On 06/09/2012 at 03:20, Tall Defence said:

They get pick 1 in the MD and pick up Jack Martin who from all reports is an absolute freak!

Am I missing something? They are going to be able to get him anyway, because pick 2 is before pick 3!!! how is our pick 3 going to scare Gold Coast at all. Gold coast will get Martin anyway most likely. I just don't think you know what you're getting at. We have no bargaining power with the GC in the mini draft because they are before us.

Draft

3. toumpas

4. kennedy

13. stringer

FA. young

lynch

Trade. David Ellard

Koby Stevens

Jesse White??

  On 06/09/2012 at 04:27, PaulRB said:

I doubt the doggies or Port would trade for the MD pick, they need kids now, not in a years time, they will take pick 4 as the alternative would be 6+ and maybe higher.

I agree with this but I would go further to say Melbourne and even the Gold Coast are in the same boat. Neeld and McKenna doesn't want to wait another year any more than Port or the Dogs. They will be in contract negotiations won't they?

  On 05/09/2012 at 23:41, Moonshadow said:

Felix, we're you talking about current players or young draftees as well?

This pick 3 does not include any of the drafts, that should be a seperate challenge. In fact I just realised my closing date should have been the 21 Novemeber 2012

  On 06/09/2012 at 01:53, Oucher said:

Hmmm, the mini draft is responsible for giving the GWS an unfair advantage, not those that participate in it.

It would leave a bitter taste in my mouth if things aligned to enable GWS the top 3 picks in this draft. I know we wouldn't do it without it suiting our needs, but that wouldn't change the way I felt about it. I think that possibly this is because the intention of the mini draft was not to hand over more friggin picks to GWS, but it was supposed to be used to facilitate additional player trades in return for a mini draft pick. But again it is something that the AFL didn't draft up too rigorously, and we have already seen the GWS try and manipulate it to their own advantage last year.

Look on the bright side - if GWS end up with the first 3 picks it means we will have maneuvered ourselves to take Viney with pick 26ish in the 2nd round.

  On 06/09/2012 at 03:15, billy2803 said:

That's if we think Hogan is a better prospect than Toumpas.

Christ RP, you have got this thing in your head about giving away our pick 3 for Hogan. It's a terrible shame you aren't looking at both sides of the argument, your posts on this topic would be far more pleasing on the eye if you could. The sad part is that you're starting to convince me that this would be the best outcome (making a deal with GWS/GC), only because I fear for your wellbeing if it doesn't eventuate.

Billy, I find you harder to deal with than Range Rover and he has been a pill of late.

If we think Hogan is better than whatever we get at 3 or 4 then do it. The added bonus of ensuring Viney in the second round is a helpful by-product.

If we can get

Toumpas

Hogan

Stringer

Viney

I will consider it our best draft ever

Toumpas

O'Rourke

Garlett

Viney (2nd pick)

Hopefully this provides us with the midfield we need to go forward, still doesn't address our forward line though. Maybe we should look at trying to get hogan? sounds like a jack darling sort of player? but maybe noone will pick him up and we can draft him next year?

  On 06/09/2012 at 04:33, Freak said:

Am I missing something? They are going to be able to get him anyway, because pick 2 is before pick 3!!! how is our pick 3 going to scare Gold Coast at all. Gold coast will get Martin anyway most likely. I just don't think you know what you're getting at. We have no bargaining power with the GC in the mini draft because they are before us.

Don't recall saying that we were going to scare GC.

The agreement would be with GWS. It would be that GC are going trade pick 2 to them and that we will trade pick 3. That being the case then they don't nominate Viney.

If GC don't trade pick 2 we'll still have pick 4. So if they nominate Viney at 2 we call their bluff, they're stuck with him at 2 and we can take Toumpas or Grundy at 4.

If GC and us trade picks 2 & 3 to GWS with the agreement. GWS win with the first 3 picks in the draft.

GC win by getting to take Jack Martin instead of trying to frighten us and possibly being stuck with Viney at 2 and missing out on any of Toumpas, Grundy or Martin.

We win because we get Jesse Hogan at MD pick 2 and Viney with a 2nd round pick by agreeing to trade pick 3 to GWS.

That's how everyone wins!

  On 06/09/2012 at 06:21, Tall Defence said:

Don't recall saying that we were going to scare GC.

The agreement would be with GWS. It would be that GC are going trade pick 2 to them and that we will trade pick 3. That being the case then they don't nominate Viney.

GC can nominate for Viney and still have Pick 2 if they think we will just go ahead and take Viney then.

Keep them happy, give Petterd for nothing in a handshake agreement and everyone is happy.

  On 06/09/2012 at 06:25, rpfc said:

GC can nominate for Viney and still have Pick 2 if they think we will just go ahead and take Viney then.

Keep them happy, give Petterd for nothing in a handshake agreement and everyone is happy.

Russian roulette is a very dangerous game to play!

But a Petterd for nothing deal could be on the cards...

  On 06/09/2012 at 06:21, Tall Defence said:

Don't recall saying that we were going to scare GC.

The agreement would be with GWS. It would be that GC are going trade pick 2 to them and that we will trade pick 3. That being the case then they don't nominate Viney.

If GC don't trade pick 2 we'll still have pick 4. So if they nominate Viney at 2 we call their bluff, they're stuck with him at 2 and we can take Toumpas or Grundy at 4.

If GC and us trade picks 2 & 3 to GWS with the agreement. GWS win with the first 3 picks in the draft.

GC win by getting to take Jack Martin instead of trying to frighten us and possibly being stuck with Viney at 2 and missing out on any of Toumpas, Grundy or Martin.

We win because we get Jesse Hogan at MD pick 2 and Viney with a 2nd round pick by agreeing to trade pick 3 to GWS.

That's how everyone wins!

firstly, i think you're way too positive. I'd like clarification but isn't the father son nomination done BEFORE the mini draft bidding, which means we will have to commit to viney before all of this stuff happens!

Secondly, I just don't think you understand, we brought Todd Viney all the way from Adelaide to start a new life here so we could pick up Jack. now you're saying we're going to inform him that we've changed our minds and we might let Jack go to GWS! Laughable idea mate.

  On 06/09/2012 at 05:59, dtrinh said:

Toumpas

O'Rourke

Garlett

Viney (2nd pick)

Hopefully this provides us with the midfield we need to go forward, still doesn't address our forward line though. Maybe we should look at trying to get hogan? sounds like a jack darling sort of player? but maybe noone will pick him up and we can draft him next year?

Toumpas

O'Rourke/Kennedy/Grundy/Hogan/Wines

Stringer/Mayes

Viney (2nd pick)/Hrovat

  On 06/09/2012 at 07:31, Freak said:

firstly, i think you're way too positive. I'd like clarification but isn't the father son nomination done BEFORE the mini draft bidding, which means we will have to commit to viney before all of this stuff happens!

Secondly, I just don't think you understand, we brought Todd Viney all the way from Adelaide to start a new life here so we could pick up Jack. now you're saying we're going to inform him that we've changed our minds and we might let Jack go to GWS! Laughable idea mate.

Yes freak, that's why I said an agreement would have to be reached before the bidding for father son. You can't tell me clubs have no contact with eachother re: trades before trade week/father son bidding begins. In principle agreements would be struck all the time!

As for Jack Viney, the club have already told him that there's no guarentees. That was the old regime that had the media conference with him and spoke of the agreement. There is no binding contract in place, the club can pass if they see fit.

I hope that's been spelt out well enough for you.

  On 06/09/2012 at 07:31, Freak said:

I just don't think you understand, we brought Todd Viney all the way from Adelaide to start a new life here so we could pick up Jack. now you're saying we're going to inform him that we've changed our minds and we might let Jack go to GWS! Laughable idea mate.

Problem is freak - you DO understand.. but you [censored] people off playing dumb to suit your arguement.

You know the deal was made a year ago, when we hoped to be pushing for the finals.. ie: viney at pick 9 / 10 in the draft.. situations changed, you know this.

Now, i bet you anything you like that we will NOT take viney at pick 3 - meaning we'd have to give up a toumpas, whitfield or grundy -

because if we did, MFC would NEVER get my membership again - i know others are the same.. (other mfc supporters that i know)

i want the best team possible, not the best names possible.

A lap of the G', rd 1, in the nuddy, from light tower whatever and back to the start, would be the losers task.

Do you have the nuts freak??

Anyone else? A girl preferably.. lol

Seriously, if we dont offload / promise pick 3 to someone, to ensure we get our cake and eat it too (like every other fricken club that has a father-son does)

I give up..

Pick 3 J.Martin

Pick 4 O'Rourke

Pick 13 Trade/Collingwood Wellingham

FA Monfries and Pearce

  On 06/09/2012 at 05:32, rpfc said:

Billy, I find you harder to deal with than Range Rover and he has been a pill of late.

If we think Hogan is better than whatever we get at 3 or 4 then do it. The added bonus of ensuring Viney in the second round is a helpful by-product.

Very kind words there RP.

What's your suggestion if we don't think Hogan is good as the Pick 3/4 of this year's draft?

  On 06/09/2012 at 22:38, billy2803 said:

Very kind words there RP.

What's your suggestion if we don't think Hogan is good as the Pick 3/4 of this year's draft?

Don't go into the MD then.

Do other deals with GWS and GC to they don't try to stop us getting a competitive advantage.

  On 06/09/2012 at 23:48, rpfc said:

Don't go into the MD then.

Do other deals with GWS and GC to they don't try to stop us getting a competitive advantage.

The fact that I don't agree to your special deals makes me hard to deal with?

You're willing to give up players for next to nothing (ie Petterd) and give away our pick 3 (and in the process giving that team a potential picks 1, 2 & 3 in the "superdraft"), just so we can get a potential top 10 draft pick in the 20's to give us a competitive advantage? You're doing all this for 1 player? FMD.

  On 07/09/2012 at 01:51, billy2803 said:

The fact that I don't agree to your special deals makes me hard to deal with?

You're willing to give up players for next to nothing (ie Petterd) and give away our pick 3 (and in the process giving that team a potential picks 1, 2 & 3 in the "superdraft"), just so we can get a potential top 10 draft pick in the 20's to give us a competitive advantage? You're doing all this for 1 player? FMD.

I am doing this to ensure we have two top 5 picks AND Viney.

You can think what you like, Billy.

We will see what happens in October.

  On 07/09/2012 at 03:28, rpfc said:

I am doing this to ensure we have two top 5 picks AND Viney.

You can think what you like, Billy.

We will see what happens in October.

We will see RP, but don't give me the "told you so" if Viney "slips" to the 2nd round. You and I won't know if any special deals were made. Sure, if we trade Petterd to the GC for pick 70 it might look strange, I'd probably say that's his market price.

We will foever agree to disagree on this subject, and as your posts give me the type of headache you get when you drink a frozen coke too quickly, I'm not going to respond any more.

I honestly don't know who we're going to be able to snare at this point. It's going to be interesting to see.

I know that last year a lot of experts thought we should have traded Martin for Young and something else from the Hawks. I suspect that these days the relative values have changed somewhat. Could we still have a chance to get young from them in a straight swap?

Given that we are apparently still in the market for another tall forward, I think we may be looking at offering the bombers a pick and maybe a player for Gumby. He's not in their first choice forward line, but he appears to be over his injury issues and his game is improving. He also has the size we've been looking for.

For a third, I guess I could jump on the bandwagon and say Caddy. I can't say I've ever seen him play, but plenty of people seem to think he's ok.

Thus we have:

Young

Gumbleton

Caddy.

Let me throw a cat among the pigeons. If Tippett goes to GC and Crows demand pick 2, then GC would not risk nominating JV. Also if Crows got pick 2 I don't think they would take an U17 and would rather get Grundy or Toumpas. Grundy would replace Tippett. That could leave us in the position to get first , second or both U17 picks and that would guarantee us JV in second round. Also I can' t see GWS risking Lachie for bluffing on JV, which in my first scenario could see him slipping to us.

Some interesting things may be about to happen.

  On 07/09/2012 at 03:53, Redleg said:

Let me throw a cat among the pigeons. If Tippett goes to GC and Crows demand pick 2, then GC would not risk nominating JV. Also if Crows got pick 2 I don't think they would take an U17 and would rather get Grundy or Toumpas. Grundy would replace Tippett. That could leave us in the position to get first , second or both U17 picks and that would guarantee us JV in second round. Also I can' t see GWS risking Lachie for bluffing on JV, which in my first scenario could see him slipping to us.

Some interesting things may be about to happen.

If that were the case do you think we could possibly snare both U17s with pick #3 and pick #13?

So we could draft, Hogan, Martin, O Rourke and Viney

I'm just not sure that we'll be active in the 17yo bidding this year. Given the number of players we're losing, I would think that we will need to take players who are able to play in 2013, not players who are in the bank for 2014. This is not to say that they are not great players in their own right but it becomes an issue of timing. Surely we'd rather see other teams throwing picks at them to improve the talent available to us in this draft?