viney as a great complement to all the young class they have. They may not put in a dummy bid, they may put in a smart one.

I think Viney is worth Pick 3.

BH likes to say he is a 'culture changer' and I agree. We need more Demons with this kids heart and desire.

And I think that GC, should they finish with Pick 2 would look at Viney as a great complement to all the young class they have. They may not put in a dummy bid, they may put in a smart one.

I really dont see how every player needs to be a 'culture' changer. Lets get kids because they will win us games, not because they may change culture. Wasn't Magner meant to be a culture changer? Or isn't Jones a culture changer? Really how many of these 'Culture' changers do we need.

Id rather we drafted based on gaps and what we need rather then using a measurement of how much of a culture changer they will be.

If we can take Whitfield insetad of Viney then we should as his more likely to win us games. And Winning is more important then culture.

Edited August 6, 201212 yr by olisik

I think they'll bid.

Viney isn't fooling anyone by not playing much footy.

Toby Greene is killing it this year and the common consensus is that Viney has him covered.

You'd say sides will bid, because Viney adds a lot.

Its a delicate situation, because if we try make a deal earlier - it shows our hand.

Bottom line is, we cant call bluff - otherwise we may aswell of tried to work out a deal.

If we say we aren't taking him and 3 and try to call bluff and then they bid and we take him.

We would look back on it and wish we'd worked out a deal.

Im sure you get what I am saying, Its delicate and there is no room to call bluff - because the risks are costly.

Oh, you think I'm bluffing?

I'm not.

If they bid, I'd let them take him. I'm not making a bluff.

I'd take Whitfield or Grundy,,, + Toumpas or O'Rourke/Mayes/Stringer/Wines.

I'd fight like Hell to trade Jack back in, within 2 Years.

I really dont see how every player needs to be a 'culture' changer. Lets get kids because they will win us games, not because they may change culture. Wasn't Magner meant to be a culture changer? Or isn't Jones a culture changer? Really how many of these 'Culture' changers do we need.

Id rather we drafted based on gaps and what we need rather then using a measurement of how much of a culture changer they will be.

If we can take Whitfield insetad of Viney then we should as his more likely to win us games. And Winning is more important then culture.

What rubbish are you talking about?

What idiots have called Magner or Jones a "culture changer"??

None that I've heard, and I read and listen widely.

This looks like a figment of your imagination.

The term "culture changer" should be, and is, reserved for only very special players.

And Viney looks like being one of those.

and "Winning is more important then culture" ?? (sic)

I seriously beg to differ, and would contend that consistent winning is a byproduct of a good culture.

Jack Viney may well be a "culture changer", but that's not how "culture" is a primarily impacted by this situation.

MFC uphold their agreement to draft the talented son of a club legend - that's the key "culture" part.

The bad "culture" is keeping our options open to take some other player who may be a slightly better player than Viney.

Jack Viney may well be a "culture changer", but that's not how "culture" is a primarily impacted by this situation.

MFC uphold their agreement to draft the talented son of a club legend - that's the key "culture" part.

The bad "culture" is keeping our options open to take some other player who may be a slightly better player than Viney.

100% agree...MFC has a massive chance to show that we are a club that keeps its word and looks after its own, especially since this is a new fd regime than the one which forced out jnr and lost us bruce.

It was the dees who made the mistake by trying to make a feelgood media piece out of signing a 15year old therby exposing us to sheedy's madness.

We made the call now we must pay the piper albeit it at a potentially higher cost than we necessarily should

We already have enough threads about Viney Jnr.

What rubbish are you talking about?

What idiots have called Magner or Jones a "culture changer"??

None that I've heard, and I read and listen widely.

This looks like a figment of your imagination.

The term "culture changer" should be, and is, reserved for only very special players.

And Viney looks like being one of those.

and "Winning is more important then culture" ?? (sic)

I seriously beg to differ, and would contend that consistent winning is a byproduct of a good culture.

So your saying that a kid who hasn't even been drafted yet, will provide more culture then Jones and Magner? 2 players who pound it week in week out on the track and at games?

And your saying that 'culture' is better then winning? Well how about the culture from winning every week at Casey? Hasn't seem to do a thing so far for the kids who play their every week. Look at the wonders it has done for Cook, who can barely make the team.

Culture for you, winning for me. Im happy to agree to disagree on that. I say draft the best player available and instill the culture into them ourselves.

End of the day its a what comes first scenario, the chicken or the egg.

We already have enough threads about Viney Jnr.

Who?

Adelaide’s head of recruiting on the mini draft. He also discusses Adelaide’s approach to this draft in an associated article on the AFC website.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/144443/default.aspx

Adelaide’s head of recruiting on the mini draft. He also discusses Adelaide’s approach to this draft in an associated article on the AFC website.

Glad to hear Adelaide are out of the race to try to get Jesse hogan. Good god I hope this kid becomes a demon

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/144443/default.aspx

I like the under 17 mini draft.

What if the AFL introduced a new system. Where each club could nominate any 16/17 year old player.Maybe have a lottery. Similar to what Melb have done with Jack Viney. Give him full access to the club. Train and play him at the VFL level to help him better adapt to AFL football.

When it comes time to draft these youngsters they could follow similar father son rules or something. To force clubs to pay market value.

I personally lean toward Martin. Can’t remember seeing a kid with more talent and rounded skill set coming through the Championships. Does everything well, and a lot of things at an elite level.

That said, Hogan would also be a great asset to our team. Apparently was very good again for Claremont’s Colts team picking up 24 touches, 2 goals and (I think) 7 marks alternating between ruck & forward.

Both players fill an area of need and I believe we must have a real crack at securing a mini draft selection

I like the under 17 mini draft.

What if the AFL introduced a new system. Where each club could nominate any 16/17 year old player.Maybe have a lottery. Similar to what Melb have done with Jack Viney. Give him full access to the club. Train and play him at the VFL level to help him better adapt to AFL football.

When it comes time to draft these youngsters they could follow similar father son rules or something. To force clubs to pay market value.

I like it. That’s not too dissimilar to what Matt Rendell was suggesting the AFL do to prepare the indigenous kids from remote communities (round about the time he landed himself in hot water for saying something or the other about indigenous players…). Get them in early, get them into a program where they aren’t required to play straight away, but can be given time to adjust.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/rendell-racist-comment-throw-away-line/3900240

I just really like the concept of a young kid having a year to get up to speed in an AFL environment.

Can’t see this happening, but perhaps this could be introduced in lieu of priority picks. If a team qualifies for a priority pick under the AFL’s new formula, they get given the best qualifying 17 year olds that they have to trade for commodities ala GWS and their mini draft picks. The side holding the picks can’t keep them but have to trade for either players or picks. If their unlucky enough not to have any clubs interested in trading with them, maybe then they can be compensated with an extra pick somewhere (at AFL’s discretion).

I like it. That’s not too dissimilar to what Matt Rendell was suggesting the AFL do to prepare the indigenous kids from remote communities (round about the time he landed himself in hot water for saying something or the other about indigenous players…). Get them in early, get them into a program where they aren’t required to play straight away, but can be given time to adjust.

http://www.abc.net.a...ay-line/3900240

I just really like the concept of a young kid having a year to get up to speed in an AFL environment.

Can’t see this happening, but perhaps this could be introduced in lieu of priority picks. If a team qualifies for a priority pick under the AFL’s new formula, they get given the best qualifying 17 year olds that they have to trade for commodities ala GWS and their mini draft picks. The side holding the picks can’t keep them but have to trade for either players or picks. If their unlucky enough not to have any clubs interested in trading with them, maybe then they can be compensated with an extra pick somewhere (at AFL’s discretion).

I actually don't like the u17 mini draft. Not a good look for the AFL. Trading/drafting a kid before he is an adult 17 year old kids isn't right...sounds a bit like child slavery? ha

Oh, you think I'm bluffing?

I'm not.

If they bid, I'd let them take him. I'm not making a bluff.

I'd take Whitfield or Grundy,,, + Toumpas or O'Rourke/Mayes/Stringer/Wines.

I'd fight like Hell to trade Jack back in, within 2 Years.

Agree 100%, with every word.. we'd have a good shot at getting him back too, since they havent got another $6 million to throw at him to convince him to stay.

People have bagged this suggestion threads ago, but the fact is, viney isnt in the top 5 possible recruits this year. He may end up the best player to ever play AFL, but he's not right now.

-Joe Daniher is streets ahead of anyone else, then Whitfield who is streets ahead of no.3.. Toumpas.. then Mayes, then the Wines, Grundys, Vineys, Stringers, O'rourkes (if fact, i'd have my lawyers at the ready - and i would serve sheedy for draft tampering and kick up a big legal fuss, if he nominated Viney as pick 1. I'd even e-mail GWS and let him know i was ready to do it)

The club owes it to us (the members / supporters) to pick the best available at that pick.. and it wont be Viney at pick 3.

As i mentioned in one of the umpteen Viney threads around -

-Trade our pick 3 (and a player/s - my 1st thought was Morton) - for GWS pick 1 in the u17 draft. (Means we get Viney rd.2) ..were in the best position to deal with GWS anyway.

-take Martin / whoever in the u17 draft.. put him in the paddock for a year,

-take Wines / whoever at pick 4,

-take O'Rourke / whoever at 12,

-take Viney 2nd round.

Think this will be our BSC

Does the minidraft occur before or after the father son nominations?

Does the minidraft occur before or after the father son nominations?

I think it is mini draft nominations

Trade period/mini draft period

Draft

Does the minidraft occur before or after the father son nominations?

Father son nominations occur prior to trade window, mini draft happens pretty much straight after the trade period concludes.

I'm hearing Melbourne will get Viney in the 2nd round as GC will use pick 2 on Jack Martin, and therefore will not bid.

GWS won't bid as they can't risk losing Whitfield with pick 1, and can't bid pick 2 as they won't officially have it until the mini draft order is completed later in trade week.

People have bagged this suggestion threads ago, but the fact is, viney isnt in the top 5 possible recruits this year. He may end up the best player to ever play AFL, but he's not right now.

That's the minefield of recruiting isn't it? We know what players are capable of producing now, against their peers, but surely a recruiters job is predicting who will be the best when your team is contending against the elite. HIstory shows that the best rated player on draft day doesn't often end up the best player (or best performed player) in their draft class.

Recruiting has come a long way since the draft was introduced, but it's still such a speculative industry. Whitfield being way in front of everyone else is certainly the popular opinion, but so was Scully ahead of Trengove ahead of Martin. Virtually no contest. People love getting into Cale Morton, and the recruiters for picking him ahead of Dangerfield & Rioli. Popular opinion had Cale top 3, some even rated him above Kreuzer and Cotchin. If Cale was off the board, we probably would have gone with either Jarrad Grant or Grimes at 4. FWIW, when I saw Cale play for WA against Vic Metro, I thought he would be a star, and was ecstatic when we got him. He lasered passes and took contested marks and looked every bit the genuine article. Cotchin got tagged out of that game completely & Grimes tried everything to inspire his losing team (at least something stayed constant).

So whilst Lachie Whitfield is currently consensus number 1, I don't believe he is as far ahead of the rest of the pack as he's made out to be, and there may be players who end up being more effective in the AFL I guarantee that each club rates each player differently. Some rate young Jack as top 5, others have stated they rate him as a late first rounder. I guarantee that no other club will have a better idea of what Jack's value is than Melbourne. If we pick him at 3, it may well be because that is where our club ranks him. That really should be all that counts.

Edited August 21, 201212 yr by ChaserJ