New Gold Coast side makes a play for Ablett

[LostDoggy]

Yep. And that just opens up a whole new can of worms anyway. Previously, we let the 'market' decide, so an unwanted Aker was worth a second-rounder, a Judd in prime was a third-pick plus young gun, Ball, who was picked ahead of Judd in their draft, went for pick 30, Fev went for a bottle of milk and a young tall, Hall, a key forward was worth a third rounder, and a wayward speedster in Lovett went to the Saints for a first round pick. A clear, "supply and demand" type logic to the exchanges, but certainly not based on individual talent or history.

Trades are by their very nature laden with history, context, form, personality fits, trading nous etc. etc. etc. How can a tribunal hope to replicate that fairly in any way, shape or form?
It's just a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.

[Swoop]

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.

How would that work in the situation of comparing Riewoldt with Harbrow for example?

[LostDoggy]

Perhaps the key criteria for the value of the trade is age - it even overlaps talent and skill. Hall must come below a Lovett purely on the number of games expected to be played for the club offering the trade for the player.

And yet, the reality is that Hall will actually end up playing (hopefully) far more games than Lovett, which your very reasonable point will end up missing, because it just doesn't take into account enough variables (and you never can, which is why trades are essentially exercises in risk management, and attempts to value that risk). At least in a two-way trade the only people involved in valuing the risk are the buyer and seller, based on a barter/negotiate system that limits the risk to the parties involved.

When you expand the boundaries of the risk to include essentially the entire competition, your variables become so large as to become near meaningless when comparing apples with oranges.

That's the problem with an independent tribunal making very arbitrary value judgements based on shaky logic-- what may well seem fair enough at face value will have very little resemblance to actual reality which will just lead to a lot of people being ripped off.

[Go_Dogs]

^^^^

That hardly seems fair.

GC should be made to give up atleast one of their premium picks in order to gain a player of Ablett's ability, but I guess it is the AFL who are overseeing the compensatory picks process so no wonder it's a balls up.

They need to ensure they get this process right, I hope they continue to review and consult with the clubs.