old55

It's pick 2 to GWS which is massively valuable, they'd have 1 & 2 2 & 23 is quite possibly better than 5 & 6 which is the absolute best alternative they could get.

That's pretty good - nice work, would take some topping, I think everybody wins big.

Suggest some actual scenarios rather than the hypothetical generic gobbledegook ... Which free agent? Which "right" player for which picks? Which "non-kids"?

Which ruckman are you suggesting we trade and for what?

Good thinking - there's a few kinks - GC gets too good a deal - I think they get the U17 pick for free. One of the hurdles in coming up with a good fair deal is that GWS, GC and MFC have specific picks and to get the trade mix right is not always easy. The fair value might be a half a round upgrade but if you don't have those picks then you can't do the deal. Working the U17 picks in gives another dimension. BTW, it's great to see you suggest a practical a scenario ...

Yes, skin. Although they've got an extended list there's still a limit to the number of players they can have and it reduces each year back to the standard number - list spots on their list will be at a premium, they can't fill them with players they don't really want. We'll need to offer them quality players they want or picks.

Looks like the 8 is going to be very tight this year - Adelaide, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Richmond, St.Kilda, Sydney, West Coast - 12 into 8 won't go.

I think the MRP is generally better than the previous system - having a systematic way of deciding the penalty is by far preferable. The discount offer removes the farcical tribunal hearings where a player with a black eye says nothing happened. But in this case the MRP have got it seriously, badly wrong by not enforcing their own formula.

Yeah no-one would've asked us what we're going to do and no-one would've noticed him training with the club.

This has been thrashed on the Viney thread but I can't let this post through to the keeper. You'd rather break our contract with the son of a club legend than do a deal with GWS and GC. And you're "totally amazed that I am in the minority on this subject" OK ...

Cale is showing some positive signs recently, he was right in the contest on a tough night on Saturday.

Watts has never played convincingly as a tall. He was woeful. That goal he kicked was for all the wrong reasons

It's immaterial where he rated in the 1st round - we're committed to taking him and GWS can force us to do so at pick 3. It's all about us upgrading pick 25 to pick 3.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/expert-opinion/gws-could-ruin-melbournes-jack-viney-draft-plans/story-fncqi979-1226338135854 "I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern ship building has gone beyond that." -Captain Smith, Commander of Titanic

''That's a good start. And it will be interesting to call out Jack's name, for sure. I'm not sure it's ever happened before, so it will be a nice moment. But for him, it just gets started after that.'' Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1sdb8iTiy There's no risk from their side - we'll take him with pick 3 if we're forced to - we know that, they know that, but apparently some here don't know that.

You're living in dream land if you think we won't take Viney with whatever pick we're forced to, and that Sheedy and Allen won't force us to use pick 3 unless we give them a reason otherwise. btw, I can even think and chew gum at the same time!

OK I'll put up ... With acknowledgement to 1858 that the AFL might not approve the trades ... Here's offers too good to refuse: Our mid 1st round compo pick 13 to GWS for their 2nd round pick 23 and their 4th round pick 59 Our 3rd round pick 43 to GC for their 4th round pick 60 That's a nett for us of: In: 3, 23, 59, 60 Out: 13, 25 (Viney), 43 Gives us 3, 4, 23, Viney, 59, 60 in place of Viney, 4, 13, 25, 43, 61

desperate for "Dislike" button

It's Jack, not Tom

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

Yes OK - so we'd need to trump a 1 pick upgrade.

Yes, no kidding! But in that scenario how does us offering not to take Whitfield at pick 3 benefit GWS and influence them not to bid for Viney? You're having a major logic failure there. The only club that would benefit is the club who finishes 15th and has pick 5.

We could do something less obvious like give them our 3rd rounder for their 5th and 6th rounder which they have no intention of using anyway. We don't have to use the picks we trade for either.

No that's not right, there'll still be the same number of picks before their pick, someone else will take Viney with one of those picks and quite possibly before the Adelaide pick. Viney will absolutely go in the first round so there's no "bringing their 2nd round pick forward" it's still pick 21 and Viney goes in an earlier pick to either us or someone else. Even if your logic was right - say Viney went after the Adelaide pick - that advantage they're getting is a 1 pick upgrade - bfd - we'd need to offer them something better than that.

You're not making any sense - we won't get a chance to take Whitfield. If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC=Viney, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team If we finish 16th and they don't nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team .... Round 2 MFC: Viney Our picks are after their picks either way, they'll take Whitfield either way.