Re: Early Trade Rumours for 2022
I think this rule has come from the NBA. The rule is referred to as the 'Stepien Rule' (or something like that) - named after the guy who went rogue trading picks to try and get assets 'NOW'. Of course, it went pear shaped and the club had already traded away it's future.
To me rules like this are good - I understand why Port would have asked for an exemption (they are after all trying to use the pick in question to bring in young talent so they have a case) however I think the AFL have done the right thing here by stepping in and saying 'No - that's a violation' and holding them to the rules.
I'm not a huge fan of future trading - I think it is OK in a limited way - but in situations like Port's right now, their current footy team would be VERY motivated to sell tomorrow for today (Hinkley contract time and if he goes, I'm sure the rest of the footy dept will be wiped out along with him) and their members should be protected from the current admin selling away the future of the club. I know I (for one) am not keen in trading away first or second round picks EVER...it simply never seems to end well. I mean, imagine if we had just sat there and drafted Zac Merrett instead of trading for Stu Cramerie...how would our revolving door of outside mids (R. Smith, Hayes, Scott, etc) look if the centre line had instead just read 'Merrett - Macrae - Hunter' these last 6 or so years. 'Cos that 100% could have happened!
I suspect a rule that prevented our club trading away Quinlan in 78, Dempsey in 1979 or KT in 1983 would have been appreciated by the supporters at the time....though to be fair I *think* the KT trade was initiated by the player.
I think this rule has come from the NBA. The rule is referred to as the 'Stepien Rule' (or something like that) - named after the guy who went rogue trading picks to try and get assets 'NOW'. Of course, it went pear shaped and the club had already traded away it's future.
To me rules like this are good - I understand why Port would have asked for an exemption (they are after all trying to use the pick in question to bring in young talent so they have a case) however I think the AFL have done the right thing here by stepping in and saying 'No - that's a violation' and holding them to the rules.
I'm not a huge fan of future trading - I think it is OK in a limited way - but in situations like Port's right now, their current footy team would be VERY motivated to sell tomorrow for today (Hinkley contract time and if he goes, I'm sure the rest of the footy dept will be wiped out along with him) and their members should be protected from the current admin selling away the future of the club. I know I (for one) am not keen in trading away first or second round picks EVER...it simply never seems to end well. I mean, imagine if we had just sat there and drafted Zac Merrett instead of trading for Stu Cramerie...how would our revolving door of outside mids (R. Smith, Hayes, Scott, etc) look if the centre line had instead just read 'Merrett - Macrae - Hunter' these last 6 or so years. 'Cos that 100% could have happened!
I suspect a rule that prevented our club trading away Quinlan in 78, Dempsey in 1979 or KT in 1983 would have been appreciated by the supporters at the time....though to be fair I *think* the KT trade was initiated by the player.
Comment