rpfc

The other no brainer is that the investment required for Cameron would be huge. Better spent on his equivalent in the midfield. Now, if we happen to be able to secure that midfielder with one of the two picks we have in the top 3, then go after Cameron. But our midfield is the single on field reason we are where we are. All other lines we are average to above par. Midfield is still 3rd world.

He's a great young player, but give his equivalent in the midfield, please. I have heard the arguments against needing a great midfield, all I have to go on is bitter experience and envy.

You've learned your lesson, Melb16... No idea what the lesson is but you've learned it.

MC has not been able to play football and Frawley was push/pulled out of his traditional position in the backline. They are both excellent players but life after them is not only on the horizon, it will not make this club any worse, in fact, if we use Pick 3 properly - it might make us better...

Hang on a second, pants. Stern was rubbish and the ownership situation over there is pure evil but the fact remains that the Lakers were about to get another superstar and the NBA stepped in and made a decision that has rejuvenated Basketball on the West Coast and the NBA in general. A good competition is predicated on the rise AND fall of teams from year to year. The AFL has seen a couple rise of late but the other side of that coin is the fall of some clubs that won't fall if they continue to be allowed to recruit the best players.

Here is an anecdote (or an antidote...): A couple of years ago, one of the best players in the NBA was traded to the LA Lakers, a perennial finalist and mythological franchise, in a deal that was passable from the standpoint of the club losing said player. However, NBA Head Office stepped in and nixed the trade. They said publically that the deal was not good enough for the club losing the player. However, a few weeks later a deal was struck with the LA Clippers, a perennial basket case, for that player to go there and change the dynamic of the league and Los Angeles Basketball in general. If Gillon cares about his league that he is running (into the ground), then he will take note of the ancillary powers at his disposal...

What I know is draft, free agency and salary cap regulated sports. The AFL is now a member of all three regulations now - and is, by an embarrassing distance, the worst run. There is no room in those sports for players to stop trades unless they have a 'No Trade Clause' in their contract. An NBA, NFL, and MLB player can be traded without their consent, just as kids in the AFL are drafted to clubs without their consent. Darren Jarman once did what was reasonable and refused to come the club that picked him in the draft - the Demons. Soon, the same will be said of players who refused trades - it will be a thing of the past. You simply cannot run a competitive league with the rules set up the way they are now. Free Agency is not the problem - the half baked regulations and rules of the AFL salary and player movement infrastructure is the problem.

Read the OP, not just the title.

Players do not get a say in where they are drafted, why should they get a say in where they are traded? Players want more freedoms without the negatives that come with this ultra-professional environment. If you want to be able to stop a trade, negotiate a No Trade Clause into your contract, otherwise you should have no say in where you are traded to - just like in other draft and salary cap regulated leagues - NBA, NFL, NHL, and the MLB. The best teams are not going to get any worse if players are able to dictate where they play.

It's obvious that Dayne Beams needs a change of environment and Nathan Buckley and Collingwood shouldn't stand in the way of that need...

As soon as he picks one club, your 'good news' becomes irrelevant. He could walk in the draft and get to Pick 50 at that club. We have zero bargaining power, the only way we get anything of worth is if the AFL lent heavily on the receiving club. And, usually in the AFL, the leaning is the other way around...

Again, no need for such a thin skin. You are walking amongst Dees fans wary of life in general - a few raised eyebrows and eyeballs is nothing.

Don't be so thin-skinned. Demonland is like a pub run only for Dees fans - you can't just throw out coy allusions while everyone is listening and not expect a few 'pffts'...

This is an instance where the only two parties that should matter is Adelaide and Melbourne. We should offer Pick 3 and Adelaide would accept as Danger is destined to go for a worse pick next year. We would trade for him on the last year of his contract and try to convince him to stay beyond 2015. The player should not be allowed to stop a trade unless he has a clause built into his contract to do so.

He hasn't even agreed to come. If I were him, I would be going to NM and trying to do some damage off their half back flank. And Clark's worth is less than HL's I know that - the guy is crocked. But Clark is a much better player, and a huge investment. The situation stinks.

The PSD was losing its power when Luke Ball nominated for the National Draft to get to Coillingwood, and it was made more irrelevant with the introduction of Free Agency and Delisted Free Agency. The only players now that would come through the PSD are out of contract players under 25 who have been instructed not to nominate for the National Draft (that would be code for players that don't have an agreement with a club to pick them up and are therefore can not be in high demand. The PSD is the last roll of the dice for experienced NQR players to get on a Primary List before they opt for the salvage scrapheap of the antiquated 'Rookie' Draft.

The truth about whether we want Clark is probably somewhere in the middle of our opinions; we would like to keep him as he has little trade value, but on a small base payment and possibly on the rookie list. We wanted spare cash to throw at Dangerfield and other premier mids and having $800k tied up in a crocked CHF was not helping. Roos would want more investment in the midfield and Clark's intentions don't fit well into that.

What now?

Aiming is done by those with a weapon. Roos is the one doing the aiming, and he doesn't have many weapons...

If Danger costs 3 and Toumpas, then the cost would be Frawley and Toumpas. I would do that trade very quickly. Dropping down from 2 to 10 would be a pill but one I might swallow if there were more clubs in the race for him. If Roos and Viney are 'letting Frawley go' - it would be similar to the Clark situation - and I can fully understand. Hogan, Dawes, and Pedersen/Gawn can make a functioning forward line. McDonald, Dunn, and Garland can defend tall players of varying capability. Spinning Frawley and Clark into midfield assets would be my guiding star if I was Roos and co. this October.

Our record is irrelevant to the Clark case. The guy is perennially crocked. Clubs look at him and see a potential bargain with, as another poster said - a low risk, high reward scenario. That 'low risk' is the pitiful pick or player exchange we will receive if we deal with clubs interested in Clark. How the AFL can assume we will be able to trade Clark for anything more than peanuts is beyond me. Don't expect the club to work miracles with a Clark deal. We are holding precisely zero cards in this mess. Our only card was given up in an act of acute mercy that has become a source of abject misery. We are but beggars to our own demise at times.

This is probably in the wrong thread but: Haw - Picks 1, 2, 7, 12, 36, Rookie. Syd - 5, 5, 30, Traded for 39, 40, Rookie Fre - 4, 8, 19, 20, Rookie, Rookie Gee - 3, 7, 17, 24, 40, (F/S) NM - 2, 13, 23, 37, 43, 47 Port - 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 7 of the 35 applicable were Top 5 selections. 13 of the 35 applicable were Top 10 selections. 20 of the 35 applicable were Top 20 selections. The value is at the pointy end - if you can pick properly - you don't need to be right at the pointy end...

I will ask another question; if you were a prospective club recruiting a bloke who has played 15 games over the last 3 seasons (that's 51 games missed through injury) - what would you give up for him?

The extrapolation above is based on a very small sample. Look at the best 6 clubs and where their best 6 players come from. 36 players - I am interested myself - will look it up when I get home... Not to get ahead of my data there but The Teenage Lottery Draft of the AFL still allows for great talent to slip through...

The irony being Dangerfield was Pick 10...