It does mean that more clubs will start to make tough decisions on players with one year left of their contract. Those acquainted with soccer will be a bit more familiar with the concept - whether you let the player go where they will with one year left, receiving compensation, or lose them for nothing after an extra years' service.
TradeDraft's trolling of other clubs aside, I think the competing aims of the three parties involved in these types of trades makes the whole thing tricky:
- The player only wants to be traded to one club
- The team losing the player wants the best compensation they can get
- The team getting the player wants to give up the least compensation they can
In general it does ending up being fair enough. The team losing the player never gets market price in these situations because it's not like there's a bidding war save for odd cases like Mitch Clark going to Melbourne (and even that could be argued as unders). However, in general, they get something reasonable because the alternative is that if the receiving team does low ball the trade to the point where the losing team perceives themselves getting no benefit, the player can be sent to the PSD and that literally benefits no one - the player can end up anywhere, the team losing the player gets no compensation and the team getting the player... well, doesn't.