I understand that we had to give these guys a chance at another club, and that trade period is an avenue for actually sending players to a club of their preference (somewhat), AND that we are planning ahead for salary cap issues. But i still think we could have and should have received much more in return from St Kilda...for both players individually, let alone as a package of 2!
I think you are missing it here, the reason they left for such a low pick is that the Cats didn't want a pick and that most likely another club wouldn't give up much for these two. Plus, from the media so far states this culling would give the Cats another 700k to play with next year. Will a little more culling, i.e. Spencer and a couple of delistings, surely that would go up closer to 900k.
The King and Charlie trade was just for good measure, to let them go to another club without having the embarassment of going to the PSD and not being picked up. That is a club showing gratitude to past players, whom the cannot retain (due to them not wanting a pay cut, and Charlie not really getting a further chance).
What annoys me though is that King has stated a few things thus far, implying that the club owed him and allowed for this trade.
Hate to say it Kingy, but LOYALTY goes both ways. You should have taken a pay cut for all the years you were injured and the club stood by you.
It shows his lack of loyalty and leadership by what has happened, something Harley was quick to stifle by saying he'd instantly take a pay cut to keep this team together. That is leadership.