Yep – good option for the Suns, and there are probably others with other clubs. My key point is that the Suns should be proactive with this live trading – they have the whip trade hand, so they should look to maximise it for the club’s long term benefit.

There is of course the option floated in other media, of the Suns trading Picks 6 & 24 for the Saints Pick 4, so they can get all three of the top SA lads. This seems too lopsided to me, but if it were 6 & 29 for 4 & 36, then that would be a fairer outcome for the Suns. The Saints would still get either a King or Bailey Smith at Pick 6 and also move up with their 2nd round selection.

We’ll continue to get these articles while we have an inequitable draw. Most people agree that ‘every team plays every other team at least once’ and support the current ‘8 team finals’ system.

So it really comes down to how you choose the double-up games to make it to 22/23 fixtures. The current approach is opaque, except that it does try to make the draw an equalization measure, by giving lower placed teams from the previous year an easier draw (on paper anyway). Its ok, but it is subjective, opaque and inequitable.

Hamish’s conference model is ok, though guaranteeing a finals spot for two from each conference is problematical. Potentially, 9th could be moved up into the finals even when they have the easier draw/conference – not sure about that.

Alternatively, you could delay announcing Rounds 18 to 22 until the end of Round 17 and schedule them objectively based on ladder position at the end of Round 17. For example, three divisions of six teams who each play each other – so five games. And you just reverse the home ground advantage from the Round 1-17 fixtures.

Simple option: 3 divisions based on ladder positions at round 17 – [1,6,7,12,13,18]; [2,5,8,11,14,17] & [3,4,9,10,15,16]. Objective, transparent and equitable. Potentially, a lot of boring games though and may not wash from a revenue maximization perspective.

2nd option: Build it up and market it as a pre-finals “finals”. For example, teams in ladder positions 1-6 become Div 1; teams 7-12 become Div 2 and teams 13-18 become Div 3. The top four from Div 1 at the end of Round 22 become the top four in the final 8. And then on the bye weekend before the finals, teams 5 &6 from Div 1, teams 1,2,& 3 from Div 2 and team 1 from Div 3 play a knockout ‘pre final’ finals for position 5-8 in the finals (ie. Div 1 -5 plays Div 3-1; Div 1-6 plays Div 2- 3 and Div 2-1 plays Div 2-2). Highest placed winner takes spot 5 in the finals etc etc. Plus the highest placed loser would take spot 8 in the finals.

It would mean all games in the last five weeks should be competitive; it would create a smoky chance for the bottom six and thereby maintain some interest there and would mean ladder position after round 17 (when everyone has played everyone) is very important. It would also add the extra interest of three knockout ‘pre-finals’ matches in the current round 23 bye weekend – so good for revenue.

Some food for thought anyway.

In my view, it is just the connections beating the handicapper – and good luck to them. It was the same with Rekindling last year. Identify the right horse, qualify at the minimum, don’t expose it too much to the handicapper and then you’re in with a great chance to pick up $4m. It is why Rostropovich had its Oz ‘trial’ in the Cox Plate against Winx (they wanted a run, with minimal chance of getting a weight penalty).

Jonte – an innovative and thoughtful strategy, but GC could end up with three talls with their top three picks (Lukosius and the King twins), which is not ideal and very risky. I don’t think they will get cute, but just take the best pair at 2/3 that suits the club (and if the chattering classes are right, it will be Lukosius with either Rankine or Rozee). That Bailey Smith looks a gun, and the Saints are just as likely to take him as M King. The Saints may be wary of taking a tall at such an early pick. Has there been an outstanding tall taken in the first five draft picks since Reiwoldt?

Fair enough Ditto – just a slightly read. I agree Rankine looks a standout and that Rozee is v good, but so are Bailey Smith and the King twins – and I reckon the Saints may choose a good Melb player over a good Adelaide player. All conjecture and speculation of course, and only time will tell.

Ditto – good food for thought, but I can’t see Adelaide doing that because GC could still take Rankine at 3. My sense is that Adelaide are happy with their trading hand of three top 25 selections anyway. On the other hand, if GC decide they want Rozee over Rankine at 3 (for whatever reason), they may look to get some extra value by trading pick 3 to Port for their Pick 5 + another Pick (2nd round or future year). Port will take Rankine and GC still get Rozee at 5, plus another Pick somewhere.

Good article Maddy – it’s a pleasant surprise to have a respectful article on the Suns. Your suggested draft selections look very close to the mark IMO, though if Port take Rozee at 5, then I think the Suns might take Caldwell (or one of the remaining topline SA lads such as Hately, Valente or McLennan) at 6 – rather than a Melbourne lad.

Yeah Rob – this sort of article is good to bring back fond (or otherwise) memories of times past – thanks Ayden (even if few agree with your thesis).

Round 19 2003 – Lions 8.0 to the Pies 1.0 at qtr time, though it only ended up a 40 point win. But at quarter time, there was a surreal deathly silence across the MCG – which I will always remember. As a Pies home fixture against an out-of-town team, the crowd was about 95% Pie supporters. My memory may be getting a little shaky, but I think the Pies got the first goal. I didn’t get to the reprise of the 2003 GF six weeks later, only the disappointing 2004 GF (for Lions supporters anyway).

Adam – your text doesn’t match your tips. The text refers to your tips for Thursday. By the way, well done on your tips last Saturday at Caulfield – 5 from 5, including the quaddie.

Haha – I love a bit of outrageous hyperbole to get a conversation going. But seriously, citing a midfield that has never won a premiership as the greatest ever is just a touch over the top. Mind you, it is pretty good – and good luck to them (and all of their misguided rabid Pie supporters.)

I recall a game at the G in 2002 or 2003 when another good Pies team were up against a Lions unit with a midfield that others have mentioned on this thread – and it was 8 goals to 1 at qtr time. 70,000 silent Pie supporters during the qtr time break – now that was a moment to savor.

You may be right Pedro, I am basing that on the ‘noise’ of comments in forums such as this. As a GC supporter, I hope we don’t trade any Picks out and just take the best available fit for the club.

Ditto – don’t read too much into the Hombsch trade. Below is an extract of an interview with Craig Cameron, the Suns list manager:
“Cameron said including Kolodjashnij in the same deal with the Demons was part of an overall strategy to bring in Port Adelaide defender Jack Hombsch, which is why the SUNS did not receive any later picks from Melbourne.
“The way that these trades are presented on the board is not necessarily the machination of the trade,” Cameron explained
“The way we look at it is part of that whole deal (with Melbourne) included Jack Hombsch coming to us for very little.
“They get written up a certain way but it’s not the way we actually have negotiated it.”

Brent – good food for thought buddy, but unless you have inside knowledge, I think it is much more likely to be: 1. Walsh 2. Lukosius 3. Rozee or Rankine 4. M King 5. Rankine or Rozee 6. Smith or Caldwell etc etc

And Kanga, I really can’t see GC giving up two top six picks for Pick 1 – I think this is just an errant unsubstantiated rumour.

They may look to trade one of their top six (3 or 6) to an Adelaide club though (eg. swap Pick 3 for Pick 5 plus a teen or 20s Pick, if Port are desperate for Rankine. They would still likely get Rozee at 5. Or swap Pick 3 for Adelaide’s top two Picks, if Adelaide are desperate to have a pick before Port. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and it may happen on the day rather than before. But I think GC are in the box seat here, as the Adelaide clubs appear to be desperate to outdo each other for the home grown SA talent.

Agree with another poster below that the Sun’s jumper is an abomination – bright red, with yellow under the armpits, and with red shorts – shocker. A darker red (maybe even maroon) with a yellow V would be simpler and work better (if red and yellow is what they want to work with).

That Lions jumper of a year or so ago with the gross Lion head was even worse. If clubs send players out in fancy dress, don’t be too surprised when they start playing like clowns. Would the All Blacks be just as effective in an All Red outfit – maybe, but I doubt it.

What a load of cobblers re the Suns, Josh. The players who’ve gone (excepting May) hardly played this year; and coming in are four respected fringe players greedy for opportunity, three mature ready-made 2nd tier players, plus 3 draftees in the top ten. I believe the Sun’s list team played a poor hand as well as they could.

You generously gave GWS a ‘B’ mark, primarily based on your opinion that “they did a good job to make the best of a bad situation’, but gave no similiar credit to the Suns. It seems to me you were in many cases grading lists rather than the trade period, which ostensibly you set out to do.

I grade your assessment of the Sun’s trading as an ‘F’.

That risk applies to virtually every player that GC draft. So it is not an earth-shattering comment; though it still smacks of disrespect and disdain. GC will just ignore it and draft the two players they consider to be the best fit for them. From where I sit (which is admittedly very distant) and from what I have read, I think they should take Lukosius and Rozee (assuming the Blues take Walsh) – and I hope they both become 12 year players for the Suns.

I agree that the compensation needs tweaking and your solution is heading in the right direction IMO, but would just flip the Buddy/Lynch scenario you cite. For example, under your suggestion, if the wooden-spooners lose their best player to the premiers under restricted FA, the wooden-spooners would get pick 18 as compensation, and if the premiers lose their best player to the wooden-spooners, the premiers would get Pick 1. Or maybe I have misunderstood your suggestion.

Peter85 below suggests a transfer of draft points (a deemed value and based on contract cost) from gaining to losing club instead – and this could work; as could a combination of draft points and the respective round pick. It doesn’t, and probably never can, address the issue that a 800k contract at a large Melb club seems to be valued by players at about the same as a 1,000k contract at an expansion club.

All good food for thought though.

I think you’ve nailed it Pedro. The restricted FA player gets his choice in accordance with the intent of FA; the losing club gets the deemed compensation (though in draft points rather than the actual pick); the gaining club pays that compensation and the other clubs are not affected.

After managing that great trade deal, the GC 2017 list manager joined the Eagles recruitment staff in early 2018. Given he was the GC’s inaugural list manager, it is hard to see how that job offer was based on demonstrated performance.

Good post Maddy – and thank heavens last year’s GC list manager has been moved on. Hope the next bloke has a few more clues.

Kudos for putting something out there, but brickbats for the suggestions. You are flogging a dead horse with no legs with those suggestions, and to be honest with any suggestions. So this debate is going nowhere – so I guess very similar to most other debates here.

But I’ll put forward an alternative dead horse, just to acknowledge your efforts.

The main issue with the current AFL fixtures is the inequity of playing some teams twice and others only once. Some teams therefore inevitably get an easier draw; which the AFL try to ameliorate by giving the bottom teams in the previous year the easier draw. Any revised fixture should address this.

My dead horse:
Rounds 1-17 – play each other team once (can still have the bye);
Rounds 18-22 – qualifying fixtures. Top six play each other (Group A); mid six play each other (Group B); bottom six play each other (Group C). Gets rid of the late-season blowouts. Points and % gained add to points/%s from 1-17 fixtures.

At the end of Round 22, the top five of Group A become the top five for the finals. The bottom two of Group B are finished and the bottom five of Group C are finished.

In the bye round before the finals, A6 plays C1; B1 plays B4 and B2 plays B3. And the three winners fill the 6th, 7th and 8th spots for the finals – in accordance with their finishing position at the end of round 22. So if A6 wins, they are 6th and if C1 wins they become 8th.

And the finals stay as they are. Gets rid of the current inequitable draw, makes nearly all the end season games meaningful and close and still sticks with a 22/23 round fixtures. Would create a fixturing and ground allocation challenge at the end of round 17 though. Would also mean only teams in the top six at round 17 could make the top four, which is problematical, though arguably fair because every team would have played each other once at that point.

But as I said earlier, I think this is a dead horse with no legs.

The only gripe that I have with free agency is that the gaining club pays zero in terms of the draft/trades. I believe this unfair. The want-away player gets to move where they want after good long service – fine and fair. The losing club gets compensation for losing a good player – fine and fair. But the gaining club pays nothing (except for the player’s salary) – this is not fair IMO. In the Lynch example, it appears Richmond will have to forgo nothing (except salary) for getting an elite KPF. I contend that they should (at minimum) lose their first draft selection that falls after the compensation pick to the losing club.

I agree with this comment, but only to an extent. If all other things were equal, then the comment should hold true – but all other things are not equal. Yes, clubs need to look after their players and that clearly plays a big part. But for example, no matter how well a club like GC looks after their players, there will always be the pull-away effect to a bigger southern club to play in front of big crowds and/or family. They may be able to mitigate it through good player management, but cannot, IMO, eradicate it.