Fat Tony

I have a lesser view of Gysberts than the majority here on Demonland. While he can find the ball, he lacks athletic ability and size and his kicking is substandard for a slow inside mid. Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed that he had so little currency. Pederson may be a good pickup, but I feel that getting him, Dawes and Hogan is a bit like using a cannon to kill a mosquito. Particularly when we already have Clark, as well as Howe, Watts and Fitzpatrick who could also eventually play as KPFs.

Rodan improves our list in the near term and I quite like him as a footballer, but this is an incredibly short sighted decision.

The trade with Collingwood seems fair given it is a compromised but fairly strong draft. The key issue IMO is the 4 x $500K contract. I understand that the salary cap has to be spent, but Dawes will need to improve on last year significantly to justify that kind of money and length of contract. I wonder if the money could have been better spent. It will also be interesting to see how a forward line of Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Howe (and maybe Pederson) can function. It also means that there will probably be no room for Fitzy etc.

We should trade Jamar and #4 for #2 and another later pick. And we should play Frawley as a mid.

IMO we would be better off trying to trade #4 for #12 and #14 from GWS. Knightmare on Bigfooty has Menzel, Membrey, Vlaustin, Stringer, Garlett and Kennedy in the 14-20 range.

I hope we double cross the bastards.

If we trade pick 3 instead of pick 4 there must have been an agreement re Viney. Hopefully not and we Get Viney, Toumpas, Hogan and keep #14

This is how they measure draft pick value in the NFL http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php I dare say that the value of the top picks in the NFL is higher than in the AFL by virtue of the importance of the quarterback.

I said #13 might be sufficient, but it is difficult to really know. This view was based on the draft order being: GWS, GC, GWS, GWS, Melb, Melb, Port, Bris, WB, Ess, Carl, Melb, Melb. Only really Port (new coach), Brisbane, WB (won't go for both 17 year olds) and Carlton could trump #13

Our Head of Recruiting's biggest decision this year is whether or not to recruit his son. Our under the pump coach is considering trading pick 4 for Wellingham and Dawes. The MFC board has a lot to answer for.

As a a principal I think we should take the best available. This will be Grundy at #3, but he doesn't fit our needs, is a greater risk as a ruckman and is from SA. We probably shouldn't do this type of trade if you thought GC would take Grundy and leave us with Toumpas, but they don't need a ruckman. The trade with St Kilda is similar to what Geelong have been doing in recent years. They ended up the big winners out of the Mark Williams to Essendon and Burgoyne to Hawthorn trade. #12 and #13 would probably net us players WE rate in the top 8-10 range. This is not a huge price for the player WE rate at #4. IMO the draft is a bit of a lottery and we should diversify.

It sounds like the consensus view is that the standout top three in the draft are Whitfield, Toumpas and Grundy in that order. It also sounds like the Bulldogs are super keen on Martin in the mini-draft and GWS will acquire #5 and #6. I am not a fan of drafting a ruckman so early (especially given our current list), so I would think about attempting to trade #3 and #14 to GWS for #5 and #6. They could go for this depending on how much they want Grundy. I would also look at trading #4 to St Kilda for #12 and #13. This scenario is obviously predicated on Viney slipping to the second round. We would then have #5, #6, #12, #13 and Viney. And then #13 might be sufficient for Hogan in the mini-draft.

#14 and #~45 for Wellingham and Dawes would be plenty. #4 would be madness. We need to keep our early picks.

We must take best player available. If Viney is best available, so be it. But if we take him at #3 and he is not the best available, it is a disgrace. Moreover, I doubt many amateur watches have seen enough of the all the potential draftees to make an informed view of where he ranks in the draft pool.

At least at 26 Ray has a few years of footy ahead of him unlike Rodan, Lynch, Byrnes etc. But the quick fix approach we seem to be adopting is concerning.

While players like Byrnes, Lynch and Rodan would all add to our side next year, IMO we should really be only targeting players in the right age bracket. I would like to see us go after players who have shown something at AFL level but have struggled to get a game for whatever reason, such as Everitt, McKernan, Reimers, Mitch Brown, Banfield, Pears and Tom Young. I would even look at trying to land Majak Daw. Caddy and Wellingham would be great if they came for free, but I don't think we should be trading away our draft picks.

Clarke has been a great pick up. Much better than pretty much everyone expected. But they also chased Dawes hard and we dodged a bullet.

It is worth paying him well over his market wage if he comes via the PSD. But overpaying B graders like Wellingham and giving early picks would be short sighted. As a club we have no other choice but to take the long road. We need to try and build for a flag in 3-5 years at the earliest.

I am a fan of going after him and overpaying him in his first year. If he comes via the PSD. Same goes for Caddy. Otherwise we should be taking the long road in the draft.

I believe he can elect to go in either the PSD or the ND.

Yes. The real question we should be asking is whether Viney is better than Whitfield and whoever the second best player in the draft is. If he is there should be no debate. To answer this question you would need to do a full analysis as to what else is out there. Not just watch a few of Viney's games and note he has talent. And hardness is just one aspect of football. GAJ is not the hardest player in the AFL but he is the best.

I just want to see us draft the best player available. That may be Viney, but if its not, we should pass. I am amazed supporters would advocate putting Viney above the club.

Of course I want him to play for us. But we also need to do what is best for the club. No exceptions. We should not pay anything over his worth. The process of having Todd Viney step in as MFC’s interim recruiter when his son will be drafted is deeply concerning.

Scully? Ball? It is, but in the clubs' favour. If we take Viney at overs we will be the first club to be disadvantaged by the F/S rule.

It is unfair on everyone associated with the MFC if nepotism plays any role in our recruiting decisions (coaches, players and supporters). If Jack Viney is nominated and we consider there to be better talent available at our pick we should let him walk. This means we should only use pick 3 on Viney if he is considered to be in the top 2 of our rankings. Our best strategy would be to state this as our policy prior to 5 October 2012. We should also have Viney say in the media that he would be happy to play his first two years in the AFL anywhere, but then he intends to make his way back to Victoria. And that he would have no issues with not compensating the club which drafts him.