hoopla

Let's see then, Valenti is a cheap VFL level player but he has fitness and although he is limited he is a good citizen that wins the good citizen trophies. Ball is an expensive and like Valenti now a one dimensional and limited midfielder who is on the decline. Also bringing him in will cause a shift in culture at MFC, potentially shafting the likes Moloney and Aaron Davey. Better to spread the money he gets to pay the young Demon players coming up when their market value increases and keep what you are building. If Luke Ball goes to Melbourne he doesn't want to be there and remember his greatest lover aside from you is Grant Thomas.

I only want Ball if he wants to come. If he nominates for the primary draft in the hope of going somewhere else, I wouldn't take him- though I might talk him up to try to persuade another club to use an early pick to get him.

Why are we talking about Luke Ball in the middle of an Olympic Park thread anyway?

Well said. Best available. However if there was a chocie between Butcher and a midfielder at 11 I'd take Butcher.

The "However...." makes this sounds like " best available subject to needs"

There is a deadline to be met: -

10 November is the deadline for listed but uncontracted players to nominate for the draft.The fact that our three uncontracted players - Bartram,Cheney and McNamara - might be listed this Friday doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to keep them. [ I think they are the 3 ?]

Friday is a key date for the rookies

List lodgement 2 on 10 November will determine how many picks we have in the primary draft. We'll have to wait until then to know whether picks 34 and 50 are going to be open

November 18 is the" Luke Ball deadline". If he doesn't nominate for that, then we'll know to pass up our final draft pick so that a space is available for Ball at PSD #1.

It'll be a while yet before we know our final draft strategy

But they thought outside the square as you know -recruiting Dew and Rioli.

As CAC's biggest critic and a Caro lover please detail your draft wish list.

Rioli was hardly öutside the square. They wanted a small forward to complement Buddy and Roughy. They looked at the balance of their list.

For other readers of this post - I am not a critic of CAC - and I'm not a Caro lover.!!!!!!!!!!

Wish List : Scully, Trengrove, a couple of KPPs and Ball plus ANother ( made possible by the delisting of Barts!)

It might be very speculative, but that's when good recruiting comes to the fore. Geelong is a prime example over the last several years.

Your detective work on hoopla hasn't gone unnoticed. Nice work Cuthbo.

Hightower, have you ever seen Mr Cuthbertson play?

I'm not so sure you could get as much "bang for your buck" with Valenti as opposed to Ball. In fact I'm almost certain.

I'm very certain!

You got this method reading the book The Draft and hence you are taking a Hawthorn type approach to recruiting and trying to make it your own.

Why not ? Hawthorn's approach to recruiting just won them a flag........

Hoopla, have you even been to the Casey ground and seen the facilities there?

Why are you being such a "septic"? MFC is on the way up and they may even get Luke Ball to play for them! You should lighten up and maybe look for a place on the Board.

Darren, I may be a sceptic - but I trust I am not septic

I have actually been to the Casey ground .... and I liked what I saw -except there was no a gym etc

Do you have any inside info on Luke Ball?

BARTRAM for me...... he is baggage!!!

the other two are young still and Cheney was injured last yr and still played lots of games

worth keeping

Agree absolutely

But Bartram's been training ... and there is whisper that he has been offered a one year contract ( and is p--- d because its not 2)

................. I would argue you'd have to take into account the "role" that someone plays. Mids v KPP v Rucks v Flankers v Taggers. There must be a "rarity" factor in there and there must be some sort of "value" factor.

All I'm really trying to point out is that I think the well worn phrase "best available" is a crock of rot because you can't compare the different roles. Whether it is formal or otherwise there is a matrix that leads the Barry Prendergast's of this world to call out a players name.

Anyone heard of "Moneyball"?

"Crock of Rot".Good call

... and the rarity and value factors are driven by the balance of your list

The 2001 draft is a good example of not fixing on a tall - OK if we didn't take Molan at 9 we would have had to take Matt Maguire, Aaron Rogers, Tom Davidson, LRT, Ashley Hansen, Henry Playfair or Brad Miller - sure some of them would've been better than Molan but we would've passed on Brent Reilly, Nick Dal Santo, James Kelly, Steve Johnson, Sam Mitchell and Leigh Montagna - all went before Hansen. We went tall with 3 picks in a row - but you can't pick a good tall if there isn't any there.

we took:

Molan - Rogers

even best case talls:

Maguire - LRT

when we could've had:

Dal Santo - Mitchell

Brian Harris was taken at 71 in that draft, but then Dane Swan was taken at 58.

Surely on that evidence no-one can say we MUST take talls at 11 and 18.

Scully-Trengove-Maguire-LRT OR

Scully-Trengove-Dal Santo-Mitchell

which one are you going to be happiest looking back on?

Best available.

With hindsight, you'd have to think that the 2 All Australians in that list were just about the best recruits of 2001 - Swan (58) and Lake (Harris) (71). Lake vies with Scarlett as the best tall defender in the competition.

Do you ignore the need for a balanced list - when your "best available" will not necessarily turn out to be the " best player"?

An 18 year old tall may have further to go than an 18 year old small - but that doesn't mean he won't make it.

Realistically there is not going to be a lot to choose between picks 5 and 20. When in doubt look at the balance of your list

Its supposed to be a thin draft - yet several teams have opened up their lists for 5-8 picks after we finish.

We have 6 spots now so 5 picks in the ND and 1 pick in the PSD that means definitely will use 34 unless they think they can get 2 players in the PSD which is doubtful.

Prediction that 34 becomes a speculative pick on a Ruck option as a project player.

Where does the 6th spot come from? Robbo, Wheats,Wheels, Brock and Bucks = 5 off the senior list

There is such a thing and it is purely subjective. But its an assessment that has to be made by BP. And his job lives or dies by it.

Best available refers to whats availabler not the needs of the list.

If the best available is a KPP then fine if it isn't then you take the player you believe is the best talent in the draft. Why compromise the quality of your list by taking a KPP who you have reservations about against a midfielder who you dont, particularly in a skinny draft with few if any KPPs of quality being available.abb

And as far I am concerned I might "be in it to win it" with pick 34 but I dont want to punt picks 1,2,11,18 on KPP who BP did not consider the best available talent.

I still have nightmares over Molan, Smith, Rogers and Breese.

You've probably bumped in to me in those nightmares!

You could say that the mistake with Molan wasn't so much putting needs ahead of talent - but completely misreading Molan's market worth. We needed tall defenders and he may have been the best potential tall defender in the draft - it's just that he wasn't worth any more than pick 50.

It looks like we are only going to have 4 picks in this draft. Where are we going to get our KPPs from if we don't use our 3rd and 4 th picks on them this year? It would be a different story if we had 7-8 vacancies on our list - but we don't.I'd agree with you if it is demonstrably clear that none of the available KPPs are up to it - but I don't believe that anyone can say that with certainty especially as talls take longer to develop than smalls.

How do you know?

That's like saying there's not not going to be a lot to choose between the best midfielder available at 1 and the best KPP available at 1.

There could easily be a standout mid or a standout KP there.

Or more particularly - only doubtful KPs there.

I'd like KPFs at 11 and/or 18 too but ...

Best available and if that means 4 mids - so be it.

What I'm saying is that there is rarely a standout "best available".It is entirely subjective. Put 5 recruiters in a room and ask them to rank 20 players. I guarantee you'll get 5 different lists starting from a difference of opinion on pick #1 ( Scully or Trengrove?)

The fact is that 99 times out of 100 there is no such thing as the "best available" except by reference to the balance of your list. We need KPPs - KPPs are hard to find - but "you've got to be in it to win it"

Best available.

*start drafting for need from round 2 onwards.

No.."best available" is very subjective.

If you know for a dead set fact that all the available midfielders are going to make it - and all of the KPP's will turn out to be duds - you've got o choice but to take a midfielder. But you don't know that..... every player is a risk.

Realistically there's not going to be a lot to choose between the best midfielder available at 11 and the best KPP available at 11. Given the balance of our list , we've got to go for a KPP.

Let's put some faith in our midfield group - and try to find a bit of muscle to help them out.

Ideally both 11 and 18 should be KPPs

I really like your idea and post about the Red & Blue Foundation. Is there anyway that you can bring this forward to the MFC? Maybe they are waiting for the new developments to be built.

I really hope we clear our debt this year. Once our debt is clear I think we will be pushing the comp as the most marketable teams in the comp baring GC and GWS. Everyone of my mates are talking about Melbournes young list, Jim Stynes battle and hoping he gets through. ATM i think we are becoming the buzz team. Must make the most of it or at least get out of our debt

The Red & Blue Foundation was actually put in place by the previous committee so the club is aware of it. It is on the website. I have just been surprised that it hasn't been promoted more aggressively.

The only reason I can think of is that equipment is such a small part of the overall budget that a strong R&B Foundation campaign is not worth the effort.

That would surprise me given that we sell home games for amounts like to $200k -$300k

It also shows the supporters some imagination - which is good for the image.

If enough people respond positively to the R&B Foundation thread... the club will surely increase its profile

No, I've got no information on the time sharing of any of the facilities.

I just have the drawings showing the areas specifically designated for the MFC, also the areas for the other tenants, the Storm, Victory, etc.

Appreciate your help

Your proof that we have so many designated facilities has overome my scepticism ( You get that way as a Melbourne supporter!)

Sounds great

Realistically, I think it will be hard to see Robbo in ANY other jumper... But the boy has still got a bit left to give, and i really do hope they give him a crack. We'll watch him and probably cheer for him, except of course when he's playing for the Dees...

Good one!.

I actually have some plans of the MRS in my possession which clearly show areas set aside for MFC.

Change rooms, gym, pool area, recovery, etc.

I've been on site too and right now it won't quite be at the stage where its worth having a walk through because none of the fit-out has been done yet.

It will be an elite facility.

Same with the work that will be done to upgrade Gosch's Paddock.

Other than the location there's not much to see yet.

Thankyou ...great to hear.

Do you know how many others will use Gosch's paddock?

The reason we are training at the Junction oval Is because both our training facilities are currently being built. If you go down to Casey you'll see a mass of construction and same with the Bubble dome. Both will be ready for next season and both will be state of the art compared to the Junction. So you ask what we'll show Luke Ball? We'll show him a construction zone just like Carlton showed Bradshaw.

Clearly I am aware that there's spectacular bricks and mortar at the Bubble dome - my question is how much of that space is being set aside for the MFC ? - and what right of access will we have to the shared facilities behind the other tenants?

Will we be able to say to Luke - "that is going to be our gym - we will have 30 sets of weights in it - our medical rooms will adjoin the gym over there - we''ll just have to run down there to get to our oval etc" The oval will be available to us 4 afternoons per week or .... ?

Good to hear that the buildings at Casey are progressing

Cos with pick 18 we could still get a very good young player.

You've got to weigh up the pros and cons of Ball over who you'd expect to be available at 18.

I'd go for the youngster.

We're looking at Ball for his leadership as much for his football ability. I'm not sure that we'd want him if he enters the ND hoping to get to Collingwood. In so doing he would be effectively saying that the prospect of working up from the bottom with a group of kids does not interest him.I wouldn't sacrifice Pick 18 for a reluctant mid-age player.

For me its PSD or not at all

All this talk about pick 50>

Assuming we leave open the PSD, picks 34 and 50 won't be available unless we delist two more players -- and this is looking increasingly unlikely ( per many other threads)

Srely this is draft tampering?

Its an interesting question. A player is allowed to state a preference and put a price on his head - but he can't refuse to play for a club with an earlier pick if it offers him the same money.

I seem to recall that the rules of the psd force interested clubs to meet the player's asking price. If that is so - and Sydney and Bradshaw have worked out that the Swans have to beat $950k to beat all the teams with earlier picks, it must be very close to tampering.

I'm not sure what would happen if the other club made him a really good offer - but one slightly below the offer of his preferred club. What would happen if North, say, offered $950k against the Swans $1m? I presume if North selects him but can't persuade him to play, North loses its pick and Bradshaw retires.

Now let's spice it up a bit.....change the player from Bradshaw to Ball - and the teams from the Swans to Richmond and from North to MFC?

Agree - great positive article