Here's my attempt at Lever Trade Logic:
- Lever is worth a single digit draft pick plus - the "plus" because he's a proven player vs the 60% (or whatever) chance of getting the same player in the draft - and not producing the same output until 2 years' time.
- The "plus" is not going to be a first 22 (at Adelaide) player - that's overs that we'll never get.
- The "plus" of a non-first 22 player is not acceptable; we've loaded up in that area already (which is good, we have decent depth).
- The "plus" might be a swap of seconds, or and outright future second, or somesuch.
- Or maybe a double-digit draft pick and a slightly better "plus".
Now, I know that some people will say that the "acceptables" that I've listed above are unders, two first rounders minimum, and all that, and if we accept that, we're getting bent over (again). I would say that supporters will never be happy unless the trade is a clear win for us, and that's just not going to happen in the real world. Don't forget the other club has to agree to knowingly paying overs for us to get overs.
On that basis, I'd accept a single digit pick "plus" as being the best that's going to happen.
The question of using the PSD as a threat? Well, if it gets to an offer like "our first round draft pick only", then I can see why people would want to "be tough". But at what expense? If you're quite sure you're not going to do better than that offer, will you throw it away for the sake of face? What do you get for that, apart from satisfaction?
Yes, if the other club was offering massive unders, sure. But that's not - IMO - going to happen. No club (except Carlton

) is going to go way unders on a deal like this. They will offer something decent, but maybe unders in our eyes. So if it is "decent", then what do you gain by going all Choco on it? Nothing. All you do is lose.
My prediction: The ultimate deal will be "OK", it won't be massive overs, and the club will have to bear the wrath of the BF Adelaide Board for "being bent over - again".