So why is someone like Henderson allowed to walk out on Carlton and pack his bags like a month before the season ends?
A clear case of tapping up and having a players head turned here, yet isn't there supposed to be restrictions on approaches to players during the season and what not?
They chose to not play him, not us. Many clubs don't make that decision and keep playing them despite this. Buddy was tapped up a year prior, and despite bogus revelations about an end of season Hamilton Island epiphany so was Ablett. Neither sat out matches, the worst that either club did was denying Ablett a richly deserved B&F in 2010.
Once upon a time you had to give a little to get back, classic example was Ottens, you traded Moloney to make it happen, Melbourne and Geelong benefitted that deal, Richmond got the picks it wanted for Ottens but blew them on duds.
That is the way it should be, but now is not the case with the introduction of free agency and future pick trading, thus improving the historically weak trading hands given to successful clubs.
Keeping strong clubs strong, yay, what's the point of the draft and regeneration through the draft now.
That's hardly our fault. We're just playing within the rules that the governing body sets out. Nothing untoward there.
Free Agency does help clubs at the top more, the time restriction does protect clubs from losing their prime youth players however.
It works both ways though, lower table finishes fetch better compensation. Franklin fetched pick 19 from memory. Frawley was pick 3. You tell me which is worth more, but alas there's a benefit for finishing lower
Yet here I am being told by
Biggy_Boy for the last couple of years that we get reamed at the trade table. Examples please to prove your point.
Can't think of players we've recently acquired for gross unders, and even if we did, clubs we deal with don't have to agree.
This should be the case, but GWS and GC have recently blown this theory out of the water on Treloar and JOM, would've been great if Hawthorn had of just taken the risk and took him at the draft, like the Luke Ball scenario.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Lever.
So where are the big bad boys here?
Lever will get a kings ransom, and suspect it'll largely go towards Gibbs, who in turn replace him with Rockliff, who in turn get another top pick compensation (pick 2) for their rebuild. Everyone is happy. A club looking to contend gets Lever, a club looking to contend gets Gibbs, a club losing Gibbs doesn't weaken their side, and a club rebuilding gets a great reward for losing a player that won't be in their next finals side.
LOLOLOLOL.
You won that deal by a mile, he's barely played for Brisbane having broken down a few times, he's nothing more than a vanilla half forward which you got pick 21 for, you ended up pissing that pick away on Stanley though.
and had he been contracted we'd have received more, but we did not complain.
Nice melt

but I don't think it is good for the game to see the continued strengthening of one club by a club/coach who clearly doesn't rate the draft anymore, but gets decent established talent on the cheap through various means of manipulation, but also had two massive leg ups from the AFL with the introduction of future pick trading and free agency.
Hit the draft, regenerate and gain some credibility again, like you did during your 07-11 period.
Why? Carlton, Dees, Brisbane, St.Kilda in particular have hit the draft for season after season after season and where has it got them. Barely any finals and many wasted years. Look what astute trading mixed with drafting has netted. Flags for Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong in abundance. This notion that you MUST go back and rebuild like everyone else is folly, we've made finals 19/28 AFL seasons, 13 PF's and 7 Grand Finals and haven't hit bottom 4 in any of those seasons. Last being in 1986. Where in the rule book does it say you HAVE to have your time in the doldrems after an arbitrarily defined period of high performance. Clubs that achieve success strive for more, it's what creates successful clubs and cultures. They don't sit back and accept a period of mediocrity to achieve success the way fans (of other clubs wanting their time in the sun) expect them to. Bottoming out and hitting the draft should be the last resort, mine hasn't reached that point.
You say doesn't rate the draft yet have selected 24 players in the last 3 seasons alone, we just prefer to trade our top end commodities, which given Wells reaches in the first round anyway is probably more wise. Every club has draft selections in every draft, draft selections they can and do use in whichever manner they see fit. What is exactly wrong with us using the mechanisms the AFL sets out to do exactly that. No rule breaking, no immoral practices. Just straight up abiding by the constraints set in place.
How can you say leg up when it is something all 18 clubs have access to. A leg up is an advantage in a situation or over another person. Not exactly the case when all 18 clubs get it. A leg up is Sydney and Qld clubs getting an academy. Not future trading.
I don't want him to go there for two reasons
Yes we can get a better deal elsewhere and most importantly, why should we strengthen a rival on the cheap giving them a free shot at staying up the ladder a few more years.
If the Dogs had some sense they'd push him to North or Carlton, but if that is not possible then Essendon, St Kilda and Richmond should be next up.
and what if the following scenario unfolds.
WB: Jake, we think you staying here is untenable, we want to trade you
JS: I'm happy here, I want to stay.
WB: Well we've accepted pick 11 from Essendon and St.Kilda have offered pick 7, which we're also happy with.
JS: I'm happy here, I wish to see out my contract
WB: Well we won't play you next year
JS: Well I want to stay but I'm happy to move to Geelong.
WB: ??????
See, if the perception is true and the hierarchy at the Dogs are hellbent that he leaves, then you'll send him to a club(s) that he agrees to go to, now given the players North have failed to lure I doubt he'd go there. Now, what I don't know is if we are a club he prefers or a club he merely is interested in. If we don't get him then I suspect we will get Devon Smith, but I suspect we'll be bad guys to pursue that trade to? or is targeting an OOC player from the Giants held to a different rule, just asking as you're making the rules, etiquette's and good sportsman conduct code here...
But still, what your lot are doing is disgusting at devaluing tradition of this game, it's Australia, not America, we are not advanced enough commercially to deal with mass recruiting changes, most clubs are underresourced to deal with a system like this put in place, it will not work and only the better resourced clubs will prosper in it.
Far too much power is given to players and their managers now and the same old clubs get bent over in the process (thus impacting fans also) while the same old clubs continue to profit, if the AFL wants to continue with this system but also values equality then clubs should have the power to trade players without player consent.
Again, we're merely abiding by the rules and parameters the AFL set, which I might add 17 other clubs are welcome and able to do as well.
If anyone is "devaluing tradition of this game" it is AFL house with all their changes, many of which inspired by American sports.
So again, don't sit here and paint my club as the bad guys for adhering to the rules of the land. Go talk to the law makers instead.
you're more than capable of doing so as well, you're not being forbidden from conducting business in any manner that we are. This merely comes across as sour grapes because we're more attractive a destination.