If I was a club trying to trade with Essendon for our pick 4 I’d probably let it be known I was interested in Munkara just to get a bit of leverage on the deal, particularly if I had a pick in the 30’s that I wanted to use to move up the draft.
Just a thought.
If you wanted to make an enemy moving forward, yes.
I think clubs prefer that nobody shafts them when their father son/NGA draft comes rather than being a prick for such little gain.
Sure they would prefer that, but the rule was changed for that reason, wasn’t it?
Just because you say you might do something doesn’t mean you do it. I’d imagine clubs are pulling every lever they can in order to improve their draft hand.
And the AFL giving them a lot of extra time to do it. Again.
WIll Brisbane even have a pick left in the 30’s
Unless they’ve got a tricky draft night trade lined up, they’ll be doing well to have a pick left in the 30s next year, let alone this year.
Mmmm nah clubs wouldn’t think like that.
Future burning of themselves wayyyy outweighs the potential benefits of this tactic.
Clubs have talked openly about holding other clubs accountable for NGA and father son players, have bid on them repeatedly often at highly inconvenient times and at other times taken them from under the nose of other clubs.
They walk players up for trade via the PSD, they offer unders for players in trades, they talk to other players under contract.
I have no doubt clubs will do whatever it is they have to do to improve their own list rather than hold concerns over gentleman’s agreements that may, but likely don’t, exist.
Massive lol.
‘Holding accountable’ is way different to what you’re proposing 
Which is why my post was much broader than what you have selected to highlight
There’s a difference between “holding accountable” and overreaching for the sake of getting one up on the opposition.
This place assumes that “one raw talent” Munkara is some top 20 talent who we might get cheap because of injuries. That is likely strongly biased due to us tracking him for some time. Other clubs might have very different views of the “raw talent” situation before you even bring in all the rest.
If Brisbane was looking for a dynamic medium forward, for instance, there is a fair chance that they’d rate the guy who is playing in their VFL side who had a draft combine invite (Brain? I’ve forgotten), over Munkara. At Blitz we think Brain is a made up name, but he’s had a draft combine invite, and has been around the Brisbane program, so is obviously in the mix, who’s to say that Brisbane (or GCS) don’t like the idea of a guy called Shadeau on their list
Saints with pick 38(?) is the danger imo. Not necessarily an overreach, and I’ve heard they are one of the clubs that are interested
It’ll be pushed out beyond 40 on draft night with bids etc.
West Coast just signed James Rowe. Small forward sorted
I reakon if you bid on a player and the bid is matched, then you lose that pick.
But it has to be with a pick in the same round.
I’d imagine that might be countered by picks being lost by countering bids (particularly Brisbanes picks)
Exactly right
Holding clubs accountable was coined when JUH was clear pick one and Adelaide correctly bid on him.
Holding clubs accountable does not mean insinuating a threat that you will take a player and pay overs for him, if we don’t trade pick 4 to them
Again, was just one aspect of my broader suggestion that clubs are willing to not always act in good faith if it means they can improve their list.
All I presented was a theory, with some supporting evidence (beyond ‘holding accountable’) that clubs may be willing to act in such a way.
I think clubs would be willing to use potential bids on Munkara as leverage. Whether they acted on it is another matter. I have no doubt clubs have discussed father son/nga bids in the past, and perhaps been encouraged to not bid on particular players. Wouldn’t be surprised if that discussion could go the other way.