Cheesecake

Posted at 2:17PM ... Then this ... In Topic: Speculation that Strauss will quit Today, 02:18 PM by KingDingAling I wasn't too bothered, he is delist material anyway. I think we have a new winner, congrats!

It's absolutely imperative that we lose these two games. Picks 3, 4, 12 and Viney vs Viney, 6, 13 and 20-something. It's a no-brainer. Sure, it would be nice to sneak a win against the Crows, but people are seriously deluded if they think we are going to turn around our losing culture with a couple of good games at the end of a pathetic season, just before the players go on their break. We need to get an injection of quality players and leaders into the squad and to get a good off-season into everyone. Picks 3, 4 and 12 are significantly more likely than 6 and 13 to pick us up the future leaders and stars that will drag our limp carcass off the canvas. I'm hoping for two competitive efforts in losing sides, no injuries, resting players who need it and getting match practice into players like Gysberts. No tanking, just sensible list management. I want to win the first two games of next season, not the last two of this debacle.

Further to my last post, the ideal situation for us is that the Blues and Dons finish 9th and 10th respectively. This would give us a mid-round pick after the Dons, but before the Blues. As the Dons will take Daniher, our pick effectively goes up one from where it would be if they made top-9. And, we get a pick before the Blues, in case we get into a trade war with them over a player (could be the difference).

Just out of interest, can someone confirm if "mid first round" is actually mid first round (ie between the pick that 9th and 10th places get) or is the delineation made based on finals vs non-finals (ie between the pick that 8th and 9th places get)?? Logic suggests the former, in which case the Blues can miss the finals and still get a pick after us. Perfect! Also, in response to this^ post, Essendon will be forced to use their first pick on Daniher, so they won't be getting Boak with it.

Looking ahead at the fixture, I'd say the most likely outcome for end of season placings is a sight for sore eyes. 7. North/Freo 8. Freo/North 9. Carlton 10. Essendon Both Carlton and Essendon miss out on finals, and our mid round pick comes directly after 10th placed Essendon (where they will take Daniher, thereby turning our pick 12 into effectively pick 11). That would take just the slightest bit of sting out of the wound that was 2012.

6. Dunn 5. Howe 4. Grimes 3. Sylvia 2. Joel McDonald 1. Trengove

Didn't think of this, but good point. Makes the decision a no-brainer for me. Despite my detesting of Carlton only being equaled by that of my hate of the Pies, I'm happy to barrack for them if it increases the value of one of our valuable first round picks. Go Blues!!

Presenting opinion as fact. A sure fire way to get people to doubt the value of your opinion.

Agree, Jimmi. I'm just not convinced by the argument that tanking has caused our problem. There are number of teams who have tanked over the last decade, and the evidence just isn't there that it has any correlation with subsequent performance. The only thing that can be definitively linked to an increased level of tanking, is an increase number of high draft picks. And, i reckon you are right about our lack of leadership. Failure tend to breed more failure, until you pick yourselves up by the scruffs of your neck and pull yourself out of it. And good leaders are the kinds of people that can get everyone pulling together. At the time that we got rid of Junior I remember thinking that it probably was the right thing to do for our list management. Hard, but right. But I also recall that we then lost Bruce to the Hawks, and losing both really emphasised the dearth of players we had in the over 25 age bracket. I was all for taking the 'youth' path, but still thought we needed a decent quota of experience. I remember telling my Dees mates that we should go crawling back to Junior and offer him his spot back. Cop the embarrassing fallout in the media, and get him back for another year or two. Looking back, I think I would have been proven right.

Good question. I miss him.

My peeve, like many others here, is the player who has had no, or very little, prior opportunity, and is tackled and sat on by multiple players who are holding the ball in, and then he cops a holding the ball decision against him because it is deemed he wasn't trying to get the ball out (or the umpire can't see it come out). If a player has made the effort or has the skill to win a contested ball he should be advantaged! The second to the ball tackler should not be!! Any rule that encourages players not to want the ball in all circumstances is crap! I think one thing umps could do to resolve this is to only ping the player for holding the ball if the tacklers (or pile of players on top of the guy with the ball) are seen to be actively trying to dispossess the guy with the ball! If they are just holding it in, sitting on him, or preventing him from any chance of getting the ball out, it's ball up. That way, the ball is likely to bobble out and be recontested. Game on.

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!

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!

OK, I'm getting confused now. It's seems we do agree on some things, though. That it is unlikely that GWS or GC will actually bid on Viney due to the inherent risk, and it becomes less likely the more we raise the realistic specter of us making them take him. Btw, it's nice to have you in the rationalist camp. I say, go hard Demons. Have the balls to risk losing him, and reap the rewards (which include not losing him).

That is definitely one of my preferred outcomes (and I love the kick in the tail re pick 4). But I just can't see a tanking GWS losing to GC at Metricon.

OK, I get your rhetoric about the likelihood being related to team - ie GWS > GC. But you don't think risk comes into it? If GWS finish last they risk missing out on Lachie, if 2nd last, they miss out on one of a small group of others who are all similarly rated and perhaps on a par with JV. Surely you recognise that draft position is a huge factor too? And regarding MFC taking Viney, can I assume that you think the club believes that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. Or are they just committed now, and won't back out. Or, are there other intangibles involved?

Yeah, I think we are both saying the same thing, but misunderstanding each other. If we (the team nominating the father-son player) decline to match their first round bid (pick 1 or 2) with our first round bid (pick 3), then they are required to take him. Correct! But, they are only required to use their pick, if we decline to use ours. Hence, there is an element of bluffing. It is not written in stone, like you seem to suggest. Either we call their bluff and hand them Viney and they lose their pick 1 or 2. Or they call our bluff that we won't take Viney at 3, and force us to pull the trigger at 3, losing the chance for Viney in the second round. There is risk for both parties, which I why I also think Old55s point is invalid.

Don't think that is quite correct. If they call our bluff, and we fold and say "OK, we'll take him at 3", then they don't have to take him. We take him. It's still a bluff! We have to force them to take him, or fold and take him ourselves. But, it's not a bluff if we fully intend on forcing them to take him. And in this scenario, it's like going into the mexican standoff prepared to let others shoot first - we know we might get killed, but we are also increasing the chance we will be the last left standing. Someone correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Your first point applies to Viney too. Admittedly we know more about Viney than pick 2, but pick 2 is rated by the experts as a better prospect than Viney. Not a convincing reason to choose Viney over pick 2. Saying that, I recognise that Viney is the sort of player we need, and don't have a huge issue with us taking him at (effectively) 4. But that doesn't mean it is the best option. I addressed you second point re deals. So a deal with pick 1 is almost useless, as the chance of a JV nomination stays at 25%. A deal with pick 2 is better, but the 5% chance will still exist. Given that GWS are going to tank their way to the spoon, this makes the mini-draft trade touted elsewhere pretty much useless. I think my logic is sound. The deal option just doesn't stack up, unless it at least takes out pick 2. Ideally we'll need two deals, one for each team above us. Unless these deals are at least break-even when treated in isolation, then we are paying the cost of the deal to get the same thing we would be 90% chance of getting if we just play hard ball. If a break-even deal that takes out pick 2 is put forward, then I am all for it! That is looking unlikely unless GWS beat GC and us. Edit: realised they only need to beat GC.

Yes, C&B. I've done a bit more thinking on this, and I've come to conclusion that you are right. Whilst, I still believe there may be some benefit to the under the table offer laid out in my OP, the key to us coming up trumps on draft day is for us to put in on the table that we will pass on JV at 3 if we are forced to do so by either team above us nominating him. And, this can't be an empty threat, we need to be willing to do it!! And, I've come to this conclusion, simply by running the numbers. And, I defy any posters to suggest it's not the right way to go (unless you can convince me that the value of getting JV is significantly better than getting pick 2 - I'll get to this later). Here are some rough numbers (based on assumptions made previously in this thread - sure, you can fiddle with these %s, but I think they are close enough to reality for the sake of doing some modelling of possible outcomes) ... Chances of a JV nomination: Chance of pick 1 nominating JV - 5% Chance of pick 2 nominating JV - 25% (this may be able to be reduced by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP) Outcomes of each option: Our picks if neither 1 or 2 nominates JV - 3, 4, 12-ish and JV Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we nominate him - JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we default on him - 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. Given we only need one of the top two picks to nominate JV for our hand to be forced, then the chance of a nomination is equal to <insert complex probability equation here> or 28.75%. This also raises the fact that any deals we do with one of the top two teams only knock out one of these risks, not both. So a deal with pick 1 is almost useless, as the chance of a JV nomination stays at 25%. A deal with pick 2 is better, but the 5% chance will still exist. Given that GWS are going to tank their way to the spoon, this makes the mini-draft trade touted elsewhere pretty much useless. So, we are left with a nearly 30% chance that our hand will be forced (most likely by pick 2). And only two effective ways of reducing it; a deal with pick 2, or convincing them that we will default on JV and force them to give up their pick. Since it looks like GC will have pick 2, a deal is looking unlikely. But, we can certainly put it out there (as we have) that we may default on JV. And the more convincing we are, the lower the chance that they will nominate him. And, the best way to convince them that we will genuinely default on JV, is to actually be willing to do it. A mexican standoff is easier to win when you are willing to die. So, to put some best-guestimate numbers around these options, I'm going to assume that the chances of JV being nominated drop from 28.75% to 20% if we try and bluff that we are prepared to default on him, and 10% if we can look teams in the eye and know we are prepared to default on him. (Again, these chances might be able to be lowered by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP). To conclude: Option A - We are not willing to default on JV, and make no effort to bluff that we are. 28.75% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. 71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV Option B - We are not willing to default on JV, but do make an effort to bluff that we are. 20% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. 80% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV Option C - We are willing to default on JV, but make no effort to let teams know that we are. 28.75% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. 71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV Option D - We are willing to default on JV, and let teams know that we are. 10% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish. 90% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV Comparing options B and D (the two most obvious ones to choose between), it should be clear that option D is slightly, but significantly, more likely to result in our preferred result. Also, the difference between the non-preferred results for these options is: Option B - JV, 3,12-ish and 23-ish Option D - 2, 3,12-ish and 23-ish Here's the crux!! -- To justify option B you would have to believe that not only was keeping JV as valuable as getting pick 2, but would actually be more valuable than pick 2 (greater enough value as to offset the 10% lower chance of actually getting our preferred outcome with this option). So, to anyone espousing that we should take JV at pick 3 no matter what, you need to convince the rest of us that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. I understand that there are non-tangibles, like the romance and his commitment to play for his father's side, but given that the best (non-biased) ranking I've seen on Viney is from that Bigfooty poster who ranked him around 3, and most others rank him around 5 to 15, I think you've got your work cut out for you.

We all have man-love for Viney (it's just a matter of degree), and we all want to see him on our primary list next season. The difference is that some of us want to take him no matter what and others are happy to take a 2nd round or bust approach. So .. in an (probably vain) effort to get the thread back on to its original course ... 1> Whilst the ladder is not set in stone, we are very likely to finish 16th. The wooden spoon could go to either way, most likely to the loser of the upcoming GC v GWS clash. 2> It is very high risk for the team with the number 1 pick to nominate Viney (they could hand Lachie Whitfield to pick 2). They will most likely not nominate him. 3> The team with the number 2 pick will be very keen for them to nominate JV, and us to default on him, because that means that they will get Lachie. 4> There a several drafts, including GWS's mini-draft, in which we might be able to make deals in (yes, they are after the F-S draft, but we may be able to make gentlemen's agreements beforehand). C'mon all you lovers of game theory, given these rules (plus any others you think relevant), can we come up with a solution that either guarantees, or dramatically increases the chance of, us getting Viney in the 2nd round? One for GWS finishing last and/or one for GC finishing last. Or one that works for both.

Yep, I agree with you there. I've no issue with Viney at 4 if he is rated around 5 to 7. Still want my cake and to eat it too. Also, I don't agree that bluffing is naive. Each side with do a risk vs reward analysis before making each choice in every draft. It's our job to make sure they are up at nights worrying about the risk.

Instead of getting Viney at the club, we get whoever we choose at pick 2. That's not quite losing Viney to go up one place in the draft. It's swapping Viney for pick 2, which, while I totally respect is not very palatable to some supporters, isn't really that bad. Virtually no one outside of this forum rates Viney top two. Also, the only way to ensure this doesn't happen, is to pick Viney at 3, no matter what happens. If that is your view, then fair enough, but not sure it really adds anything to my original jist of this thread, which was to look laterally at what we could do to get our cake and eat it too.

Fair call. Guess I'm just trying to promote a little thinking outside the square on this one. I can't help but think there is a near-watertight solution to this .. somewhere in the ether. If only we could nail it, send it to the club, and watch with joy and pride on draft day as the club uses our method to secure three picks in the top twelve, and JV. Wishful thinking?

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.