Clark_Kent

In the American sports NBA, NFL etc. they are able to trade without a players consent and I believe this should be brought into the AFL. The biggest reason why is that the majority of these guys are paid well over the average wage. They are privliged to be playing in this competition but with this comes sacrifice. The clubs themselves though will be taking the biggest risk as if they pay for a player who doesn't want to be there then they will be free to walk at a later date, so a lot more thought wil go into it. But the AFL must eliminate what has been happening to clubs, th best example being Brisbane. That was an abolute disgrace as they had spent a lot of time, resources and not to mention the draft picks to get those players. They then got well under market price in all of the trades and were shafted. They have to stamp that out otherwise this comp really will turn into another English premier league when teams like Melbourne try to pick up a player but the Hawks and Geelong just swoop in and continue to top up their lists.

AFL DT for me

Viney's Vindicators confirmed. Plan to change name but haven't decided yet.

Yeah maybe for Round 1 swap Byrnes for Kennedy-Harris. He can then com on as a sub and add some leg speed. Size isn't everything. Jake Neade was knee high to a grasshopper and he had a great first season.

This is assuming everyone is fit Round 1: B: Dunn Frawley Garland HB: Toumpas McDonald Grimes C: Watts Jones Vince HF: Howe Clark Trengove F: Hogan Dawes Kennedy-Harris R: Gawn Cross Viney I/C: Tyson Michie McKenzie Sub: Byrnes

i know which I would choose

Cats Drafting wasn't bad either besides a couple players. But Corey at 8, Chapman 31, Ling 38 and Enright 47 is a pretty good effort.

Anthony Miles??

Haha of course he did. They picked up one player didn't they? And received a pick in the 70's for Delaney. great trade period. If he is referring to the Football Department signings then that is a completely different thing.

They have been well and truly screwed this trade period. They haven't been able to get one pick under number 20 for the players they lost in a shallow draft.

Please please learn how to post this haha. Just email it to yourself from your phone and then you should be able to use it on here.

I saw that and thought the exact same thing. That is the reason he's never been consistent because he expects people to make him rather than taking the initiative. Good swap Sylvia for Vince we win.

I think we can go into these last 2 and a half days not having to push for anything. But if a great deal falls in front of us we still need to take it. We are in a very good position in that we've probably got all our main deals through already and now we can just keep an ear out and accept offers which may be in a favour.

Adam Treloar averaged 22.9 touches a gamein his second season. If he was available for pick 9 it would a fantastic pick up. Though I doubt they would give him up. Tomlinson is a good key back but I doubt we would give up pick 9 for him.

Yeah but the idea would be that after next season he's not. Hopefully it will be something like this 1. Jones 2. Viney 3. Tyson 4. Trengove 5. Vince 6. Toumpas etc. Just because he will be next season doesn't mean he will always be. He will teach all the young boys the right way to go about their AFL careers.

The only reason they got them at those picks was because the players said specifically 'I want to play for Hawthorn'. We went after Hale but he didn't want to play for us. I'm sure other clubs would have loved to have Gunston and Gibson but it was the same thing. Burgoyne was the only player they had to give up a high pick for. It's good for them as it helped them win a flag and I hope when we have our chance we trade like that to fill needs. But they can't complain about their run because to be honest it has been pretty sweet for them. So I say stiff sh*t

I think you have to have at least ten years of free agency compo before it can be assessed. Though this one incident does seem unfair, they won't be saying that if one day someone leaves and they get an earlier pick for a lesser player. I think ladder position is the only fair way to do it as it helps the lower clubs who will be hurt more from losing their best player, which is the way it should be. As everything it swings in roundabouts and it should all end up pretty even in the scheme of things. That was also a very good point about Hawthorn poaching a lot of players because of their ladder position. If they want to complain about this one incident I'd be more than happy to trade positions with them.

If they had got Deledio wrong then they truly would be the worst recruiting period in history. Now it's a toss up between us and them. Though I am now very comfortable with the people we have working for us at the minute.

Yeah I remember because I saw us beat them at the G in 2004 by 100 points. Great day! But yeah I get what your saying but I personally wouldn't want us giving up pick 2, pick 20 and a player for one mid. Not even Gary Ablett.

I personally think Carlton didn't win that trade as although they received Judd who was a super player they lost a very good forward in Kennedy plus 2 other high picks. You can tell by their lack of depth that this affected them. That is why you should be careful how much you give away for one player.

I'm not sure where the idea of Tyson & pick 9 for pick 2 came from but if we could do that it would be a massive win. He was good in his first season and unlucky last season with injury. We could then turn pick 2 into Tyson and Crouch/Freeman which would be a big win.

I can entertain myself other ways. I'm more discussing the flawed system where the Free Agency compensation is holding up proceedings that is all. I think there are plenty of deals already worked out but everyone is just waiting because they have said we will give you X compo for Y player and so on. I bet as soon as the compo picks are given out on Friday or whatever we will see 2 or 3 trades done in quick succession. So what I am saying is why does the free agency period need to be any longer than a week or at most 10 days. The intricate trades are the ones that need more time.

This has got to be the most boring trade period in history. The AFL have buggered up by having the free agency last for 2 weeks. Pretty much everything is done within a day as the Free agents know when they want to leave or not and the clubs know they won't match it. They should have one week for free agency and then 3 weeks for trades. It's obvious all the trades are being held up because no one knows what compo they will get.

Yeah if they are both band 1. I actually don't mind this as it assists the lower clubs when they lose free agents. The Hawks just won the flag so part of being a successful club now means that you do miss out on draft benefits in the future. But to be honest they get helped by players wanting to play for them that it won't affect them anyway.

What I meant was in regards to something mentioned on Trade Radio about not getting a certain band because we finished lower which should be crap. If you finish 1st and win the GF and your best player decides to leave for more coin then stiff s***, you get a pick after your first round and the same could be said if you finish last and your best player leaves for more money and qualifies for band 1 then you should get that pick after your first round. I don't see how a side could 'game' the system. The other side offers the contract and the number of years an so on, if they qualify for a first round pick then so be it but it should all be out in the open and free for everyone to know. All the secrecy reeks of the AFL making decisions as they go and changing bands for teams depending on where they finish.