View Full Version : Carlton Trading into the 1st and 2nd Round
Just want to know peoples views on the decision tomorrow if Carlton can trade into the 1st and 2nd round. It would appear stupid for the AFL not to allow this to happen as under the proposal by Carlton any 1st and 2nd round picks will be traded away prior to the end of trade period so therefore will not be used by the Blues. I am sure we were bared from NOT PARTICIPATING in the 1st two rounds.. if we trade that pick we are abiding by the rule....:confused:
Fall Out Boy
12 Oct 2003, 17:15
Regardless of whether the decision to ban Carlton was appropriate, there is no way Carlton should now be able to trade for draft picks, even if they are then going to on trade them.
One can't be half pregnant. They are either banned, or they're not.
This may sound stupid but goign by yesterdays herald sun the proposed pick is McKernan to North for 2nd round pick of North which Carlton give to Collingwood for Heath Scotland.. would the AFL have a problem is the process went Scotland for North Second Pick and then Scotland from NORTH for McKernan? No draft pick touches Carlton... Same outcome... if that is allowed pretty stupid:confused:
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Regardless of whether the decision to ban Carlton was appropriate, there is no way Carlton should now be able to trade for draft picks, even if they are then going to on trade them.
One can't be half pregnant. They are either banned, or they're not.
I have to agree. The penalties Carlton received were designed to limit their recruiting and hence their mid to long term future. For them to then allow Carlton to trade picks would be to abrogate the rationale behind the penalities.
Edit: Even though Carlton will not be receiving any players or picks as part of any deal, they are still performing as a conduit. Implicated in a penalty of removing draft picks is that the club will will not be able to operate on the same level as other clubs during the trading period.
One-eyed Tiger
12 Oct 2003, 17:23
FWIW I say let em trade into the early rounds.
Originally posted by whmym1
This may sound stupid but goign by yesterdays herald sun the proposed pick is McKernan to North for 2nd round pick of North which Carlton give to Collingwood for Heath Scotland.. would the AFL have a problem is the process went Scotland for North Second Pick and then Scotland from NORTH for McKernan? No draft pick touches Carlton... Same outcome... if that is allowed pretty stupid:confused:
The problem here is that while Carlton do not ultimately end up with a second round draft pick, they do receive the pick transitively. The trade could not occur without Carlton actually being in possession of the pick at some time. That's why I think the AFL won't allow it.
Russian
12 Oct 2003, 18:05
In light of these issues, the Commission has decided on the following sanctions:
* The loss of the priority selection (selection number one) in the 2002 national draft to be held on Sunday, November 24, 2002.
* The loss of selection number 2, the first selection in round one of the 2002 national draft.
* The loss of selection number 31 in round 2 of the 2002 national draft.
* The loss of selection number 34 in round 3 of the 2002 national draft.
(Note: The loss of selection number 31 in round 2 and selection number 34 in round 3 of the 2002 national draft are triggered by the suspended sentence imposed on the Carlton Football Club by the AFL Commission for total player payment breaches in 1998 and determined by the AFL Commission in October, 2000).
* Exclusion from round one of the 2002 pre-season draft to be held on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.
* The loss of the right to participate in round 1 and round 2 of the 2003 national draft.
* Should the Carlton Football Club qualify for the special assistance rule, the club will retain its priority selection in the 2003 national draft.
* The Carlton F.C. will be entitled to participate in the 2003 national draft from round 3.
This comes from the AFL media release on afl.com.au
If these are the way the sanctions were delivered in the first place, Carlton should be given their draft picks in the first and second round but not allowed to use any first/second round picks on the day.
1jasonoz
12 Oct 2003, 18:14
Originally posted by whmym1
This may sound stupid but goign by yesterdays herald sun the proposed pick is McKernan to North for 2nd round pick of North which Carlton give to Collingwood for Heath Scotland.. would the AFL have a problem is the process went Scotland for North Second Pick and then Scotland from NORTH for McKernan? No draft pick touches Carlton... Same outcome... if that is allowed pretty stupid:confused:
North give their 2nd pick to Collingwood, Pies give Scotland to North, who then on trade him to Carlton, who gives North Corey in return. Can't see the problem in that, the Blues had nothing to do with the 2nd round pick.
You can ontrade picks, but not players.;)
macca23
12 Oct 2003, 19:55
Of course they should be able to trade for 1st and 2nd round draft picks, as long as they on-trade them.
Part of their punishment was
* The loss of the right to participate in round 1 and round 2 of the 2003 national draft
If they on-trade any 1st and 2nd round draft picks they get by trading, thenn obviously they can't participate in round 1 and round 2 of the 2003 national draft.
It's a no-brainer when you look at the end result.
I reckon you let them trade into it, but if they can't get rid of those picks by the end of trade week, the picks disappear into the ether.
Edgar, I doubt that would happen, as a 3 way deal would be done at the same time...so we wouldnt be 'holding on' to the pick(s) for long.
Edgar, I doubt that would happen, as a 3 way deal would be done at the same time...so we wouldnt be 'holding on' to the pick(s) for long.
You're right, it's unlikely to happen. As long as Carlton understand that when they are trading.
I reckon Carlton probably want another pick to get Nick Stevens. Port have told everyone two first round picks, and apparently knocked back pick 2, but 2 and 25-30 would probably seal the deal. But Carlton would need to trade for the pick in order to do it. Whether you think Stevens is worth it or not, would make sense as to why Carlton want to get into the first two rounds.
I'm pretty sure the club wont be trading #2 for Stevens...they have stated it on radio, on the club site etc
The on trading of picks would most likely occur in a trade which was suggested in the papers yesterday....McKernan to North, North's 2nd rounder to Carlton, we on trade that to Collingwood, Scotland to Carlton.
TheMightyDons
12 Oct 2003, 20:42
Very well done Carlton, managed to screw the AFL on a technicality. Personally I can't see how the Blues are not complying with the penalties. They cannot be stopped if they choose to do this. Personally I don't think they should be allowed to, but the AFL can't stop 'em.
The whole thing was worded badly by the AFL. What they mean is that Carlton will be granted no positions in round #1 or round #2 of the 2003 draft.
If the AFL try and uphold what they have written to the letter then the draft process will die as the trading period where a player can't go where he wants when out of contract is restraint of trade and the whole draft therefore collapses.
Shocking timing by the AFL...as usual...this thing could have been sorted out MONTHS AGO!!!!
BUT NO, THE FOOLS HAVE TO WAIT TILL TRADE WEEK.....:mad: :mad:
They won't be able to trade into the rounds that they are barred from. Swabby said that that was a big problem for Freo with the Headlad trade as we had to pay too much as we were barred from trading into the 3rd round.
ajackett110
12 Oct 2003, 23:55
It's called a 3-way trade
A thought: The AFL may argue that implicated in a penalty of removing draft picks there is the penalty of reduced capacity in the trading period. The purpose of removing draft picks is to hurt a club's recruiting. The AFL may argue that recruiting blankets drafting and trading. The issue is that even if Carlton trade on picks, and thus do not ultimately end up with picks they are not allowed to make use of, they are still a catalyst in a trade. The trade could not occur without Carlton participating.
Of course, Carlton may argue that not allowing them to act as a conduit in three (or more) way deals also punishes other teams. If a straight swap (involving first/second draft picks) between clubs is not satisfactory, but Carlton has players which could close the deal, then perhaps Carlton may argue that in not allowing such a deal to occur the AFL is effectively restraining the trade of other clubs.
scooter600x
13 Oct 2003, 01:17
North trade pick 100 to Carlton for McKernan.
Carlton on-trade pick 100 to Collingwood for Scotland.
Collingwood on-trade pick 100 to North for pick 24.
There is no rule forbidding you to trade draft picks for draft picks.
Originally posted by scooter600x
North trade pick 100 to Carlton for McKernan.
Carlton on-trade pick 100 to Collingwood for Scotland.
Collingwood on-trade pick 100 to North for pick 24.
There is no rule forbidding you to trade draft picks for draft picks.
There is a rule....
- Where an exchange occurs between no more than two clubs, the exchange must include a player (ie. Clubs may not make a straight swap of draft picks)
bloodsports
13 Oct 2003, 09:20
Originally posted by whmym1
Just want to know peoples views on the decision tomorrow if Carlton can trade into the 1st and 2nd round. It would appear stupid for the AFL not to allow this to happen as under the proposal by Carlton any 1st and 2nd round picks will be traded away prior to the end of trade period so therefore will not be used by the Blues. I am sure we were bared from NOT PARTICIPATING in the 1st two rounds.. if we trade that pick we are abiding by the rule....:confused:
See this is the problem, you Carlton fools just don't want to take your punishment do you ?
which really means that you think you don't deserve it. Now that is a problem, because it means you havn't learnt the leason and you will probabley try to cheat again in the future when you think you can get away with it.
Well you wont get away with it and as all this debate and squabble during this trade period is demonstrating, everyone suffers for your impropriety.
While the penalty itself, was a tad ( read hugely) excessive, the penalty is there and we will cop that. But , when handing down the penalty, the AFnL, declared that we couldnt trade into the 1st two rounds. But did they ban us ontrading picks?? Where does it say that?? Again those dimwitted peasants, have left it all to the last minute, juist like last year. What a farce.
no1bankteller
13 Oct 2003, 11:42
Originally posted by scooter600x
North trade pick 100 to Carlton for McKernan.
Carlton on-trade pick 100 to Collingwood for Scotland.
Collingwood on-trade pick 100 to North for pick 24.
There is no rule forbidding you to trade draft picks for draft picks.
The problem with this is that there is a draft rule that says if you trade for a pick you have to then use that pick. Hence Carlton will be requirede to draf a player that do not want just becasue they have to.
Cheers
bogan_blue
13 Oct 2003, 15:12
Regardless of whenever Carlton deserved it or not, the sanctions imposed on the Blues effects every other single club, especially during trade period.
We were political scapegoats for John Elliot taking the AFL to court over Greg Williams in 1997, I firmly believe.
The AFL lost face over that, and were looking for ways to punish Carlton ever since.
Don't fool yourself, Carlton were punished for Elliott and the previous board's actions, and the supporters are the one's who suffer.
My consolation is that if we cheated and got caught, at least we denied Essendon another flag (in 1999)]
Our request has been denied.
*&$&*( TYPICAL!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: