This narrative (****ing purple at his wilfully obtuse worst) has always shitted me to tears.
The compensation system is designed to favour shit teams and hinder good teams because the designers of the system knew that the colingwoods/geelongs/richmonds would fleece the struggling clubs every year as vic kids chased premierships back home.
Why are people surprised that the reigning premier got a worse pick for losing their third best player (and then proceeded to win the next two flags without him) than basketcase Melbourne got for their solid as a rock fullback (who, shock horror, went on to win a premiership as soon as he left)? Or Gold Coast got for losing their captain to reigning premier Richmond, helping himself to a pay cut and two more flags?
It's not about Buddy's quality vs Frawley's, or even Lynch's. It's about buddy's value to Premiership quality Hawthorn vs Frawley's value to spoon quality Melbourne.
Hawthorn went on to win the next two flags after losing buddy. They didn't miss him. Frawley was clearly the bigger loss to his team, and therefore his loss was worthy of higher compensation.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.
