Lampers

I'm not an expert and hopefully someone out there knows, but quite possibly it would be part of the WADA rules that a player isn't paid if banned. It doesn't really make sense that you are banned, but still paid anyway. If you can still be paid during a WADA imposed ban, WADA please ban me from work!

It would be different in that respect. Wouldn't think the player payment angle would be of much concern to the club if we recruit him and he gets banned. Would just free up some dollars to bank for future years or direct to pre-payments for other players.

Considering recruiting a player who has had two knee recos - higher risk he might break down and miss a year. Considering recruiting a player with a potential ban hanging over him - higher risk he might cop a ban and miss a year. Risk reward balance in both cases, just a little more unusual than what the recruiting team would normally consider, but the risk outcome of being unavailable is the same. And hopefully a trade value discount to go with the risk part in Melbourne's favour.

Port would be over a barrel in a trade needing to create the cap space. That means they shouldn't get true value re: draft picks. The value to them is the cap space. They cannot say "No thanks", they must trade if they want Dixon. However, Adelaide would be far more attractive to Hartlett as he wouldn't need to move, plus Adelaide should be fine on cap space to accomodate assuming they lose Dangerfield. Where Melbourne would have the advantage is to offer Hartlett a better deal than Adelaide can or want to. More years, more cash. In effect, I don't think this will come down to giving Port a great deal on draft picks, it will more be about convincing Hartlett he wants to be at Melbourne, and then the rest will happen even if it looks like Port get ripped at face value. Melboune's second round could well be enough given the scenario. Hartlett's brother's career was destroyed by soft tissue leg injuries, and if memory serves Hamish also had some issues a few years back. There is a reason Port have decided he is the one to go as they would have multiple options to clear cap space, medical due diligence would be key.

Wouldn't the club treat it like recruiting a player with a history of serious injury? Higher than normal chance they will miss for a period of time. I would also think a pretty good bargaining chip to argue down his trade value. I also wouldn't be surprised if the AFL allow clubs with former Essendon players who do get suspended to promote a rookie in their place. Similar to LTI list. To not have allowances like that would make it even harder for those Essendon players to move, and if the AFL believe the players have been duped they'd be doing everything in their power to make things easy for the players involved (but not Essendon).