old55

I don't see that we've got any leverage. If BOTH aren't bid on in the top 6 then GWS get to use 8 in the draft. We could threaten to bid on both to ensure they have to use the pick on them but that's hardly a good way to get them to agree to trade it to us ...

Teams have to bid for both Hooper AND Kennedy in the top 6 for GWS to have to use 8. With Mills in there to be bid as well, it may not happen and 8 will be a live pick for GWS.

The Adelaide - Seedsman - Collingwood deal seems independent of the rest? As others have said - hard to see why Port would add the 49 to 62 upgrade for us, especially when GC are asking for more than 10 for Dixon and 49 could be handy there. So Toumpas for 29 (or even with the 49/62 swap) is independent too. Then it's just Howe for 26 + Kennedy. Three independent trades - can't see why they aren't happening.

Buckley tweeting his congrats to Geelong and Adelaide for the fair dealing and swift resolution to the Dangerfield deal. Meanwhile Collingwood's Treloar deal is holding up the trade works. They've got their finger in too many pies [sic] - Treloar, Aish, Howe - I think something will have to give - hopefully North can convince Aish to go there - serve Collingwood right.

Yes all sorts of unlikely scenarios can be dreamt up but I used the model for a real scenario. The closest real scenario to the one you raise is 2012. That's Whitfield for Broomhead, Kennedy and Grundy. Who's lol now?

I used it to make a legitimate objective comparison of two trade scenarios involving Carlisle.

And your açcurate evaluation method is?

It gives Carlisle an objective pick value that enables comparison of the two proposed trade scenarios. Otherwise any comparison is arbitrary.

Did you actually read the linked document? The DVI is a mathematical model based on real AFL data, signed off by University of Melbourne, the top ranking educational institution in Australia. That's not "arbitrary".

It's not arbitrary, it's a real effort by the AFL to give relative value to draft picks. http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

On that basis my original proposal of 5 (1878) for Carlisle and 23 (815) values him at 1063 = pick 16 (1067). Which seems very fair.

Saints are continuing to be hard to deal with. Their latest Carlisle offer is a joke. Saints: 5 (1878) + 63 (112) = 1980 Dons: 23 (815) + 25 (756) = 1571 + Carlisle Values Carlisle at 419. Pick 40 (429), pick 41 (412) The new AFL system makes this transparent.

We can still possibly get involved with GC for pick 3 via Dixon, Port and Toumpas but I can't see an easy solution. GC already want more than 10 for Dixon so 6 + 10 + 29 for Dixon + 3, with Dixon + Toumpas to Port probably won't cut it for GC.

Rubbish, it's the Saints fault for stuffing around - trade should have been done on day 1.

Agreed but they've only got themselves to blame. When a good KP like that wants to come to your lowly placed club - just do the deal. 5 for Carlisle + 24 is a total no brainer.

Yeah and they need the extra money ....

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-15/live-whos-on-the-move-on-day-four-of-trade-period 3.45pm: HOWE TO FLY WITH PIES Melbourne jumping jack Jeremy Howe has accepted an offer to join Collingwood, according to The Age. The deal is rumoured to be in the region of $400,000 a season over four years. Now the clubs just need to nut out a trade, possibly involving Ben Kennedy and maybe a pick for the Demons to let him go. I'm hoping for something like 26 and Kennedy for Howe and 43

That deal is terrible for Collingwood - it rates Howe = Kennedy + Seedsman + 9 pick downgrade If we REALLY want pick 3 and rate Kennedy then Melbourne In: Pick 3, Kennedy Out: Howe, Pick 6, Pick 25 Gold Coast In: Pick 6, Seedsman, Pick 25 Out: Pick 3, Pick 35 Collingwood In: Howe, Pick 35 Out: Kennedy, Seedsman, But it sounds like Seedsman wants to go to Adelaide not GC - no-one wants to go to GC!

It's the Saints who on-trade Essendon's 2nd rounder to Collingwood for Freeman - Essendon only need one 2nd rounder to make this happen. Freeman wants to go to the Saints. How hard is it? 5 for Carlisle and Essendon's 2nd rounder Essendon's 2nd rounder to Collingwood for Freeman That's Carlisle and Freeman for 5, surely that's fair all around?

Frankly I don't get the Carlisle stand off What's so hard about: 5 for Carlisle and Essendon's 2nd rounder Essendon's 2nd rounder to Collingwood for Freeman That's Carlisle and Freeman for 5, surely that's fair all around?

Maybe tie the change to their % of revenue request

I agree that's the problem. They get something decent in return though. Look I still think some players would get to where they want Luke Ball style.

They get UFA after every contract and more favourable mandated contract lengths. The price they pay is that they have to go where they are drafted.

I know many, including me love this time of year and the Dangerfield move seems to suggest the current scheme is working, so maybe if it aint broke ... The AFL could simplify the process a lot and promote player retention and equalisation, while giving something significant to the AFLPA. Here's a radical idea: Get rid of the trade completely All player movement is via a single draft only, using current draft order rules Players are unrestricted free agents at the end of any contract, they can re-sign or go in the draft Players drafted in R1 get minimum 4 year contract, R2 get minimum 3 year contract, R3+ get minimum 2 year contract Players can put an annual Contract price on their head, if <$400k then minimum 2 year contract, if 400k-800k then minimum 3 year contract, if > 800k then minimum 4 year contract (this stops players putting 1.5M x 2 years to get to the club of their choice and then discount later years) Minimum contract length is the maximum of the two values above, i.e. Draft Round or Contract price Player cannot be re-drafted by the club he has left No rookie list