We could ask but why would Collingwood agree? We've been through this before and found out it doesn't really matter what is fair or reasonable.
Collingwood's second round pick is likely to be close to pick 30. That alone would be roughly the trade value we got for Docherty and Yeo two years ago. That, plus steak knives, is probably all Collingwood is prepared to pay. Once a player has nominated his destination, it doesn't really matter what a player's true value is because we'll get offered whatever the destination club is prepared to pay.
IMO, the only way to get reasonable value back from a side like the Pies is by getting the best possible steak knives in the deal. I just don't see a team outside the top 8 throwing a first round pick at us for Aish.
That's a very sober and pragmatic way to look at this, but for our sake I hope the go home five doesn't become the baseline for every trade deal for a wantaway player from here on. I think the path back home is already too easy for our young players and if we are seen to be accepting nakedly one-sided deals for them then that just makes it easier again.
So far we have mostly avoided taking 'steak knives'. The limited players we've picked up since Leppitsch came on board have been delisted free agents (Robinson, McGuane) or traded for low draft picks (West). The exception I suppose is Jackson Paine but I don't think Karnezis had the trade currency that Aish should do.
If we are ever going to take a stand and send a player to the PSD, this is the time. Particularly if we finish last. If we're prepared to take a low-ball offer instead in these circumstances then no one will believe we'd ever re-draft a player instead. Re-drafting a player who wants out is a terrible outcome, but it's a less worse outcome in this context.
I don't buy that Seedsman is a target for us, and I'll post why on the Trade/FA thread. No point repeating myself here.