Looks like we are trying to call their bluff by playing him at Casey this weekend.

Viney is being groomed to play round one next year. As Dr.Gonzo says prepare to take him at 3, and see it as a bonus if he gets though to the 2nd round.

I have heard that some Melbourne-based clubs have been having a whinge to GWS/GC to nominate Viney so that we don't get a ridiculous discount that the revamped rules were designed to prevent.

If I were running GWS or GC I would say that we will nominate Viney, take the risk that I will get this beauty of a player, and ask the club in question - Melbourne - for a deal to not nominate him.

Money for nothing or Picks for free.

We are in Dire Straits...

I would prepare yourself for the fact we will be taking Viney at pick 3. If he slips to the second round it is a bonus but that won't happen. Everyone knows we will take Viney at 3 if we have to so they are not risking anything by nominating him with pick 1 or 2.

this is the fundamental disagreement - they have nothing to GAIN by doing it either, they can ONLY lose (a loss being forced to take Viney for a pick higher than his value)

Sheedy: Melbourne will clearly take Viney at 3, I'm 95% sure, so lets screw them over by nominating him, it will be fun

Chocko: Well what if that 5% is justified and they say 'fine take him'?

Sheedy: We'll be forced to take him

Chocko: Even though we have 6 or 7 blokes ahead of him on our shopping list? You want to risk that just to F with the Demons

Sheedy: Yeah if it turned out like that it would suck wouldn't it?

Chocko: It certainly would you senile old turd. Get back to the media room while the big boys talk about recruitment.

I can't see how we won't be forced to take him in the first round.

Would love to get him in the second obviously - will wait and see.

I think you and Cheesecake are in agreement, with the 2nd post i've quoted being the source of the confusion.

I think the bluff most people refer to is that GWS will call our bluff by nominating Viney to stop him sliding into the 2nd round and us getting an additional top 4pick. You have also contradicted yourself by saying if they nominate they have to take him in your 2nd post, when you've already highlighted that we have the option to match their bid with our first live pick, #3. Hope this clears up the confusion a bit.

OK I meant HAVE TO TAKE HIM (provided we decline)

that's the whole point though, they'd have to be CERTAIN we will take him or they put themselves at needless risk no matter how small that risk might be. No gambler or business man bets on a 95% bet that pays no dividend, that is just stupid

this is the fundamental disagreement - they have nothing to GAIN by doing it either, they can ONLY lose (a loss being forced to take Viney for a pick higher than his value)

Of course they do - say GWS bid for him forcing us to use pick 3 - assuming they get pick 5 or 6 for a min draft pick that pick is then upgraded a spot if we have to take Viney at 3. GWS have also built their side around players like Viney, Sheedy & Choco love those hard as nails guys.

GC I actually think would really want Viney - he is the exact player the need to complement their midfield (assuming GWS take Whitfield) - they already have a number of big guys so may not need Grundy. Adding Viney and O'Meara to their midfield next year would add some massive grunt to Ablett, Swallow & Bennell. Assuming they lose Caddy as well it's another hard body they'll have in there. They'll know we will take him anyway so they've got no risk in nominating him.

Make no mistake the kid is one of the highest rated in this draft. It's not like they would only be nominating him to spite us he is actually one of the best available. It would be great to take him at 26 but I'm resigned to the fact we will be using pick 3 and am satisfied we are getting such a great player and we will also have pick 4 & 12 on top of this. I cannot envision a situation where we wouldn't pick him besides being one of the highest rated players he is exactly what we need, a hard bulldozing body with a see ball, get ball mentality.

Of course they do - say GWS bid for him forcing us to use pick 3 - assuming they get pick 5 or 6 for a min draft pick that pick is then upgraded a spot if we have to take Viney at 3. GWS have also built their side around players like Viney, Sheedy & Choco love those hard as nails guys.

GC I actually think would really want Viney - he is the exact player the need to complement their midfield (assuming GWS take Whitfield) - they already have a number of big guys so may not need Grundy. Adding Viney and O'Meara to their midfield next year would add some massive grunt to Ablett, Swallow & Bennell. Assuming they lose Caddy as well it's another hard body they'll have in there. They'll know we will take him anyway so they've got no risk in nominating him.

Make no mistake the kid is one of the highest rated in this draft. It's not like they would only be nominating him to spite us he is actually one of the best available. It would be great to take him at 26 but I'm resigned to the fact we will be using pick 3 and am satisfied we are getting such a great player and we will also have pick 4 & 12 on top of this. I cannot envision a situation where we wouldn't pick him besides being one of the highest rated players he is exactly what we need, a hard bulldozing body with a see ball, get ball mentality.

to be fair I haven't factored all that in - I don't presume to know how GC values Viney, I'm just going on the (loose) concensus that seems to indicate he is worth 5-10.

clearly we WANT him, only if our bluff gets called will we lose him accidentally, but in my mind, making the bluff is a 95% bet for us

if that catastrophe happened we still get some other kid at 23 and poach back Viney in 2 years

I have heard that some Melbourne-based clubs have been having a whinge to GWS/GC to nominate Viney so that we don't get a ridiculous discount that the revamped rules were designed to prevent.

If I were running GWS or GC I would say that we will nominate Viney, take the risk that I will get this beauty of a player, and ask the club in question - Melbourne - for a deal to not nominate him.

Money for nothing or Picks for free.

We are in Dire Straits...

chicken little, you

The last few posts raise a point that hasn't been discussed much. That of the value to all teams in the first round of GWS or GC nominating Viney. Who gains and who loses?

If they were to nominate him, and force us to pick him at 3 instead of 23 ...

• We lose pick 4 (essentially) and gain pick 23
  
• Any team who has a pick after pick 4 but before the pick JV would have naturally gone for (let's say, for the sake of argument, pick 9), effectively go up one in the pecking order. That is, the teams with picks 5 through 9 go up one in the pecking order from where they would be if we got JV at 23.
  
• Apparently, other teams would get some sort of great vibe about shafting us. Sheedy would have conniptions or something.
  

If they were not to nominate him, and we get to pick him at 23 instead of 3 ...

• We gain pick 4 and lose pick 23
  
• The teams with picks 5 through 9 stay down in the pecking order (ie don't go up one pick from where they would be if we got JV at 23.)
  

If they were to nominate him, and we defaulted on him ...

• We lose JV and gain (essentially) pick 2
  
• The teams with picks 5 through 9 go up one in the pecking order from where they would be if we got JV at 23.
  
• The team who nominated JV would lose pick 1 or 2 and gain JV !!
  

So, to summarise, the teams with picks 1 & 2 have to make a decision where the greatest gain is stood to be made by those teams with picks 5 through 9, and the greatest loss is stood to be made by themselves!

I am really struggling to see how so many posters on this site are so convinced that GWS or GC would be willing to nominate Viney (remembering that they don't have the same Viney-bias that we do). The mind boggles!

BY THE WAY, I cited the Ayce Cordy case in the other thread - in 2008 12 clubs decided NOT to nominate for Cordy before the Saints did, just one pick before the dogs. Isn't that PROOF that those other 12 clubs all opted to look out for their own interests rather than trying to throw a spanner at the Dogs? Assumedly he was actually good enough for 13 and thats why the Saints did it, what else did they have to gain?

the teams with picks 1 & 2 have to make a decision where the greatest gain is stood to be made by those teams with picks 5 through 9, and the greatest loss is stood to be made by themselves!

exactly, well put

I am really struggling to see how so many posters on this site are so convinced that GWS or GC would be willing to nominate Viney (remembering that they don't have the same Viney-bias that we do). The mind boggles!

You are struggling to see?

There is a 65 page thread in the Drafting board going over this for the last year and you are struggling to see the other point of view?

I see what you are saying, I even understand the need to pull percentages out of pixie dust, but the fact remains that we 'contracted' the kid to keep the Crows away, he is a top talent and a fierce footballer and other clubs don't want us to get a massive leg up by taking him at Pick 26.

They will nominate and we overthink and decide to bluff then the GWS or the GC will add the impressive kid to their list of impressive kids.

Do some handshake deals, give these clubs some free trades and get our top 5 pick back.

They will nominate and we overthink and decide to bluff then the GWS or the GC will add the impressive kid to their list of impressive kids.

That's incorrect logic -

step one is we nominate him as a FS (which we are obviously going to do)

a week later, the opposing club with the highest pick says 'we want him too, we will offer our first round pick for him'

then we either match it or decline it, and he goes automatically, even before draft day, to them or to us. it is not possible for us to overthink anything AFTER they have put in their bid

and GC/GWS wouldnt be 'adding' him to their list, theyd be taking him INSTEAD of some other gun kid they rated more

as touched on elsewhere, what you calling giving us 'a massive leg up' is substituted by giving a bunch of other clubs a small leg up, and we are not exactly a powerhouse are we

That's incorrect logic -

step one is we nominate him as a FS (which we are obviously going to do)

a week later, the opposing club with the highest pick says 'we want him too, we will offer our first round pick for him'

then we either match it or decline it, and he goes automatically, even before draft day, to them or to us. it is not possible for us to overthink anything AFTER they have put in their bid

Do you understand what I saying?

I am saying that if we sit there and say 'he is not worth the equivalent of Pick 4, he is more of a Pick 6' - THAT will be overthinking.

Get the deals done and we can have our cake and get fat, but clubs know the score and they are not stupid and this is a competitive game and blah, blah, blah.

Viney will be worth whatever pick we use, we all would like to use Pick 25, my way simply makes it more of a chance to happen.

And if we don't get him now, we won't get him two years later - he will be gone.

and GC/GWS wouldnt be 'adding' him to their list, theyd be taking him INSTEAD of some other gun kid they rated more

Do you know they rate anyone more? An armchair expert on Big Footy thinks he is top 3.

You are struggling to see?

There is a 65 page thread in the Drafting board going over this for the last year and you are struggling to see the other point of view?

I see what you are saying, I even understand the need to pull percentages out of pixie dust, but the fact remains that we 'contracted' the kid to keep the Crows away, he is a top talent and a fierce footballer and other clubs don't want us to get a massive leg up by taking him at Pick 26.

They will nominate and we overthink and decide to bluff then the GWS or the GC will add the impressive kid to their list of impressive kids.

Do some handshake deals, give these clubs some free trades and get our top 5 pick back.

Coolio. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And, yes, I do respect the fact that he is a great fit for us and already contracted, so this will raise his current value within the club. I do, very very much, want him at the club!

I am also very open to deals to ensure we get the best out of our position (but I have already detailed the problems with the deals that have been proffered on here so far - they won't give us what we need unless perhaps GWS finish 2nd last, unlikely.)

But .. I just can't come at your proposition that other clubs are so livid at us getting a 5-12 player for 23 that they are willing to risk their pick 1 or 2, just for spite, or because some of the other teams put pressure on them to do it. That's what a 5yr old child would do.

I suggest that you imagine putting the shoe on the other foot, and imagine we had pick 1 in a draft with a single standout draftee like Lachie. How would you react if we nominated a player rated 5 -12 and put our number 1 pick at serious risk, just to stop another cellar-dweller side from getting that player at 23. Do you seriously think that there would not be outrage? That a Scully-thread lengthed [censored] session would not be occurring on this site? C'mon!

Edited August 9, 201213 yr by Cheesecake

Do you understand what I saying?

I am saying that if we sit there and say 'he is not worth the equivalent of Pick 4, he is more of a Pick 6' - THAT will be overthinking.

Get the deals done and we can have our cake and get fat, but clubs know the score and they are not stupid and this is a competitive game and blah, blah, blah.

Viney will be worth whatever pick we use, we all would like to use Pick 25, my way simply makes it more of a chance to happen.

And if we don't get him now, we won't get him two years later - he will be gone.

Do you know they rate anyone more? An armchair expert on Big Footy thinks he is top 3.

i think we agree, no MATTER WHAT happens, we will have the final choice, take it or give it to GC, at pick 3/4. I take it your definition of overthinking translates to opting to decline the 1st round bid and handing him over automatically? Yes I agree there is no way that will happen. Let's say you are right and GC really rate him and want him, then they will bid first round. We STILL have the option after that. It is impossible for us to lose him in that way.

nominating day - melb nominates JV (what round is not part of the discussion, all it means is that we have to take him at some point even if it is our last pick, so we will definitely do it)

scenario 1:

bidding day step 1 - GC bids their first round pick

bidding day step 2 - our choice - let him have him (1A) or take him ourselves (1B)

1A: GC has no choice, they must take Viney at overs and deal with the fact he will very likely go home in 2 years. We then use our pick 3 on the player that is effectively 2nd best in the comp. The clubs immediately after us all get a one pick upgrade.

1B: We take Viney at 3

scenario 2:

bidding day step 1 - GC bids their second round pick

bidding day step 2 - our choice - let him have him (1A) or take him ourselves (1B)

obviously we take him at 23

so there is actually nothing we can do at all to influence this process. The only variable is GC's INCENTIVE. Do they risk screwing themselves for no reward, just to screw us, or do they take the rightful best choice available with their pick 2?

I suggest that you imagine putting the shoe on the other foot, and imagine we had pick 1 in a draft with a single standout draftee like Lachie. How would you react if we nominated a player rated 5 -12 and put our number 1 pick at serious risk, just to stop another cellar-dweller side from getting that player at 23. Do you seriously think that there would not be outrage? That a Scully-thread lengthed [censored] session would not be occurring on this site? C'mon!

exactly, this is the attitude I cannot understand. It's about INCENTIVE it would be a risk for no reward, if it backfired there would be a lynch mob formed

exactly, this is the attitude I cannot understand. It's about INCENTIVE it would be a risk for no reward, if it backfired there would be a lynch mob formed

C & B ... Sheedy knows we are committed to the son of a past champion and he will nominate Viney so we have to take him at 3.

He will call our flimsy bluff and he'll do it mostly because he hates us.

C & B ... Sheedy knows we are committed to the son of a past champion and he will nominate Viney so we have to take him at 3.

He will call our flimsy bluff and he'll do it mostly because he hates us.

mate no offense but that is completely paranoid and crazy. If he had nothing to lose by doing it I would totally agree with you, but he does stand to lose something, with nothing to gain. It's as simple as that.

C & B ... Sheedy knows we are committed to the son of a past champion and he will nominate Viney so we have to take him at 3.

He will call our flimsy bluff and he'll do it mostly because he hates us.

Sheedy wont be making such decisions imo RR, MW and Silvani yes but not Sheeds

mate no offense but that is completely paranoid and crazy. If he had nothing to lose by doing it I would totally agree with you, but he does stand to lose something, with nothing to gain. It's as simple as that.

How is it a risk if he knows what we will do?

If I put a million bucks at $1.01 for GWS to win the flag next year yes I stand to lose a million bucks but I know I won't. Same thing here.

Why is everyone ignoring what I am saying

I wonder ...

Of course they do - say GWS bid for him forcing us to use pick 3 - assuming they get pick 5 or 6 for a min draft pick that pick is then upgraded a spot if we have to take Viney at 3.

Agree with this bit.

I suggest that you imagine putting the shoe on the other foot, and imagine we had pick 1 in a draft with a single standout draftee like Lachie. How would you react if we nominated a player rated 5 -12 and put our number 1 pick at serious risk, just to stop another cellar-dweller side from getting that player at 23. Do you seriously think that there would not be outrage? That a Scully-thread lengthed [censored] session would not be occurring on this site? C'mon!

I would make a club pay through the nose if I had the chance.

I would also take a deal to not nominate.

Because I am trying to do what is best for my club.

I would make a club pay through the nose if I had the chance.

I would also take a deal to not nominate.

Because I am trying to do what is best for my club.

That's right.

IMO what this is all about is GWS getting incentive not to nominate him.