Traded Pick swap: Adelaide trade #66 and a 2021 R4 (Melb) to Brisbane for #63

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,243
25,243
AFL Club
West Coast
If this was for Hinge, then I'm not sure that's its technically allowed?

What would Brisbane have done if Adelaide had refused? Just refused to delist him in a way that makes him eligible for DFA?

All pretty inconsequential, but still interesting.
 

mpal6

Premiership Player
Apr 13, 2008
4,780
3,956
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Surely that’s against the rules?

Not that it matters too much.
Ermm we're delisting in good faith so Hinge can move right away and got a token pick in return which we may not even use. I don't see anything wrong here. Hinge has been good for us so we are making the path easy for him..

In comparison GWS didn't delist Hately so he has delisted himself and now have to wait for PSD.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,243
25,243
AFL Club
West Coast
Ermm we're delisting in good faith so Hinge can move right away and got a token pick in return which we may not even use. I don't see anything wrong here. Hinge has been good for us so we are making the path easy for him..

In comparison GWS didn't delist Hately so he has delisted himself and now have to wait for PSD.
As I said before, it's inconsequential other than being technically against the rules.

Trades can't be contingent on other agreements. e.g. the saints wouldn't have been allowed to trade Dunstan to crows on the proviso that they paid crouch more.

This trade technically can't be related to Hinge. Or at least they can't say that it was. The AFL has to think that it stands up on its own.
 

LukeParkerno1

Premium Platinum
Sep 23, 2005
123,140
48,492
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
As I said before, it's inconsequential other than being technically against the rules.

Trades can't be contingent on other agreements. e.g. the saints wouldn't have been allowed to trade Dunstan to crows on the proviso that they paid crouch more.

This trade technically can't be related to Hinge. Or at least they can't say that it was. The AFL has to think that it stands up on its own.
The trade isn't that unfair anyway regardless of the proposed DFA thing going on. Plenty of these trades happen every year makes no difference.
 

mpal6

Premiership Player
Apr 13, 2008
4,780
3,956
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions

Several reports also emerged on the same day that the Crows were eyeing a homecoming for Hinge, who’s a 190cm backman originally from Glenelg.

Late on Wednesday, the AFL announced the Lions and Crows had struck a trade: Brisbane sent Pick 63 to Adelaide, which gave the Lions Pick 66 and a future fourth-rounder (tied to Melbourne) in return.

The deal was essentially compensation for Brisbane for losing Hinge, who’s set to sign with the Crows as a delisted free agent as early as Thursday morning.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mpal6

Premiership Player
Apr 13, 2008
4,780
3,956
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I don't think it would have happened if he wasn't involved. Happy to agree to disagree.
It's such an inconsequential pick swap with a 32 point difference whether or not Hinge was involved. Even in the AFL site they've posted Hinge's delisting and right after wrote about pick swap. It's like an open secret.


You are getting too hung up on this one for some reason and it makes no sense.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,243
25,243
AFL Club
West Coast
It's such an inconsequential pick swap with a 32 point difference whether or not Hinge was involved. Even in the AFL site they've posted Hinge's delisting and right after wrote about pick swap. It's like an open secret.


You are getting too hung up on this one for some reason and it makes no sense.
It's roughly

63 (112 points)
for
66 (80 points) and future 4th est. pick 63 (112 points) = 192 est. total points

I'm just saying that its against the rules if the trade wouldn't have occurred on its own merits, but that no one cares. I'm not sure why you have an issue with me pointing this out?
 

mpal6

Premiership Player
Apr 13, 2008
4,780
3,956
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
It's roughly

63 (112 points)
for
66 (80 points) and future 4th est. pick 63 (112 points) = 192 est. total points

I'm just saying that its against the rules if the trade wouldn't have occurred on its own merits, but that no one cares. I'm not sure why you have an issue with me pointing this out?
Of course, please go ahead.
 

irel

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2003
7,342
3,507
WA
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Someone explain to me the benefits of doing it this way instead of during trade week..
Brisbane wanted to retain Hinge, therefore he was not on the trade table during trade week. Brisbane offered Hinge a one year deal. Hinge held off and after trade week finished Adlaide offered Hinge two years. It's a no brainier for Hinge to accept Adelaide's offer and head home to SA.

Had Brisbane not delisted Hinge he would have had to go to PSD therefore Adalaide would need to carry two picks to PSD. One for Hateley one for Hinge. Leaving Hinge for the PSD would mean risking losing him to other suitors. Essendon was another that offered Hinge a deal. They would have picked him up in the PSD thus Adelaide missing out on Hinge. So Adelaide had to ensure that Brisbane delisted Hinge, thus avoiding the PSD. To do so Brisbane's had to be appeased with a fourth round pick in next year's draft. The other pick exchanges were inconsequential.
 

Remove this Banner Ad