Originally Posted by
jeemak
If your second paragraph's last section is directed towards me then I'm sorry you feel you're being shouted down. I find turning trades on their heads is a good way to look at the arguments differently, because there's always an imbalance between what people are willing to pay versus what they believe they should receive.
You are correct in saying his value was at its peak as far as his career was concerned, and that may have been why we were able to secure a second round selection for him. The trade of late picks evened out, and we possibly had our eye on pick 23 which was given up for Bradley Hill for Fremantle to get him across from Hawthorn - and to me at the time that would have been overs for Hamling.
West Coast traded late picks for Mitchell and Vardy, and I'm not sure they even dealt with us over Hamling.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes there's just no more value to unlock within a deal, especially when you're only able to negotiate with fixed tangible negotiating chips like draft picks, future picks, players and salary. If your point is you're looking at things retrospectively and believe we got the raw end (which I think you are, because you would give up a pick in the top twenty for him based on his current output which I probably wouldn't do) then fine. I just think sometimes we get carried away when looking back thinking more could and should have been done to get a better deal for our players and or not overpay for players we bring in.