Woke up this morning thinking about young Jack (yes, I know, I'm a footy tragic). Anyway, the gist of my thoughts was how we can secure him in the second round. So, I thought I'd put my thoughts out there and give my Demon friends a chance to knock them down. Stick with me here...

I think most posters understand just how valuable it will be to get him without having to use pick 3 on him, but just to clarify .. assuming our current ladder position (which is looking pretty solid after the recent win) we are talking about getting picks 3, 4, 12-ish and JV versus JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. So, in real terms, it means a free upgrade of pick 23-ish to pick 4. Pretty handy, I'm sure we all agree.

There have been some very interesting suggestions about how we can make this happen, the most promising involving picks in the U17 mini-draft. My view has always been that the key to us securing him in the second round is to come out hard in the media about how we are not prepared to take him at a pick that is above where we rate him, despite the current "contract" arrangements between him and club. It appears that the club agrees with this strategy, based on some of the comments they have made over the last couple of months.

Given this, I am going to assume that GWS and GC are going to have to factor in the real risk that we will have the courage of our convictions and genuinely be prepared to drop JV, for the benefit of the club, should other clubs try and hold us over a barrel. I think that this is a reasonable assumption. In reality we may be committed to taking JV at 3, if required, but the fact is that GWS and GC do not know this for sure, and will have at least some doubt in their minds going into the F-S draft process.

When calculating risk, GWS and GC also have to factor in that Lachie Whitfield is considered by almost all pundits to be head and shoulders above the rest of the pack as the lock for best in draft. There is then a small "peloton" of draftees running 2nd, with some saying that JV is amongst this group, some that he is little behind them. This has some knock-on effects:

1> Dramatically increases the risk in nominating JV for whichever team has pick 1; they stand to lose the surest pick in the draft.

2> Should whichever team has pick 1 nominate JV, and we decide to drop him, it hands Lachie to whoever has pick 2. So, whoever has pick 2 would be desperately hoping that pick 1 nominates JV and that we then default on him, thus handing Lachie to pick 2!

3> Makes it much more likely that the pick 2 is our real threat. Pick 1 is very unlikely to nominate him; there is a real risk of handing Lachie over to a team who will be their direction competition for flags in five years or so, but pick 2 has a lot less to lose.

So, I believe we need to come up with a plan to deal with whichever team has pick 2. Here's mine.

We make whichever team has pick 2 this offer:

If

whichever team has pick 1 nominates JV, we commit to defaulting on him and handing you Lachie Whitfield. In return, if

whichever team has pick 1 does not nominate JV, you commit to also not nominating him, and handing us JV in the second round.

I think it's a win-win. We give pick 2 a greater chance of getting there hands on Lachie Whitfield and they give us a greater chance of securing JV in the second round. As I strongly believe that pick 1 is not going to risk nominating JV, but is more likely to rely on pick 2 doing it for them, this plan is highly like to result in a good outcome for us. Also, if pick 1 where to get wind of it, I can't think of any way in which they could use it to their advantage.

OK, I admit it relies on a gentlemen's agreement being honoured. But that's how win-win agreements often work. It also relies on us having the courage of our convictions to drop JV, for the benefit of the club, should the deal "backfire". But I think that is the way the club is leaning, as we would be effectively swapping JV for pick 2 (not such a bad booby prize).

So, go ahead guys; shoot it full of holes. And/or put forward your ideas for how we deal directly with the problem of whichever team has pick 2. They are our real threat.

I like your logic that pick one will pass on Viney

Biggest concern is if pick one is GWS and the unpredictable/grudge-ridden/attention-seeking turd called Sheedy gets a rush of grandstand blood in his groin

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:41, daisycutter said:

I like your logic that pick one will pass on Viney

Biggest concern is if pick one is GWS and the unpredictable/grudge-ridden/attention-seeking turd called Sheedy gets a rush of grandstand blood in his groin

I actually look at it the other way round. I'd prefer that GWS have pick 1. I think that even the unpredictable/grudge-ridden/attention-seeking turd will have to think twice about the risk associated with nominating JV from pole position, but if he is looking at us from pick 2 he won't see much reason not to shaft us.

Gold Coast will most likely end up on the bottom of the ladder come seasons end.

GWS have GC and us coming up.

I think GWS are the form side out of all 3, they only need to win 1 game and they should.

GC wont bid on Viney, GWS will most likely bid I think - Sheedy has a dig at us in every interview thesedays.

Our only hope is if we show interest in Martin and they leave us 3 - for us to use in the mini draft, which makes most sense anyway.

You're also conveniently forgetting the fact that your plan involves what the AFL call 'draft tampering', something that if we are found guilty of doing could cost us a lot more than this exercise might be worth...

  On 07/08/2012 at 02:16, KingDingAling said:

Gold Coast will most likely end up on the bottom of the ladder come seasons end.

GWS have GC and us coming up.

I think GWS are the form side out of all 3, they only need to win 1 game and they should.

GC wont bid on Viney, GWS will most likely bid I think - Sheedy has a dig at us in every interview thesedays.

Our only hope is if we show interest in Martin and they leave us 3 - for us to use in the mini draft, which makes most sense anyway.

Reckon you could be right about ladder positions, Ding. I guess that's good and bad. Bad cause Sheedy is nuts. Good because GWS have the mini-draft option that we can tap into for a deal.

So you favour the mini-draft trade then?

Outside of that deal that has been suggested in the past, does anyone have any other suggestions how we can work an option that targets whoever has pick 2 and leverages their desire to get Lachie against whoever has pick 1?

  On 07/08/2012 at 02:41, fitness said:

You're also conveniently forgetting the fact that your plan involves what the AFL call 'draft tampering', something that if we are found guilty of doing could cost us a lot more than this exercise might be worth...

Yeah, obviously this is a potential issue, just as any plan that tries to deal with this issue could be seen as draft tampering. But, given no actual "real" trades are involved, it would be harder to get concrete evidence that any deal is actually occurring.

I think trying 'special deals' aren't going to work. If GC finish last and GWS second last I think

our best chance is to show a lot of interest in Brodie Grundy. GWS desperately need another

big ruckmen so they most likely want him. So if we make it seem we really want him then that

may scare them off on nominating as it would mean Grundy slips through to us. I think the offer

of pick 3 for Martin is also a possiblity, only time will tell.

  On 07/08/2012 at 02:41, fitness said:

You're also conveniently forgetting the fact that your plan involves what the AFL call 'draft tampering', something that if we are found guilty of doing could cost us a lot more than this exercise might be worth...

  On 07/08/2012 at 02:52, Cheesecake said:

Yeah, obviously this is a potential issue, just as any plan that tries to deal with this issue could be seen as draft tampering. But, given no actual "real" trades are involved, it would be harder to get concrete evidence that any deal is actually occurring.

Also, we can turn the draft tampering argument on its head. If GWS or GC were to nominate JV at 1 or 2, when pretty much the entire industry rate him somewhere between 5 and 15, solely for the purpose of shafting us, then that is draft tampering.

Can we use this fact to our advantage?

I'm pretty happy with the way the club has played it so far, we should really ramp it up leading up to the draft though.

It is absoutely essential that GWS and GCS know that it's 2nd round or bust for us with JV and it's important that the club is willing to follow through with the bust part of the equation as well.

I honestly think it is 2nd round or bust with him as well (that's what I'm hearing). I'd have thought Todd would want to avoid anything that even remotely resembles nepotism, particularly with the state the club is in. Put simply - we must pick the best player and I think we will.

  On 07/08/2012 at 02:49, Cheesecake said:

Reckon you could be right about ladder positions, Ding. I guess that's good and bad. Bad cause Sheedy is nuts. Good because GWS have the mini-draft option that we can tap into for a deal.

So you favour the mini-draft trade then?

Outside of that deal that has been suggested in the past, does anyone have any other suggestions how we can work an option that targets whoever has pick 2 and leverages their desire to get Lachie against whoever has pick 1?

We lose nothing showing interest in Martin, that only drives his stocks up and the GWS will get the best deal for the kid,

lf we say we'll use pick 3 on Martin - who we should be into anyway - then that sets the bidding bar high.

I think there is hope for GWS to see it this way too.

We should make it known that if they do bid on Viney, they will get him and I think we will do that.

I don't think there is room to bluff, its pretty straight forward and they'd have more reason to blink before we did.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:04, Harcourt said:

I'm pretty happy with the way the club has played it so far, we should really ramp it up leading up to the draft though.

It is absoutely essential that GWS and GCS know that it's 2nd round or bust for us with JV and it's important that the club is willing to follow through with the bust part of the equation as well.

I honestly think it is 2nd round or bust with him as well (that's what I'm hearing). I'd have thought Todd would want to avoid anything that even remotely resembles nepotism, particularly with the state the club is in. Put simply - we must pick the best player and I think we will.

Couldn't agree with you more.

That's why I like my plan. If internally we believe that it's "2nd round or bust", then the risk to my plan is zero. All it does is increase the incentive for pick 2 not to nominate him. (Oh, and introduce a chance we'll get done for draft tampering. He he.)

Do we really want to draft a 17yo who cannot play until 2014?????....In what is considered a great draft???

I not to sure about this......

1) GWS will beat GC this week so GC will finish last and have pick 1.

2) The MFC will pick Viney no matter which pick we have to use.

3) If we make the 'gentlemens agreement' as suggested in the OP the team with pick 2 (GWS) will know that pick 1 will not be used to nominate for Viney as soon as the FS bidding starts (as th bidding is done in order of picks) so they effectively have nothing to gain by passing on him as our side of the deal will be void. If they do subsequently bid on him with pick 2 we will have no recourse to do anything about it as admitting to it would be admitting to draft tampering. So the deal as suggested in the OP cannot benefit us and in fact can only harm us.

Sheedy is a media grandpa at GWS - it's obvious that Williams and Silvagni are the coaches.

There's no way they will allow the club's choices (and future) to be jeopardised by a grumpy old man.

My suggestion is for all MFC supporters to barrack like friggin hell for the Suns this weekend. If the Suns win, I think you will find the Giants will finish bottom, given the run home for both sides and the all important percentage.

I can't see Sheedy "risking" Whitfield by bidding for Viney, and I'd be quite confident that GC wouldn't get involved in silly games (I trust them a lot more than I trust GWS).

How would we go if we were to announce to the "members" that;

"Due to the upcoming draft, the uncertainty of our position in regards to taking him, and the potential conflict of interest with his father, Jack Viney has completed training with the MFC and has rejoined his teammates at the Oakleigh Chargers on a more permanent and regular basis as they embark on what will hopefully be a sucessful finals campaign. While it is hoped that we can secure Jack's services for season 2013, we are also wanting to ensure Jack has every opportunity to best position to make an AFL list. This decision was made in netural agreement, and Jack sincerely appreciated the opportunity to develop with an AFL club."

Just something out of left field that WILL NOT happen!

We simply imply to GWS that we'd be far more likely to trade pick 3 or 4 for the U17 if we didn't have to use it on Viney.

It’s been reported that we’re heavily into Martin (along with GC, the Bulldogs, Freo & Geelong), and GC getting the win against Port could have been a great help for us. They are the only ones who could trump us with an offer to GWS.

If GC finish 2^nd, I think it’s almost certain they will flip that pick (2) to GWS for 1^st pick in the mini draft. Like the O’Meara scenario last year, we probably won’t trump that. GC highly unlikely to trade pick 1 and Whitfield for MD pick.

Building on the OP’s assertion that whoever holds pick 1 won’t bid on JV (and a solid assertion too), GC get taken out of the equation. If we approach them with an offer for MD pick, it’s unlikely we get the dream scenario of pick 3, MD pick and Viney to second round. We could however offer pick 3 to GWS for MD pick, leaving us with pick 4 and Viney in the second round and Martin tucked away to do a season long preseason. GWS would hold picks 2 &3.

Now I realise father son bidding happens before trade week, but does anyone believe clubs don’t talk about potential trades long before trade week?

As much as I dislike the franchise, I’ll be barracking for a GWS win this weekend. We could be the big winners.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:12, Dr. Gonzo said:

1) GWS will beat GC this week so GC will finish last and have pick 1.

2) The MFC will pick Viney no matter which pick we have to use.

3) If we make the 'gentlemens agreement' as suggested in the OP the team with pick 2 (GWS) will know that pick 1 will not be used to nominate for Viney as soon as the FS bidding starts (as th bidding is done in order of picks) so they effectively have nothing to gain by passing on him as our side of the deal will be void. If they do subsequently bid on him with pick 2 we will have no recourse to do anything about it as admitting to it would be admitting to draft tampering. So the deal as suggested in the OP cannot benefit us and in fact can only harm us.

Yep, like I said in my OP, "I admit it relies on a gentlemen's agreement being honoured.". If it is honoured, it does benefit us, with very little risk.

I'd like to think that there is still some honour left among men.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:26, billy2803 said:

Just something out of left field that WILL NOT happen!

Ok, well thanks for sharing that with the class...

It would look pretty hollow. We can keep up the talk about Viney not being the best or second best kid in the draft - but for me, that is just convenient cover for the expansion teams when they don't nominate him and have about 6 Melbourne teams whingeing to the media who will lap that crap up.

If we think he is 4th best in draft or close to it (and he is) - we pull the trigger whenever we have to, but get surreptitious deals done with GC and GWS and then follow through in trade week to ensure he gets through to the second round.

And for the OP - I don't like any deal where we don't benefit should something eventuate. Your deal would allow for GWS to have Viney, GC to have Whitifield and us to be left to our own devices - I don't like it.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:04, Cheesecake said:

Also, we can turn the draft tampering argument on its head. If GWS or GC were to nominate JV at 1 or 2, when pretty much the entire industry rate him somewhere between 5 and 15, solely for the purpose of shafting us, then that is draft tampering.

Can we use this fact to our advantage?

No. That is near impossible to prove as a certain fact, unless they state publicly that they are doing it to shaft us (as opposed to nominating JV because the say they want him). Whereas us talking to clubs about a deal before a draft with the express purpose of manipulating picks would be clear draft tampering. I'm guessing that bitter 'n twisted Sheepy would dob on us if we attempted this.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:11, Bossdog said:

Do we really want to draft a 17yo who cannot play until 2014?????....In what is considered a great draft???

I not to sure about this......

As a bottom age player, Martin is considered the best kid in this draft by many.

He is going to be something else.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:49, KingDingAling said:

As a bottom age player, Martin is considered the best kid in this draft by many.

He is going to be something else.

A lot can happen in 12 months

Dustin Martin was a nothing player halfway through 2009, came home late as will someone else next season, happens every year one pops up.

Big risk with 17 year olds, what did Vossy say a few years ago Tom Swift was the best 16 year old he had ever seen

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:38, rpfc said:

Ok, well thanks for sharing that with the class...

It would look pretty hollow. We can keep up the talk about Viney not being the best or second best kid in the draft - but for me, that is just convenient cover for the expansion teams when they don't nominate him and have about 6 Melbourne teams whingeing to the media who will lap that crap up.

If we think he is 4th best in draft or close to it (and he is) - we pull the trigger whenever we have to, but get surreptitious deals done with GC and GWS and then follow through in trade week to ensure he gets through to the second round.

And for the OP - I don't like any deal where we don't benefit should something eventuate. Your deal would allow for GWS to have Viney, GC to have Whitifield and us to be left to our own devices - I don't like it.

Yes, it does. And I totally respect why some might not like that.

BUT ... the chance of that eventuating is slim, and we effectively get pick 2. Not bad.

  On 07/08/2012 at 03:53, Pennant St Dee said:

A lot can happen in 12 months

Dustin Martin was a nothing player halfway through 2009, came home late as will someone else next season, happens every year one pops up.

Big risk with 17 year olds, what did Vossy say a few years ago Tom Swift was the best 16 year old he had ever seen

Swift didn't move like Martin.

This kid has the goods, that is why every side with something to give is into him.

Excitement machine.