I just don't think anyone has satisfactorily explained why letting a player go for nothing is better than getting compensation for him - especially something like two early second round picks which is pretty decent.
On the GH5, we lost over 3000 points (what we received vs what we cost - all players being <3 yrs service, that is probably the most accurate measure).
3000 points is worth Pick 1.
That means that on average, we lost 600 points on EACH trade.
Aish cost pick 7 - 1,644 points. If we get back Collingwood's 2nd round pick (26), that is 729 points - effectively losing pick 20.
The precedent here is that players have in the past got to the end of their 2 year contract and demanded a trade. Aish knows the history, and has done exactly the same. Every time this happens to us, we average a loss of an early 2nd round pick.
Because of this, the board have determined that it now
club policy not to trade players with =< 2 years service. Redden is going to be traded because he has given >2 years service. Aish has not. Aish will most likely be made an example for this. Lethal has stated this, and deliberately said that it is nothing against James, but simply that the club has to make a stand.
So if we accept a 2nd rounder for Aish, we lose 800 points. If we accept nothing for Aish, we lose 1600 points. That means that in order for it to be worth our time, our hardline stance has to dissuade ONE future player from requesting a trade after two years.
Seems like a good gamble to me.